[0:00] Here.
[0:03] I had burgers tonight.
[0:18] » All right. I'm calling the Village of
Cross Plains Board of Trustees meeting
[0:23] for August 24th, 2026.
The order roll call, please.
[0:28] » Trustee Henry.
>> Here.
[0:32] » Trustee Brokish.
>> Here.
[0:34] » Trustee
Here. Trustee Brookman.
[0:37] » Here.
>> Trustee Polmakowski.
[0:40] » Here.
>> Trustee Kettlebaker.
[0:42] » Here.
>> President Huff.
[0:43] » Here. Please stand for Pledge of
Allegiance.
[0:47] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America
[0:52] and to the republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible, with
[0:58] liberty and justice for all.
[1:04] All right, we are at public comment.
This is an opportunity for anyone to
[1:07] address the Village Board on any issue.
Please observe the time limit of 3
[1:12] minutes. While the Village Board
encourages input from residents, it may
[1:16] not discuss or act on any issue that is
not duly noticed on the agenda.
[1:21] Do we have anybody that would like to
speak?
[1:23] » We have Seth Johnson.
>> Seth, come on up.
[1:28] » State your name and address if you
could, please.
[1:30] » Sure. Seth Johnson, 512 North Century
Road,
[1:32] Cross
Comments are specifically on the items
[1:37] four six
Um
[1:40] I don't know if I need to do everything,
but um
[1:43] for the Park Street improvements, I saw
on the the packet probably for the
[1:48] breakdown of the costs uh estimated
costs and I had a little bit of a mirror
[1:51] there
that our Park Street curb and gutter
[1:54] would be replaced.
I just hoping that
[1:57] » [clears throat]
>> the village is even this is an
[1:58] opportunity to connect connect for
pedestrians and bikes and that we put
[2:03] half in our sidewalk
in the entire length of the street for
[2:06] safety and then
when we reconstruct the brewery.
[2:09] The right of way from post office west
appears to be wide enough to do that to
[2:14] the to put it a path
on one side of the street to the entire
[2:18] length. The block with post office and
the EMS is it looks like it's a little
[2:22] narrower. You can certainly sidewalk in
there but there's already sidewalk on
[2:25] obviously both sides of the street.
So I hope the village doesn't miss an
[2:29] opportunity to
create nice connection get the kids
[2:33] going to and from our school off the
street so that's not as safe.
[2:38] Right now with the the street on the
shoulder facing by the the government.
[2:42] So if the costs don't reflect that
[2:48] In general for when you're talking about
capital improvement projects
[2:51] I know there's an item in there for
street resurfacing every year.
[2:55] I'd like to see the village consider
having that pot whether it's in there or
[3:00] a separate pot for spot safety
improvements that may come up because I
[3:04] think there's a number of opportunities
here in the village
[3:08] where we can make targeted improvements
that aren't necessarily big budget
[3:12] items.
And then they come up
[3:16] on short notice.
I just want to see the
[3:19] like the village consider either
increasing the the street resurfacing
[3:23] budget every year or have a separate pot
for safety improvements.
[3:29] Thank you for your time.
>> All right, thank you.
[3:34] Is there anybody on the internet?
>> I do not see anyone.
[3:39] » All right.
We'll go to consent agenda. On request
[3:44] of any trustee any item may be removed
from the consent agenda for separate
[3:49] consideration under general business.
Any trustees that would like an item
[3:55] separated?
All right, do I have a motion?
[4:00] » I'll make a motion to approve the
consent agenda.
[4:05] » Do I have a second?
>> I'll second it.
[4:08] » I have a motion and a second. Any
discussion?
[4:12] All in favor say I.
>> I.
[4:15] » All same.
So moved.
[4:20] All right, we're having board of village
officers.
[4:24] Uh village president just uh two items.
One, you notice that you are not
[4:30] receiving the base budget at the end of
tonight's meeting, which is generally
[4:35] our our process.
Um because of not getting We don't
[4:41] believe we're going to get the tip for
money's for next year.
[4:46] We have to go to plan B, which was a
zero base, and all increases have to be
[4:52] placed on a supplement budget request
form.
[4:56] So to give staff more time because they
submitted budgets with a 2% increase. So
[5:02] just to rework that, so you'll be
receiving at the first meeting in
[5:06] September, and then we'll have the
discussion at the second meeting in
[5:10] September. So that's number one. Number
two, I've extended, reluctantly, the
[5:16] deadline for committees to get their
changes to the comprehensive plan.
[5:23] Uh the deadline was September 1st. Well,
I've moved it to October 1st, but we
[5:28] need to get
that stuff in
[5:32] so we can put our draft uh comprehensive
plan
[5:36] uh together. Plan and sustainability
have done theirs.
[5:40] And again, you don't have to do all nine
chapters. There's certain chapters that
[5:45] are applicable to your committee, so
those are the ones you should be looking
[5:50] at. And, you know, Sarah for like parks
and rec, you can certainly refer to the
[5:55] 5-year plan instead of rewriting
everything that's in there. But, there
[6:00] needs to be the sections that uh we do
that in cuz that is due
[6:06] uh we have to have it by 2018 uh 2018.
>> 2020
[6:10] » Oh, 2028.
>> The last one was 2018.
[6:14] » So, please get your committee to uh put
that on the agenda and let's try to get
[6:18] that in October.
>> And I'll send an email that includes a
[6:22] link to the document. We have a working
Word document with all of the changes so
[6:26] far, so you can just add those changes
to the document. So, look out for an
[6:30] email from me tomorrow.
>> All right, that's all I have.
[6:34] Village Vice President
>> Um just an announcement. Um
[6:39] Hillen Bailey will be out of the park in
a couple weeks. I think November 19th or
[6:43] something like that. That will be over
there. We have two anniversaries. We
[6:47] have Jill Hedge. She's here at 3 years
on August 9th.
[6:51] And Matthew Hester, who's given us his
resignation, but he would be here at 3
[6:55] years on August 7th.
>> Perfect.
[6:58] Thank you.
Other trustee reports?
[7:04] All right, Village Administrator
>> Yeah, I just have the one um just keep
[7:08] updating on those Bear Street poles,
those um um poles that MG&E owns. Um so,
[7:14] all of them have been All of those extra
poles have been removed except for two.
[7:18] Um and MG&E is pushing for removal of
those two extra poles. So, that was just
[7:22] something that had come up at a past
meeting, but that's all I have.
[7:26] » Okay, thank you.
Village Department Heads Okay, I got
[7:30] Bobby, then the Chief.
>> Um just another reminder, Board of
[7:34] Review is September 16th at 5:00. Um
because of reassessments this year, we
[7:39] are I'm
um people to show up for a hearings.
[7:43] Since I've been the clerk, we haven't
had any, so
[7:46] that should be interesting. I did pull
out some older videos that we have, but
[7:51] people want to refresh themselves on
what they can be expecting for that. I'm
[7:55] also going to put together
kind of a
[7:58] 101 for you guys to
just kind of update your
[8:04] see what kind of things we should be
expecting or looking for, things we can
[8:07] or can't do.
Just a little brief.
[8:10] » Okay.
>> Instead of a question, I don't know if
[8:12] this is the time to ask it.
So, if they came to repeal or appeal
[8:15] before, could they lower get a lower
before?
[8:19] » Yeah, but so
and they still have an opportunity to do
[8:22] that for the next couple weeks to change
their assessment. It's if you've already
[8:26] worked with the assessor and you still
don't agree with them, then this is the
[8:30] the first step in appealing. This is,
you know, kind of like a quasi-judicial
[8:34] thing where you guys are essentially
like a jury.
[8:37] » That makes sense.
>> Yeah.
[8:40] » Is there you have someone who's
been trained?
[8:45] » I I did the certified train for this
year.
[8:48] » Okay.
>> Um and I think probably he's going to
[8:50] watch a video. I did have another one
here, also.
[8:52] » Yeah, I told you. I'm going to watch
I I I was trained what, 3 4 years ago,
[8:57] so
>> I've been trained a couple times and I
[8:59] just sit in there
>> Yeah, I just want to refresh. That's
[9:01] what I'm doing. I'm just going to watch
the video.
[9:03] » When you get done with that, can you
just give me a call and then I can pick
[9:06] it up and watch it?
>> Yeah, I think these ones here are like
[9:08] the 2020, so they're a little bit
longer, but it's just a
[9:12] » The basics are the same.
>> Yeah, the basics are the same, yeah. And
[9:15] who's running that meeting? Who's chair?
>> Whoever we vote.
[9:18] » Yeah, that gets taken care of that
night.
[9:20] » Well, I know, but okay, who are we
thinking?
[9:24] We should give them a heads-up. If you
>> So, like
[9:26] » Generally, I think in the past it's been
the person who's had the
[9:30] » The training.
>> The training.
[9:31] » Right.
>> Well, I I don't want if it's all of a
[9:34] sudden dumped on me, I want to prep for
it, all right? I don't want to be at
[9:37] 5:00, especially when we got lots of
people, because this year I agree there
[9:41] will be people. So, we should be well
informed on how this works. And I
[9:46] » I can do it. I've done it. So, if you
don't want to do it,
[9:50] » If no one wants to do it, that's fine.
If you want to take it, we I mean, we're
[9:53] not going to nominate now. So, if you're
willing, then yeah, then I'm not going
[9:57] to fight you for it.
Oh,
[10:00] we're not going to have a vote on that.
>> The only thing I wanted to mention is
[10:05] normally because we don't have anybody
show up, we like bring food in and like
[10:09] take a pause and eat during the 2-hour
thing. I don't know if we'll have time
[10:12] for that this year, so we see
beforehand. I'll
[10:16] » Yeah, I agree.
>> I'll bring in some snacks in case we do
[10:18] » And the difference is we're not voting
this up against the board meeting.
[10:22] » Yeah. Yeah.
>> This is just for the that night, for
[10:26] that. So, that's understandable.
>> And then
[10:29] um oh, so if it goes over 2 hours, you
got plenty of time.
[10:33] » Yeah.
>> Okay.
[10:35] » I have two questions.
>> Go ahead.
[10:39] » Um
are all trustees supposed to be at this?
[10:44] » Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[10:44] » Yes.
>> Okay, I wasn't unaware of that.
[10:47] Um second question, what do we do if a
trustee uh is contesting
[10:52] one?
>> That's a good question. I'm going to
[10:54] bring that up at the staff meeting
uh with the attorney, cuz um for sure
[11:00] you're not going to be able to vote on
your own case, but I could also see that
[11:04] there's a conflict all the way through.
So, I will ask that question to our
[11:09] attorney at the staff meeting, which is
the first Wednesday. So, we'll we'll
[11:13] send something out on what the attorney
has to say.
[11:17] » Okay.
[11:23] » All right. Anything else, Bobby?
>> Uh nope, that's all for
[11:27] » Chief?
>> Uh just real quick, we had a great Uh,
[11:30] National Night Out, it was all attended.
Um, nothing but positive comments. Um,
[11:35] and then two things we uh, we gave an
award to Taylor Figerson at our last
[11:41] public safety meeting for his
enforcement on traffic. It's definitely
[11:46] our number one problem and he does a
great job working on that proactively.
[11:51] Uh, and then secondly, uh, we awarded
uh, Zach Esser a life-saving award. He
[11:57] and I responded on June 8th to a
pulse-less non-breather and we brought
[12:02] him back and so I I awarded him a
life-saving award.
[12:06] That's just one of the little points.
Thank you.
[12:08] » It
And that was a very nice event, National
[12:11] Night Out.
By far the best.
[12:13] » I agree. I agree.
>> Yeah, it was really cool.
[12:16] All right. Anybody else? Okay. Elizabeth
and then Hank. Hank.
[12:22] » Oh, I was just going to say too that
Matt Esser returns two weeks. Um, we
[12:26] swore him in last going to Meridian
home, so.
[12:29] » Yeah.
>> So, thank you.
[12:30] » All right, thank you.
Elizabeth?
[12:32] » Yeah, I just wanted to give a quick
recap of summer reading. Since we
[12:35] wrapped that up, we haven't had any this
year
[12:38] since I've been here.
Uh, made a 40% increase for the adult
[12:42] program, which is huge. Um, circulation
is up almost a thousand since the last
[12:46] July.
Um, programs have been up a lot.
[12:50] Yeah, a lot of new programs. Our program
library is up super fun. We have some
[12:58] » Very good, thank you.
[13:02] And that should get just about
everybody, right? Matt, you got
[13:05] anything?
Okay.
[13:07] » I'm the one that did.
>> Yeah.
[13:09] All right. General business. First one,
consideration of
[13:16] recognizing 2026 as Hunger Action Month
in the Village of Cross Plains.
[13:21] Sarah?
>> Okay. Um,
[13:24] would Do like me to go ahead and read it
to
[13:26] » Well, why don't you introduce who's here
and and a little bit of background on
[13:31] it, I guess.
>> Okay. So, we have Leslie and Beth here
[13:34] from WayForward and they'll speak in
just a moment. But, um
[13:40] So, Hunger Action Month is something
that they have had and I saw the city of
[13:44] Middleton had declared this and I
thought since WayForward is serving the
[13:49] village of Cross Plains, I'd like to see
us get more involved
[13:52] with WayForward. So, that's why we've
decided to do the proclamation.
[13:56] Um and then in the village, we are
having our um the Can-tastic Sculpture
[14:01] Contest. In fact, the library and the
EMS actually both have entries. And if
[14:06] you stop by Culvers, you'll see their
setup. And um also, we have Century 21
[14:13] Primrose, Glacier Creek staff, and a
neighborhood group. So, um
[14:17] so, you'll soon see the voting come up
for that. So, it's just a way to get us
[14:22] um more connected with WayForward and so
that our residents can know that this is
[14:25] a good service that they can access.
>> Very good.
[14:29] » All right. So, I will go ahead and read
it. So, uh
[14:33] So, this is the proclamation to uh
declare Hunger Action Month for the
[14:38] month of September 2026 in the village
of Cross Plains, Wisconsin.
[14:44] Whereas, 32% of Dane County households
struggle to afford the basic necessities
[14:49] of housing, child care, health care,
food, and transportation. And whereas,
[14:54] 10.7% of Dane County residents and 17%
of children in Dane County are food
[15:00] insecure, meaning they lack reliable and
consistent access to nutritious food.
[15:05] And whereas, food insecurity can affect
individuals and families facing
[15:09] challenges such as rising living costs,
housing expenses, unemployment, and
[15:15] low-wage employment. And whereas, a lack
of access to nutritious food can
[15:19] contribute to increased risk of
nutrition-related health conditions. And
[15:24] whereas WayForward Resources in
Middleton operates a year-round food
[15:27] pantry that provides nutritious food at
no cost to area residents, including
[15:32] residents of Cross Plains, supplementing
food that individuals and families are
[15:37] able to purchase or grow on their own.
And whereas the food pantry provides an
[15:40] important resource for people
experiencing food insecurity, including
[15:44] families, senior citizens, people with
disabilities, and individuals of all
[15:49] ages. And whereas WayForward distributes
the equivalent of nearly 133,000
[15:55] meals per month, approximately 3.5 times
the amount of food we distributed 5
[16:00] years ago. And now, therefore, be it
resolved that the Village Board of the
[16:04] Village of Cross Plains hereby proclaims
September 2026 as Hunger Action Month in
[16:10] the Village of Cross Plains. And be it
further resolved that the Village Board
[16:14] encourages residents to learn more about
food insecurity in our community and to
[16:18] support organizations that provide
assistance to Cross Plains residents in
[16:22] experiencing hunger through donations,
volunteerism, and other forms of
[16:26] community involvement.
>> Thank you.
[16:29] Would you like to invite someone to
speak?
[16:31] » We would like to invite her up.
[16:39] Thank you for having us here tonight.
We are excited to be here, and we
[16:44] appreciate you putting forth this
proclamation and declaring Hunger Action
[16:49] Month this September. I'm Leslie Hubert,
I'm the Vice President of Strategic
[16:54] Engagement at WayForward Resources. And
this is Beth Johnson, our Community
[16:57] Engagement Manager.
And you just already heard some of the
[17:01] basics of WayForward. We've been in our
community for over 45 years, and during
[17:07] that time we have been focused on
bringing the community together to
[17:11] create housing stability and food
security. And um
[17:17] we
Our food pantry serves all of Dane
[17:21] County. We're one of the largest food
pantries in the county, and our housing
[17:24] services serve Cross Plains, Middleton,
and West the western part of Madison.
[17:31] And those focus on helping keep people
in their homes to avoid the trauma of
[17:35] homelessness.
Our food pantry is open 5 days a week.
[17:40] And as was said here, we have seen a
huge increase in demand over the past 5
[17:45] years. So, we are giving out 3.5 times
more quantity food than we were just 5
[17:50] years ago. And we often say to people,
imagine if there were 3.5 times as many
[17:55] kindergartners at the school as there
were 5 years ago,
[17:59] uh what a struggle that would be to keep
up. And it has been a struggle for us to
[18:02] keep up with that increased demand.
Um and that's why Hunger Action Month is
[18:07] so important, because hunger isn't
something we can always see right around
[18:12] us, but it is something that is in every
community, including the community in
[18:15] Dane County, and including here in Cross
Plains. It is a community problem, and
[18:20] it requires a community solution. And
that's really what Hunger Action Month
[18:23] is about. It's about people coming
together and working to address the
[18:28] situation.
And we're particularly excited to have
[18:32] Cross Plains be part of this this year.
Um we're excited about the proclamation,
[18:36] and we also appreciate
Sarah for the work that she's done.
[18:41] We're all excited about Canstruction,
and to share some of those photos out
[18:45] for our social media and our
newsletters. And we appreciate the
[18:48] library for hosting this event. And we
think it really demonstrates what the
[18:53] community can do when they come
together. And that very visible display
[18:59] will help to remind people and help them
to think about something that again is
[19:03] easy for it to be invisible.
There are a couple of other ways to be
[19:07] involved in Hunger Action Month. I've
handed you all a postcard. We will have
[19:12] businesses throughout the community and
also school groups and part of Back to
[19:18] School Night this year.
Uh we have neighborhood groups, school
[19:22] sports teams who will be organizing all
kinds of fun. Food drives, we have one
[19:27] business that has a goal and if they
reach the goal, they may have a dunk
[19:31] tank where they dunk the president in
it. So, all kinds of creative ideas that
[19:37] we'll be sharing and well as well as
we'll have lots of statistics out to
[19:41] social media and our newsletter that
we're encouraging people to share. And I
[19:44] did want to re-extend our invitation for
our kickoff which is on September 2nd.
[19:50] We would like to invite all of the
village trustees to join us on that day.
[19:54] And that's a week from Wednesday from
12:00 to 2:00 at WayForward. We're
[19:58] receiving a donation of 35,000 lb of
food.
[20:03] Um and we're kind of using that as our
um
[20:06] backdrop to kick off our month and we
have We're going to have the media
[20:10] there. We have representatives um
Mayor Lisa Heinel will be there as well
[20:15] as all the various from Middleton, from
Madison, superintendents from Middleton
[20:19] and Madison will be there. We'll have
some local businesses and we'll have
[20:22] representatives from the county, state,
and federal government who will be there
[20:26] that day. We would love to have Cross
Plains representative there, too. We'll
[20:29] be taking photos. It's about a 10-minute
commitment. You drop in, we have our um
[20:34] flora that will take your picture of the
community coming together. This is to
[20:38] show our community that this is the
issue that we're all invested in. So,
[20:42] if you are interested, you can respond
to my email or reach out to Beth or me
[20:46] and let us know that you'll be coming
and what time period. Again, you can
[20:49] just drop in for a few minutes.
And the final thing I'd like to invite
[20:53] you to is our panel discussion that will
take place on September 30th. This is
[20:57] free and open to the public.
And we'd love anyone sharing it with
[21:01] other people in Cross Plains, too, so
let them know that they are invited. And
[21:05] it will be creating food security
challenges, insights, and solutions. You
[21:10] can sign up through the
Milton Public Library. We have four
[21:15] experts that we're really excited about
that will each bring a different lens to
[21:19] share information about why is there
this increase in demand at food
[21:23] pantries, what's happening with food
insecurity. We know it's been in the
[21:25] news a lot with the SNAP cuts. They're
going to help kind of pull this apart
[21:29] and um explain to people
what's happening and why. So, you can
[21:34] sign up through the library or shoot
back an email or you can you can take a
[21:37] picture of the sign up, too.
So, again, thank you for your commitment
[21:41] to your community and to food security.
And we know that we have seen when our
[21:48] community comes together, that's how
real progress is made. If we put
[21:51] together, we can help create more food
security for our neighbors.
[21:56] Thank you.
>> Yeah, thank you very much.
[21:59] Appreciate it.
And good luck with your event.
[22:02] » Yeah, thank you.
>> thank you.
[22:06] All right, do I have a motion?
[22:11] » I'll make the motion to cons uh
through the proclamation recognizing
[22:16] September 24th, 2026
as Hunger Action Month in the Village of
[22:21] Cross Plains.
>> Well,
[22:24] » I'll second it.
>> Okay, I have a motion and a second. Any
[22:26] discussion?
Bill?
[22:29] » Okay. So,
I fully support the purpose of what
[22:34] we're doing here and and I really
support what you guys are doing. I think
[22:37] it's fantastic. I think it's great.
My [clears throat] concern
[22:42] uh is
this resolution becomes a legislative
[22:46] piece of document within the Village of
Cross Plains.
[22:50] And in the resolution it says, "Be it
further resolved the Village Board
[22:55] encourages residents to learn more about
food insecurity in our community." Which
[22:58] I did because I wanted to learn more
about this before we came to the
[23:02] meeting.
What I found were discrepancies in the
[23:07] data.
Um
[23:10] I couldn't find I couldn't find the 32%
I couldn't I found the 10.7%
[23:16] but I found it between Alice
I found it between uh
[23:22] Feeding America.
Uh and so I guess my only point I'm
[23:27] going to make from here is that if this
is because this is a legislative record
[23:32] and you're wanting people to look into
it, I think having at least the data
[23:35] sourced
and I and the data that I found looked
[23:39] like it was from 2023, 2022, 2023.
So I don't know if that data is current
[23:45] or not. Again
fully support and I'm going to approve
[23:48] I'm going to vote yes to this, but I
just I really would like to see that
[23:52] data sourced
within the legislative document within
[23:57] the Village of Cross Plains.
Would that make sense?
[24:01] » And I'd be happy to provide those
sources. We have our whole document that
[24:05] leads to that where they came from. The
Alice resource only comes out every few
[24:08] years. So the most recent one may have
been 2023. The Feeding America comes out
[24:14] We haven't gotten 2025 yet. So the 10.7
and 17% are from Feeding America. And
[24:19] Mine's from
Mine the Meal Gap and that most recent
[24:23] source is 2024. So I'd be happy to
provide those links and be happy
[24:28] » Cool. Yeah, so and all I'm asking for is
that again
[24:31] I I I
I love what you guys are doing and I
[24:34] fully support what we're trying to do
here. I just would like to see the
[24:38] legislative record at least be accurate
and be sourced.
[24:43] And
I I think we can pass this tonight, but
[24:46] uh
but if somehow we can get sourced in
[24:49] there for the record at the next
meeting, I think I'd be okay.
[24:53] That's my comment.
>> Okay.
[24:56] » Judy, did you have your hand up?
>> No. Well, I was just going to explain
[24:59] the cans, but I think I was just going
to say are these places like the library
[25:03] and then where they all ask you for
donations for cans of now that we know
[25:06] who's all the owners. Are they
>> They So, that's how people will vote for
[25:10] their favorite one is they can
they can donate a can or they can Yeah,
[25:15] I mean gosh.
[25:18] » Did you want to say something, Jed?
>> No.
[25:21] » Okay.
>> All right, any other discussion?
[25:27] All in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
[25:30] » All opposed same.
So moved. Thank you.
[25:38] All right, number two, discussion and
possible action regarding acceptance of
[25:43] the resubmitted
Marchstone deed restriction.
[25:47] Jed, do you want to come up?
Answer any questions that
[25:50] » I can I can just do the overview here.
Um so, this was So, back in January, on
[25:56] January 26th, is when the board approved
the Marchstone development declaration
[26:01] of covenants, restrictions, and
easements. Um so, since then, um the
[26:05] developer has submitted some proposed
revisions to the approved declaration
[26:09] based on some builder feedback um and is
looking to provide some additional
[26:13] flexibility in the design. Um and so,
the redline is in the packet along with
[26:18] the proposed um final product.
[26:25] » All right. Does anybody have any
questions for Jed?
[26:33] Go ahead, Michael.
>> So, it's just why did you
[26:37] why did you decide to
have some of the stuff about houses with
[26:42] same colors and all of a sudden
curiosity.
[26:46] » A lot of builder Oh,
sorry. A lot of builder
[26:50] input after that we furnished them the
original set.
[26:54] Uh, there's a lot of redundancy also in
the original document, so we
[27:00] uh, try to get rid of as much of that as
possible.
[27:03] Uh, but it was more or less a lot of the
stuff we had put in there.
[27:07] Um,
I'll just honestly what we do a lot of
[27:11] times is we look at other deed
restrictions from other subdivisions,
[27:15] common base, and
uh, it's not always the smoothest, and
[27:19] we're not builders,
and once we get it over to them, they
[27:23] say, "Well, you know, this is fine, but
this is wrong, and you really can't do
[27:27] this, and like post is
Yeah, that's a big thing about colors,
[27:31] and they're all worried about that and
too late, and they're all or not
[27:36] allowing two white houses or or
something, so we just try to clean it up
[27:40] best we could with the people that are
dealing with it every day.
[27:46] » Yeah, that's sort of what I thought. I
mean, you guys are still going to have
[27:48] that committee cuz you can still You got
chance to bend a little things you don't
[27:52] like.
>> Absolutely. If you're not going to let
[27:54] those fly, like, "Okay, this isn't going
to fly." or something like that.
[27:57] » Exactly. So, you know, you still have
control but you're losing some control
[28:02] of it.
>> So, yeah, it still has to be approved by
[28:04] the architectural control committee and
[28:08] » That's
>> And you
[28:10] are allowing dog houses now, huh?
>> I thought I mean, I read that.
[28:16] » I don't think we are.
>> No, I thought that was
[28:19] » I think
it's the dog house thing was struck out
[28:22] there.
>> 5.12 Dog houses are all lined out, so it
[28:27] looks like you are.
>> Meaning we're not allowing it.
[28:29] » No, the the thing that's lined out is
the line that says you're not allowing
[28:33] them.
>> Which means
[28:35] » Something.
>> That you are allowing them.
[28:37] » Okay.
>> I guess the committee will review
[28:41] those.
>> Yeah, I mean, it's in the new the whole
[28:44] other thing about the dog houses is like
struck in the now, so
[28:49] » I'll be asking them unfortunately caught
him there. This was his uh off.
[28:53] » [laughter]
>> The next item was more of me. This was
[28:57] Kyle's, so I apologize.
>> No, no, that's all right.
[29:00] All right, do I have a motion, please?
[29:07] » I'll make a motion to approve the
substance of the resubmitted Markstone
[29:12] deed restrictions.
>> I'll second that.
[29:14] » I have a motion and a second. Any more
discussion?
[29:19] All in favor, say I.
>> I.
[29:21] » I.
>> I.
[29:23] » All opposed, same.
>> So moved.
[29:26] » Thank you.
>> All right, discussion and possible
[29:31] action regarding Markstone phase one
Thinnes Street water main and utility
[29:36] requirements.
>> I can kind of kick this one off, and
[29:40] then we'll have Matt, Brian, and Jeff,
whoever wants to
[29:44] help chime in. So, this was um we just
wanted to bring this to the board, so um
[29:50] obviously have um the board has approved
the new Thinnes water main um because
[29:56] they'll be working in the area anyways.
It's an old main. It's an opportunity
[30:00] for um for the village to get this done
um at a reduced cost. Um
[30:06] so we were approached by Jeff's team
with a request to tap the current
[30:11] Thinnes main um
that's in there now this fall. So, they
[30:16] had requested to tap it this fall, and
then install the new main in the spring.
[30:21] Um and so, upon some conversations with
staff, we're concerned about the
[30:26] viability of the old main getting tapped
12 times um for all of the um zero lot
[30:33] line homes that are along Thinnes. Um
and also concerned about the winter um
[30:38] because there are water main breaks that
happen along Thinnes, um and you're
[30:42] making it weaker by poking holes in it.
So then also comes you know the addition
[30:49] of two full road closures. So you would
have one in the fall
[30:54] for probably about a month and then
you'd have one again in the spring for
[30:57] about a month.
So with that we kind of said you know
[31:02] we're not in favor of this this you know
there's a lot of different things going
[31:06] on here
but Jeff's team kind of came back and
[31:08] said you know
this negatively impacts the development
[31:13] you know we want you to reconsider. So
that's what we're here tonight to kind
[31:17] of discuss
the pros and cons of that if there are
[31:21] other options I know a couple of options
were thrown around too this all happened
[31:25] later last week
so that's why I don't have anything in
[31:27] the packet about it but we wanted to
bring it to this to the board just
[31:33] because you know staff kind of said no
thanks and they're kind of pushing back
[31:36] on us. So I don't know if Brian or Jeff
do you want to come up first Jeff?
[31:42] Go right ahead.
[31:46] » Brian can either confirm or not confirm
there's my understanding
[31:52] the original plans and specs that were
approved by the
[31:57] village
always included tapping into the old
[32:00] main.
And it was after the fact
[32:05] that then you can confirm or deny
after the fact that the village cuz it
[32:11] was after the fact you guys approved
the new water main
[32:16] and then last week
through discussions is my understanding
[32:23] it was thought that it it it would make
sense
[32:26] to wait and tap or put in the new water
main which our contractor does not have
[32:33] time to do.
And that's the reason it's not going in
[32:36] this fall.
So, I think the way our take on this is
[32:42] this is something the village is doing
after the fact
[32:46] and all 12 of those lots are sold
and we need to close on.
[32:51] We can't wait for next spring.
So, that's my take on it.
[32:56] » All right, can I just hold hold just
hang on?
[32:58] I I I want to say something before Brian
can get in.
[33:02] Because
that's a little different understanding
[33:04] of my Let me ask you something. You're
saying that the bank cannot close on
[33:08] those lots unless you're hooked up to
water. Is that what you're saying? No,
[33:13] the lateral No, I'm asking is that is
that the
[33:15] » Well, I'm
If that's the case, will the village
[33:19] will they give us building permits?
Because if the lots aren't built for the
[33:24] approved plans and specs,
the village probably's not signing off
[33:29] and therefore we can't get building
permits. If we can't get building
[33:33] » No, I'm just trying to figure out the
the issue here. Cuz that we can control,
[33:38] right? Now, I know phase
you know, here's my understanding of
[33:43] this. We had phase one and then you came
to the village and said we want to split
[33:48] phase one into phase 1A and phase 1B.
The south side we're going to go and get
[33:54] things rolling so we're ready for fall.
Uh northern part we're going to wait on
[34:01] that. So, the the whole push was to do
the southern area. Okay. Well, that's
[34:07] I'm just telling you how I remember
this. And it's if correct me if I'm
[34:11] wrong, there is no gas or electric going
to any of those lots on the southern
[34:17] side of it right now, right? And you're
still going to close those lots out,
[34:23] right? And you're
you're going to want the village to give
[34:28] permits even though there's no
electricity or gas going to them. Is
[34:33] that correct? First of all, we never
said we're waiting on phase two.
[34:37] It's always been our
goal that was going to It's still going
[34:43] to be achievable. Phase two of phase one
is going to be done. They're putting
[34:47] curb in Monday. Okay. So,
and they wanted to get latrines on
[34:52] tennis this week.
And really, the way phase two is going,
[34:57] it'll be bumped up
>> in October. But that's wasn't the plan
[35:01] back in February.
>> No, we never said we were going to close
[35:05] phase two in the spring. No. I mean, why
would Why would you go spend all that
[35:10] money and then have it sit
>> Well, I think things are moving a lot
[35:14] faster than you expected. And you asked
us to split it because
[35:18] at the time for you to open up and for
us to give permits, you would have had
[35:24] to have everything done in phase one.
You wanted it separated so you could get
[35:28] everything done on the southern so you
could start building on it. Now, it just
[35:33] so happens everything's appears to be
moving at a faster pace now. So, now
[35:39] you're kind of Again, to me, you're
changing this here. And I think we have
[35:43] a
If If your only concern is
[35:48] uh that you I'm not really sure besides
the builders not being able to hook in
[35:54] until spring.
But are you saying that you think the
[35:58] lots are going to be sold and the
buildings are going to be up and ready
[36:01] to be
uh sold by the spring and that's
[36:06] Well, again,
uh we can give you schedules.
[36:10] What that included all lots being done
this year. Okay? So, there's no way we
[36:17] ever said Talk to our bank. I mean,
Well, I think I think Brian will just
[36:22] Let me finish, please. Brian will
probably
[36:25] After that, I'll let him speak. But
bottom line is then gas and electric is
[36:29] not a requirement for the village for
building permits.
[36:33] » I agree. I'm looking at the banks,
though.
[36:36] » Well, you brought that up for a for
>> Well, yeah, I'm looking at that's not
[36:39] our totally complete I'm one that was my
first question was are the banks is the
[36:45] problem the banks not going to let you
close because there isn't a lateral
[36:50] to water when they're going to close on
lots when you don't have gas and
[36:55] electric. That was my question. I wanted
to know what the pressure was.
[37:00] » So, you know, ultimately it's
>> You know, you said this is going to hurt
[37:03] you financially.
>> That's right. Well, if if they don't
[37:06] give us the bucks, we can't close on it.
>> Well, I'm trying to ask. So, you're
[37:09] saying a bank's not going to allow you
to close because the lateral isn't
[37:13] hooked to water.
>> No, I didn't say that, Jim.
[37:15] » Okay, I Jim, what I said was the village
won't give us a building permit.
[37:20] That's what I said. I said what I said
about the bank is we need to close on
[37:24] that million bucks.
>> Okay, and you can do that.
[37:28] » Well, then the village is going to have
to make an exception to their ordinance.
[37:33] » Okay, go ahead, Brian.
>> Um
[37:37] Both similar. Um
The the thinnest edition was back in
[37:43] May.
But it's after everything. So, so it's
[37:46] not
a last-minute change, but it isn't
[37:50] anything that was going to proceed.
Um
[37:53] For J and N Builders
Um
[37:56] I would have known
The developer's agreement was a bit
[37:59] silent on
either
[38:05] or guarantees regarding schedule. It's
pretty just silent.
[38:10] Um
I would have agreed
[38:13] um from the staff side, we've got the
village
[38:17] practice and policies and ordinances
which
[38:20] do state that the development cannot be
accepted until all the public
[38:25] improvements are
Um
[38:29] So, that's
We're really going in that world where
[38:33] it can't be accepted and if it's not
accepted, you can't get a building. So,
[38:36] just right there. Um
He's also right
[38:41] uh
that
[38:43] you don't have to sell the whole lots,
right? Um at some level
[38:47] having those lots sold starting does
does help the village to get in.
[38:53] And those tax donations help.
Uh so, hot off the press, Matt and I
[38:57] were banging our heads together back
there.
[39:00] » Can I just clarify one thing? Did you
just go
[39:03] The original The plans that we have were
approved by the village. I lost for lost
[39:08] tapping into the existing water.
>> That's right.
[39:12] » Thank you.
>> The if the village is
[39:16] So, it's mostly a procedural thing to
say you cannot have a building on an
[39:20] empty
until all the public improvements are
[39:23] completed.
>> And the intention there is that we have
[39:26] » Many communities have that.
The intention is
[39:29] you don't want some
new family moving into town, buying for
[39:35] all the world they think is a
um
[39:38] parcel, getting a basement going, and
they're ready to move in on Christmas
[39:41] Day and there's no water.
And that's what you're trying to avoid.
[39:45] Um
[39:48] So, that that's why that rule is there.
If
[39:53] the village is up for
electing that you know, special case.
[39:59] Now, we
just seem could
[40:03] extend enough pipe from the parcel
towards getting this.
[40:09] At least enough to get the sidewalk.
You won't be able to fire up to get the
[40:13] curb.
That was
[40:16] But if the sidewalk and poor sidewalk is
falling out.
[40:24] From staff standpoint, he'd he'd be okay
with the technical aspects of that.
[40:29] Cuz then in spring when this was torn
up,
[40:32] it'll save time. Instead of tearing it
up twice, we'll tear it up the same time
[40:35] in spring.
They just dig down find that end,
[40:39] go all the way to the pipe in the
street, then pour the pyramid concrete.
[40:44] Parallel with lot sales and building
permits.
[40:48] So,
from a technical standpoint,
[40:51] staff's comfortable with that idea.
You would take a it's just a decision by
[40:57] this group to make an exception
that Jeff can so I'm just ready to
[41:02] finish
his portion of fence which is the
[41:06] curbing gutter
and repave both feet. All right, thank
[41:10] you.
So, I wanted to toss that out there as a
[41:13] potential
compromise. I know those 12 lots are
[41:17] only
I mean, you do have
[41:20] Jeff
money and financial surety in place
[41:24] still. And we would keep that in place
until all the public
[41:30] improvements
installed. So, you do have
[41:33] protection in case they go bankrupt or
they cease
[41:36] to do things. You have the money to
help.
[41:39] You have something.
But I mean, it's 20 minutes away.
[41:43] So, nobody's heard of this in the
minute.
[41:45] » I think our proposal is sound. But
anyway, the only problem with that is
[41:51] there'd have to be a pretty good penalty
against the village
[41:59] because
the village is also
[42:05] obligation is the new water main.
It's outside our
[42:10] requirements and plans.
And so,
[42:15] again, I got Well, it doesn't matter.
I like that idea.
[42:21] But, we couldn't go forward without some
type of
[42:26] fine, if you will,
of
[42:31] a
date,
[42:34] because we can't proceed
You know, you're worried about us going
[42:38] bankrupt, and I know you said that cuz
and that's a reality. I get it. Goes the
[42:42] same way. We don't know the village is
going to put the water main in.
[42:46] So, how do we know? So, we're trusting
you, you're trusting us, but at least
[42:50] you have our surety if we don't do our
work, but we have nothing against the
[42:56] village if they don't put the water main
in.
[42:59] So, now, we have 12 lots,
and we're right back to where we were
[43:04] today
with an existing water main that was is
[43:10] planned to
[43:13] be receptive to our 12 water laterals
until the idea
[43:19] came of a new water main, of which I
fully agree with,
[43:23] but it's just the mechanics to protect
us because this is a village change.
[43:29] It's nothing we brought up.
[43:33] » I don't know the for whatever it's
worth, the village sometime
[43:37] was unless it changed their mind the
last 30 minutes, was
[43:41] still planning on signing a contract
with Houston to do the work
[43:46] this fall and sign down the contract to
sign.
[43:49] » Oh, so you're doing the work this fall?
>> That was the intention back in May,
[43:53] June, and July when we were talking to
Houston and I had to
[43:57] wait
and he came and he claimed he could get
[44:00] it done
2 weeks ago.
[44:02] » Okay. I mean,
>> So, the village was planning
[44:04] talking with Houston, telling them going
to do this. We've got twins that are 2
[44:08] months old.
Like paper plants. Um
[44:12] and then I was going to sign a contract
that he's going to sign across the
[44:16] table. So, instead of a contract, he
said I
[44:19] can forget it.
>> But again, that's not our
[44:23] negotiation. That was between you and
Houston.
[44:26] » Correct.
>> Mhm.
[44:29] » So, how does that affect this? I
guarantee for you.
[44:32] » Well, it it doesn't because it's not
again, it's not getting done this fall.
[44:36] » No, I mean
>> If the contract says it's done in the
[44:39] spring, the delivery is guaranteed.
>> But the problem
[44:42] » Houston.
>> So, just from Tommy's stand.
[44:45] Okay. So, the village allows building
permits
[44:50] when everything else is done except
finished work.
[44:54] And we go and sell to everything you
just said. We just go sell the builder
[44:58] A.
They start construction.
[45:01] We're going to have to go out on a limb
and give them some guarantees that
[45:06] there's ultimately going to be water to
their lot.
[45:09] Well, because
there is water there, right? All we're
[45:13] talking about is replacing a pipe. It's
not like we're saying we're going to
[45:18] remove the pipe and there's no water
there. So, your big thing, let's say
[45:23] that the village goes bankrupt and they
can't put the pipe in. There's still a
[45:27] pipe. You just connect it to the current
pipe.
[45:31] There's no risk there. It's not like
we're pulling the pipe out and saying
[45:35] there's no water there anymore. What
we're saying is we want to put in a
[45:38] newer one.
>> Well, it's going to
[45:40] » That's what we're talking about here. If
if if you make it sound like we're
[45:44] pulling the water and now you may not
have water to hook up to. You're always
[45:48] going to have water to hook up to.
>> Well, then your attorney is going to
[45:51] have to draft a pretty strong contract
that we sign with all these guarantees.
[45:57] » I
I don't know what the guarantee you want
[45:59] that there's going to be a water main
there.
[46:01] » No, that if not done by a next date, the
city or the village is going to pay us
[46:06] » Okay, but
>> $1,000 a day.
[46:08] » Why would we do that? Why would we do
that to the builder?
[46:10] » Cuz you guys are changing the game plan.
I have approved old plans that will hook
[46:15] up to your existing water main.
>> And you can still do that. We're not
[46:20] pulling that water main out. What we're
saying is you may have to wait till
[46:24] spring to do it.
>> Well, that's not part of the deal.
[46:27] » I don't think anywhere in that Nowhere
in that agreement are there dates and
[46:32] times when any of that stuff has to be
done.
[46:34] » Out there.
>> I think there's not.
[46:36] » No, but I'm just
>> Cuz that's not a common thing. Cuz it's
[46:39] construction. So, it's not something
that's in there that says we told you we
[46:44] were going to have you hook it up on
September 5th of 2026.
[46:50] » It doesn't say that. I would go to any
court of law saying in the industry we
[46:54] have approved client.
>> You do have approved and we have a lot
[46:57] of money to give you.
>> I want to use them.
[47:00] » And that's fine. It doesn't matter the
date. It's irrelevant. We have time to
[47:04] do it yet this year. We're going to do
it. We have We don't want it done
[47:08] because it's going to cost us a ton of
money and we have to give a permit and
[47:12] we don't want you tearing up our road
right now.
[47:14] » Listen to what you just said. You don't
want to do it.
[47:16] » The village. That's exactly right.
>> I do and you already approved it.
[47:20] » No, we approved you hooking up to the
water mains and we're still going to
[47:23] hold true to that.
>> No, the plan
[47:25] literally shows the lateral hooking up
to the 6-in. That's our approved plan.
[47:31] » But it's not a date and time on it.
>> matter.
[47:34] » Sure it does.
>> I can put those in anytime I want.
[47:37] » No.
>> Brian, is it not standard of the
[47:40] industry if you have a set plans that
are approved by the municipality the
[47:44] developer just does it?
>> I mean, I've been doing this for over 40
[47:49] years. I've never had a municipality
tell me, "Oh, by the way, you can't
[47:52] complete the project that we approved
your plan."
[47:55] » And we are not saying that.
>> We'll go to court on that, Jay, all day
[47:59] long.
>> Well, Jeff, just let's just say you're
[48:01] going to be coming up next month, right,
to extend one of our rules of moving
[48:05] dirt on September 15th. So, should we
hold it to the line and say, "No, on
[48:11] September 15th, you got to shut down
your project." Would you like that?
[48:15] » You can't cuz we'll be done.
>> You'll be done by the 15th, so you won't
[48:19] be asking for that. Okay. Well, that's
good to know, but you were planning on
[48:22] that anyway. We probably still would.
>> But if you turn us down, we'll still get
[48:27] our work done.
>> Well, you know, we've been very
[48:31] cooperative and we have banned a lot of
things for this project. I think this is
[48:37] a very small ask from the village
to ask for you to wait
[48:45] whatever amount of time it is to put in
so we can put in a new pipe and we don't
[48:50] have to shut shut down our road during
school
[48:55] to
accommodate 12 laterals going in when we
[49:00] could do it in the spring all at once
and not make hassle twice and tear up a
[49:06] street twice. It just makes common
sense. And we're asking you
[49:13] to just play along and do a compromise.
And like I say, the lab the water's
[49:19] there, so even if this all goes south in
between, you still have a lateral.
[49:25] You'll still be able to hook up to
water. There's no worry for any of those
[49:30] construction people. The difference is
the timing of it.
[49:33] » Well, and that's that's what we're
talking about. So, how do I tell the
[49:37] builder, "Oh, you need a building
permit, but you know what? I don't know
[49:40] when you're going to get one."
>> Well, you that Well, you don't want to
[49:43] say that. You're going to get the water
is coming in in the spring.
[49:46] » What are you telling the people with the
MG&E not having electric and gas? What
[49:50] are you telling them now? It'll be done.
By
[49:53] by
>> Man, when is it going to be there? Right
[49:57] after Labor Day. And it's going to take
a while.
[49:59] » Okay.
>> It'll be done.
[50:01] » All right.
So
[50:02] » And when are they going to get into
phase two?
[50:04] » We're not asking for that.
>> So you're asking for water but not power
[50:09] and electric at this time. For that for
that lot.
[50:12] » So
>> No, I answer the question. Are you
[50:15] » Yes, we can follow our schedule.
When finish is done, the electrical will
[50:19] be done.
Cuz the lots are 80% graded.
[50:25] » Okay.
>> By the end of this week, it's going to
[50:27] be Look, the phase I mean, we're putting
curb in in phase two on Monday.
[50:31] That's how far along we are.
>> Yeah, I know.
[50:34] » So
>> But that has nothing to do with MG&E.
[50:37] » And why do I don't know why you keep
bringing up MG&E.
[50:39] » Well, it's just Well, it's just taking
us 9 months to get it to our to our new
[50:43] building. So
>> Well
[50:44] » I get it. You know.
>> They're paying. I get it. I agree with
[50:47] you.
So Well, here's the deal. You give me a
[50:50] contract or agreement with a financial
guarantee we need, we'll sign it.
[50:56] With short of that, we want to hook up
to the existing
[50:59] set of plans
that
[51:04] We want to bait
court, but that's where it's going to go
[51:08] if you don't give us some a financial
guarantee.
[51:12] » Which is totally
>> You guys are going back on the game
[51:14] plan, Jay.
>> No, we're not. We're There's nothing
[51:17] changing here except for we're asking to
just delay that. But what which isn't
[51:24] even We're not even asking to delay.
We're We're just saying we may not give
[51:28] you all street permit to tear up the
street. That's all. In the contract, it
[51:32] doesn't have these dates in there that
you're
[51:35] referring to. All right? And so I don't
think we're breaking anything here.
[51:41] We're trying to be reasonable to our
taxpayers and everybody else.
[51:45] » I
>> Right? And
[51:46] it's just common sense. In the last 40
years I've put in as many single family
[51:51] lots except maybe two people in this
town. I don't know. I agree. Okay. Yeah,
[51:56] I have never had this discussion.
>> But you never had this situation before.
[52:02] And we haven't had any problem with you.
Yeah, we disagree. Yeah.
[52:07] I'm not going to debate anymore. We have
a
[52:09] approved set of plans that does not say
you can't go and do your
[52:15] There's no date. There's nothing for the
village that says you can't do it.
[52:19] What it does say is if you do what the
approved set of plans are, you can
[52:24] proceed.
Dates are irrelevant.
[52:29] I've never had a contract that flat out
said you're going to tear up. I agree.
[52:35] I agree with you on that. We all agree.
>> That was definitely
[52:39] » All right. Bobby, Judy.
>> I was going to ask so the lots have all
[52:43] been sold. But do you We anticipate all
four lots are going to pull building
[52:47] permits day one?
>> No. Don't know.
[52:50] » Okay. Yeah, I did not have an idea of
how many would be there.
[52:55] » All right, Judy.
>> Um as far as the road closure goes, like
[52:59] how long when they do go do it? Um this
is really When they do go to do these,
[53:04] how long do you think the closure is for
the village?
[53:07] I mean are they going to do one lane at
a time? I mean like does that whole road
[53:11] get closed so they have to go like
around I mean like the whole road gets
[53:14] closed?
>> I don't think you'd have to close this.
[53:18] The whole whole thing.
>> Didn't we do this on Fiddler's about 4
[53:21] years ago
where we closed Fiddler's for
[53:24] » Airport Road was closed when
Township Airport Road Yeah, Airport. But
[53:29] you're right, Fiddler's was closed.
>> It's going to be a heck of a piece of
[53:32] work.
>> So it's totally closed. It's a detour.
[53:36] And what do you think the time frame
might be on that kind of
[53:39] » I think if it were
done all at once, probably six weeks.
[53:44] Uh if it were to done in two steps,
probably four weeks each.
[53:48] » Well, well we could we could get our
work done in probably a week.
[53:52] A week to do.
This took about two weeks.
[53:58] » It It quality, that plus the curb
plus full asphalt.
[54:07] Sorry.
>> Go ahead.
[54:07] » And then my other question is this, um
the reason we don't want him to do what
[54:11] he wants to do is because he has a tap
and we are worried about main breaks or
[54:16] we're guaranteed main breaks or like
that.
[54:19] » Well, that's one of it, but the main
thing is we're putting in a new pipe.
[54:23] » Right. I just want to know I know but
she wants
[54:25] » I bet Is it 100%? No. I would say 0%?
No, either.
[54:30] » Right.
>> Uh so there's this
[54:33] some chance
that this breaks
[54:37] jam.
Okay?
[54:39] Um
that's kind of a
[54:43] on the ability side that's something
we're concerned about.
[54:47] So I can't tell you this this might
happen.
[54:49] Um
so if I find out the thing I was kicking
[54:52] around at staff level was
[54:56] an ideal where
we must don't want to
[55:00] regress.
I was willing to take down that risk.
[55:06] That was not something
we were looking for.
[55:09] » Take a risk of
>> Are you guys being mean or
[55:11] » Yeah, but yeah, but they fix the main
breaks if they happen in January 3rd.
[55:15] » Well, we wouldn't do that. I mean that's
>> Do I think it's
[55:18] » Wait, wait, can you let me ask one more
question for you? Um as a I'm just
[55:21] thinking as a consumer, how do I feel
about buying a lot that I'm not sure
[55:25] about water? I don't know. I Do you
think you're going to have a trouble
[55:29] selling those and getting You won't have
a trouble selling them. You're just
[55:33] worried about the building.
>> No, cuz the way our offers are
[55:37] structured is closing will occur within
30 days after the village signs off.
[55:44] » Okay.
>> And would And would allow a building
[55:46] permit.
>> Okay.
[55:49] And we could do a building permit with a
water getting there, knowing we will get
[55:53] there. But do you feel like your
consumers your your buyers will be okay
[55:57] with that?
>> Only with a financial guarantee.
[55:59] » Okay.
[56:02] » There's a another alternative which is
the craziest and and
[56:05] Brian already shot it down. I don't
know what I thought.
[56:10] We will
sell you
[56:13] those of all lots
and then you guys
[56:18] can deal with the builders and you guys
then can do finish whenever you want it.
[56:25] Our risk is gone
and the village takes on all risk.
[56:30] And it doesn't It'll cost them money up
front but they recoup it
[56:36] uh as soon as the building's home
closed. The whole
[56:40] There's a little bit of profit only
cost.
[56:42] Um but that way then the village
controls everything.
[56:47] But Jeff, you already told me you can
close on all these lots. So, there's no
[56:51] financial risk you're taking. You said
that earlier that you can close without
[56:56] having the laterals hooked in.
>> With the building
[57:00] » I didn't sell. I just said we need a
building permit and Right, but there
[57:04] there'd have to be a
whatever from the village to allow us to
[57:10] get building permits. But then I went on
to say if that is the scenario, we need
[57:15] some financial guarantee that we can
pass on to our buyers because God forbid
[57:22] it's like Brian explained right away,
okay, we're going to we're going to
[57:26] guarantee our buyers they'll have water
May 1,
[57:31] June 1, pick a day, right?
So that our builders can construct
[57:36] knowing that,
and then all of a sudden, if the village
[57:40] hasn't got their work done, the village
can't get us water or our builders
[57:44] water, we're going to have to compensate
those builders,
[57:49] and we don't feel it's fair that comes
out of our pocket.
[57:54] Because we have approved plans to tap
into the existing water main.
[58:00] So this shouldn't cost us a penny.
I agree.
[58:06] » That's fine. I'm just not seeing where
the penny is going to cost you. That's
[58:10] where I'm having a hard time.
>> I just There's two scenarios. Number
[58:14] one, they don't close because of the
uncertainty. And number two, they close
[58:18] and we don't get them water.
>> See, I just two examples. I just don't
[58:21] understand and maybe it's just I'm too
dense to understand this. There's water
[58:25] there already. What we're talking about
is replacing a pipe.
[58:30] One that's already there. So the water's
there. So I'm not sure where you keep
[58:34] coming out they need guaranteed that
there's going to be water. I just don't
[58:38] see us saying we're going to pull that
old pipe out and we're going to tell
[58:42] everybody on Finister they no longer can
have municipal water and we don't
[58:45] replace the play the pipe. That just
doesn't seem like a scenario we would do
[58:50] just like we would not buy the lots. As
long as that's in the agreement, that's
[58:53] fine.
>> Yes, sir. I don't you know, we're not
[58:57] here to be difficult, but the reality is
we have approved plans with the village,
[59:03] and we have all 12 lots to close.
Now, the village needs to come up with a
[59:08] scenario to protect us. That's all I'm
saying.
[59:12] We're not saying no, just protect us.
>> So what if
[59:16] » Okay, I have something to
and Bill and Jed.
[59:20] » Okay, so
I'm not an engineer.
[59:24] And I'm trying to follow what's all
taken place here.
[59:28] But right now we have a main going down
Venice.
[59:33] Is that going down the center of the
street or is that kind of one side or
[59:35] the other, do you know?
>> Mostly north.
[59:38] » Mostly on the north side. Okay, so it's
close to where the development is.
[59:42] » No, it's the opposite side.
>> It's almost on the south side of
[59:46] » Okay.
So, to connect into that water main
[59:50] what what Jeff wants to do
[59:54] who would be responsible for putting
that T in that goes over to Marston?
[59:59] Marston, you see. Okay. So, you're
responsible for
[1:00:04] doing whatever surface work to do to
pull up the the
[1:00:09] uh
dig that hole
[1:00:11] put that T in there, put the water main
down down through Marston.
[1:00:15] » No, no, no. It's going to be each house.
>> What
[1:00:19] That's the lateral.
>> Right. That's all that we're talking
[1:00:21] about. Everything else is done. We're
just tapping into those
[1:00:25] » We're not responsible for any main.
>> But you're coming
[1:00:29] So, you're taking you So, you're going
to take the main coming out of Venice
[1:00:33] and you're going to tap 12 lateral out
of that?
[1:00:38] All the way down going
>> Yeah, east and west.
[1:00:42] » from
[1:00:45] » Yeah, the lots that that that open up to
Venice is what we're talking about. All
[1:00:51] the infrastructure in there is already
done and good to go. What he's talking
[1:00:56] about is the 12 lots that open up to
Venice Street
[1:01:02] that would the lateral would tap into
not new piping
[1:01:06] » Okay.
>> but the current pipe that's in the
[1:01:08] ground right now.
[1:01:12] » I got you.
Okay.
[1:01:16] That makes more sense. Now, I understand
where you're at now. Okay.
[1:01:21] Thank you.
>> Yeah, go ahead, Chad.
[1:01:23] » Yeah, I'm just not comfortable with any
of this. I mean, there's nothing in the
[1:01:26] packet about this. Now, we're talking
about buying properties and needing
[1:01:29] attorney guarantees. So, I make a motion
that we postpone this to the next
[1:01:33] meeting.
[1:01:36] » Uh
Well, if you made that motion, is
[1:01:39] anybody going to second it?
[1:01:43] All right, there's no second, so the
motion dies. I think, Chad, it's
[1:01:47] important while the information is not
there, cuz it's obviously very fresh,
[1:01:53] this this concern came up, that it's
important for everybody to at least hear
[1:01:58] the background.
Um, I
[1:02:01] I agree, there isn't going to be a
decision tonight because of where the
[1:02:07] differences are between the village and
the developer. So, we're going to
[1:02:12] clearly have to
uh obviously refer and and talk about
[1:02:17] it, but I I want to make sure that
everybody here has an opportunity to ask
[1:02:24] the questions with the engineer and Jeff
and understand what we're actually
[1:02:31] talking about here.
Bill.
[1:02:35] » Just one one one more thing.
>> Um
[1:02:38] » Seeing as Jeff brought this up, um I
think we need to staff needs to bring
[1:02:43] Paul in.
Seeing as you want to bring this to a
[1:02:46] legal issue. You say you wanted to bring
it to the courts if you don't get your
[1:02:51] way. So, I think we need to bring Paul
in.
[1:02:53] » Absolutely.
>> Well, and let him let him look at the
[1:02:55] kind of track and let him evaluate it
quickly, right? With your lawyers
[1:03:01] and figure that out. I think that's the
the right thing to do.
[1:03:03] » So, has anybody talked to Paul?
Cuz our attorney has.
[1:03:10] And he flat out said, "This isn't your
problem. You have approved plans."
[1:03:14] » Who said Who you that to what? Pass all
that to our attorney.
[1:03:19] » Well, let's just
Yeah, I I Yeah, but here's the problem
[1:03:23] right now, Chris.
You know,
[1:03:26] again,
in over 40 years, I think I've been to
[1:03:30] court twice. So, take my comment very
lightly cuz
[1:03:33] we don't do that.
But,
[1:03:36] it's not like we're in June. We can't
wait a month.
[1:03:40] Okay? There's a laptop that's closed,
things like that. So, you know,
[1:03:45] honestly,
you know, I I nothing's going to happen
[1:03:49] tonight. I I get that.
Uh the first call I'll do on the way
[1:03:53] home is talking to our attorney
because this has to get settled very
[1:03:59] quickly because we need to get this work
done
[1:04:03] or that legal agreement signed
very quick.
[1:04:08] And again, I have the lawyer with the
experience would tell me we we will sign
[1:04:14] approve the plan, we have the right to
do that.
[1:04:19] » I just Like I said, I I'm not going to
argue that legal point, but before you
[1:04:24] can do that, the village, my
understanding, needs to give you a
[1:04:28] permit to allow you to damage our
roadway. Correct?
[1:04:34] » I think there's more that we need from
the village, but yes.
[1:04:37] » Okay. So, I'm just going to play that
out that that's still in our domain.
[1:04:44] Right?
And is it to ours that in fact there's a
[1:04:48] delay?
>> That's all part of what we'll be
[1:04:51] talking.
>> Yeah, I think there's a lot of lot of
[1:04:53] issues here.
Um and I think we do need to sit down
[1:04:58] and look at this and try to come up with
a compromise. I don't think it's that
[1:05:03] difficult
to do.
[1:05:06] But, I do think that
uh the village has been very
[1:05:14] open to making modifications
to certain things to help your
[1:05:19] development along. And I don't think
we've asked for very much from you on
[1:05:25] this.
And this is an ask.
[1:05:28] Even though it may be
clearly legally that in that uh
[1:05:33] developer's agreement you can do that,
right?
[1:05:38] We are asking
for something that will benefit the
[1:05:43] village and its residents.
And I think you need to go back and
[1:05:49] think of all the positive things we've
done as a village to help your
[1:05:53] development and maybe it's time to look
what you could help us on on something
[1:05:58] like this. And yes, did we foresee this?
You know, a year ago, two years ago, no.
[1:06:05] It came up, it was an idea, it made
sense, and just I think it makes sense
[1:06:11] to everybody. It's just the timing of
it.
[1:06:15] So,
>> I guess Brian a question.
[1:06:18] » Sure. Just want a little I just want a
little bit more clarity on what you were
[1:06:22] talking about. So, I assume what the
delay till spring would be is they
[1:06:25] didn't build that frontage down to the
sidewalk, don't put in the curb, so that
[1:06:30] allows us then in the spring to go and
tear things up with the main and then
[1:06:33] finish the road with the curb. And
that's what all that was alluding to.
[1:06:36] » Right. So, it's a single closure.
>> Single closure in the spring, don't
[1:06:41] put the curb in cuz
>> Right.
[1:06:43] » you're going to come back and do that,
but you do
[1:06:46] the whole replacement in the spring with
the water main. And then at that time
[1:06:48] when the road's locked up, that's when
you put connect the lat rails to the new
[1:06:52] water main idea. All that.
>> Right.
[1:06:57] Right.
>> That
[1:06:59] You're looking for a good solution,
that's the one that sounds great.
[1:07:04] » And you know, again, we're in favor of
that with a surety
[1:07:09] of some financial
>> I don't understand your fear. The
[1:07:13] village isn't going to do this. That's
why it's not going to happen.
[1:07:16] » Well, but I can look at it as a
consumer. Would I want to buy that
[1:07:19] property?
>> Not sure.
[1:07:20] » I mean, how many of us are thinking as a
consumer?
[1:07:24] » But I think as a
consumer, it's in the best interest to
[1:07:27] have a new water main. Because then if
I'm coming to like take a look and I see
[1:07:33] that oh, there's a water main break or
you know, I hear about this and I feel
[1:07:36] like that'd be in the best interest of
the builders also. Like you're getting a
[1:07:40] new water main. Also, you still have
access to water if we didn't. So that's
[1:07:44] where I agree with Jay. So
>> And the obligation is the village has to
[1:07:48] supply municipal water and sewer. We
can't just tell you not to do it.
[1:07:52] You know, I I like I said, I'm not
seeing that fear factor, but we let's
[1:07:57] just
Um I I just don't think we take any
[1:08:00] action on this and I think we need to
set something up and
[1:08:05] see if we can work these things out
where everybody's happy with it.
[1:08:10] » Yeah, one other question.
>> Yeah, go ahead, Michael.
[1:08:12] » So there was a discussion about whether
or not electrical and gas were going to
[1:08:16] be making it to these northernmost phase
one. And there was a little discrepancy
[1:08:20] on whether or not there was. So you're
making it sound like all utilities are
[1:08:24] going to be hooked to all the houses in
all phase one but phase B. Like there
[1:08:29] isn't that utility delaying of
electrical or gas.
[1:08:33] » No, we we met with MG&E I think it was
the week before Friday. We can do
[1:08:36] Monday, it doesn't matter.
Um because it's hasn't been fun dealing
[1:08:41] with MG&E.
Um but we had
[1:08:45] some pretty important people there.
Um that's where we got the date of the
[1:08:49] first phase
um
[1:08:51] starting around Labor Day.
It's going to take about a week.
[1:08:55] Um
and then the good news is they're very
[1:08:59] receptive and open and knowing now that
they kind of dropped the ball on phase
[1:09:03] one and they will share with us phase
two will be very shortly later on.
[1:09:09] » Well, so this is
phase two of the
[1:09:12] » phase
>> of phase one. This This is what you
[1:09:14] would have said.
>> It is.
[1:09:15] » It's phase two of phase one, but that is
they've done like, "Okay, we're going to
[1:09:20] do this one
before whatever."
[1:09:22] » Yeah, I think they might even said when
they they're already doing phase one
[1:09:26] depending on where we are. They might
just do phase two.
[1:09:29] » Okay, they might not know for a long
what's going on.
[1:09:32] All right, okay. That's cuz there was
some
[1:09:34] I wasn't sure if there was going to be
other utilities making up these lots.
[1:09:38] Yep, this fall.
>> Most of it's our intent to you know,
[1:09:42] again, it was our intent since day one
that all these lots
[1:09:47] serviceful, completed,
village happy
[1:09:52] by the end of year.
>> Thank you. Can we
[1:09:55] Can we just fix the semantics because
in the project there's phase one, phase
[1:10:01] two which is different whole different
part of the area of Marshall area.
[1:10:06] Uh I'd really like the 1A, 1B. That
makes more sense and it's all the
[1:10:11] clarity when you're trying to
understand this from the notes and
[1:10:15] looking forward in a year from now. So,
if we can just I think Jay brought that
[1:10:20] up.
Phase 1A, phase 1B.
[1:10:23] That at least that that keeps everything
straight. That's all. Just the semantics
[1:10:28] thing.
[1:10:32] » All righty. I think we've gone as far as
we can on this. We'll clearly be in
[1:10:37] contact with you. Hopefully see if we
can work something out.
[1:10:42] All right. Number four, discussion and
possible action regarding phasing cost
[1:10:48] scenarios for Park Street improvement.
Brian.
[1:10:54] All right, who wants to can a summary of
>> be Brett and Matt'll do it. Matt can do
[1:10:58] it.
[1:11:05] » Okay. And I think what we should We're
staying focused on here are the
[1:11:09] scenarios that we kind of talked a
little bit about after the last meeting.
[1:11:15] Uh Michael brought it up of instead of
doing it in three phases, doing it in
[1:11:19] one and all the pros and cons. That's
what we're talking about. We're not
[1:11:22] talking about the money part right now
or to approve. That'll come in the CIP.
[1:11:32] Go ahead and
Yes, what are we
[1:11:35] Well, I I think Michael
Michael you had a couple You had some
[1:11:39] questions. You know, let's
let's talk about you asked me the
[1:11:43] questions and I didn't know. Okay, I'll
help remind you. The engineering Has the
[1:11:48] engineering been done on all of Park
Street?
[1:11:51] » It is not.
>> Would it be possible to have it done
[1:11:55] by the time we would start?
>> Yes.
[1:11:58] » All right. So that was one of your
questions. You remember that? You
[1:12:01] remember your second one cuz I'm not
able to answer all of those. Go ahead.
[1:12:05] » I don't remember.
Well, let's
[1:12:09] » All right. So when we're looking at it
uh just uh to confirm, it's basically a
[1:12:15] 5%
savings if you did it all at once.
[1:12:20] » Approximately, yes.
>> All right. Now
[1:12:24] I don't remember if we had this
discussion, but Seth brought it up.
[1:12:28] Did we ever talk about putting a path or
a sidewalk along Park Street when we did
[1:12:35] this? Cuz I know that scenario that you
have where you gave us cost does not
[1:12:40] include that.
>> It actually does.
[1:12:43] » Oh, it does?
>> Yeah.
[1:12:44] » Okay.
>> level
[1:12:48] Uh forgive me if I was too forward. At
At level when we do our budget
[1:12:51] estimates,
we just kind of kick ideas around the
[1:12:54] staff. I mean, is there any chance
there's going to they're going to want a
[1:12:57] sidewalk on this? So, we In those
budgets, we do have one sidewalk,
[1:13:02] sidewalk, not both sidewalks.
>> Okay.
[1:13:05] » Just just to be conservative.
>> No, that's good. I'm glad you said that.
[1:13:09] » Cuz that's very good. And you can pull
it off. Just cuz it's in the budget
[1:13:12] doesn't mean you can
>> No, no. I I think uh
[1:13:15] I think that's brought up, and I'm glad
Seth did, cuz then I've been looking
[1:13:19] more at the cost of the sewer and water
and then not even thinking of the road.
[1:13:24] So, I do think that is a critical place
to have a sidewalk or a path.
[1:13:30] » If we do it both on just one side, so
they're not crossing.
[1:13:34] » Yeah, I see.
>> We didn't go into that far detail.
[1:13:36] » Okay, okay.
>> No, but I agree with you. We And if we
[1:13:39] can do it in the roadway, I think the
southern part would be the best to hook
[1:13:43] up to where the post office is, cuz
there isn't too much after that, and
[1:13:47] that's more open lots, you know, parking
lots and stuff. So, that where it gets
[1:13:52] tight, it would be easier to take from
those empty lot sidewalk than the other
[1:13:59] side that already has a part of it, but
you got a retaining wall and everything.
[1:14:03] I'm not sure why when we allowed those
two duplexes, we didn't connect the two
[1:14:08] sidewalks.
>> I'm thinking there's utility poles all
[1:14:10] over on that side.
>> You would do
[1:14:13] layouts for the group as I said.
>> Yeah.
[1:14:15] » Okay.
>> All right. Either you or you decide.
[1:14:17] » No, no, no. I
>> Money's in there.
[1:14:19] » Oh.
>> And I think there's a bunch of like safe
[1:14:21] walk to school grants, so.
>> Yeah.
[1:14:26] Okay. So, that that's good. That answers
your question, Seth. We do, and it's in
[1:14:30] the budget, so that's great. Um
[1:14:36] So, let's uh
I I guess maybe there isn't uh I would
[1:14:42] like to hear from people here
what they feel of the idea of doing it
[1:14:47] all at once versus two.
[1:14:54] Bill.
>> So,
[1:15:00] we save save
5% ish one way to go there.
[1:15:06] Uh we'll have to take out a loan
earlier than later to do the work.
[1:15:13] So, mathematically
are we still saving that 5% having to
[1:15:19] pay whatever interest we have on that
money
[1:15:22] that we're taking out before 2027 or
2028 whenever we're doing the second
[1:15:28] part of that
road. So, instead of doing
[1:15:31] part one of Park Street, part two, and
taking out two separate loans, right,
[1:15:36] and getting deferred interest
when we do the second, we take out one
[1:15:40] big loan to do all Park Street to save
the 5% in construction fees, but do we
[1:15:46] do we at least not pay a 5% interest
through that first year?
[1:15:53] » That would only come into effect if we
had the money and we were making
[1:15:57] interest on it, but we're not making
There is no
[1:16:00] » No, we're not making
We're paying We're paying interest to
[1:16:04] the bank to whoever's giving us the
money for the loan.
[1:16:06] » No, it's going to be always the same.
How's that change?
[1:16:10] » It's going to be a
>> I get what you're saying.
[1:16:12] » I understand what you're saying, but as
a caveat to that, if we wait a year and
[1:16:16] the cost of metal pipe to put in the
water main goes up 4%,
[1:16:20] » Yeah, you're right.
>> just
[1:16:22] saved all the first
>> Or if interest rates go up 2%, there's
[1:16:25] no saving.
>> I understand that. But that was my
[1:16:28] point. If Are we thinking about I the
interest on the money
[1:16:32] » My my big thing is affordability.
That that's the number one for me. And
[1:16:40] and I might as well speak now because
I'm going to be saying it during the
[1:16:45] other discussion on capital law
together.
[1:16:48] We're going in We just borrowed 4.1
million bucks.
[1:16:53] We just had the average home went up 67%
in assessment. So, that means any of you
[1:17:01] that done your calculations, if you're
over 67%,
[1:17:05] your taxes is going up.
Right? If you had 67, it should stay the
[1:17:10] same if we don't make any more. But,
anything over 67, you're paying a bigger
[1:17:14] bigger share of it. So, for me, I'm up
91%. So, I'm going to go up 30-some. My
[1:17:20] My taxes is going to go up because the
average went up 67%. So, if you're over
[1:17:25] that, if you're under that, your taxes
goes down if you're looking at today's
[1:17:29] numbers.
So, that's hitting people. We're talking
[1:17:33] about
raising water rates. So, that's coming
[1:17:38] out of some of their
out of our residents. So,
[1:17:42] you know, the the question to me more is
affordability and how much this is going
[1:17:50] to cost.
And, while I hear what you're saying and
[1:17:55] I'm all for saving money on projects,
where I thought you were going is the
[1:18:01] cost of doing it all at once is going to
be a huge increase
[1:18:05] in debt. So, that means a huge increase
on what we have to pay. It doesn't go
[1:18:09] against the levy, but we still got to
pay that debt off. If you stretch it,
[1:18:14] then you're slowly moving it up instead
of hitting everybody
[1:18:19] with a big hit right away.
It would take a little bit more thought
[1:18:24] because I got to figure out when we're
going to make the big hit for water and
[1:18:28] when we're going to make some of these
other improvements that
[1:18:33] uh are out there. Um so, that's where
my thing is, can
[1:18:39] the residents afford doing it all at
once?
[1:18:42] » Well, there's another alternative to
that, too.
[1:18:46] Maybe
is, you know, one of the things we're
[1:18:49] going to be talking about later is
capital.
[1:18:52] » Yeah.
>> Right? And if some of that can be
[1:18:55] delayed
>> But the original plan was over 3 years.
[1:18:59] It's three phases.
>> Right.
[1:19:01] » That's the original plan. That's what's
in the CIB. Yeah.
[1:19:03] » Okay.
>> Right.
[1:19:05] » Yeah. Yeah, it is. And then that's And I
think that the reason is it gives
[1:19:10] an easier
>> Right.
[1:19:12] » take on
people's property bill. Go ahead.
[1:19:17] » Okay, so I understand you're talking
about a one-time hit, but people will
[1:19:21] whether they pay for it in 1 year or
they pay for it in 3 years, they're
[1:19:24] still paying for it the whole amount in
in a 3-year time period. So, there isn't
[1:19:28] really any affordability savings if it's
happening anyway in 3 years.
[1:19:32] » Well, it's still going to cost the same.
>> And so then when you have then a 5%
[1:19:36] savings on a 300 and $3 million project,
that's $150,000.
[1:19:41] What that means is that savings then
then the next year when we do our $150
[1:19:46] street savings things, guess what? We
just saved $150,000 by doing Park Street
[1:19:49] the first year. That $150,000 we saved
then that's a free paving job for the
[1:19:54] village by doing it all at one time.
>> All right, Sarah then myself.
[1:19:58] » I think what you're saying is I I just
was thinking that it helps us to budget
[1:20:01] more because because we're going to be
looking at each year, it's
[1:20:06] it's right there in the forefront of our
mind. We're thinking about that versus
[1:20:09] like if you did it all at once,
then I feel like we might start thinking
[1:20:13] about other projects.
>> Yeah.
[1:20:16] Michael, I think
uh your while your numbers are correct
[1:20:21] that after 3 years you're there,
>> You're right.
[1:20:23] » but there are a lot of people
in this village
[1:20:28] that are on that line
and over 3 years they may able to do it
[1:20:33] because they can maybe save this or they
get a raise at work or they do something
[1:20:40] like that to compensate for that.
But there's a point where you raise it
[1:20:45] so high, it's almost impossible for
someone
[1:20:50] to cover.
>> I've got something next.
[1:20:53] » Okay, you know, so I I think while
again, when you look at it logically and
[1:21:00] numbers-wise, you are you are absolutely
correct. But what you're not looking at
[1:21:05] are people's ability to pay. And if you
can stretch it out, and that's why
[1:21:10] people take car loans cuz they can't
come up with the cash right away. They
[1:21:15] spread it over 5 years cuz they can make
that. So,
[1:21:20] um I just wanted to point out that
that's the other side of the coin.
[1:21:25] All right, Jed, you wanted to say
something?
[1:21:28] » Yeah, I agree that affordability is
going to be a big issue. Um, you know,
[1:21:32] besides the things that were mentioned
with tax assessments, I mean, I I've
[1:21:35] heard lots of residents talking about,
you know, maybe having to sell their
[1:21:39] house if their tax assessment goes up
that far because they're already at that
[1:21:43] margin. Um, we also have the school
district trying to do the referendum,
[1:21:47] which may or may not raise the taxes. It
may keep it equivalent, but now you've
[1:21:51] got another tax, if you will.
Um, so I would be in favor of doing it
[1:21:56] in three phases.
>> Okay, I got Michael and myself.
[1:22:01] » All right. So, if we go to a three-phase
thing, you're returning Park Street 3
[1:22:05] years in a row. You're causing all kinds
of headache on Park Street for 3
[1:22:08] summers, street and road, rather than
just the one shot. And we've already
[1:22:11] done sewer and water, we've done it in
one shot, man. We did Church Street, the
[1:22:14] entire thing, one year. We just got it
done. If we're talking about concerns
[1:22:18] about affordability, why did we build an
$8 million new village hall if now
[1:22:22] everybody all of the sudden nobody has
any money to pay for anything?
[1:22:26] That's what I don't understand.
>> Well, I agree with you. Oh, hang on.
[1:22:30] » Let me say that because if this makes
sense financially to do it all in one
[1:22:34] year because we save money, but now it's
but now that every single time something
[1:22:38] that makes sense on paper to save money
is not you can't afford it because it's
[1:22:42] too much of a lump sum, how are we going
to convince people that we're putting in
[1:22:46] paying for a giant water tank over in
Marston? There's no affordability thing.
[1:22:50] There's a one-time thing of what, $4
million in the CIP? And this is an
[1:22:54] opportunity to actually actually really
save money by doing a project all at one
[1:22:58] time.
>> Okay, Michael. I think you have a very
[1:23:01] narrow look. Let's talk about the
Village Hall since you pointed that out.
[1:23:06] Sure. We have spread that cost over 5
years. We bought the lot.
[1:23:12] We then paid for the the architect.
Now we're paying for construction over 2
[1:23:19] years.
Over 2 years.
[1:23:22] And we timed it where we took things off
debt, so there was space. That first 3
[1:23:28] million people didn't notice it because
we pulled off we had completed debt. So
[1:23:33] that replaced it, so it stayed neutral.
So I'm going to disagree with you.
[1:23:39] Village Hall was well planned out for
the whole thought of not jumping up
[1:23:45] the cost of people's property tax. All
right? So that that's one thing I want
[1:23:50] you to correct. Now let's talk about the
reservoir you talked about. That
[1:23:54] reservoir we're getting someone to pay
57%.
[1:23:59] I'm we as a village are saving 57%
on a reservoir. We're not paying 100%.
[1:24:07] Now if you can get Park Street someone
to pay for 57% of it, I'm all for doing
[1:24:13] it all at once. But you're not there. I
just want to make sure you've got to
[1:24:17] look at big picture here and look at the
planning that has gone into some of
[1:24:23] these major projects.
All right. So,
[1:24:29] I'm I'm understanding where you're
coming from. I'm just
[1:24:34] Well, no. There's no way they actually
have a chance
[1:24:38] But Michael, I brought that out as one
of the things that should be taken into
[1:24:44] consideration. I'm not saying that I'm
even for breaking it into three. I'm
[1:24:49] just giving you
the feedback on why it would make sense
[1:24:54] to break it out. And that's the main
reason. All right. It also would make if
[1:25:00] you ask me, I'd like to postpone the
thing until we really know what's going
[1:25:04] to happen next year with a number of
projects that are already going.
[1:25:09] » Well, I'm fine with postponing.
>> So, but we have the people here. And
[1:25:14] again, this is a discussion that we need
all of our input in and looking at the
[1:25:20] different one. There is not one solution
to this. And we all probably have
[1:25:25] different ideas on where we weigh weigh
things. You know, I'm all for saving
[1:25:30] money. Absolutely, 100%. I'm just wanted
to point out the other side of it where
[1:25:37] that can be a problem to some of our
residents. That's all.
[1:25:41] » Bill.
How many water main breaks do we have on
[1:25:45] Park Street?
>> Um I believe there's
[1:25:47] » Per year or so?
>> Uh there's 20 documented. Um the pipes
[1:25:53] was put in in 1959.
So, we don't really have a whole lot of
[1:25:57] information prior to 2000. But
>> But even in the past couple years, we've
[1:26:02] had quite a few
>> There's about one a year.
[1:26:05] » About one a year?
>> Yeah.
[1:26:06] » And what's it cost us to to fix to fix
that?
[1:26:09] » Uh but I thought it was only 5,000.
>> Yeah, it's like I did a rough estimate
[1:26:13] of, you know, 5,000.
>> Who would pay for it?
[1:26:16] » But I think the main reason we're
looking at part three is more to the
[1:26:21] sewer side of it because it's very old
piping in there and it's clay piping and
[1:26:28] the water's getting
into the pipe and then that goes to the
[1:26:33] sewer plant which affects capacity and
affects that clear water that we get
[1:26:39] graded down on in those reports. So it
needs to happen. I don't get me wrong. I
[1:26:44] am not arguing that it doesn't. I'm
trying to piece everything together that
[1:26:50] makes sense
and keep it in an idea that
[1:26:55] there's so much uncertainty
next year on how this all works with
[1:27:01] this big assessment. Everything's going
to be tied to that. So I just want to
[1:27:06] make sure we have a good decision here
and like I say
[1:27:10] I may you know, I'm kind of saying if
like
[1:27:14] just let's get it all done with, but I
do need to know what the total impact is
[1:27:20] going to be on our residents and it's
you know, we're working hard to see what
[1:27:26] the budget and what salaries and base
budgets are for that part of it. Then
[1:27:31] we're looking at borrowing and we got to
realistically look when we do the CIP
[1:27:38] what we're doing there because while it
doesn't hit levy limit, we still got to
[1:27:42] pay for that debt.
>> Okay, so I got one more question.
[1:27:45] » Yeah, go ahead.
>> So then
[1:27:46] » These are important.
>> Yeah. So
[1:27:50] what is what is the impact on water
sewer if you wait a year?
[1:27:55] A year then.
>> Well, the impact is $2 to $5 per
[1:28:00] thousand gallons treated. So that means
just that more much more I&I going to
[1:28:06] the sewer plant that needs to be treated
that shouldn't happen.
[1:28:09] » Do you have a guess on what that cost
would be? I know I've tried adding this
[1:28:13] together.
>> I know it's a guess.
[1:28:18] » So it would maybe
Well, at the high end it would be $1,000
[1:28:22] but the low end is $400 for the elbows.
Two per thousand gallon. You're doing
[1:28:27] Well, if you're if you're doing 250, two
is 500 and five is 1250 a day per rain
[1:28:33] day. This summer when you rain days are
>> It's I think I estimated about 100 rain
[1:28:37] days and it was around $70,000.
>> Okay. Okay.
[1:28:42] I mean this summer we probably haven't
added too many though.
[1:28:44] » Uh June was
>> They rained every day it seemed like.
[1:28:48] » They hang on for a day or two after
>> I think it's rained then. But I don't
[1:28:51] know. We've had pretty dry spells this
summer.
[1:28:55] » Yeah, July was very dry.
[1:28:59] » All right. So this So if we delayed this
by So if we delayed this for a year,
[1:29:04] figure the cost is going to be in the
neighborhood of
[1:29:09] You could say
>> 70. That's a firm 70. 70 grand.
[1:29:15] » Okay.
>> That
[1:29:16] But I I don't want to keep throwing
things in but the other problem that is
[1:29:21] I'm not It's
There's more of a chance of interest
[1:29:26] rates going up than down. 10-year
uh government notes are at the highest
[1:29:32] level since uh for the since the last
decade. And a lot of long-term mortgages
[1:29:38] are tied to that.
So that's
[1:29:42] I don't I don't want necessarily we have
to play that game but
[1:29:46] » and
>> I know it is. I'm just throwing that out
[1:29:48] there. I'm I'm trying to read everything
here.
[1:29:50] » Right. I get it.
>> And try to put all the pieces together
[1:29:53] for us.
>> I have one question.
[1:29:56] » Go ahead, Jed.
>> If we delay that for a year, I mean
[1:30:00] we've got the wastewater treatment
facility updates for $2.7 million
[1:30:05] dollars the following year in 20
28 for the water infrastructure at 3 and
[1:30:12] 1/2 million dollars. I mean, are we even
able to push that off or we pushing then
[1:30:16] other things back down another year?
>> Well, the
[1:30:20] sewer
we'll wait for that report and I am
[1:30:24] hoping it's going to be here the next
month or two. That'll give us a really
[1:30:28] good idea but that's a separate thing
cuz that's a utility.
[1:30:32] Um and that one if you remember we're in
really financially that is probably in
[1:30:38] the best shape of anything in the
village. If you remember with the
[1:30:42] auditor's report on the borrowing
uh they like a one-to-one but we're at
[1:30:47] one-to-three a little over three it was
3.1.
[1:30:51] The water's definitely going to be
uh
[1:30:54] a concern. Uh again that won't
that'll be by the utility but you're
[1:30:59] right that's going to come out of
people's pocket. Um
[1:31:05] and you're right that could be it's
probably more likely two three years I
[1:31:10] would think. Don't you think Brian?
Would you think in two years the
[1:31:14] reservoir would be up?
>> Uh yes.
[1:31:18] » Oh, you do?
You think oh, okay.
[1:31:23] » It'd be here winter of 28.
Or fall 28.
[1:31:27] » Oh, fall of 28 okay. So, but we could do
this in 27.
[1:31:33] That would spread it out.
Those two projects.
[1:31:38] Right?
>> Yeah, then
[1:31:41] even though we have the repairs on the
sewer they're still
[1:31:45] that's
>> Yeah.
[1:31:46] » that's all good.
>> Yeah, I like I say I'm pretty
[1:31:49] comfortable
>> Yeah, just project wise.
[1:31:51] » Yeah, yeah because of and and we'll have
a better idea at the end of this year
[1:31:57] on sewer because then those rate
reduction that we did will be 100%
[1:32:02] accounted for. But right now
the sewer looks really well looks really
[1:32:06] good and the adding of the new houses
and
[1:32:10] the
uh
[1:32:12] connection fees and stuff were really
kind of building up
[1:32:17] cash there.
[1:32:21] All right.
Um are there any more questions on this
[1:32:24] cuz I don't I don't I don't want to vote
on this until we get to the CIP.
[1:32:31] But this is your question to brainstorm
on uh
[1:32:36] the scenarios that have been
brought to you and have any questions
[1:32:42] answered. You guys uh Jed or Cameron you
got any more questions on any of the
[1:32:48] scenarios or how they would work?
>> No, I'm good right now.
[1:32:53] » I'm also good.
>> Okay, very good. Um so we will continue
[1:33:00] this when we do the CIP.
[1:33:04] All right, good.
[1:33:11] Okay, five discussion and possible
action regarding proposed
[1:33:16] bicycle ordinance amendments to section
51.14.
[1:33:20] Who's taking lead on this?
>> Chief.
[1:33:22] » Chief?
>> Cameron Cameron you can start if you
[1:33:26] like.
>> All right, Cameron you're up.
[1:33:30] » Sure.
Um so
[1:33:33] you know
public safety took this matter well I
[1:33:36] don't know it was
three-ish months ago four-ish months ago
[1:33:39] we we had quite a few meetings on it
because it's coming up more and more
[1:33:44] across Dane County and other places. I
mean in fact even since we had our
[1:33:48] original proposal for updating the
ordinance, you know, I think UW Health
[1:33:52] has come out with a pretty prominent um
safety study around e-bikes and and
[1:33:57] stuff. So, really applaud Chief Tony for
having kind of the foresight and stuff
[1:34:01] for us to be be looking at this early.
Um we did we came to the Village Board
[1:34:06] with a an original proposal out of uh
Village out of Public Safety and um
[1:34:12] there were some concerns in particular
about um parks and trails and, you know,
[1:34:18] what would be allowed there. So, we
referred the matter back to parks. And
[1:34:22] then the matter matter came back to
Public Safety uh this past week and what
[1:34:26] you're seeing now here I think is
hopefully the final iteration after
[1:34:30] parks and Public Safety have taken a
number of bites of this apple.
[1:34:34] Um
do you want me to read it or can I go
[1:34:37] over some of the highlights?
>> Uh
[1:34:40] what do you want?
>> Well, I I would just add that not only
[1:34:44] has that gone through the committees,
but it also has been seen by our Village
[1:34:49] Attorney twice.
[1:34:54] » Okay. So, why don't you go through the
highlights uh Cameron?
[1:34:59] » Okay. I mean the the key highlights from
when you guys last saw this
[1:35:05] um are the additions to um so, before we
had said no e-bikes, no e-scooters, no
[1:35:11] nothing in any parks or trails or
conservancy.
[1:35:14] Um we had that has been amended slightly
here. So, now it's just class three
[1:35:20] e-bikes are not allowed on any of the um
the trails in in paths.
[1:35:26] Class one and two
uh and electric scooters are allowed,
[1:35:30] but they cannot exceed 15 mph. Um
also in addition to the park land and
[1:35:35] conservancies, we um well, the parks
committee um added sidewalks as well,
[1:35:41] which was good.
Um we've added some stuff in for um you
[1:35:45] know, you know, if the Chief of Police
or someone he designates put signs up,
[1:35:49] we could, you know, say, "Hey, no
e-bikes here." That seems to be very
[1:35:54] similar to what Madison and Middleton
has.
[1:35:57] Um
And the we are suggesting not suggesting
[1:36:04] our ordinance will have that groups of
riders on bicycles and e-bikes may
[1:36:09] operate two abreast instead of single
file in the village that aligns with
[1:36:13] state law.
Um
[1:36:17] I think the only other thing we really
changed since the last time this group
[1:36:20] saw it is
helmet requirements.
[1:36:27] Anyone riding a class three or I'm
sorry, anyone riding an e-bike under the
[1:36:32] age of 18 um
will be required to wear a helmet given
[1:36:38] that they go a lot faster.
[1:36:43] » I think this timing is perfect and I
really appreciate all the work. I saw
[1:36:48] that
not only on the local news but it made
[1:36:51] on the national news. So, it is a topic
that's very current and I'm glad we're
[1:36:58] in the forefront of doing something. Did
your I think this is great. I'm very
[1:37:03] supportive of it. The question I have
for you is what
[1:37:08] did you discuss any things on strategies
of getting the word out and educating
[1:37:13] the community on this?
>> Well, I think for us it's going to be a
[1:37:17] lot of social media getting the the
schools.
[1:37:21] We've already had one bike rodeo during
national night out but doing another you
[1:37:27] know, bike rodeo during that time. I
mean, these things are going to be put
[1:37:31] to sleep here within the next month or
so. So, I think we're we're on the right
[1:37:35] trail. We'll just have to hammer it
away, you know, put it in the paper and
[1:37:39] whatever wherever we can put it, maybe
through flyers,
[1:37:42] posted everywhere and anywhere. Um I
think that
[1:37:47] that will be uh for sure. And you're
right, it's not only it's making
[1:37:51] national news, but it was just it was in
the local municipality was talking about
[1:37:55] it. I mean, everybody's talking about
it. It's it's
[1:37:57] it's it's a it's a topic and um
the
[1:38:01] I think that this was well thought out.
I appreciate Parks taking
[1:38:06] a hard look at it. They even looked at
it from the lines of public safety also.
[1:38:10] So, I think you know, we we saw some
things. I mean, there's some things that
[1:38:14] you know, some disagreements, but that
was all healthy and helped us come with
[1:38:19] this final product. Uh, I will add that
um
[1:38:23] our village attorney had also in number
15 where it says electric bikes and
[1:38:27] electric scooters, he had put just
bicycles. And I just felt that was just
[1:38:31] that's just too much to enforce helmets
on
[1:38:34] regular bicycles. It just seems
very heavy-handed.
[1:38:37] The other thing we will do is uh once
this gets approved uh in whatever group
[1:38:42] whatever state it does, um we're going
to educate our officers. They're
[1:38:46] well-versed in the state law of it. Um
fortunate for us I have Matt as a member
[1:38:53] of the Traffic Safety Commission. So, he
brings back a lot of topics from that.
[1:38:57] But also, we we've had uh education from
other communities uh through PowerPoints
[1:39:02] of what they're doing, um incorporating
that on their own village ordinance but
[1:39:07] how the state law works. Uh, we'll be
very, you know, proactive on this, you
[1:39:11] know, when we Right now, we do a lot of
proactivity on bikes, you know,
[1:39:15] giving if somebody's got a helmet on,
we're giving them out,
[1:39:19] you know, tokens for ice cream and and
just addaboys and high-fives and those
[1:39:23] kind of things. I think this will will
come in handy. The village is There are
[1:39:27] village members who are are confused
with state law and why don't we have an
[1:39:32] ordinance? So, I think this will help
guide them. You'll also see that there's
[1:39:37] some stuff embedded in here
um that is already state law, but we we
[1:39:43] put it in here so people could read it.
Much like the fireworks ordinance, if
[1:39:47] you remember, the reason we added some
language is because you can always lean
[1:39:51] on numbers and say, "Well, you can look
at, you know, state statute, whatever."
[1:39:55] But the ones that we saw for sure need
to be abiding, and we added them to our
[1:39:59] ordinance, even though they're already
even though they're part of state law.
[1:40:03] So, it's just to give some
some language for the people to read.
[1:40:11] » Okay, go ahead. I had a question.
>> Go ahead.
[1:40:14] » You were first.
>> Okay.
[1:40:15] » And then
>> Um
[1:40:17] So, if I read this, I'm just wrapping
me. Are bicycles not allowed on
[1:40:22] sidewalks?
>> Bicycles are allowed.
[1:40:24] » They are?
>> They are allowed. So, I am
[1:40:26] » We just have to give
>> We're just adding this to the bicycle
[1:40:29] ordinance. Bicycle ordinance already
exists.
[1:40:31] » But the bicycles won't have to give
right of way.
[1:40:34] » Right. Right. But I'm just thinking I
thought it was no bicycle and I'm
[1:40:37] thinking my little 4-year-old
granddaughter, she's on Actually, I want
[1:40:39] her on the sidewalk. You know what I
mean? It's on the sidewalk. She can be
[1:40:41] on the sidewalk.
>> As long as she's as long as she's not
[1:40:45] going over 15 mph, Judy.
>> Um the other thing you'll see here is
[1:40:50] there's some that seem
kind of
[1:40:55] weird that we wouldn't enforce like
racing, for instance, right?
[1:41:00] Two bikes can't race. Well, we're we're
not specifically talking about like two
[1:41:04] 8-year-olds racing their bikes down the
street or they're on the sidewalk.
[1:41:08] That's not what we're talking. We're
talking about kids that can go on the
[1:41:11] e-bikes really fast racing down the
sidewalks
[1:41:15] I mean, we've been passed by some of
those bikes um in our SWAT times, and I
[1:41:20] have to educate people already because
we have state law. So, that the spirit
[1:41:24] of this law is not to enforce it against
those little kids having a good time
[1:41:28] outside with, you know,
It will be very well monitored
[1:41:34] and how in compliance will be
the most important.
[1:41:39] Uh this is more, you know, if you've got
a couple kids racing down Main Street at
[1:41:44] 20 miles an hour on their e-bikes, that
is
[1:41:47] covered by all means for the law.
That is all.
[1:41:52] » And there's going to be a big
educational part.
[1:41:54] » educational part of that. And we'll
hammer education
[1:41:58] before them.
>> Bill.
[1:42:01] » I really appreciate Safety and Parks
taking the time. This has been an
[1:42:06] ongoing issue and
so I am going to
[1:42:11] make a motion that we approve the
ordinance to repeal and recreate section
[1:42:16] 551.14
of the Village of Cross Plains Code of
[1:42:20] Ordinances
concerning bicycles.
[1:42:26] » I will second.
>> All right, I have a motion and a second.
[1:42:30] Any other discussion? Now, this is one
of those ordinances we should put on our
[1:42:35] website that it's a change.
[1:42:39] And did you did either of the committees
do a public hearing on this at all?
[1:42:44] » I think we asked that question.
>> Paul said we didn't need to cuz it was a
[1:42:50] change.
>> No, no, there's legally you don't have
[1:42:54] to. It's just sometimes we do it like
when we did the ATV UTV, we had public
[1:43:00] hearings just so people don't accuse us
of doing things behind their backs.
[1:43:06] » I think the first time, if I remember
correctly, that we had this on the
[1:43:10] agenda, we did have kind of an
additional public hearing. Do you
[1:43:13] remember that, Jay?
>> I
[1:43:15] » [laughter]
>> Okay, maybe not.
[1:43:16] » It's just a matter of
months.
[1:43:18] » But yeah, I don't think anything
happened at at the committee.
[1:43:22] » we have to do it. I'm just asking so
people
[1:43:26] ask me or
>> Yeah, it might have been at the
[1:43:28] building.
>> That if we did if we could if we did one
[1:43:32] brave if we didn't find
>> I'm pretty sure we did one. I just cuz I
[1:43:36] added in an additional public hearing
and I remember you saying why did we do
[1:43:39] that and I was like just in case
somebody had something to say.
[1:43:43] And I believe Jill Hedgecock said
something came up and made a remark.
[1:43:48] » That's right.
>> Yeah.
[1:43:50] » So if we did one that's that's fine.
I just want to like I said I'm just
[1:43:54] asking for information that it's not a
critique in any way.
[1:44:00] All right. Any other discussion?
All in favor say I.
[1:44:04] » I.
>> All opposed same.
[1:44:08] » Thank you.
>> Yeah, thank you. Good job.
[1:44:12] All right. Six discussion and possible
action regarding the new Village Hall
[1:44:17] Police Department.
>> All right. Want to start with
[1:44:20] technology?
>> Yeah, why not?
[1:44:23] » All right. So I'll just give you brief
history even though it's not actually
[1:44:27] that brief on the technology bids.
Um so this was back the first time we
[1:44:33] came to the Village Board with bids was
June 22nd and then after those getting
[1:44:39] reformatted and split into a separate
security bid and an AV bid
[1:44:44] we came back on July 27th. Um and so the
board chose to award the AV bid and not
[1:44:51] the security bid. So it's been another
month and so now tonight we have
[1:44:57] security bid options for the Village
Board to consider.
[1:45:01] Um and so three came in.
Um all relatively close so those were
[1:45:07] all opened on Thursday at 2:00. So we
had Omni Technologies
[1:45:12] out of Oregon, Wisconsin, Community
Enginee- Communications Engineering Co
[1:45:17] or CEC
that is who the AV bid was awarded to.
[1:45:23] They do have a Madison office and I
think their headquarters are in Iowa.
[1:45:28] Um, and then Advanced Technical LLC out
of New Berlin, Wisconsin, um, came in as
[1:45:34] well. So, there are three pretty close
bids here, um, tonight. The low bid is
[1:45:39] Omni Technology at $157,223.
[1:45:44] Um, however, your second closest is CEC,
who is also doing the AV bid at 160,
[1:45:51] um, thousand 114.
Um, so, roughly, you know, under a
[1:45:56] $3,000 difference between the first two
bidders. Um, so, the recommendation from
[1:46:00] Wold is the low bid, um, without the
alternate, so just the base bid at
[1:46:05] 157,223.
And I do believe Matt Bickel's on the
[1:46:10] call as well.
[1:46:16] » Yes, I'm here, Carli, if there are any
questions.
[1:46:19] » All right. I just have
one question. How closely are together
[1:46:26] is the security system with the AV, the
audio-visual part of it? Do they use the
[1:46:33] same software? Do they use the same
hardware?
[1:46:37] Um,
is there going to be where they need to
[1:46:40] talk to each other? I
[1:46:46] » Generally no, Jay. I mean, they will
have some pieces of equipment that live
[1:46:49] in the same environment in terms of the
server room or IDF, but, um,
[1:46:56] in terms of the
the systems themselves, they are
[1:46:59] independent.
>> Yeah, and the reason I asked that, we're
[1:47:03] looking at the difference of, uh,
basically a little over 3,000 to have
[1:47:09] the same company, which would avoid any
finger pointing
[1:47:14] if we have a problem, if they're
connected enough that that could be a
[1:47:19] problem. If they're two separate units,
and that is not a concern that I'm fine,
[1:47:25] but I have no problem spending extra
3,000 to help if if that's going to be a
[1:47:31] problem. They just don't want to have to
fight, you know, it could have cost us
[1:47:35] more in the long run.
Is there a chance of any type of
[1:47:39] finger-pointing on this stuff?
[1:47:43] » I would anticipate not. Again, it's
they're they're they're not running on
[1:47:47] the same cable. Um you know, they're
different pathways, different conduits.
[1:47:52] Um
No, it it should There shouldn't be any
[1:47:56] risk of that.
>> A question I would have is would they
[1:47:59] be, you know, ordering things at the
same time from similar companies, like
[1:48:04] the timeline of things arriving? Would
would that be a benefit to having them
[1:48:10] both?
Having the same company provide both?
[1:48:16] » Um
I I think that any benefit that
[1:48:22] you would potentially have
gained from having them together, we
[1:48:26] sort of proved out when we
um
[1:48:30] when we bid it as a combined package.
Um the
[1:48:35] the opportunity for
um
[1:48:38] that economy I think is would would have
been in, you know, some of their
[1:48:45] site supervision, project management,
that type of thing. Um
[1:48:50] In terms of the, you know, equipment
that they're ordering, you know, I don't
[1:48:54] know that there's any significant
savings from sourcing it
[1:48:58] combined or separately.
[1:49:05] And to that point, um I think CEC had
that opportunity in bidding it the
[1:49:11] second time to
to realize that since they had already
[1:49:15] been awarded the contract for the audio
visual package that they perhaps had
[1:49:19] some economy. So, I would have expected
that to have been reflected in their
[1:49:24] bid.
Um
[1:49:26] you know, if that were the case. So, my
guess is that they sharpened their
[1:49:29] pencil as much as they
could, um you know, based on that
[1:49:33] reality and that's what you see
reflected here. So,
[1:49:39] » Bill,
why are we not doing alternative number
[1:49:43] one service maintenance option one or
two?
[1:49:47] » Great question, Bill. So, um the base
bid includes a 3-year
[1:49:53] um
main- maintenance expen- extension. So,
[1:49:56] that's a service agreement and an
extended warranty
[1:50:00] uh for both the audio visual and video
surveillance components of the project.
[1:50:05] Uh we bid alternates number one and
number two to give the village some
[1:50:09] um
exposure to what uh that
[1:50:13] a continuation of that cost for an
additional 3 years, so 6 years in total
[1:50:17] would be.
Um
[1:50:20] but I I don't know that at this point um
it's kind of like the uh
[1:50:27] the uh the service protection that they
offer you at Costco or Best Buy or
[1:50:32] wherever you buy your technology, right?
Um you know, it it's kind of that added
[1:50:37] warranty that probably doesn't get used
um a heck of a lot. So, um
[1:50:44] to go the extra 3 years,
um we don't think it's probably worth it
[1:50:48] at this point.
>> Great. Thank you. I appreciate that.
[1:50:52] » Do you have any other questions?
>> Cameron, your thoughts, please.
[1:50:59] » Um I think I don't think we would need
to combine them. I mean,
[1:51:05] I agree with everything that was already
stated on kind of
[1:51:08] we would have seen, you you economies of
scale if that were the case, um I would
[1:51:13] go with the first one.
The two-per one.
[1:51:18] » And what about uh
since you're in this business, the
[1:51:21] warranties and stuff?
What Bill was bringing up.
[1:51:25] » Oh,
I agree with him completely. They're
[1:51:28] unlikely to be used. Um
Yeah.
[1:51:33] » Okay.
Perfect.
[1:51:35] Chad, do you have anything uh
you want to comment on this since part
[1:51:39] of this is kind of what you do for a
living?
[1:51:42] » Uh I guess my only question was,
>> [snorts]
[1:51:45] » you know, adding in another contractor,
I mean, I guess that's the concern with,
[1:51:50] you know, now
the project manager has to deal with
[1:51:54] somebody else. Do we have any issues
there or is it the same kind of verbage
[1:51:58] here that they should have bid it if
they C E C wanted it and it is what it
[1:52:02] is?
[1:52:06] » Or the
>> Yeah, I mean, I think a lot of times, um
[1:52:09] and what we saw when we bid it the first
time was that
[1:52:13] and I I don't know with Omni
specifically.
[1:52:16] Um
you know, Communications Engineering
[1:52:19] Company is an outfit that does both
audio visual and security.
[1:52:24] Um
[1:52:27] Often times, you will have companies
that specialize in audio visual and they
[1:52:32] would have had to bring on a
subcontractor anyways to do the
[1:52:34] technology or vice versa.
Um
[1:52:37] so, I I I I don't think it's uncommon
that you know, you would you would see
[1:52:41] separate vendors in these
uh disciplines
[1:52:45] on the same site at the same time.
>> Okay. Thanks.
[1:52:52] » Any other questions?
Go ahead, Michael.
[1:52:57] » I don't know if I have a question, but
yeah, I I really don't know. I mean,
[1:53:02] having the one company do it sometimes
I mean, the one company do it. Like what
[1:53:07] do were saying.
Are there things there, other people
[1:53:10] there, other sub contractors there that
are the
[1:53:13] I don't know if that's worth $3,000 or
>> That's where it's like
[1:53:18] It is dealing with one person and not
two people and something happens cuz
[1:53:21] they are both contractors.
Hopefully, unless they're two
[1:53:25] independent divisions of a company.
I don't know. I don't know.
[1:53:29] » Well, I think that last point, we don't
know cuz
[1:53:33] it could be where they're
uh
[1:53:37] the one that we have for audio visual
might be their main and they just are
[1:53:41] subbing, you know, for the bid part. I
don't I don't know.
[1:53:44] I
I guess I'm I'm comfortable going with
[1:53:48] the lowest unless there's But that is a
the valid point, but it seems like most
[1:53:52] people don't think that's going to be a
problem.
[1:53:58] » No one else?
>> Go ahead, Bill.
[1:54:00] » I'll make a motion that we approve Omni
Technologies for the Off-Plane Village
[1:54:06] of Ball Police Station security package
for $157,223.
[1:54:12] » Second.
>> All right, I have a motion and a second.
[1:54:15] Any other discussion, Sarah?
>> I just wondered, is there anything on
[1:54:19] like the village's end that having the
two separate companies is going to add
[1:54:22] more uh hassle?
>> Well, it should be that this is just an
[1:54:28] install.
>> Okay. I mean, we'll have to do like the
[1:54:31] like new customer paperwork and kind of
like the onboarding that we had to do
[1:54:35] with CEC already. I'm assuming we'd have
to do that with Omni as well.
[1:54:39] Um but I don't know like what to what
extent that might look like for that
[1:54:42] company.
Um I guess yeah, the benefit would be
[1:54:46] that we're already kind of an
established customer at this point now
[1:54:49] that we've filled out all the paperwork
for CEC.
[1:54:52] But
>> But for the $3,000 savings, do you think
[1:54:56] it's reasonable?
>> I I just don't know. Like yeah, I can't
[1:55:01] anticipate. I mean, the the other thing
I could think of is
[1:55:06] yeah, the extra like extra group on
site. I know things are getting pretty
[1:55:11] tight as far as walls getting closed up
as far as like running conduit and
[1:55:15] things like that. Um so, like these both
companies are going to have to work
[1:55:20] really closely with Brickel Brothers to
get things moving. But, I mean, we don't
[1:55:25] know
we have no way to anticipate how that's
[1:55:29] going to look, I guess.
[1:55:34] » Carly, I I
excuse the
[1:55:37] um unknowing question, I guess, but is
there a local ordinance that allows you
[1:55:43] to
take a non-low bid?
[1:55:46] » That's what I was wondering.
>> Uh yeah, cuz this is a service. It's not
[1:55:51] We follow uh state statute, and then we
have
[1:55:55] » our own purchasing policy.
>> Yeah, purchasing uh policy, and we've
[1:55:59] got all of that.
>> So, we do have the option, yeah.
[1:56:03] » Yeah.
But, generally, you want to go with low
[1:56:05] bid unless you can come up with a really
good reason. And to me, if there was
[1:56:10] shared server or software, that would be
automatic 3,000. I would definitely do
[1:56:16] it to prevent the
pointing of fingers if something doesn't
[1:56:20] work.
That for sure would have been a
[1:56:23] no-brainer for me.
>> Yeah. Does that change anything for you,
[1:56:25] Matt? Like any of
>> No, I just wasn't aware of how you were
[1:56:31] going to go about making that uh motion.
Um
[1:56:37] it'll be unusual in my my world, but
[1:56:44] » All right. Anything else?
All right. All in favor, say I.
[1:56:49] » I.
>> I.
[1:56:50] » I.
>> All opposed, say so moved.
[1:56:58] » All right. I think you're up next again,
Matt.
[1:57:01] » Want me to keep going, Carly? All right,
great. Um
[1:57:04] Sounds good. Uh so, we do have change
order number two to present to the board
[1:57:09] this evening.
Um
[1:57:13] there are three items that comprise this
change order.
[1:57:18] Uh the first one is by far away the
largest of the three.
[1:57:23] Um so, I will do my best to explain it
and then answer any questions.
[1:57:28] Um
so, as
[1:57:30] I assume everyone knows, um during the
design of the project, uh a decision was
[1:57:36] made to um
uh delay installation of an emergency
[1:57:41] generator for the project as a cost
savings measure to some point uh in the
[1:57:47] future.
And so, the project was designed with
[1:57:51] that future
uh generator reality um you know, sort
[1:57:56] of contemplated. Uh that means that the
spaces um you know, planned for it on
[1:58:01] the site, the you know, conduits are run
out to
[1:58:05] um the pad. Um you know, there is space
in the electrical room for the automatic
[1:58:09] transfer switch, uh etc. Um in doing so,
um we also
[1:58:17] um included in the project a what's
called a docking station.
[1:58:21] Uh that is basically, you know, an
umbilical that uh in the event that
[1:58:26] well, you don't have a generator, you
find yourselves in a prolonged period of
[1:58:32] power outage,
uh and you want to bring a portable
[1:58:34] generator onto the site, you can do so,
plug into the building, run the building
[1:58:39] off of that portable generator. Uh the
added secondary benefit of that um
[1:58:45] docking station is down the road, once
you do have a generator, if you need to
[1:58:51] do some type of maintenance on that
generator or replace that generator and
[1:58:55] again are without the generator for some
period of time, you can use a portable
[1:58:59] generator
as a backup for the building.
[1:59:03] Um
it's a little bit atypical and so
[1:59:08] as the project was designed went through
the shop drawing phase
[1:59:13] where the contractor was submitting
their you know sort of you know
[1:59:16] schematics for what they were planning
to
[1:59:19] purchase and install
it came to everyone's attention that
[1:59:24] there is
sort of a component of
[1:59:28] this that is lacking. So
um
[1:59:32] essentially when there is an automatic
transfer switch that is intended to flip
[1:59:40] the power from you know your primary
power to your generator or from your
[1:59:45] generator to your
um
[1:59:49] your docking station or portable
generator
[1:59:52] that provides you know the necessary
isolation between the
[1:59:58] various power
power sources
[2:00:02] because the automatic transfer switch
was planned as a future component along
[2:00:07] with the future generator
we don't have that mechanism for
[2:00:10] isolating it and so that needed to be
added to the project. Um so that's
[2:00:16] what's the cost here the $29,145
[2:00:21] is to add the component that makes that
sequencing
[2:00:26] work.
A couple things that I will mention
[2:00:29] there's really no other way to do it
short of
[2:00:33] buying the future transfer switch which
would be
[2:00:36] a more uh
significant cost
[2:00:41] and you would be paying for this at that
time anyway. So that the same component
[2:00:45] is going in now into the panel would be
a component that you would need when you
[2:00:50] had that transfer switch.
Uh so it's a little bit of now or then
[2:00:54] uh situation.
The second part is uh when the cost was
[2:00:57] originally submitted by Brickel Brothers
um through their electrical contractor,
[2:01:03] uh the cost was actually closer to
$48,000
[2:01:06] um and so through meeting with them,
through kind of talking through what it
[2:01:11] is that they were
proposing to do, uh we were able to
[2:01:15] um you know, recognize a reduction of
that cost down to the 29 145. So um you
[2:01:21] know, we do believe that this is the the
fair value for it. Um it is required to
[2:01:26] make uh the emergency power systems work
uh as intended. Uh and so that is why um
[2:01:33] you know, we're asking for this to
to be included
[2:01:37] in Brickel Brothers contract.
I'll pause there and answer any
[2:01:40] questions before I move on to the other
two items.
[2:01:47] » Well, I I got a question, I guess.
And this is just for the board. Why
[2:01:52] wasn't that put into the original
document since from day one we knew we
[2:02:01] were going to need this?
And so, you know, it's been
[2:02:07] on my mind is why wasn't that in there?
It certainly wasn't the village
[2:02:13] uh
neglecting to say what our future plans
[2:02:17] were. I mean, it was from day one
we were planning on doing this. And now
[2:02:21] I think it's a little unfair
that we have to add this on because it
[2:02:26] wasn't part of
the original plans which was bidded on.
[2:02:35] » Well, um I mean, that's that's a a fair
question, Jay. Um it it
[2:02:41] was not included in the specifications
for the project again
[2:02:46] I think because of the atypical nature
of the configuration
[2:02:50] and so it was
something that should have been included
[2:02:54] and should have been
part of Brickel Brothers bids from day
[2:02:59] one but it wasn't included in the specs
and so they they didn't have that
[2:03:04] covered in their bid and
that's why it's a change order to their
[2:03:10] their contract.
[2:03:16] » So I
I
[2:03:17] I'm still I'll I'll be honest with you
man. I'm still because you know, I'm
[2:03:21] tolerant for errors. Everybody makes
errors and stuff but there's been a
[2:03:27] number of things that have not and this
is one that's a little frustrating on my
[2:03:33] part because
this was so well documented in our
[2:03:38] discussions that we were going to do
this. I just don't
[2:03:43] understand why we have to pay 100%
of of this.
[2:03:50] Cuz we really
quite frankly have no
[2:03:55] no thing in here that would cause us to
have cause this
[2:04:00] to happen.
[2:04:02] » So you should get it for free. Is that
what you're saying?
[2:04:06] » Well,
that would be my starting point. Yeah.
[2:04:10] That would be my starting point but
>> Well, let let me say this Jay for the
[2:04:14] sake of moving the conversation forward.
Um
[2:04:19] whether you think that the village
should be responsible for paying for it
[2:04:23] or not
the reality is that Brickel Brothers is
[2:04:27] due this amount
um due to the fact that it was not in
[2:04:32] the specifications. So
I would I guess recommend
[2:04:38] that the change order needs to be
approved in order for the work to get
[2:04:42] done, for the project to be completed.
And so, I guess, if there's
[2:04:48] you know, other discussions that need to
happen beyond that, I guess, let's let's
[2:04:53] have those conversations, but I don't
think that not approving the change
[2:04:57] order to Brickel Brothers is probably
an option that you have.
[2:05:02] » No, and I would that would not be my
option at all. I
[2:05:06] I I agree with your statement 100% and
we certainly can't
[2:05:11] do I don't want to have any
responsibility in slowing this project
[2:05:14] down at all. I just want you to know
that at least from my perspective
[2:05:23] and
uh
[2:05:24] we can approve this with the
understanding and the verbage that it's
[2:05:29] under protest and then we can uh have
discussions later on
[2:05:35] on on this. So, I kind of agree with
you, but I just wanted that
[2:05:40] you to know that this is at least where
I'm coming from.
[2:05:47] And we'll see what the board wants to
do.
[2:05:50] But, I agree with you, we need to
approve it. It's it's needed in the
[2:05:55] building. I don't know if they've
already ordered it. I'm hoping they have
[2:05:59] because I know what these delays are,
but I just want to make it very clear
[2:06:03] that we you know, I'm going to ask the
board to do it under protest.
[2:06:13] » And just to answer your question, the
we communicated to Brickel that this was
[2:06:18] going to be included in an upcoming
change order. Um and so, with that
[2:06:22] acknowledgement, um
you know, they did go ahead and release
[2:06:26] it as to not cause any delay.
>> Perfect. Thank you.
[2:06:31] All right, any other questions on this
one?
[2:06:37] All right, why don't you go ahead with
the next two then? Thanks.
[2:06:41] » Yep. Um so the second item is um
there's an area in the lower level
[2:06:48] uh in
the toilet room that has a shower in it.
[2:06:52] Um
there was some plumbing piping to
[2:06:56] serving the shower
uh that um needed to be routed
[2:07:02] um along uh the port and place concrete
foundation wall could not be obviously
[2:07:06] poured or or put into the wall. Uh and
so as a field condition, they had to fur
[2:07:12] out that wall
um so that the piping could be concealed
[2:07:16] within in the wall and make the the
toilet room work. Uh that was an add of
[2:07:21] $623.79.
[2:07:26] And the second item was at the high roof
of the main entry.
[2:07:31] Um there's kind of a three-sided parapet
wall along that sort of sloped upper
[2:07:36] roof uh that drains to a kind of a
gutter on the fourth side.
[2:07:41] Um
during the
[2:07:44] structural engineering shop drawing
phase,
[2:07:47] um
it was discovered or indicated uh that
[2:07:51] they needed to add a little bit of steel
reinforcement or steel kickers
[2:07:56] uh to um add to the rigidity of that uh
assembly. Uh and so that was a
[2:08:04] an add uh in the amount of $835.92.
[2:08:14] Did anybody have any
questions on this?
[2:08:25] All right, Jed, Cameron.
[2:08:30] » None for me.
>> Nope.
[2:08:34] » All right. Do we have a motion?
Would you like me to do it?
[2:08:39] » Maybe he's got it.
>> I make a motion
[2:08:43] uh to approve
uh
[2:08:46] the change orders.
Uh the It's just change order two.
[2:08:51] » Number two.
>> Yeah, change order number two
[2:08:54] with the understanding that the
um
[2:08:59] docking station connection is under
protest.
[2:09:05] » I'll second that.
>> I have a motion and a second. Any
[2:09:10] discussion?
[2:09:15] All in favor say I.
>> I.
[2:09:17] » I.
>> All opposed say
[2:09:21] So moved.
All right. We will go Thank you, Matt,
[2:09:26] for coming to the meeting.
>> Thank you.
[2:09:31] » All right.
We are now at discussion and possible
[2:09:35] action regarding the 2027
capital improvement uh project. What
[2:09:41] we're going to do is we'll go through
this
[2:09:44] uh
each line
[2:09:48] and um
vote on them indiv-
[2:09:52] individually.
I'll have Bobby to start the process,
[2:09:57] kind of explain
what the red means and
[2:10:04] and what all else you want us to know
before we start this discussion.
[2:10:08] » Yeah, so the projects in red um are ones
that are kind of up in the air right
[2:10:12] now. The flood mitigation project we
actually got an email today from
[2:10:16] Wisconsin Emergency Management.
>> Mhm.
[2:10:19] » Um so this This one where we were
told that there might be additional
[2:10:23] grant funding to increase the project.
Um so I think that she said we could go
[2:10:27] ahead and submit something for that. So
again,
[2:10:31] these numbers will likely change before
this is up for vote.
[2:10:34] » Right. Can I just comment? When she's
talking about the changing of the
[2:10:38] number, ours will stay the same at 25.
It's the 200,000
[2:10:44] that may go up if Brian's still here. At
least 100,000 if I'm right. Or is it
[2:10:48] 200,000?
>> It was 100,000.
[2:10:51] » could go up to 300,000.
>> He asked for the full amount.
[2:10:54] » Which was
300 or was it
[2:10:56] » the total I think he asked for the total
cost of the project.
[2:11:01] He He just sent that email today.
>> Okay, I guess I missed it.
[2:11:05] All right.
But I thought we still had a do a match
[2:11:08] of 25,000. But Well, we can check, but
generally the money that I My
[2:11:13] understanding we were trying to get more
money from FEMA. And uh
[2:11:18] through emergency bill.
>> And then obviously Park Street,
[2:11:22] we haven't decided for sure what we're
doing there.
[2:11:25] And then I highlighted in red the annual
street resurfacing just in case
[2:11:29] you know, depending on what we do with
Park Street, we want to do an additional
[2:11:32] project in that.
[2:11:36] I think that's kind of curious to work
to the
[2:11:39] Oh,
and then on the second page, the
[2:11:40] Marshall water infrastructure.
[2:11:44] And then, you know,
those
[2:11:47] numbers might change.
Well, you know, on in the wastewater
[2:11:51] treatment, obviously we won't go for
once.
[2:11:55] So we could tentatively approve projects
or just
[2:11:58] » Well, I I can tell you what I'll When we
get to the water treatment one, I'll be
[2:12:02] asking to postpone that to the first
meeting in November.
[2:12:07] So that way we can get that report and
have time hopefully to uh review it
[2:12:12] weekly. We'll have some
>> And again, approving this CIP plan
[2:12:16] doesn't mean we are doing the projects,
right? It's just
[2:12:20] It's a part of plan to do them.
And then they will be put on the budget
[2:12:24] and then we can approve or deny them on
the budget again.
[2:12:27] » Yeah, they can come up, but I I would
ask that if we approve that means we're
[2:12:31] pretty much in support of it, yeah.
>> But what was she just meaning that we
[2:12:36] approve it?
>> So it's
[2:12:38] What what what the What she's saying is
we approve this
[2:12:42] and then when we come time to borrow, if
there's a crisis somewhere and it needs
[2:12:47] to go somewhere else, we can say we're
not going to borrow for this.
[2:12:51] » Oh, so you would mean that?
>> What I mean is if we approve If we
[2:12:55] approve that Whatever we approve
tonight, I put on the capital fund
[2:12:59] budget.
>> Right.
[2:13:01] Oh.
>> So then when we approve the capital fund
[2:13:03] budget in November,
you know, something changes, you can
[2:13:08] » We can change it.
>> change it in that.
[2:13:09] » Of the capital fund
>> Yeah, but I mean we can change it until
[2:13:12] we actually buy the item.
>> Right.
[2:13:14] » No, I I understand.
>> Yeah. Okay.
[2:13:17] » I was just trying to figure out what he
meant.
[2:13:19] » All right, so let's just let's just
start at the top. The flood mitigation.
[2:13:23] Everybody's still comfortable with that
commitment of 25,000.
[2:13:27] And if it disappears, that's even
better.
[2:13:30] Any questions on that?
[2:13:34] All right, let's do a motion on it,
please.
[2:13:40] » I motion to approve the
What did he say the year? Just one flood
[2:13:45] mitigation project in 2017.
>> Yeah.
[2:13:49] » I'll second it.
>> All right, a motion and a second. Any
[2:13:52] discussion?
All in favor, say aye.
[2:13:57] » Aye.
>> Aye.
[2:13:58] » All All opposed, same.
All right.
[2:14:03] We're at the next one. Replace the 2007
[2:14:09] with used vehicle.
[2:14:14] » I didn't know we had a 2007 Dodge
Caravan.
[2:14:17] » It's that maroon one.
>> Yeah.
[2:14:19] » It's an old van.
Um currently it's sporadically used for
[2:14:23] water meter reading. That's about the
only thing it's used for. I know it
[2:14:27] I'm going to say 3 years ago in the
capital plan Mike had proposed
[2:14:32] trading it in and getting some grant
money for an electric vehicle, but that
[2:14:36] grant money fell through, so we never
did that.
[2:14:39] And so it's kind of those things like,
you know, what would you do with it
[2:14:41] again?
And so then we had an idea that we'll go
[2:14:46] to Papa.
>> Well, it's just uh
[2:14:49] you know, sending guys to class, sending
guys to on the east side of Madison for
[2:14:53] water samples, just have a different
vehicle rather than a 2500 or 3500
[2:14:58] truck.
You know, um and then Becky can use it.
[2:15:02] Uh staff can use it to go to trainings
and just kind of have a
[2:15:06] a normal vehicle rather than these big
trucks driving them.
[2:15:11] » Go ahead, Judy.
>> And then like let's say they didn't use
[2:15:14] it, we would just reimburse them on
their If they use their own vehicle,
[2:15:18] that's more reimbursement for their gas.
That's right.
[2:15:20] » Right.
>> Yeah. My question
[2:15:21] » So we would push to use this more used
reliable vehicle
[2:15:25] than a
the minivan that we have.
[2:15:28] » Do you think this could wait a year?
[2:15:32] » The minivan isn't getting used now, so
whether
[2:15:37] it's not going to get used if it waits a
year, but we there's an essentially an
[2:15:40] empty spot there.
[2:15:44] It would be
ideal to have.
[2:15:46] » So So it isn't Do we have this vehicle
or did it get sold? You said it's not
[2:15:50] being used currently.
>> Uh we took it up to auction because it's
[2:15:54] just wasn't It It It won't hold a
charge. It had some mechanical issues.
[2:15:59] » So we don't really own this. We don't
have it anymore. It's
[2:16:02] » Well, that's what you're saying. We
don't have a place. We don't even have
[2:16:04] it.
Have it. You want You want You're
[2:16:06] actually asking to buy it.
>> You need a vehicle.
[2:16:09] » Yeah.
>> Mhm.
[2:16:11] » Okay.
[2:16:14] » And do we know how much you got for the
van?
[2:16:17] » Uh it it hasn't hit auction yet. If we
get a thousand dollars, I'd be
[2:16:21] impressed.
>> Good.
[2:16:25] So, what is Becky using
to leave?
[2:16:29] » a personal vehicle.
>> Personal Otherwise, she'll like if
[2:16:31] there's a truck available, she'll use
>> She used the blue truck for a while.
[2:16:35] » We're not up there.
[2:16:40] » And how many miles did we put on that
van when you were there?
[2:16:43] » How close to use?
Uh well,
[2:16:46] » In recent years, not often not much at
all.
[2:16:49] » Was that It was Jerry's vehicle.
>> It was uh back in the day.
[2:16:52] » Was that just because of its reliability
or just because it didn't It didn't have
[2:16:57] » We travel to big towns.
We're in Corbet.
[2:17:01] It's only in that park.
>> All right. So, it doesn't sound like it
[2:17:06] was being used that
>> No, it
[2:17:08] » No, it
It had only been being used for Becky to
[2:17:12] do water rounds. But then it got to the
point where every time she shut it off,
[2:17:17] » the battery died.
>> The battery died. We'd have to We'd have
[2:17:20] to go out there and jump it. Just It was
not a safe reliable vehicle that I felt
[2:17:24] comfortable her going in. So, then we
started making sure trucks are available
[2:17:29] or you know, even sending guys, you
know, we even did class up in Green Bay.
[2:17:32] We had to take one of our 3,500 trucks,
you know.
[2:17:35] Ooh, a Silverado 3,500 or 2,500.
That's just not very economical.
[2:17:41] » And how often do you go out there to
change it?
[2:17:43] » You know, once twice a year or
>> Um a couple times a year.
[2:17:47] Um they're usually up in Plover for the
water, the sewer. Um water you need 18
[2:17:52] credits every 3 years. And then you got
a sewer that's another 18 credits every
[2:17:55] 3 years.
Plus the other
[2:17:58] trips.
>> How How about
[2:18:02] Here's a suggestion.
I would say
[2:18:06] uh we take this off
and we look at what we have at the end
[2:18:12] of the year
to go into the fund balance
[2:18:17] and if we're over our 20%
we can just pay cash using that instead
[2:18:23] of
the borrowing of it.
[2:18:27] » So you could like like not put it on the
like on our budget but do like a bunch
[2:18:31] of them then.
>> Yeah, we do we do it we'll see what it
[2:18:35] is if we have that extra cash because
that we kind of always use for capital
[2:18:40] this way
again knowing what happens it's not
[2:18:44] necessarily there and it can come back
and you guys can actually come back with
[2:18:48] an actual vehicle saying we'd like to
purchase
[2:18:51] this vehicle. I just think it would
clean things up a little bit and why
[2:18:55] borrow on that.
>> I talked to Dean and just get a rough
[2:18:58] number of what a used used vehicle would
cost and it's once we had an amount I
[2:19:03] was going to go to him and say hey can
you keep your eye out
[2:19:05] for this price range.
>> What are people's feelings on that?
[2:19:11] » I'm with you on that one. I don't want
to I think we got so many vehicles right
[2:19:14] now.
>> Okay.
[2:19:15] » Anyway.
>> I don't want to do it right now either.
[2:19:18] I feel like we can get by with
reimbursement and gas for now. I mean
[2:19:21] they're you know maybe they could do
that for now cuz we don't get paid very
[2:19:25] often.
>> Okay.
[2:19:27] Um
do you want us to put this to a vote or
[2:19:30] are you comfortable with what is being
said?
[2:19:33] » Yeah, that's
>> All right. Jared and Cameron are you
[2:19:35] okay with just pushing this off?
>> Absolutely.
[2:19:41] » Yes.
>> Okay.
[2:19:43] All right. So then we're look at what I
would I'm kind of with what Bobby had
[2:19:50] mentioned earlier. Generally when we do
a large street project we don't do
[2:19:56] uh
the smaller annual street resurfacing.
[2:20:00] So, I'm just going to flip those two.
Let's talk about the Park Street
[2:20:05] reconstruction.
>> One of the things I left out last time,
[2:20:11] just like we did with Creekside Way,
there is some alert money. So, this next
[2:20:15] year we'll have $59,000 to put towards
that. A benefit to splitting that,
[2:20:20] whether you do it in one year or not, at
least splitting the names of them into
[2:20:24] the two projects and that will allow me
to go
[2:20:27] This year is another alert year
that I can go and apply for some match
[2:20:32] money for that. What that ends up being
is we'll be up in the air to actually
[2:20:36] show that.
>> So,
[2:20:39] you're saying it would be better than to
for that for looking at that, it would
[2:20:43] be better to split the project than do
it all as once. Is that what I'm
[2:20:46] hearing?
>> Just naming wise. It and
[2:20:49] uh
>> Are you talking about the street
[2:20:52] resurfacing at Park Street?
>> No, just Park We're talking
[2:20:55] » about Park Street.
>> Okay, we're talking about Park Street.
[2:20:57] » So, it just gives me a chance to apply
for some alert money to put towards
[2:21:02] whether it's you can do them all in one
year, it's just it'd be
[2:21:06] named two separate projects.
>> Oh, so okay.
[2:21:14] All right, let's have the discussion on
Park Street.
[2:21:22] I know we've already talked about Yeah,
I know it's
[2:21:25] But we didn't I I want to know where
people's heads are and what you're
[2:21:28] thinking.
>> With one
[2:21:30] » Cuz this is where we're going to decide.
Right now what they're proposing on this
[2:21:35] is a one-year phase one.
Right? That's what's That's what we're
[2:21:41] here. So, that's what we're discussing.
So, there if the motion wants to do all,
[2:21:46] we're going to have to up that,
obviously.
[2:21:48] » I believe that's
>> I want to I want to split it in three
[2:21:50] pieces.
>> Okay, I'm hearing three.
[2:21:55] Equals
Go ahead, Michael.
[2:21:57] » I spent a little Excel-ing while we were
having other discussions and
[2:22:01] » You did?
>> No, I did
[2:22:03] » I'm glad you did.
>> I noticed like the numbers about
[2:22:05] crossing this project, so I was like,
all right, let's see what
[2:22:08] I can come up with. So, basically, for
the overall cost of the project, if we
[2:22:13] do it
in phase like if Okay, if we do it all
[2:22:16] in 1 year,
>> Yeah.
[2:22:18] » and this is combined general, water, and
sewer total cost. It's about $360,000
[2:22:24] of debt. That's doing a 10-year general
obligation loan, and I'm doing 20-year
[2:22:28] safe water, safe and clean water loans
at a reduced interest rate. The general
[2:22:33] I did at 4%, the other ones I did at
2.75.
[2:22:36] » Yeah, but why did you do 10-year? Why
won't you do 20 across the board?
[2:22:41] » Cuz a lot of times from this to 10 on
>> No, they only do 10 on like cars and
[2:22:45] stuff, right? Most street projects are
all 20.
[2:22:47] » Until recently, you weren't even allowed
to do 20 on your bonds. The village
[2:22:51] wasn't allowed to. That That state law
changed like 2 years ago.
[2:22:54] » Right, yeah. I'm trying to figure out
>> It was It was It was like last year or 2
[2:22:57] years ago.
>> Oh, okay.
[2:22:58] » We've always been 10-year general.
That's why I did that. We've only used a
[2:23:01] 20 really on the village hall project.
Like when we're taking out our loans,
[2:23:06] that's really the only one we've ever
taken out for longer periods. So, I just
[2:23:09] was using the standard
>> Okay.
[2:23:11] » 10-year.
>> No, that's good. I I just wanted to
[2:23:13] understand it.
>> So, basically, it's 360 per year if you
[2:23:18] do it on the 10-year general or the 20
on the others. If you break it out into
[2:23:22] three different phases, it's basically
120, 120, 120.
[2:23:26] Uh if you want breakdowns of specific
things, most of it ends up being on
[2:23:30] general obligation of the project.
I think the total cost in the packet was
[2:23:36] like 3 and 1/2 million and 2 million of
that for doing like the whole thing.
[2:23:39] Like we're talking about the whole
project.
[2:23:41] It's 3 and 1/2 million, but 2 million of
it looked like it ended up on general
[2:23:45] because it was that and so on.
Like we did this on general obligation
[2:23:49] » Yep.
>> from how they have it structured.
[2:23:51] » Yep.
>> So that's basically what's you're
[2:23:54] looking at. So over 3 years it's going
to be a 120 120 120. So at the end of
[2:23:57] that third year, you're going to be at
the 360 anyway, but you don't want those
[2:24:03] large hits like what you're talking
about. That's basically what's going to
[2:24:06] happen.
So then like now this is where it gets
[2:24:09] all funky cuz I don't know like new
assessment values and etc. But there was
[2:24:16] a rule of thumb that I
while ago I was able to use. When the
[2:24:19] village assessed value was like $500
million and you would have a $50,000
[2:24:25] house, basically
because those divided really well, every
[2:24:30] dollar of debt was basically a direct
transfer onto a $500,000 home owner.
[2:24:35] Meaning 120 You had a 120 If you took
out an extra $120,000 of GO debt,
[2:24:40] basically said that home owner was
paying an extra $120 that year because
[2:24:44] on a 500
$1,000 house, because the village was
[2:24:47] valued at $500 million like all the
zeros just canceled. So you can just
[2:24:51] cancel those.
Does that make sense?
[2:24:54] » Yeah, but I I think that seems high to
me. I think 120
[2:24:58] for each phase is a little high because
I thought
[2:25:02] when we had the chart up there, oh that
was just water.
[2:25:05] » But that's 120 for GO water and sewer.
So
[2:25:10] » I know that would be an increase of $120
on the property taxes.
[2:25:14] » No, that's not what I'm saying.
>> No, that's the amount of loan that has
[2:25:18] to be. The village has
The taxpayer has to pay Taxpayer
[2:25:23] have to pay $120,000
a year on GO and increased water and
[2:25:28] sewer rates. That's what that
village
[2:25:31] » Did that make sense?
>> Yeah, now now I'm following you.
[2:25:33] » I didn't break it out. I mean I can tell
you like what it is individually like
[2:25:38] » No, no, that's I understand now what
you're saying.
[2:25:40] » You know, it's uh uh
[2:25:44] So, these are just rough numbers. It is
what it feels like I'm coming up with.
[2:25:49] Does that feel about right, Bobby? Like
>> 10.
[2:25:52] » Okay.
That's That's like what I think I
[2:25:55] remember. This is just off the cuff.
That's why I didn't have it prepared,
[2:25:57] but that's about like
[2:26:01] what what it feels.
>> Okay, but I I
[2:26:06] I'm sorry. I you lost me here. Okay, I
know it's How much What's the impact? I
[2:26:10] guess I'm trying to figure out here.
>> Okay. So,
[2:26:17] Now, this is cuz I don't have the new
assessment stuff.
[2:26:19] » Yeah, I understand that. I I understand
that. And that's one of the things that
[2:26:22] I'm
>> kind of a thing where this is tough
[2:26:24] where I'm just kind of speaking out past
knowledge.
[2:26:27] Okay, if we did
Hart Street in in in phases in three
[2:26:31] phases, I took that as about $675,000
a year for each phase of general
[2:26:36] obligation debt. I'll just speak to
that. 675
[2:26:40] loan, 675 loan, 675 loan
in year 1 2 3 because over the 3 years
[2:26:46] that's $2 million.
>> Yeah, I'm hearing I'm following you.
[2:26:50] » When you take a $675,000
loan over 10 years at 4%,
[2:26:55] you have paying and it's just a straight
average pay, it worked out to $84,000 a
[2:27:01] year. This is what the
what we have to pay on that
[2:27:06] on the 675, but that's just the first
year. Like the next year then that turns
[2:27:09] into 160 and then the next year
>> Yeah, yeah, I I'm I'm following.
[2:27:13] » So, in that first year if it's $84,000,
because of that project is $84,000 a
[2:27:19] $500,000 house has to pay $84 extra,
right? So, the next year, I have to pay
[2:27:26] 160 cuz
>> But now that's just but the next year
[2:27:28] it's only going up $84 and the next year
only $84 versus
[2:27:33] » when you do it all one time, you have
$350 in that first year, but you're not
[2:27:38] getting the 5% savings by doing it all.
>> Unless you subtract that 175 over 3
[2:27:45] years using logic, it's 60 under 60,000,
right? So that's what we'd be saving out
[2:27:51] of that 600 and some thousand.
Yeah, 610,000 basically.
[2:27:59] » So that was just with the numbers that
>> So then can you if you could quickly
[2:28:04] throw that 610 place the 670 with 6
610 that'll give us the difference on or
[2:28:11] how much really the taxpayer would save.
>> I don't know if I can do that.
[2:28:15] » Oh sure you just throw where it says 670
throw in 610
[2:28:20] and run your spreadsheet it's the same.
>> fight is the 150 so you're wanting to
[2:28:25] win.
>> No, I'm subtracting 60 grand
[2:28:28] from each year because that's what we're
saving. Right, so I want to see from the
[2:28:33] $84 it's probably going to go down to
the $82.
[2:28:38] » Yeah.
Both of you.
[2:28:40] » Okay, that's that's that I'm just trying
to point out that the savings when you
[2:28:44] say in a big lump of 175,000
it is a lot you know, dollar wise but
[2:28:51] when you talking about a 3 and 1/2
million dollar project
[2:28:56] it doesn't have that big of an impact.
I'm just I'm not debating the savings. I
[2:29:01] just want you to do the numbers because
it's only fair for people because if
[2:29:06] it's 84 and people think oh if we do it
all at once it's going to drop down to
[2:29:10] 44. That's just not the case.
>> No, it's not going to do that at all.
[2:29:15] » So I'm just I again I like you that you
did that and I appreciate it but we got
[2:29:19] to look at what the other option would
be.
[2:29:24] What are other people's feelings?
[2:29:30] » I guess I'd be more for split at least 2
years. That way on the second year it
[2:29:34] gives us a little flexibility if we get
in a tough spot. Brian already did a
[2:29:37] safe
drinking water I think for two phases.
[2:29:41] » Um
>> And then September 30th is we can go is
[2:29:46] when the sewer one needs to be
submitted.
[2:29:48] » Okay.
>> Take that or
[2:29:51] » No, that could be a problem for my
>> So Sarah, okay. Okay, I got the old down
[2:29:55] bill Sarah.
>> Oh, so
[2:29:57] and this is what I was thinking about in
our earlier discussion is why are we
[2:30:02] Did we already decide on
I know we didn't decide but was three
[2:30:06] years kind of like the goal or why
aren't we looking at two years?
[2:30:10] » Well, we did three years for the one
reason of affordability. To spread it
[2:30:15] over three years. That was the main
reason for that. Cuz it cuz the
[2:30:22] engineering, you know, we paid for
earlier this year for the first phase.
[2:30:28] You know, Brian has said earlier that he
they can do the others but yeah, we
[2:30:33] could break it into two but the reason
we did the three years was for
[2:30:38] affordability.
It didn't hit the property taxes as
[2:30:43] hard.
>> That's going to be an issue this year.
[2:30:45] » This thing's going to be
For some people it's going to be a huge
[2:30:49] issue. Others are probably not.
Cuz if you're under that 67% you're
[2:30:54] going to be less if everything stays the
same.
[2:30:57] » But they cut me back to 60.
>> Well, I don't know. I don't know.
[2:31:01] » Because there's a whole bunch that are
80 and 90%.
[2:31:03] » Yeah, I'm 91 so
>> That's crazy.
[2:31:06] » There's people that I'm balancing over
somewhere. And that's what was the first
[2:31:11] thing that was a little deceiving
because in the letter it said 62. That's
[2:31:15] community but when I went to open book I
said, "Tell me what the resident one
[2:31:19] is." And it was 67.
>> I want to correct myself. I said I said
[2:31:24] two phases. I meant
He applied for I think, phase one and
[2:31:28] phase two. And then, phase three has not
been applied for yet.
[2:31:32] » Oh, I see what you're saying.
>> Right.
[2:31:33] » So, it would mean we could do 3/4 2/3 of
it, and then give us a little
[2:31:38] flexibility on setting different
other stuff or items.
[2:31:43] » Like if I had my
my phone, put it through this.
[2:31:51] » Sarah?
>> That's what I was thinking too, that I
[2:31:53] think taxpayers want
They want the
[2:31:57] less of a burden. Like I think they
would like the gradual and this year.
[2:32:02] » So, okay, it sounds like there's pretty
much a majority that would go that way.
[2:32:06] The Okay, so then the question is, we're
right back to this.
[2:32:11] Do we keep this, or do we want to move
it off a year? And it sounds like may I
[2:32:16] say it's that may potentially be a
$70,000
[2:32:20] cost, but
then again, with Bill and all of us
[2:32:25] we're kind of looking at, we just don't
know what this increased assessment and
[2:32:29] school district and everything else is
going to be. And you saw tonight
[2:32:34] our Villa Char is going to cost us more
than we thought.
[2:32:39] This phase we just
what we just saw tonight
[2:32:43] with, you know, the little
the
[2:32:45] audio, the AV, and the security that's
way over what we originally
[2:32:50] planned.
>> Judy?
[2:32:52] » I would be okay with pushing back a
year. You okay with that?
[2:32:56] » I'm okay.
>> It is
[2:32:58] obviously not my first choice or second
or third choice, but
[2:33:01] » Yeah, yeah.
>> I mean, you I get there's only so much
[2:33:04] money to go around, and I I would like
with all the additions that we've added
[2:33:09] to the sewer plan, it'd be nice that we
were at least
[2:33:12] doing one phase and working towards help
correcting that development.
[2:33:16] » Sarah?
>> I would be for starting now, so that we
[2:33:19] could have that nice gradual step up,
versus if they started it next year then
[2:33:24] we're like, oh, we should do two phases.
>> Oh, you're worried about the same thing.
[2:33:27] » Yeah.
>> Bobby, as the finance director, you're
[2:33:31] going to have to
help us out here. What are your
[2:33:34] thoughts?
>> I I do like the three years.
[2:33:37] Um I guess
thinking of the tip coming off.
[2:33:47] » So, you're but I I guess the I think I
think the the most of us are agreeing
[2:33:51] with the three years.
>> Yeah, this is the
[2:33:54] cuz your 127 is 127.
>> Yeah, what are and you got a better
[2:33:59] idea.
[2:34:02] I
I don't know what's been coming in for
[2:34:05] staff and everything.
>> So, I is
[2:34:10] the water portion of it.
And doing our full rate case with all
[2:34:16] the other water infrastructure.
Like if we would actually have to do two
[2:34:20] rate cases if they just
pay for this debt.
[2:34:25] You know, so if we
Just the you know, the do you want to
[2:34:31] all the projects on one rate case rather
than doing rate cases two years in a
[2:34:35] row.
>> Well, I think we're going to probably
[2:34:39] get tied with that if you look at the
our earlier discussion.
[2:34:43] I think there's no next year we're going
to have to put in the thinnest pipe.
[2:34:48] There's absolutely no way around that.
Right? I mean, we heard
[2:34:54] You heard that and if we want to keep
Park Street next year, that's going to
[2:34:59] be in it. So, you're already looking at
those two projects that I don't believe
[2:35:05] the water brings in enough even with the
discounted loan on the one.
[2:35:10] But again, we're going to have to do it
now. I don't think the revenue is there
[2:35:14] to cover that.
>> So, that's what I'm wondering. that
[2:35:16] » Cuz we're at and we were at a 0.49,
you know, and it's supposed to be 1.1.
[2:35:22] So, we're already way behind on what
hell was
[2:35:26] » The 3% increase rate case today to get
didn't get filed today.
[2:35:31] » Yeah, but I I
>> Is that
[2:35:32] » The bigger one.
>> that? I Again, not knowing the exact
[2:35:35] numbers on that, is that going to bring
us up over one
[2:35:40] on that ratio?
See, that That's That's my worry
[2:35:46] on this, but I don't see there's any way
around unless the numbers are I'm
[2:35:52] missing something because of that
painting maybe
[2:35:56] did something that doesn't I just don't
know how
[2:36:01] we can pay with the current rate for the
finish. And if we're going to go for
[2:36:06] finish, we might as well go for
>> year one in 2027 to combine it with the
[2:36:12] finish.
>> Well, if
[2:36:14] But, if the group and once we get that
report, if we can get Park Street to be
[2:36:19] paid by sewer, then we don't have to
worry about water rate.
[2:36:24] You know,
>> I thought about that.
[2:36:25] » You know, and that is an option that
we've seriously got to look at, but we
[2:36:30] can't seriously look at until we get
that report um from it. But, like I
[2:36:35] mentioned earlier, though, in my
opinion, the sewer utility is very well
[2:36:41] financed right now.
Um and again, we'll see what they have
[2:36:47] as a layout on the timing, and I think
we can actually time that out.
[2:36:54] Bill.
>> So,
[2:36:57] can we
in concept approve this as a three-phase
[2:37:01] starting in '27,
and then
[2:37:04] as that sewer report comes out in 2
months,
[2:37:08] then will we look at the budget, So,
kind of make a decision?
[2:37:12] » We can do it that way or what we can do
is postpone this to the first meeting in
[2:37:17] November where we would have it
and then cuz we'll approve the budget in
[2:37:22] the second meeting in November.
That might be a cleaner way of doing
[2:37:27] that.
That
[2:37:30] might be a cleaner way of doing it
because then now we're not rescinding
[2:37:36] something that we passed.
this item to the first meeting in
[2:37:40] November.
>> I'm fine with that.
[2:37:44] » Bonnie, are you okay with that?
Matt?
[2:37:48] » Yeah, that's
[2:37:51] » All right.
I'll make that motion.
[2:37:54] » I'll
make the motion that we
[2:37:57] that we
postpone the Park Street reconstruction
[2:38:01] until the first meeting in November.
>> I'll second it.
[2:38:08] » I have a motion
and a second. Can someone look that up
[2:38:11] for me so I can
>> What date for
[2:38:18] November, we're going to be there 9th
and the 23rd.
[2:38:21] » Okay, the 9th, so
>> Yeah.
[2:38:23] » Yeah, the 23rd. Okay.
All right, I have a motion and a second.
[2:38:28] Any more discussion on this?
[2:38:32] All in favor, say I.
>> I.
[2:38:35] » All opposed.
So moved.
[2:38:39] All right, then let's go Do we want to
do the same thing with
[2:38:43] Annual Street Resurfacing?
>> Well, I had a I had a thought on this.
[2:38:48] » Okay.
>> Um,
[2:38:50] we have things to do. Well, but if we
postpone
[2:38:54] Park Street for a year, then I think
we've got money to do the street
[2:38:57] resurfacing and
we've always said in the past we try not
[2:39:02] to
postpone resurfacing too much because
[2:39:06] then we get behind in the resurfacing,
right? So,
[2:39:12] uh I
However, with that being said, I think
[2:39:16] we postpone
2027. If we If we knew we were doing
[2:39:20] Park Street and finish, we would
definitely I would definitely
[2:39:23] postpone. So, maybe we hold off on this
>> Okay.
[2:39:26] » until November.
>> Yeah, we have done both. Like when we
[2:39:29] did Brewery and Church, we did not do
the annual surface.
[2:39:33] » Right.
>> Yeah.
[2:39:34] » No.
>> And we did
[2:39:35] » did it this year, too, with Katie.
>> Mhm.
[2:39:37] » We We did Myrick Street.
>> Well, that was That was 60,000.
[2:39:41] » Oh.
>> Okay.
[2:39:46] » All right.
>> that Sorry, but then that means it's 2
[2:39:48] years that we're postponing then and
then we
[2:39:51] » Yeah.
Yeah.
[2:39:54] » Do you feel like there's any major road
right now that needs it?
[2:39:57] » London is really bad.
Uh that needed to be done.
[2:40:01] So, if
if Park Street gets postponed, that
[2:40:05] infra-
So,
[2:40:08] over the last 10 years, we've done a lot
of resurfacing, not a lot of I mean, I
[2:40:11] know P was done and Main Street was
done, but a lot of
[2:40:14] infrastructure is aging underneath. But
London, the infrastructure is actually
[2:40:18] pretty good, just the road itself is not
doing great. Um there wasn't good
[2:40:23] compaction when they ran the lateral, so
a lot of the curb has sunk. So, it'll
[2:40:27] need
new
[2:40:29] replacement. And
I don't think 250,000 is going to do it
[2:40:32] all, but it'd be a really good start.
>> If we do Park Street in 3 years, so then
[2:40:37] are we doing like no road projects for 4
years then?
[2:40:40] » No, I I wouldn't say that. No, I would
say we would do it. If we did it all at
[2:40:44] once,
>> Then not
[2:40:45] » you know, I kind of look at how many
blocks it's going to be.
[2:40:48] » Yeah.
>> You know, if you do Park Street in 3,
[2:40:50] you're talking about two, three blocks a
month.
[2:40:53] So, I I would say
>> I just I like us moving forward on
[2:40:57] A Road and the three phases of Park
Street and London are probably the four
[2:41:01] most important.
[2:41:05] » How's this case?
[2:41:08] » What was so wrong with
This is so bulky.
[2:41:16] » I'm just going to make a motion that we
approve the part that we approve the
[2:41:20] annual street resurfacing
for 2027.
[2:41:24] » Okay, I'll second it.
>> I have a motion and a second, any
[2:41:29] discussion? I'm going to go along with
this, but if we make a change in the
[2:41:34] first week of November, I'll probably
make a change in the capital in the
[2:41:39] second.
>> I'm fine with that.
[2:41:40] » Okay.
I just want to so there's no
[2:41:43] misunderstanding on where I'm coming
from.
[2:41:46] » No.
>> Can I have a reread of the motion?
[2:41:51] » Yeah, that we approve the annual street
resurfacing for 2027.
[2:41:56] » Okay.
[2:41:59] » All right, I have motion and a second,
all in favor say I.
[2:42:02] » I.
>> I.
[2:42:04] All opposed same.
So moved.
[2:42:08] All right, we're down to the 2024 skid
steer.
[2:42:18] » Um this is on a two-year replacement,
well we were a year late getting the one
[2:42:23] last time. So now it's just kicked to
this year.
[2:42:27] » I seem last I thought the last time was
only like 19,000.
[2:42:32] Are we getting a bigger one or
something?
[2:42:33] » Uh it is a little bit bigger, well we
we've had issues with
[2:42:37] lifting things and
um
[2:42:41] salt's heavy, yard waste is heavy, main
break stuff's heavy, so it's just we
[2:42:46] have other and traditionally we were
smaller a little bit smaller before, so
[2:42:49] it was a lot of you going on the
sidewalks. Now we have two or three of
[2:42:52] them machines that are able to go on
sidewalks, so
[2:42:55] and we have more multi-pass now that are
going to be instead of 4 or 5 ft.
[2:43:01] » Do you feel like if we get a bigger one
this year then we can push it out? We
[2:43:05] don't have to do it every 2 years or 3
>> Um I Did I leave it every 2 or I thought
[2:43:09] I moved it to every 4?
>> Oh, you left it at every 2.
[2:43:12] » Did I?
>> Yeah, and I think that's because of the
[2:43:15] warranty. At least that's what Jerry's
thing that you keep you you keep it
[2:43:21] until the warranty is almost all you
trade it in and then you just are paying
[2:43:26] instead of getting that in and all of a
sudden because that was been a
[2:43:29] discussion many times of just keeping it
until you wear it out but then what are
[2:43:34] they about a quarter of a million bucks
now?
[2:43:36] » What?
>> A skid steer if you bought it
[2:43:40] outright?
>> No, they're like 70 70
[2:43:42] » Oh.
70?
[2:43:47] I don't
I thought it was 35,000.
[2:43:50] » Cuz we get about 25,000 30 for trade.
>> Yeah, I know but why wouldn't we want to
[2:43:54] keep it until it didn't work? Cuz
>> I I
[2:43:57] So my mistake, I think on my fleet plan
that I gave you guys a few months ago, I
[2:44:01] think I moved it to 4 years. I don't
know if I moved this to 4 years but we
[2:44:06] kind of
Scott and I kind of talked and said that
[2:44:10] we should
>> So do it 27 but then not again till 20
[2:44:12] » 31.
>> Okay, if the skid steer the life of it
[2:44:17] is 4 years, right?
Or is it probably longer than that?
[2:44:21] » Yeah, much longer. Yeah, but we we put a
lot of hours
[2:44:23] » Yeah, but let's say it's you wear it
down in 8 years. It still would be
[2:44:28] cheaper to buy a new one than to pay
this extra
[2:44:32] trade in at 35 grand.
>> It's also the cost of being down
[2:44:36] downtime for
any major maintenance maintenance is
[2:44:40] down.
>> I think
[2:44:43] Well.
>> Yeah, that's sort of my question. Do you
[2:44:50] What Do we need to augment our old skid
steer policy guess? Like what you were
[2:44:54] saying with the two year because like I
remember it was like Jerry saying like
[2:44:56] the warranty is only three years old, so
you're trading it with another year on
[2:44:59] the warranty because you get more for
the trade-in but overall what we're
[2:45:02] doing it do you think that policy still
be done? Because if we go to four years
[2:45:07] then it's like falling off warranty and
then it's the trade-in like I mean it's
[2:45:11] » It's definitely just going to only go
down in value.
[2:45:13] » Right.
>> Um and we put around four or five
[2:45:18] hundred dollars on it a year. So it it
gets a lot of use. It's one of our
[2:45:22] biggest use machine.
>> Yeah and see I like I say I I
[2:45:27] it made sense when it was 19,000 because
I'm thinking then you're basically
[2:45:33] renting a brand new one for eight grand
eight
[2:45:36] eight thou 8,500 a year which is dirt
cheap. But now that it's getting to
[2:45:41] almost half the cost of a brand new one
it just seems to me that we're at that
[2:45:47] tipping point where it can
>> Well that's why I was suggesting a the
[2:45:50] four year.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
[2:45:53] » I think just
how many hours is a useful life for a
[2:45:57] skid steer before it starts to have
issues? Do you know that at all? Or
[2:46:01] » Okay, is that okay? Well then
>> It really depends how you use it and we
[2:46:04] we put a lot of road miles on it. That's
that's not necessarily the greatest
[2:46:08] thing for it.
>> Cuz you're driving it to where you're
[2:46:11] using it you mean?
>> Yeah and you know doing brush is it gets
[2:46:16] used for all the time.
[2:46:20] » Oh no.
>> Yeah this has always been just a weird
[2:46:24] » You know what? I I guess
I I think this is something that maybe
[2:46:28] finance could look at. I think we go
ahead cuz we can't wait. But I would
[2:46:33] really now that it's getting up there
in cost I think we really should do a
[2:46:39] cost analysis. Cuz if there's 70 grand
I mean it just seems It's for me to
[2:46:47] you know, kick in 35,000 for just 2
years.
[2:46:52] » I think it should be in there.
>> It'd be four.
[2:46:54] Well,
I I know that's where we're going and
[2:46:58] then we'll see, but what I'm hearing is
yeah, we're not going to get it it's
[2:47:03] going to cost us more in 4 years because
it's 4 years old versus 2 years old for
[2:47:08] the trade-in. So, your trade-in is last
so it's
[2:47:11] » So, is it is it like like is our
trade-in going to be 10 grand versus if
[2:47:13] we're going to be buying a new one
anyway? And why don't we just keep the
[2:47:16] one that we have if we're getting hardly
anything on the trade-in?
[2:47:20] » And it has been a good machine and we
haven't had a lot of issues with it.
[2:47:23] That might be
>> See, that's why the whole two-year
[2:47:25] cycling might have to be more of a
math-based decision if it's trade-in or
[2:47:30] not like idea rather
>> I think we need to do a cost analysis on
[2:47:36] it, I guess. That's what I That's all
I'm saying. I I And that we're not going
[2:47:40] to do that tonight, but I do think this
is one thing that we really should look
[2:47:45] at.
Cuz when it was 19,000, it was a
[2:47:49] no-brainer, but I thought they were over
100 grand.
[2:47:51] » But now I'm going to
like okay, cuz you said taking the
[2:47:54] finance. If we don't know how long one
of these is going to last because we
[2:47:59] don't know how much it's going to be
worth in the year you're doing your
[2:48:02] longevity cost analysis on it, it's just
all projection.
[2:48:05] » No, cuz
>> I mean, you have
[2:48:06] » a machine right now. I can look at the
miles and the hours put on this machine
[2:48:11] and kind of calculate what it is per
year.
[2:48:15] I mean, we have a a pilot right now.
>> Right, but the question
[2:48:19] » And then we're going to have a second
one.
[2:48:20] » But the whole thing is is this machine
that we talked about two Is it 2 years
[2:48:25] or 3 years or what?
>> Jan- December will be 2 years.
[2:48:29] » So, in December it's 2 years, but and so
we So, we're saying whether we use 500
[2:48:33] miles a year on it.
You don't know if it's going to last
[2:48:37] another year.
>> I don't Let's not get into how to do it.
[2:48:40] » I I I think it it is it is a little more
this year because I'm I want to go to
[2:48:44] the big bigger machine. So, that cost
should even back out.
[2:48:50] » Like I said, I don't want to do that
tonight.
[2:48:53] There's an easy way of doing it. People
do it all the time on costing what it
[2:48:57] costs of a machine, a car is. You can go
to Consumer Report on everything. It'll
[2:49:01] tell you how much it's going to cost you
on average. So, but anyways, the
[2:49:05] question is do we want to and I guess
because we're going
[2:49:10] with the larger one, I'm
I'm going to
[2:49:13] approve it cuz
just on the point that if they need them
[2:49:19] a bigger one. Even though I see it's
only
[2:49:21] a priority of four.
>> I'm going to make a motion to approve
[2:49:26] the replacement of the 2024 skid steer
in 2027.
[2:49:30] » I'll second it.
>> I have a motion and a second. Any
[2:49:34] discussion?
>> Wait, just ask
[2:49:37] So, why did you put it as a priority
four?
[2:49:40] » Because I only adjusted the amount, not
the priority.
[2:49:43] Cuz this was already typically in here.
It was already in there.
[2:49:47] So, that's That was my mistake.
>> Okay.
[2:49:51] » And you got to this $35,000 by calling
down there and asking how much it is?
[2:49:55] » Yep, I got the trade-in values and price
list from dealers.
[2:49:58] » So, that's what Yeah, but
the old one is fine.
[2:50:04] » Okay.
>> All right.
[2:50:08] All in favor say I.
>> I.
[2:50:11] » I.
>> I.
[2:50:13] » All opposed say
So moved.
[2:50:18] All right. 2027 replacement of the 2004
leaf vacuum.
[2:50:26] » I thought we just replaced this a couple
of years ago.
[2:50:28] » No.
>> We can't have it a couple of We bought
[2:50:31] that from Minnesota for $17,000
on a year ago.
[2:50:35] » Yeah, it was on the pilot program.