Village Board - Regular Meeting

I know.

I thought I see Bob. It's a good color for you. Everything's underwater.

What's that? Yep. All right. Good evening. We're going to call the meeting in order for February or it's February April 23rd uh 2026 for the village of Waka. If you'd all stand for the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Roll call. Stigler here. White here. Niles here. Adams here. Buckold here. Thank you. Sorry. I apologize. All right. Uh confirming on the u open meeting law compliance that the agenda was posted in the proper locations on or before 6:30 on the 22nd. Yes, it was.

Very good. We will start off with um are you gentlemen wanting to be sworn in or are you doing it just by hand? I don't need to do it. I can sign out in light. Yeah, I can. What's What's the process here? What do you want? It's up just Yes. All right. Very good. Um, the clerk will give you the paperwork. She has.

They already have it. Very good. We can move on then. Uh, appointment and confirmation of plan commission members. So, Todd, Rob, Allan, and Vicki are all interested in keeping their positions on the plan commission. And you can see how each one would expire at different times. So, I'm recommending that we appoint and confirm each of those four. I'll make a motion to confirm the positions that are listed. All four. All four.

Okay. I'll second it. Any discussion? All right. All those in favor of the um appointments of the four plan commission members say, "I." I. Anyone opposed? That carries. Uh, Mike Borchard has asked to be retained as the wheat commissioner for another year, one-year term. So, I have to go back for a second. The supervisor member has to be appointed by a two-thirds vote. So, the record should at least reflect that it was a unanimous vote. Correct. The supervisor member, please. Yes, it passed five to zero. Okay.

Sorry to interrupt. No, you're good. Thank you. Uh, so Mike wants to retain his position as the WEI commissioner. I'll make a motion to uh appoint Mike to the Wii Commissioner. I'll sec I'll second it. All right. It's been motioned and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor of approving Mike for another one-year term for weed commissioner say I. Anyone opposed? That carries unanimous. Up next, uh, for the fire commission, it' be another renewal for Susan Bell. Uh, she's interested in keeping another five-year term to her position.

I'll make a motion we accept the nomination Susan Bell's renewal for the current position. I'll second. Any discussion? Yeah. Who is Susan Bell? Never seen her. I mean, just How long has she been on? Quite a while. She's been the secretary, I think, for quite a long time. She's been on the fire. I think I appointed her when I was president yet. So, well, I'd like it noted that if you're going to be appointed for a position, I think you should be there to accept in person. It It's not a big deal. So, I'd like that noted in the record. And this is for anything.

Okay. She's uh part of the family that owns Complete Towing. if you have any any way you want to reference who she is. Sure. Obviously a village resident. Okay. Any other discussion? All right. Hearing none. All those in favor of approving the appointment of Susan Bell to a 5-year term to the fire commission say I. I. I. I.

Anyone opposed? That's unanimous as well. Uh there was a another uh renewal for the zoning board of appeals. Uh the resident who held this position um has indicated that she would like to step down. Um I have not I just learned this over the weekend. So I uh I have not found somebody to fill that position. So if one of you knows of somebody you can pass a name on and somebody I can contact. Otherwise I'll work on uh replacing to fill that vacancy in the next couple weeks. So that's the status of letter E on that portion. So moving on then, citizen comments. Anyone like to speak? Come on up one at a time to the microphone, give us your name and address and give us your comments.

Yep. Sure did.

We'll find you. Yeah, Sandy Ham West 230 South 3827 Milky Way Road. Had to prepare for this meeting a little bit. Um, as most of you probably know, I only made it through 42 minutes of the workshop last week on Tuesday. Um, it was just it was so disappointing. I I couldn't stay. And of course, there was the storm coming as well, but that was just a secondary excuse. Um, we're getting worn down. We're getting worn out with this thing. When I sat there and I watched this workshop, and I've been to a lot of workshops, and I just went back four years and looked at minutes and and other workshops, workshops for DPW buildings, workshops for other stuff, fire. It felt like an ambush to me. It felt like I was watching an ambush and it felt like I was part of the ambush and I was just coming to expect some numbers on another proposal. And instead we had new plans with a strong push for all kinds of utilities to come in before anything happens. Um, and even the way the table was set up with the fissurers on the west side and then the head and the other side of the table were two of the uh trustees like it was Thanksgiving dinner and we had those two people at the heads of the table and everybody else crowded around the side and and then both of the speakers that started told us we should be open-minded. And all I could think of was that those are the two speakers that aren't open-minded. Those are the two speakers

that are insisting we do something other than what the majority is asking for. So, it just felt like, oh my gosh, here we are going back again. And I guess we are based on attendance at this meeting and um and I whatever took place after I left. But um it's just you got to stop. Either do something or don't do something. But dragging us into another I I wasn't looking forward to the workshop to begin with and then when I got here and saw what was going on, it was just it was terrible. Don't do that again. Now, see, guess I'll just talk from memory. um the things that have been going on with this whole process of DPW building and fire station. I respect everybody trying to make what they want to have happen happen. You know, if you're a fire person and that and that's where your heart is and you want to do that, that's fine. You're in DPW, you want to be you want more salary for the staff, whatever it is, go ahead and lobby for it. You know, I'm not opposed to that. I'm I'm interested in the process that we go through to accomplish those things. And I think and I've held back for years now, months and years. What I see happening is that there may be a limit on the appetite for borrowing that the village has. And if I was a fire person and I wanted to make sure that a new firehouse got built or a really good firehouse got built, refurbished or whatever it is, I would be looking at it and going, "Well, after they do the DPW building, how much more money is going to be left? How much more appetite is there going to be left for borrowing?" And it may not be what we need it to be. So, I see all

kinds of things where we styiny the DPW building to tag in to make sure I need to see all the plans. I need to see everything. I need to see where the air compressor is going to go because it might wake somebody up. And it's just been one delay after another delay after another delay. And I think that that force of people that want that, that's what's taking place. even if they don't even know that's what they're doing. They want assurance that there's going to be a fire station if we do a DPW building. So, I'm going to talk just briefly about why we're talking about a fire station. And in the beginning of that meeting, our chairman, our president said, we're not going to talk about A, B, or C because we already all agree that those things are true. We all we all think that we need this. I don't know that we need it. I just don't I don't know where the metrics are that are going to tell me that we're going to save lives because I think that's the goal. I'm pretty sure the goal is to save property and lives and I don't see that metric even if I see response time cut in half. That's not evidence to me that we're going to save more lives. So anyway, the whole thing begins with we got to have sleeping quarters. That's what we got to have because that's how we're going to get down that response time. And it all sounds reasonable, but pretty soon it's not just sleeping quarters. It's change out rooms and cancer areas and and recreation areas and meeting rooms and and all kinds of stuff. What happened to the to the sleeping quarters? And by the way, I don't think we need sleeping quarters for more than what we have. I don't see any reason to be putting in sleeping quarters for eight or 10 people when we don't have the staff to even to do that. So, I don't know where you're going to go. I don't personally actually care where you

go. I I don't care what you build or what you do, but I think you should do it in a reasonable process and get it over with. There's no deadlines on anything. So, it just keeps going and going and going. How about a deadline that we say if we don't do something by this date, we abandon it? I mean, we're just going to keep going forever. Come on. Everybody here must be tired of it, including the fire people, including the DPW people. Years. So, anyway, also I noticed in the plan, it doesn't look good in scheme C or or whatever you call it where you're breaking out some of the financials to a previous year to get the number down. And I've heard a rationale for that. and you know it's because of the good of everybody and we all need to have the electricity come in so it shouldn't be part of the fire station. Well, there's the but for test and but for building a fire department building, we don't need all of those other things coming in here. So, it's it just seems to me like it's another push to make sure that we lock in that fire building. Not saying I'm against a building. I'm not. I'm I'm against the antics that are going on preventing progress. So find out what it is you need and then do it. But stop all of this talking now on the item of the referendum, the feared referendum, and the reason it's feared is because people don't one want to spend the money, and two, they might lose. in which case, well, we don't want to have a referendum. We want to avoid the referendum. So, only two of you were on the board in 2022 when the ordinance was passed. I don't

know the numbers in here somewhere 202215 or whatever it is where the village board went through the process of establishing the ordinance which they now have which they're now living under where it started out with any process over a million dollars any purchase over a million dollars we're going to have to get a referendum and that started off in May of 2022 by the way this was all encouraged and pushed by trust trustee or supervisor Gerki who's no longer here and only Bob Stigler and Stu were on the board at the time. But anyway, at the at the May meeting, Stigler motioned to table anything until June 23rd, month later. On June 23rd, they tabled it again to June 28th. So, but the discussions were ongoing, you know, in meetings and out of meetings. So, then on July 28th, Kolinsky, he's no longer here, asked Macy to discuss the pros and cons to having an ordinance blah blah blah, and which John did. And Greki moved to direct the attorney to draft the language, taking example from the city of Deloffield, and it passed 4 to one. Stigler declined. September 22nd. These are the minutes from the website. Still, it's being talked about as a million dollars. That's the number which in discussion got corrected to be a percentage or changed to be a percentage. And Gerki moved to approve the ordinance 222022 ordinance 12 to create blah blah blah. And there was no second. So the motion died. Then Stigler moved to direct the village attorney to draft the language.

Taking an example from Sussex, which is what happened. It went three to one. Trusty German was absent or Dan was absent, I should say. A month later, October 31st, the ordinance passes 5 to zero. So most of you were here, but you may not have been at all the meetings because some of the discussion took place during the first meeting of the month and some took place during the second meeting of the month. So if a plan commission member is not at that meeting, they're not really privy unless they're watching online or something to what actually took place. But this is what took place. And inside of what

May to October after never having such an ordinance in the village, we got one. And so what I'm wondering is with this dreaded referendum being this thorn in your side of doing whatever it is you want to do. And by the way, I've encouraged you to have referendums for years. And when you don't do it, I recently encouraged you to have an online web survey. and I haven't seen any results from that. So, you're really flying blind. But I'm not sure why you don't just repeal the ordinance if what you want to do is borrow a lot of money and not have have the opinion of the of the residents. I mean, maybe the attorney can tell you you can't reverse the ordinance, but I'm pretty sure you can. You do it all the time for other ordinances. So if you don't want to be held to that now, it's not a very good look to the public that you're going to remove this thing that and by the way during the process there were all kinds of people coming in here. Uh Lori Kurt and um I got the names in the in the in the minutes there, but everybody's coming in and saying, you know, that they think that we should have this limitation on spending. So whoever did come in was pretty much in favor of it and it passed five to zero. But if you're now unhappy with it, if it's now preventing you from doing what it is you really think you're supposed to do, well then repeal it and move on. You'll have that done long before you get anything done with these buildings. I'm sorry it takes so long time, but thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Anyone else? All right, hearing no other comments, we'll move on to the reports. Clerk, treasurer, anything from the board on that one? Okay, moving on to the public works. Hearing nothing. Fire Department, Sheriff. We commissioner, it's not in there. Uh non-compliance.

Just like to make a comment. The property on Me Hills Road uh shipping container is gone or the bypass. The shipping container is gone. Okay. Uh I guess also to point out uh Barton property because that did expire this month with the extensions that we had given. If you guys see in there that case is now closed. So uh we're moving on from that as well. I have to go back to the weed commissioner. I I sure was pretty sure and I checked it in the state statute that's an appointment by the village president. It's not an appointment by the board.

Okay. So we can either resend the motion or just make a note in the minutes that at least we recognize that fact and that you did you know appoint them. Sure. The others were done correct. Okay. Plan commission is a recommendation by you and then ratification by the board and the others are appointments by the board and that's what we did. You want to make it official? I can resend my motion if you want to do whatever. No, it's fine. I was already doing it, but you guys just confirmed. Mike, I just want it for next year if we put it, you know, put it on the agenda. We like it on the agenda because we like to have it noted in the minutes who you appointed.

And so all right, moving on then. Uh approval of the minutes from March 26 of 2026 any issues that need anybody wants corrected in there? If not, entertain a motion to approve. I make a motion that we approve the minutes from March 26, 2026 as published.

Is there a second? I'll second it. Any discussion? All those in favor of approving the minutes as in the packet say I. Anyone opposed? Carries unanimous. I'd like to hold my vote for absence. Okay. So 40 with one abstension. Thank you.

All right. Moving on to uh discussion of possible action items. Up first would be um the audit report for 2025 with Paul Fron from Baker Tilly. Come on up next to Greg if you want or stand whichever

there. Good evening. Thanks for having me again. Paul France with Baker Tilly. Uh the principal in charge of your financial uh annual audit. Uh before you in in your packet are two bound documents. Both are the outcomes of that financial audit that I referenced. Uh we've issued an unmodified opinion, also known as a clean bill of health. What that tells you is in that financial statement document packet, uh all necessary disclosures have been made within that document. uh that accounting principles have been applied consistently year-over-year, that you're up to date on all the necessary governmental accounting standards, and that the document itself is free of material misstatement. So, in plain English, when you hire an external auditor, this is the outcome that you're looking to to hear. It's the highest level assurance that I can give you. We received nothing but cooperation from Chris and Beth um as we navigated through the audit process. Things went very smooth. Um, you know, I think when we've met uh the past couple years, I think we were a little a little later last year or or even earlier this this year. Um, and that's a testitude to the work uh that the ladies in the office are doing uh and the financial information that you have at your fingertips throughout the year. While we do make some corrections during the course of the audit uh and in preparation of the audits, uh we continue to see uh significant improvements in in Chris's work. Uh which again just tells me that the financial information that you have to evaluate to make the decisions that you are uh is in good working order throughout the year. You're not waiting for your auditors to come in and and adjust the books. Um, I'll spend just a few minutes talking about the financial highlights uh of the village. Uh, the main operating fund, the general fund ended

the year uh with uh just over $1.25 million uh of that fund balance um uh 1.24. So, it's an unassigned uh that would be the uh savings account or the reserves of that main operating fund. uh as I have for you in the past, I like to take that unassigned category and divide it by your your total budget within that fund to come up with a percentage to give you kind of a read on the health um you know your your spending uh in that fund is just under $3.6 million. So you're about 33% uh in your reserves. I like that number. Somewhere at least between 10 to 25%. So again, the general fund's in a strong financial position uh in the reserves. Uh further, you have a capital project fund uh that ended the year with uh just over $1.15 million. Uh that money is available to you for uh capital project purchases um or projects. Um and we added uh the fund balance in there this year uh by about $60,000. You have a debt service fund that's tracking the ins and outs of the related principal and interest payments uh that the village has on related to debt. Uh there is no fund balance in that fund. Then you have a collection of smaller non non- major governmental funds that total up to just under $400,000 of fund balance. All that have a specific purpose and designation of how money should be spent. We continued uh to issue two material weaknesses in that other bound document. The one that's labeled audit audit results or reporting on insights letter uh talking about the lack of segregation of duties uh that exists in the the village and the fact that we prepare the financial statement document for you as we've discussed in years past. Um both

of those material weaknesses are very common with entities that we audit um of your size. About 95% of the clients that I work with receive both of those. You've made a costbenefit decision in outsourcing uh that financial reporting responsibility to us. Uh as a specialized governmental uh auditor, um it makes more sense to to have and use our resources uh than to have a CPA on on staff. And so under our professional standards, we just need to make you aware uh that you've made that choice. Certainly not recognizing that you need to do something different uh in relation to the lack of segregation of duties. Not unusual for a small office to uh receive that comment. Um why under the professional standards it requires us to bring it to your attention is simply just as a reminder for your due diligence and what management's providing you throughout the years. recognizing that that uh um lack of uh controls um exists and so just make sure you're questioning what what uh what comes through. Nothing during the course of the audit led us to a place of concern that you were or weren't doing that. It's simply in there under our professional standards again to remind you of that fact. In that document, we also list out any accounting estimates that we evaluated that were included within that financial statement document. Happy to note that they were all clear, neutral, and non-bias. Plain English again, meaning they're appropriate to be with be within that financial statement document. Lastly, I list out any nonattest services that we provided for the village. So this would be doing journal entries, preparing the financial statement documents, doing um compilation reports to the do with Chris. Um all done and assessed to ensure that I am independent from the village and Baker Tilly is ultimately I have to be

able to make that determination in order to issue the opinion that I started the discussion on which again was that clean bill of health. So with that I'll pause. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Otherwise, it's just continues to be a privilege to work with the village.

Questions from the board.

Okay, sounds good. Thanks for having me. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thankful. Thank you. Uh up next to be operator's license uh for Andrew Paige specific to the legends at Meil Hills. There are no open cases. You said correct. Yes. Um there was a record in 2014 and But those both have been resolved and dismissed.

So the two labeled on there as nature of offenses are both dismissed. Well, the 2014 one was the 20 22 I believe he served like Huber. Okay. So dismissed would mean like he was not convicted. Oh, it they were so both were convictions or not guilty? You know how to read those?

I think they were dismissed. Well, the top part of this thing is, "Have you ever been convicted of any alcohol, beverage related offenses?" Yeah. Both have convictions. Yeah. He says, "Yes." So, I don't think they weren't dismissed anymore.

Yeah. The packet where it shows dismissals is because typically when you get arrested for that offense, you'll get a OWI ticket and then a second one for their blood alcohol concentration. But they cannot be convicted for both. double jeopardy. So, one or the other has to be dismissed and one would be a conviction. That's what happened. So, both are are convictions. I know in the past when we have uh some issues like that, we usually like to talk to the applicant personally and come in, but just maybe we may want to do that, ask them some questions if we're good with it. But in the past, sometimes we've had as come in. We have um

I'm not sure we need to do that but yeah we have and that's our discretion to do so but I think where we have done that is because there's either open cases or they're really fresh right so our last one is actually 2021 so it's five years almost five years since the last one and the previous one is 12 years back so but if that's what you want to do we can do that otherwise we can make a motion to approve it I'll make a motion to approve move this application. Okay. Is there a second? I'll second it. Any discussion?

All right. Hear no further discussion then. All those in favor of approving Andrew Pa's uh operator license say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? I'll abstain. Okay. All right. That carries four to zero with one abstension. Transient merchant pedler canvaser solicitor license application for active environmental LLC. Uh this is I won't call it renewal but this is a repeat repeated um application from last year and the year before. I think it's no just a couple years ago. 24 I believe they were here. Okay. I thought they were here last year as well. That was a different company.

Okay. So, they've listed um how many employees, Chris? 22. And they told me that they would not have them all out and about at the same time, but that was how many was going to be around over the course of the summer. So, they all check no for crimes or convictions. Yep. We don't do background checks on them like we do. I did Wisconsin background checks. Yeah. DOJ. They all came back clean. Mostly because they're all out of state.

States. Correct. Yes. But I did do my Wisconsin due diligence. Yes, they are all out of state. Looks like the closest is a Kansas residency. Yeah. I think they all share housing in Milwaukee while they're doing this. Sure. So, I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing. What do they sell? Pest control. Okay. Spraying. Yeah. for pests. Okay. Motion to approve or deny. I'll make a motion to approve the transite pillars.

Okay. Is there a second? I'll second it. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor of approving the application for Aptive Environmental LLC say I. I. Anyone opposed? That carries unanimous. Up next, 2026 yard and wood waste processing contract. Chris, you want to talk about this again? Um, second.

This is with certified products in New Berlin. There is nothing that's changed from last year. It's just that the contract is uh year to year. He's going to charge the same. He has been collecting the yard waste as been done in the past. So these are the fees just so we're on the same page. These are the fees for when we take the dumpsters of tree branches and such and and dump them. They're dumped at this company. So it's accepting of all of our yard waste is what this contract is for. This is not the transportation or the dumpster rentals. That's this is just the processing. Correct.

And I I honestly didn't look at that closer for for a same price for last year. Did they raise your low on? No, it's the same price. Okay. Thank you. Everything's the same, just the dates changed. I'll make a motion to approve the contract with Certified Products. Okay. Is there a second? I'll second. All right. Any discussion? It's been motioned and seconded to approve the 2026 yard uh and wood waste processing contract with certified. All those in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed? Motion carries unanimous. Up next, public works building project update. A minute. Sure. Go ahead.

I just got a text that people can't hear anybody but you. Are your microphones on? Clearly. Okay. I don't think had his on when he was okay. Oh, was it on? Okay. We just need to sit closer. Just said the only ones I can hear are the president.

So, should I talk quieter or talk louder? No, eat the mic. Eat the That's up to you. Okay. Yeah. If you guys can just Sorry. Thank you. Thanks. Maybe put the microphones closer to you then or something.

We can do that. All right. Hopefully we can resolve that. Thank you, Sue. Uh public works building project updates, including some options related to electrical and paving. Uh I hesitate putting this on here. I'll be quite honest with you. Um kind of going in lines with the the public comments, we have already approved this project by unan a majority vote. Um, we are working through with Greg and the work his firm is doing uh with the designers of the building to get everything put together on 600 plus pages of specs for this to go out to bid. As I mentioned last week in the workshop, we had planned that this was already at the bid process or by now close to being done to be voting on who our uh contractor is going to be. um that was put on hold with delays based off of the previous meetings uh or the last meeting where this was officially discussed where um it was brought up about landscaping and windows and some other concerns related to the doorways and and grading and stuff such like that. So the way that that um that vote was did not require this all to come back to you. I wanted to bring it back so you could see uh some of the stuff Greg has done. um with the drawings that um were printed off this afternoon or just before the meeting by Chris should be in front of all of you. Greg's here thankfully. Um he can discuss any questions that may be there. Um it was questioned at the workshop on the site plan that's been added here as well to include you can see some landscaping that's been proposed through all that. Again, these are all things that were based on the prior vote approved to be done and did not need to come back here. I'm providing them to you so you know where we're at. We're trying to finalize some things that had

some questions related to the building. If you look at the floor plan drawing uh on the right side of the the page, the catch basin is still a square. It's not this the trench drain. That's being resolved. Today, Greg had some emails going back and forth um working on where some um utilities on the inside were going to be placed. So, there's some finalizing of a few details that way um that he's working through that don't need to come back here. They're they're things the engineers do and they design every day. So, those aren't things that we need to be um micromanaging is what I will say. I don't like using the term, but that would be really micromanaging if we're telling Greg on how many outlets and where they should go and things of that sort. Uh, if you flip to the next page just for updates because this was brought up, you can see um that we have added windows to the north and the west elevations as indicated in the prior meetings vote. They actually had some more windows, but I asked them to remove some so that there was a decent amount of space on the north elevation and the west elevation. um where we would not be having windows blocked by pallet racking with storage and such. So, if you look, you'll see there's kind of a good amount of space between those two sides that um allows for that. If you flip beyond, you can see the drawings because this was questioned to the workshop on um you know the paving and such which I'll touch on next. But you can see um the grading that Greg has done some updates to. He's added landscaping around the north and west sides as directed at the last meeting of the vote. So again, I wanted to put those things before you so you can see the things that you guys requested have been modified and added to this. The other part of this, I guess really the reason I was bringing this before

you so you could see this and discuss tonight is the electrical and paving options portion of of this agenda item. At the workshop last week, questions were posed. Um ideas were raised by those who uh presented to us uh to u modify our electrical plans for the campus to include moving and changing the electrical for this building and also to not pave the section of this building that's shown in the drawings in front of you that we've already voted to approve. Both of those things have been voted and approved by this board by majority vote. the electrical is already in not in place like actually physically done but within the specs and the work that Greg's been working uh that's all stuff that's already resolved and we have a separate service as we've already voted on to go to this building. We have in the specs uh the asphalt pad to go in front of the garage doors that's already all there. It's already approved by this board. Um, I brought it back because questions were raised and it seemed as though through the discussion that those were items that this board wanted to now change and modify yet again. Um, I'm going to tell you I am adamantly opposed to that. If we're continuing with this project, which we are because we've already voted on that, let's finish the project and move on kind of as how the public comments went. Um, we already have a service to this building to include a generator for it. That's part of the the plans. We already have the paving and all that done. So based on last week last last week's workshop, if either of those two items are now modified, we're pushing this project even further into the future. Um because now those things that have been added and worked out and all that stuff in these drawings and and the 600 pages of documents that Craig has now have to be gone through and removed. So my suggestion is that even though I put it on here based on last week's

discussion, we continue with those two components of this project as we've already approved. But I brought it before you because the way the conversation went last week led to questions that made it sound like that was now in question that we weren't doing that. That's what I have to say. All right. I'm going to make a motion to approve. Go ahead and put out for bids. We've already done that. So, this at this point, yeah, that's that's already approved with everything that we've done. We just haven't gotten to that point. I apologize for cutting you off. You're just you're remaking a new motion. That's do something we've already got approved. Okay. What do you think? What do you think I'm

We We're just You're just reaffirming through a second vote then that we're going to do that. I am. Yes. It's already approved to go to bed. Yeah. Without the modifications. Right. As as presented the first time. I thought I thought we were going to sit here and discuss. I don't want to do that either. That's what you're hitting. Okay. Sorry, I cut you off. Go ahead. Go ahead with your motion. I apologize. No, never mind. No, no, no. Go ahead. I don't know what to do now because you said it's already been approved. That's what I was going to do. So if that's it I it this building is approved with the the pavement in the front as presented. Correct. The electrical as a separate deal as as originally done. Correct.

And we discussed at the workshop of changing that eliminate but that would like you said that would create a whole another delay in all of this. And it's at the point now it's been delayed so much that I'm I'm beginning to think it's never going to happen. So, I don't want to change anything as I say I guess is what I was going to I didn't mean to we didn't need to make a motion to that effect. So, you don't need to I guess again I apologize for cutting you off but what I wanted to clarify by doing that is that's already set in motion. So, it's going to go off for bids as we did. The only thing I guess to this point would be then is if

now there's a majority, somebody makes a motion that we're going to make those changes and no longer have a separate electrical service to this property to this project. Um that was proposed last week. And same with the paving portion. Unless there's going to be somebody making a motion that we're changing the paving portion to remove that, we don't need to make a new motion. That's but that's why I was before you because that was brought up as questions last night. I thought never mind what I thought. I'll just make a comment if I could. So, sure. And maybe Greg, you weren't at the workshop or whatever. So, it's I'm sure you heard the ins and outs of why we may be suggested to um hold the paving off and maybe the electrical off. I think you maybe heard all that. Yep.

And um possibly having two different contractors do two different phases at the campus projects here. Um It would have been nice and again that's all here site that two different um architects or engineers whatever doing these projects would have been nice if the two would have been on board maybe to discuss that before we got to this where we're at today. How's that? And maybe um things would have could have changed um for one entry way or one raceway to um put electrical in there and plus the paving, have it all done at once once. Maybe save some money getting the the whole parking lot done at once, the whole the whole campus done at once. And so that was what was brought up with, you know, not to say we're trying to hide dollars, but I think it's my opinion. and I thought that we could save money doing it a different way. How's that? And that's what we brought up to the workshop and I think we discussed that thoroughly and u and I believe that was that's the way we should go and u and that's why I made that look like that or brought that up and um I think down the road we could save a lot some money and I think it the outcome of the paving especially I think would be a better outcome when it's all said and done having so many different joints in in the pavement when it's all said and done. um I think the job would look a lot better and hold up in the long run for maintenance down the road. So that's why we brought it up, Stewie and I and um um and presented it that way or whatever and and uh we all discussed it at the workshop and and here the ins and outs why and I know we all approved this and stuff but um

and it passed but I just wanted to have a discussion before if we had the chance or two before it went out on bid. Now's the time to make that change if we had the opportunity. And and I think it's at the at the head right now where where the change could be made tonight if we wanted to do so. And I just wanted to bring that up and have everybody here on the same page that are listening in. Thank you.

Yeah, I I can I can talk about the paving a little bit just because I I do think you bring up some valid points as far as, you know, reducing or eliminating cold joints. you know, if we're paving a part of the parking lot now and another part of it a year and a half or two years in the future, whatever it may be, um, you know, at the at the saw cut line for the DPW yard versus the rest of the pavement, you're going to have a joint there and a cold joints, um, I guess making that area more susceptible to water seepage and and cracking in the future. I do get that. Um, my concern, well, you know, obviously I'm I'm vested in this project and I I want to I want to get it off the ground. I want to get it bid um and obviously I'll work with whatever changes need to be made or requested by the board um to limit delay time and getting that done. So, my concerns with a change at this point are less about um delaying the project, you know, another week or two and more about the end product you're getting for your asphalt there. Um, and I don't know, you know, the amount of time it would be left on road base, I guess, is undetermined at this point, but it would be a significant amount of time where you're you're leaving that road base kind of open to the elements, water, weather, freezing conditions, thawing conditions. Um, you're you're likely to by the time you'd have to pave, and I'm just talking about the area in front of the public works building right now, like this, you know, 50 by 160 foot area. Um, likely by the time you pave that, you're you're raising the likelihood that you're going to have to make repairs to that base or that subbase area underneath it because you're leaving it exposed. And sure, it's going to be very well compacted and it's going to be, you know, a thick section and some of the subbase that needs to be repaired at the time the base is installed will have already been taken care of. Um, I'm just saying I think you're you're raising the likelihood that you're going to have to

come back and do more repairs on on those sections. Um, so maybe some of the cost benefit is is getting a little more evened out by potentially having to make those repairs depending on how long it's being left open without being paved. Um, another thing I I think the board should consider in making that decision or, you know, deciding not to pave this area would be we are specifying seven inches of asphalt on front of the the public works building. And so in order to make this building accessible until it's paved, you're talking about bringing in about, you know, seven inches of extra material to get up to grade for the building so it can be accessible by Rob and his staff. that is just running the numbers, you know, it's about 400 tons of gravel at $25 a ton. That's about $10,000 worth worth of extra gravel. Um that sure over time and maybe over a year or two that some of that's getting compacted. Um but it would likely all have to be removed by the time you're you're paving anyway. So just, you know, another cost consideration that I'm not sure, you know, the the benefits or the cost benefits to paving it all at once. um you're eliminating a few joints. Um but it's it's not like a road where you're gonna have a a joint, you know, going down the center of the road for the length of the road. And obviously, you want to avoid cold joints in that scenario. I think for the DPW building specifically, you're eliminating a couple couple of joints around the perimeter that um in the long run, I I feel like the the quality of the pavement is probably more at risk by leaving it open to the elements than by having a couple cold joints. Um, not to mention just with the size of the equipment using that area every day, um, by Rob and his his crew. Um, you know, just the nature of the orientation, they're they're turning into that public works building all the time coming in from the the east. And so probably

having a lot of ruting in that material, a lot of material displacement that's just going to have to constantly be managed um, for however long it left. And I again, I don't know. A lot of that's up in the air, how long that would be. Um, so my concern is more about the quality of of of the product you're getting for this this section of pavement. Obviously, I think conceptually, and ideally, you're paving everything at once. I I do understand that. I think there are a lot of pros to that. Um, but I don't know if not paving this small section in front of the public works building while you're also building the building at this time is is really that worth it.

I appreciate your opinion. Like I say, uh we threw this out there and uh one you you you you said the word benefits. What's the benefits of not doing or doing it obviously and um your opinion, your professional opinion? You're saying that we should pave it in the story. Um and I listen to professionals. So um I just want to hear that because like I say, we've went back and forth on this and like I say, I don't like doing things twice. once is enough and I don't want to pay for things twice when it can only be done one time and done the right the correct the first time. So that's where I'm standing. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Of course.

Craig, can you just on um one other thing to I guess clarify on because it was something I mentioned to you after the meeting last week. Uh the grade was brought to question last week with how this was presented and can you just touch on the grade to this new building with what's existing and such because that was questioned. Yeah. Um, so was the question the the grade of the new building is kind of being determined by other buildings on site or

Yeah, basically the way it was discussed was by eliminating this this portion of asphalt and doing it in the future would reduce the chance that the grade of the existing asphalt existing buildings wouldn't match with where this new asphalt would be. From what you and I talked about after that meeting, you're you're putting the building at a height that it's a grade height. Why wise that it matches what's already out there. So you're not going to have the issue that was I guess raised that way.

Yeah, I think so. How we determined the grade of the building was obviously higher than its surroundings and it's it's in kind of a path of natural drainage, but obviously we're we're building up enough where we're able to work water around either side of it. what's really ti kind of setting the grade for this somewhat. I mean, it it could go higher, but we're obviously tying into the existing pavement um just to the east of where the building's being set. And so, without making drastic changes to the site in that respect, I mean, we're that's 8:16.4, you're not creating a a huge ramp going up to the building and the 20 feet that we have there. Um, and so I think it's it's being raised enough that we're not creating drainage issues around the building, but you know, it is set somewhat by its surroundings. Um, but I don't know that paving it now versus later is going to really change that at all or allow us to make a change to the building's elevation. That make sense?

Yes. Okay. I guess I'll ask Go ahead. So, we beat the paving pretty good. How about the electrical? Do you you you don't want to get involved in that? I don't really have a professional opinion on that. I you know, we're not designing the electrical, obviously. Mort Morton is specifying that. Um I do have a question for you and cut to the quick. Yeah. Can you get a state permit when you don't have electrical? How do you get a building permit that doesn't show how you're going to provide electrical to the building? If you waited this out, they would be submitting an electrical permit with no that.

No, that's not what's being proposed necessarily. They can't submit an electrical permit because they won't have the rest of the buildings all ready to put major electrical. As I understand it, if you're trying to do electrical for the entire complex, we won't be in a position to do that at this. Sure. I I see what you're saying.

I didn't get I guess into the specifics of that. So right that the way it was proposed last week through the workshop was an electrical would be a single feed coming into the back of this building with a transformer basically outside these windows that would direct feed to this but then also feed to um the new building as well and the the existing building that would stay versus just running a new feed to this whenever the project here is built and then keeping that as its own feed with its own service to the new building. So, consolidating it all to one service coming in from one pole versus there being two separate lines.

So, I was just acting a very practical question. I take to the my plans to the state and I say, "Here are my plans to build the new building. I need state approval." And they say, "You don't have any electrical to this building." Well, the submitts are separated. So, there's an electrical submitt, plumbing submitt, mechanical submitt. So, I I mean, you wouldn't be able to submit an electrical. you wouldn't be able to get a permit because you don't have any electric is what you're saying, right? We wouldn't have a plan to submit, right? So, yeah, to answer your question, no, you wouldn't be able to get a permit. So, I just wondered if that cut to the quick. I mean, I guess I'm confused then with what you're saying. I thought with the specs and everything that we're putting together

with the way we're proposing it there you would be able to submit a permit but I think the alternative option you would not be at the time because well may maybe John you maybe you need to ask the question again maybe I'm not understanding it but well my question is you go to they decide they're going to do a total redo of the electrical for the entire campus and that's not going to be done until the fire department decisions are made. So there's no electrical permit to submit to the state at the time we submit the building. Yes.

Can we even get occupancy if there's no electrical? I'm just I've never heard of such a thing that we would delay by a year the electrical necessarily because we can't do the electrical till you finish everything else. Right. Right. So the the response to that from the propos proposal last week was that we would do the the new service to this campus immediately. um that that would be a new project that we would have to undertake right now and find funding for and then getting an engineer to put that into place and then getting everything run. So, simultaneous to trying to do the bid for this but separate to be doing that separate.

I wasn't here either. So, I'm No, I'm I'm being caught up a little bit.

That may that may have answered the question. I mean, But I guess going back kind of in line with the public comments section that we don't know what's going to end up be happening with the fire department portion. So there's a big what if there yet. Um it's coming up next as the next topic to discuss after this is resolved. Um so we may be doing electrical upgrades to the building that just never even happened if we never even build the new building or addition to this building. So to me it makes more sense that we continue with the project as it's already been designed and improved to run. Ultimately in the end there's two two different services. One to this building with the addition of whatever ends up happening into the future and the public works building having its own feed um direct to it. Again, my comment was to hope, you know, having both of these projects start to within if they both happen, I should say, if both contractors were to, you know, were in hand in hand to discuss this or whatever. Um, I was just hoping that that we had one main feed feed this building. And I'm not elected engineer and we probably should not have hired one a long time ago but we haven't um to discuss this issue I guess um back in the day when um youngest and I forgot the name of it

Angus Young they actually um planned it out way back 10 12 years ago how they would want it and that's how we talked about it at the workshop the same way Angus Young wanted to do it way back when 10 years ago

that was like three years ago and nobody bid on and no and nobody bid on and the amp and the amp is, you know, again, we don't know what ampage everything needs to be because nothing's in writing what what power we need for each building yet. So, it was a big question mark yet. And I I agree with what with what Chad says. We don't know if the building's even going to take place, but I thought it'd be a a topic to have discussion on to see what ways best to go and and that's why it was brought up. Um, I'm just trying to be um ahead of the game instead of behind the game and and do things twice. That's all I'm trying to say. Okay. Um, since there's two different topics there, I guess, is there any motions to modify anything related to the electrical for the public works project? Right. I'll ask the same question I guess on the paving portion of the discussion. Is there any motions related to that portion of the project?

I will make a motion that we do the electrical all at once so there's one service feed and one generator for the whole complex and to be completed as soon as possible. So the DPW building has their electric All right. I'm just writing that down so I can repeat it hopefully to what you stated. Okay. Okay. So, your motion that you've made is to approve uh bringing in one uh electrical feed to the entire campus to include one generator and to do so as quick as possible so that it can be the source for this building and any future work to it and also to the public works building that's being designed and put out to bid.

Correct. Is there a second? I'll second this for uh discussion if I could. Well, it's going to have to be a whole lot more detailed and it's not on the agenda, right? You can make a motion to remove it from the plan that Greg is working on. I don't think you can approve the motion that is being requested because it's not on the agenda. The agenda item is not broad enough to encompass the entire campus. Okay. The public would need to have known that that was what you were considering in all due respect. Okay. I I mean that's what I'm looking at the agenda. It doesn't say it says dealing with the electrical for the public works building. Am I reading that agenda correctly? Yeah, it's updates and paving electrical options. Yes.

So, you can remove it from what Greg is doing, but I don't think until you have another meeting and you're going to have to be a lot more specific as to are you authorizing the hiring of someone to do this. You know what what there's a whole lot more involved than just this. So you can accomplish maybe maybe accomplish what you want by making a motion to remove it from the uh you know the public works building uh bidding process. That would be the first step. But that's what's I think the agenda item contemplated I I don't know how someone puts it together and I'm not an electrical engineer either. I'm just looking at it practically until they know what the other building is going to look like. Can you do it in a vacuum?

That was the question I was going to raise was how do we pre-plan for something when we don't know what the feed's going to the need of this building is going to be. Okay. So, if we can't make the motion as it is and or well, I mean, you can you can ignore my advice. I'm just saying from a practical standpoint, I don't believe that that was what was contemplated was to make that leap, you know, but I I certainly think it is an order to say you want to remove it from the electrical and then Greg can continue or from his planning and then he can continue. That's the intent of the motion is to remove it from the DPW building plans. Yep.

And then it'll just have to be on another agenda, you know, for how you're going to proceed. But I think It's got to be a lot more detailed than just

Well, let me let me let me say this if I could. We don't want to hold up the DB project. Okay, we're we're done doing that. We heard, you know, I'm done with that and we need to move forward. But is there any way that we can talk to electrical engineer to see if this is something that we should consider or not consider, I guess, um, and not hold up the DP project going. I mean, they're not going to put the electrical in right away anyway. they can start the building, get it done, and in the meantime, could they can we look reinvest or look into electrical engineer and get their opinion? Can we do that? We'll be able to do that. I guess

we can, but that that's to John's point. Then we have to vote to remove it from this project so the project can continue without delay. I need to know one way or the other. And we need to know, you know, we need to know what to tell contractors to do. And so, yeah, we're a little bit we're still a ways away from getting this ready to bid because Morton has not finished up their revisions to the technical specs and you know, we still have to complete our, you know, we've completed the front end documents. We still have to complete the technical specs. So, removing it, you know, if we're removing it, that's, you know, we got to go through and remove it. We got to tell Morton to remove that from his specs. Um, keeping it as is, you know, that's the path of least resistance right now. But um

can you talk to an electric engineer? Sure. But I I if you don't want to if you don't want to delay the the DPW building project, I need to know one way or the other. Well, let me ask a question. I mean, I'll put you on the spot here, but um I don't know who you're you know, planning on bidding this out to, whatever, how that works, process that you guys will be doing. Um, is there any way that you since you heard kind of the scuttle kind of what we're trying to do, possibly do I should say? Um, from your side of the story, could you ask your folks that you're working with if this would be a better option to go or stay with the option that we've already voted on? Is is is could you have discussion? Yeah, I can with your facility.

We have we have a building services team that I

and just simply ask the question. is something that we should ignore, we ignore it. It's pretty simple. But I think if they would or agree with doing it a different way, um I think it should be something to check into. How's that? That's all I'm saying, Greg. You know, I just want to do it right exactly what that question is because there's so many nuances in that question. Okay? You know, in all due respect, I mean, you can ask that question, but they need to know timing. They need to know expenses. They need to know all kinds of things for to answer a question on whether there's a better way to go. I in all due respect, you know, you ask 10 people, they'd say, "Well, I need more data." You know, what do you

And there and there is there's a lot of questions out there. Like I say, the amperage that we that go to the billings, that is a big question. We don't know if if it's going to be a 600 800 amp phase service that we got put in. We don't even know. Like I say, the billing might not even happen to fire station. You know, that was just on the agenda. And and that's why I don't know even if I asked my team internally, they'd be able to give you an answer on that. I really And so be it. I don't know. Maybe we're beating a dead horse here. You know, I'm just wanted to bring that up so we have the option to do that. I think we built built the horse has been dead 15 times already.

Okay. Move forward. I I think we can put the electrical in as proposed or un approved and if we want to go ahead and do this the whole campus electric we can do that in next time that somebody else and we can still hook up that to this building regardless whether it's the general thing where we put the whole thing on one meter or whatever. We can always still do that with this building. But if we don't do something now, this building the way you're talking electrical here and stuff, it's going to be dragged out another six months just to get electrical engineering in here and and do that. I just can't see doing that anymore. We beat this thing so badly now that it's terrible. I'm embarrassed to be sitting up here talking about it anymore. I have to agree with Sandy. It This is ridiculous. Let's We got a a bid process here. We've got a an approved building. Let's go ahead and get it done. Let's not delay this anymore with some more changes and let's do this. We don't know if we're going to have a fire department yet. We haven't gotten that far. We're doing the same thing I said in the beginning. We're holding the DPW building hostage over the fire department. We've all agreed that it wasn't going to happen, but it's happening. This is the reason why you're talking about putting the whole electrical service in because of the fire department. The DPW building doesn't need the whole electrical service. It can use it, but it's not necessary to get this building off the ground. So, I'd be I'm wholly opposed to changing this electrical thing here in the changes. Let's get this thing out for bids and get it done. This isn't going to be make or break us if we have to have another line someday put into that DPW building, which may not be for another three years.

I'm sorry. Okay. No, I don't think I don't think the It's going to be up to Wei Energies what they put in for a service and what they put in for they're going to engineer their own stuff. They're not going to listen to an engineer. They know what they have to put in to serve the buildings and they're going to do it on their own. They do it every day. I agree with that. But what's going to stop building for that building? What's going to make what do we need in all that for one building? You don't. You need it for three. But then but at least. And how long is that going to take? However long it takes them to get it drawn up until then we'll be sitting here two years from now sitting here waiting for them to you're not going to get it done any faster with an engineer.

I'm not saying that it's probably with an engineer. Exactly. I'm that's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to say here is let's expedate this and all the way get a hold of Wisconsin energy and get it done. Fine. That's I agree with you. I just don't want to hold this building up till we get That's totally stupid.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I said we can get this done now. Why why do we need to we can do that in the future? Get a hold of we energies and do that if we want to do the whole campus down the road. I agree with that. Just don't think we need to do it on this DPW building yet. Bob his point that I'm not going to speak for both of them, but I guess in a way I am. Their point is that we run the service to this building then to send it off to all the locations it's got to go to. So it's only done once. you're you're referencing to to do it again in the future to go from the new service that we bought to this building. They're arguing we don't do that. We don't run a separate line. We just do it all at once now. But my argument is is you run one line in to a transformer is what they're going to do and they're going to split it off of that transformer. They're going to run one line to that building. They're going to run one line to this building and they're going to have a another line ready for the other building.

They know what they're doing. They're going to do it every they do it every day. So the the clarification from the attorney was that the motion made is not part of this agenda item. So to to John's point, is there a motion or removing on uh as far as removing the electrical service from the current plans that's already been approved? Okay. Hearing none, then those options will stay as already approved. I want to go back to your comment at the beginning of the meeting when you said it was unanimous.

No, I think I corrected myself. I don't believe it was unanimous because I wouldn't have voted for it. No, I corrected myself and said majority. Okay. I caught myself and said that and corrected that. Okay. Yep. I didn't catch it. Yeah, I think it was, if I recall correctly, it was 4 to one that you had voted against. Thank you.

Okay. Up next is uh discussion on the fire station remodel project. Um based off the workshop, uh I walked away with a lot of things I guess running through my mind. Um, ultimately when I walked out looking back at where we've been, we've discussed a lot of different things. We've discussed the needs of the fire department. We've discussed the wants of the fire department. We've discussed different various schemes along the way over the last three to five years or even farther beyond with previous boards. Whether it's a new building or it's a remodel of this building or it's a new attached building that's got remodeling involved, whatever the case was, we've we've discussed a lot of those. We've discussed using the existing road entrances to the campus or adding a new one depending on which version of the potential layout we looked at. We've discussed removing the wraparound of the asphalt in the northwest corner behind the current fire station garage or keeping it as is uh and doing additional work that way. We've discussed replacing the uh entire roof of the entire campus of this building that we're sitting in right now to include both sides. Um, we've discussed various ways of improving the electric supply to the building, which we just went over. Uh, there's been discussions on how many wells will service the campus, whether it's one, two, or whatever that ends up being. Uh, we've had discussion and we went out to the point of getting um cost estimates on a couple of our schemes to have an idea of what this was going to cost the village taxpayers. We've talked about timelines for completion of this project. We've discussed whether we're going to conduct a referendum or not. Whether it's required by ordinance or if it's not required and whether we're going to force a referendum either way. We've discussed when we're going to resurface the entire campus asphalt, which was brought up again yet tonight. And it was brought up also tonight on how many generators we're going to have for the campus when everything is all said and done. And the list can continue from

that. But that was just what I threw together, I guess, to start this. While those are all good things for us to have talked about along the way, whether it was in a board meeting or in a workshop, ultimately I think a lot of those different things start to cloud where this project needs to go. Uh because we start arguing on where a firetr is going to be parked and is it in this garage or that garage? Are they single parked, double parked, whatever. you know, it just keeps going and like we don't come to a consensus with a majority on on any because we have so many different conversations going in so many different directions. So, the way I um asked Chris to put this on the agenda um was I guess just a reflection on how the meeting went or the workshop went and um really just boiling it down to where we need to go from here. And I think as it is in the agenda, um there's an intention on why there are no longer floor plans on the wall next to us. I removed them tonight on purpose. I'm tired of talking about what the floor plan could be, whether it's this way, that way, or whatever, because that's not going to get us to the end of this. We need to decide based on last week's workshop and and with again the what if of this and that that was brought to question how much are we going to spend on this building and whether or not we're going to a referendum regardless of the cost because last week in the workshop there was an appetite uh by some of the board when it was discussed that we would do a rough run either way whether it was a $1 million build or a $10 million build. the discussion was uh we were doing a referendum either way was was said by some. So I think those are the two questions that we need to figure out. Are we going to do a referendum and for what? Um and then in line with that, how much are we going to spend on this project?

Ultimately, as the fisers have said for a year and a half, that's really what's going to probably uh dictate how this building looks when it's done. If we go into this with let's find a plan that we all agree to or a majority agrees to um which depending on which I don't want to say which meeting but which 10-minute portion of the discussion we have on the topic it changes. So that's why it's laid out the way that is on on the um the agenda. We needed to decide, are we going to spend above or below the referendum amount? And then are we doing a referendum even if it's not required by ordinance?

Can we take them out of order? Uh yeah. All righty. I'm going to start out. I'm going to make a motion that we do not go to referendum with the fire department building. And I think we can get it under the spending limit that we need. Okay. Okay. Is there a second? I'll second. All right. Discussion on the topic. Okay. Well, I Well, go ahead. If we don't go to referendum, are we going to have some kind of public input before we do this?

So, I I I guess I'm kind of looking at that. I'm not against one way the referendum. I guess it but my point is I need to think the people need to know ahead of time that we're going to do this and have a plan here some kind of amount of dollars or something. Okay.

I don't want to surprise people with something like that I guess is my point. Uh well that was kind of that's where I I guess I stopped part of the conversation at the workshop and tried clarifying because the words input and the words having a say kept being kind of mixed together and I separated those as we talked that having input is we do workshops or not workshops but we can have open houses here uh do those types of things like they do on the DOT projects when they invite the public to come and see you know where things are at and what you know what they suggest if anything. Um, and then the other side of that is having a say, which refers to that we're going to referendum and that they're voting on it instead of the five of us.

So, if we want to do input and have open houses and such, we've talked about that for a long time that the village should have input on it. Yes. Uh, it's whether or not we're going to put it before them to vote on it or if we're doing this in a method that we're voting on it. So, just to clarify and in and speaking with uh Attorney Macy before the meeting, um if we go for a referendum under the the threshold that requires it, we would have to have it be advi um uh binding from what they said.

No, I don't know that you could. Okay, let me let me clarify it. Okay. You have an ordinance that says when you have to go to referendum, correct? Yep. You can't use that referendum because it doesn't you don't have to go to referendum.

So that you're not using that law, right? So the only other law that really applies is levy limits that you go to referendum to increase the levy limits because the legislature and I'll have to go research this in greater detail has put great restraints on advisory referendums. In fact, the attorney league um Wisconsin municipalities attorneys are currently arguing in a in a good way because one of the members asked yesterday or the day before, can I have an advisory referendum on something? And they were pretty much saying, I don't think in this day you can any longer have advisory referendums because the legislature, I think, was concerned that there were just too many referendums going on. And so you had to basically do it you know and so what one person I have taken the position over the years that you can only send something to binding referendum if there's a statutory authority to do so and I've given you two examples your ordinance and the levy limits otherwise it's an advisory referendum and now with the new law the ability to do an advisory referendum is limited. Okay. My question is this. I really We're talking about two two referendum limits. A million dollars, which is a local

$4 million. No, we are talking about something that we that we passed. No, no, no, no. Sandy was referring to when the ordinance for a referendum was being drafted four years ago, if I remember correctly, there was discussions of making it a million or it was already a million, whatever the case was. Our referendum threshold is 0.25% of the equalized value of our village through property assessments. I understand that which is roughly $4.75 million. Okay. So that was our limit. So where does the million dollars come in? That's that's it was never approved. It was an option. I know. Okay. It was the option that the Okay. Our amount is four roughly 4.475.

Okay. That I understand. Okay. But if the motion is not to have a referendum, I mean, and that's what everybody agrees to. I don't know that we need more background. If you wanted a referendum, we're talking about all of the issues that come up if you want a referendum. Correct. And I don't want to belabor that. I I didn't I just wanted to clarify because there was questions about it and and so that's why I I asked you before the meeting and had you clarify, I guess.

Okay. Is there any other discussion on not going to a referendum on this project? I guess the only discussion I'll make is u I kind of agree with Bob what he had to say about having open houses and having the u people and our taxpayers know what's going on. I think uh we spend this kind of money I I I instead of this have all of a sudden have a building put up and everybody goes how did that happen? Uh, it should be nice to let the our folks know what's going on here in the village of Walk. Okay.

I've got I've got a point I want to make. You know, we talk about the big number all the time. The big number. We know how we're going to get to that number if we have finance that. This is going to amount to somewhere between a three and 4% increase on current uh assessment rates for your taxes. Nobody's talking about that. This is a very affordable project and we need to not scare them with, you know, uh 4 point, you know, $4.4 million. In the same breath, we need to say and that will amount to 3.3% approximately over a period of 20 years on your local taxes. That's a lot easier to understand and a lot easier to appreciate because that deals with the here and now. That deals with the current pocketbook that deals what's going to happen ultimately.

Well, those are the things we bring out in a in a open house. Is that those first question they're going to ask? What are taxes going to do? That's the first question they're going to ask. That's where our taxes are going. The figures we came out with at $4 million, it's going to be less probably $85 of a year. A year per tax. Exactly. In 20 years, it's $2,000. That's Okay. Any other discussion? All right, hearing none. All those in favor of not conducting a referendum for the fire station remodel project say I. I.

Anyone opposed? Anyone abstain? Okay, it carries unanimously. Five to zero. All right, going backwards then on the the items spending limit. So, as we've talked about in the last several meetings on this topic, um to be careful on not getting close to that threshold with the project. Um we've discussed being around 4.1, I would say even as much as 4.2 million, somewhere in that range on the max side for this project for a budget. um we may be able to affect all the changes we're talking about for less as student referenced earlier, but I would suggest that our budget's not anywhere more than that um for this project. I will make a motion that we proceed with the fire department build, rebuild, whatever it's going to be at the top amount of 4.4 million as a cap.

Can we ask for a clarification? Is that the uh public bidding contract max or is that the total package including the consultants fees and everything? I I just want to know the total project at 4 million cap 4.4 million cap, sorry. Okay. So, and again, I'm not belaboring it. Do you feel any money spent to date would come under that cap or that we really haven't started the project because um the architect hasn't charged anything? I mean, I I don't know what the answer to that is. It's just somebody's going to ask that question. Of the 4.4, how much have you spent already? Anything up to date? I don't think we spent anything. Zero.

Zero. And that's fine. They all can be absorbed elsewhere. As far as I know, there's no expense has been um absorbed yet u because we haven't hired an architect to design anything or or plan or any of the building yet. Well, what are those plans that we've been getting for the past months? Those were paid for by for the fire department. That's we spent $20,000 to get through conceptual drawings that we've been using for a year and a half. That's it. That's the only money we've spent on this project thus far. It's conceptual just like we did the TBW building. The same same deal. We haven't designed anything yet. And

right, but that that's all we spent at this point. So even if we factor that in, then that's all we stuff that Al and I did with Fiser and Fischer and Ty was basically I should say Gratus. Same as they did with the DPW building. They did it for us out of the goodness of their heart because they're residents of the village of Walkshaw and they want to help us out. Okay. Uh is there a second to the motion uh to have a total project budget of 4.4 million. I'll second that and I um for discussion. Okay. Discussion.

I guess my thing is we'll put it at 4.4. It doesn't mean we got to spend four, but I think that would give us opportunity to build what we need to get here. And I'm glad you took the phases off the wall because uh the money is going to dictate what the fire department remodel is going to be and uh they're going to get it underneath the budget um that we discussed and u and whoever oversees it, the fire chief board here, Chad, whoever will be on that, they'll they'll make it work. um under that and whatever it is it's going to be and so we can move forward so we can get a new fire remodel here and and done and get and move forward instead of like we say we've been spinning wheels and and we're all pretty done done with this beat up a lot and and uh we just need to move move forward and that and that's where I'm coming from. So thank you.

Okay, other discussion. No, no, that's all in that should be project probably in the minutes. That means all in. That was the project. So that'll be design costs, asphalt work, the remodel, furnishings, anything that comes with it. It's going to be all the above. That's that's the design work. Yep. All of that included, but nothing spent to date is included in that number. That's a very That was a very good motion. It was very clear. We just got to memorialize it.

Yep. So, my concern with that specific dollar amount is we go through roughly $400,000 worth of design costs through assuming we use Fisher or whoever that you know if something comes up that we go to somebody else, whatever the case is, we we spend roughly 400,000 to get to that point. We go to bid with thousands of pages of documents and our total is now 4.6. That 4.4 is the cap not to exceed 4.6. I understand that. But when we get to the bid now, the bid is too much. We've now spent 400,000 in August. Then you have to reject it.

And it comes in at 4.6. You got to reject it. Okay. Motion is 4.4 million cap. Okay. My only point is there's a lot of money being spent on the front side for that. Um, so that's my concern. Usually you leave a little 10% for contingency. Well, that's all built in like the cost estimate, I guess, right? Because if you break that down, there's 10% here and 15% there. You'll get what you get under that amount, not to exceed 4.4 million. Okay. Any other discussion?

I guess the only discussion I'll have is um I know that's the cap and stuff and we're trying to do the pavement obviously to defer some calls for future years because and maybe the attorney can weigh in on this. Uh we had a little workshop talk about the paving because nine and 10 is not going to be paved in the you know we whenever we start this the sooner we start this obviously if we don't get this thing bid out it's going to be way over that referendum uh thing if we don't get this thing hire the architect and get it started we're going to be over the referendum it'll go up 8 to 10% the following year. So, if we don't get this out to bid here this year, um for the for start of 2027, um this whole project won't happen. I can tell you right now, it it won't meet the ref it will be over the referendum dollar amount. So, it's one best to move forward. You know, hire an architect um whoever and uh get this thing started because the bids are going to come out at a prime time where uh contractor's going to want to bid just like the road situation. It's going to be the same thing for building projects out there, guys. Um, and the more we slow this down, we won't have a a project started in 2027. And in 2028, if it's if it goes to that way, we will have a referendum. I just want to make that as a comment.

Well, that's why I brought up the portion about if the dollar amounts above that, we're going to end up being now forced to go to referendum because we've exceeded the limit. So Stu's point is that if it's anything above 4.4, then the project's dead. Well, that's because we've exceeded our limit. And that's what I was trying to discuss with this this payment thing. It's, you know, we're all pushing a lot of the payment on the fire department project, the DB type going to do a little square foot of footprint in front of their door. But this whole campus, that's a separate topic. We've already

Well, I'm we've already separated out the U-shaped portion around where we're sitting right now. This this is specific to the fire department and re resurfacing the lot where our cars are right now for this meeting is not part of the fire department. I think the maker of the motion would agree to that. You got to put the back road in if it ultimately and the parking and everything for the back, but the rest of it is not part of the fire department project. Fire, let's call it fire remodeling, the fire department remodeling project that we have a title for once and for all. You know, I think a lot of people have referred to it that way. But anything that I would assume the maker of the most things, anything that's being done campuswide, not as part of the fire department remodeling project, doesn't come into the 4.4 million. Great.

Okay. That's that's his point. Yep. Not trying to burden it with excess things so you can't get what you want. Correct. Bill, that's not his point. He's just saying he wants to tell the public this is this is what we're going to spend. Yep. Any other discussion? Okay. Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion to u create a budget for the fire department remodel project of $4,400,000 and not to exceed that amount for the entire project. Uh say I I. Anyone opposed?

That carries unanimous. All right. The last portion related to this uh that was put on for consideration of hiring a firm to to start doing the design work. My assumption is going to be that everybody wants to continue with Fisers. Well, I'll make a motion that we hire Fisher Fisher to design our fire department remodel.

I'll second it. Good.

All right. I want to clarify on on something related to this. They we don't know their fees. Uh we don't have a contract um or anything to that effect. So, I say we don't know because it's not on a contract in front of us to um to approve here, right? So, um we know because of prior conversations with hiring them to get to where we are at this point. So, uh I would recommend that your motion would include um why don't we ask for a submit proposal? Proposal. Sure. Can the motion be to ask for a proposal from them to bring back to bring back to the next meeting? Otherwise, you've just and I'm not saying they would do it, but you've just given them a blank check.

That's why I'm bringing it up as the cliche goes. So, you worded it better, but that was my point was request a proposal. They've told us roughly 10 10% of the project is what their fee would be, but now because we've already approved them, now they're going to make a 25, right? So, now a lot more money is being spent on that portion versus the building. So, um are you open to I guess modifying the motion to that to request a proposal for them? Yes. To hire them for this? Yes. Okay. All right. Any discussion beyond that point? So, that'll be brought back. Um, we'll ask for that to be to the next meeting.

Okay. Uh, last thing I want to bring up is well, how about we'll just put it in

we will try to get it to we'll we'll bring it to the board as soon as we have it. Last time we asked for it, I think it took a while to get the first draft to us. So, as soon as we have it, we will present it to the board, whatever meeting that is. The only thing I guess I want to bring up to this um they're not going to continue to to work for free from the perspective of they're not going to want to do six, seven, nine months worth of work on this for engineering uh and not receive any payments along the way. Uh so if we use the rough numbers we've been talking about that their portion is going to be in upwards of $400,000 of this, how are we paying for that? It's not budgeted for. We don't have funds allocated. We're going to have to do a budget amendment in the future for that at another meeting. But what are you guys thinking from that perspective? I understand wanting to move forward now, but we're asking for $400,000 now that we don't have allocated for this.

Well, we don't know yet, though. We're going to wait till we get to the proposal, I would think, and then decide if we want to make a budget amendment. I don't know. Well, whenever we sign the contract and start the work, as I think their last one was, was potentially monthly payments for whatever work was done each month. Either way, we have to determine where the money is coming from. We're not making the mo motion to make a budget amendment tonight. It's not on the agenda. So, I'm bringing it up for discussion that So, what's motion? There is no I'm not adding anything to the motion. The motion is going to proposal from Fischers to hire them to to do this work. I'm bringing it up as part of the consideration of this. We're looking at potentially $400,000 worth of expenses this year that we don't have budgeted for. We don't have money for.

We have a capital fund. Correct. Yes. And we may have some leeway in our loan for the year depending on where the public works project comes in for what our our current budget is that variables for you because some of that was supposed to be for the DPW bill anyway. I understood that's what I'm saying. 2 million was budgeted for that building. If that building comes in way under that, that may be the funding source for this. But I want to put before you that you guys are considering that because when we talk about this at the next meeting with a contract in hand, we need to figure out where the money is coming from. Is there a way to table that until We're not I I'm bringing it up for consideration, not because we're not making a decision on it tonight. We can't decide that tonight.

It's just something to be pondering in the meantime. All right. If it's just for pondering, I'm fine. Okay. I'll ponder. Just a comment. Just a comment. Don't ponder too hard. So, okay. Hold on. Al wanted to speak first. Yeah. Some of Yeah. I mean, if it comes out to 400,000, whatever that dollar amount's going to be, obviously that we need to come up with that funding.

The issue is a lot of this work, some of it will be done in 2026 and 2027. Do we need to clarify the whole aotment for 26 and continue through 27 or can we split it up and and and ask the fisers what the 26, you know, um portion would be? Could we do it that way and ask Fischers what that would be so we can all a lot that money for the our budgets? We have to obviously we're going to have to amend it something. We're going to need to get money from somewhere. Yeah, that would be part of the discussion as far as Yes. Because their fees are through the completion of the project.

So the 400,000 may not all be at 26 because we're not building in 26, right? by by the time that the doors open and there's a ribbon cutting ceremony and such, then we'll have paid them in upwards of that that total dollar amount. But either way, I wanted to bring it up for consideration for you guys to think be thinking about that proving this and then coming back with this contract in hand um that we need to be able to back up the costs. So, start thinking on how we're going to do that. Okay. Bob mentioned, you know, one uh one fund, capital fund, I think it was. Yeah.

There are other funds that we have that are in, you know, is the capital fund the only fund that we've got that we could actually pull some money to or make consideration of pulling money from for for this project? We we have, I guess, three different possibilities. We have the capital uh improvement general fund. That's where we're drawing money from for the fire truck this year and for the equipment that Rob's ordered this year. That's where that fund stream has come from. We can pull from that. That's going to be probably about 800,000 when it's all said and done. That's in that total for what what we're getting

what's available in in that specific fund. Okay. Tonight's packet said we were at 1 point almost 1.2 2 and if we've drawn 300,000 from that. So there's again we're getting way too far into the weeds. There is money in that account that we can draw from.

There is general fund money that's not allocated specific to the capital improvements we could potentially draw from that. And then there's the 2026 budget from a loan that I already referenced that depending on what this building's bid comes in when Greg's able to finish all this and puts it out the bid. If that's under $2 million, whatever the the difference is there may be able to be allocated towards this as well. So, there's different options, but again, that's what I want you guys to be thinking about when it comes back to you to to discuss. I guess my point is we've got the funds and we can make the necessary arrangements. Anything else?

Okay. All those in favor of seeking a proposal uh for the architecture and engineer uh work to be completed by the Fiser firm say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? Carries unanimous. Author authorization for the bills in the amount of $142,692.34. Also move. I have a question. Oh, go ahead. All right. Is there a second to the motion? There's motion by Bob. Right. I'll second it. Okay. What's your question?

Question. uh under Rukert and Milky um I get the 31,000 or whatever it is for the for the road projects and stuff, but there's 12,000 and something in there for um for site plan and all that stuff that should be attached to the DPW building. That shouldn't be out of the general fund. the the the checks get drawn from the general fund checking account where the money gets divvied out. I guess that's up to for Chris to the checks all come out of the general fund.

I just want to make sure that that comes out of the DPW building and not everything else. Right. That's coming out of the loan funding is what you're saying. Right. Correct. It's way towards the back. Yeah, I'm just trying to get to it. Someone can see that. Any other discussion? All right. Hearing none. All those in favor of approving the bills and the amount stated say I. I. Anyone opposed? That carries unanimous. Adjournment. Make a motion to adjurnn. I'll second it. Okay. All those in favor of adjourning say I.

I. Anyone opposed? Carries were journ. Congratulations. Hope you're happy. to get them.