Okay, it's 5.02 p.m. on May 19th, we'll call to order the Village Board work session.
Brandy, are you keeping track of the roll tonight?
Thank you.
I have no announcements.
Anyone else have any announcements?
Discussion items.
Um, discussion regarding Fourth of July Firework vendors for 2027.
Bishop Klein-Stuyberg and Rachel Malley.
Leish.
So a couple of weeks ago, I was contacted by our current Fourth of July vendor, and unfortunately
he is retiring after this year, so I reached out to a couple other Fourth of July or other
Firework vendors and tried to get some price estimates for billing for 2027 or going forward,
and I kind of shared that in a document that I shared with you guys.
Some of them would not even give me a quote because they pretty much just emailed me or
talked to me on the phone and said it would be approximately anywhere from like $1,000
a minute for the show.
One of them did give me a quote for, I think, $13,000 for next year, so I'd like to try
to get something booked sooner than later because there is not a lot of Fourth of July
or Firework vendors out there to put on Fireworks for us, so I don't want to be in a situation
where we don't have a vendor for 2027.
Some of them are about $1,000 per minute, and then the one quote that I have is for $13,000,
and this year we're paying Chrome Firework $12,750, and that's about what we've been
paying them this year and like last year.
I don't know what the Chamber was paying years previous, but I think that's about the
average price that we've been paying them.
Alicia, quick question for you guys.
I saw on there that you said the one for $13,000 was recommended from another area.
Did they give any guidance like on the timing since everybody else, the other two bids bid
per minute?
Did they tell you?
Yep.
I have the bid here.
It would be about 20 to 25 minutes for the show.
Thank you.
And that's about how long our show is currently.
Okay.
So it would be a cost savings from the other two, definitely.
Okay.
Can you remind me, who sets off the fireworks?
Is it the vendor or is it our fire department?
It is a vendor, thanks, but the fire department does inspect them when they come and set up.
Anyone else?
No.
So we just want to confirm this is for July 3rd.
Yes, for July 3rd of 2027.
And July 4th would be more expensive.
Yes.
That's hard.
I'm standing.
You just want a discussion tonight?
Yeah, I just brought up for discussion and then we would.
Yeah.
This evening is discussion only.
I think we need another meeting here to prepare a resolution and a contract for approval.
Well, I would say 13,000 is pretty close to what we were paying.
That's far better than 20, 25.
That's my opinion.
Anyone else?
Jump.
I would just say that the price seems fair.
I just asked that you look into what they plan on or the number of and stuff because I
know there's a number of people that I've said are how impressive our fireworks are.
So it would be nice to know it's at least somewhat close to there.
I did share with them the type of fireworks that we currently light off of all the specifications
and he shared in his quote what they're lighting off.
So he said that we would probably have a better fireworks show than we currently have.
So.
Is that all you needed?
Mm hmm.
Okay.
Thanks Tricia.
Thank you.
Next discussion on regarding 2027 budget calendar that would be Brandon and Bill.
Thank you.
So from our last work session, I disclose that we would be wanting to bring forward our annual budget calendar.
So that is going to be on the screen right now for you as they were just pulling it up.
For trustees over here before the calendar will work will look pretty similar with some
of the updates just being when departments would be sharing their departmental budget
presentations for for the trustees throughout work sessions within here.
So the calendar that they're going through right now just kind of outlines exactly what
we had talked about as a team of when certain departments would be open to sharing their
priorities, their capital expenses, the things that we're going to be impacting them the
most here and then the village would still want to have some community home sessions
out in the public as well to that's marked within here as well as our tentative goal
of when the publication notice would be sent out with a formal adoption on November 17th.
Again, just for tonight's discussion, it was just more of a feedback of how you liked the
budget process so far for trustees that have been in here or if there's anything that you
all might want to look at changing within here another discussion perhaps, at least we're
talking with the department heads and the team members within here.
This process has worked well for the team so far so with myself just coming in and being
less than a month in it, I didn't really want to shake it up way too much of what's been
working so far but at least this year I'd be being a little bit more diligent taking
some notes, getting some more feedback in and perhaps there may some shake up of it for
next year but this is at least what's on the calendars but what's being proposed by the
team here as a tentative schedule and just looking for feedback.
I saw a couple of things to kind of keep your mind on here as well as then a copy of
the schedule after this meeting as we confirm some of these dates.
We do intend to have in addition to the public hearing to public meetings, listening sessions
I would say so when we first started having these public listening sessions we did two
one in one very early in the year, intention of that meeting was to solicit and hear from
the general public on what some of the community priorities were and then the second meeting
we held generally later in the year when we had more information from departments and
we've actually had some of those numbers.
Last year we decided because of the participation in the first year to just hold one meeting
and we had a little bit more comments but this year we're thinking about going back
to the two meetings and so as you see here the initial public meeting is intended to
be held in the July timeframe and so if there's a particular date that you want let us know
or it works better for you let us know and we can we can then put that down.
The second meeting gets pretty close to the public hearing that's at the end of October
we have here on this agenda and then the public hearing of course is in November so if you
think that's too close to the public hearing also let us know but that's that's kind of
that testing of here are the numbers you know the public's going to be able to see
that you're going to be able to see that we would have had our discussions on a majority
of the big items and so it's a limits test before we go into that public hearing.
Again if generally those work well for you I'll work with Brandon on setting a date that
way we can stay CA and I can work on getting communications out early this year and we
couldn't then formalize that. We'll also look at you know ways to be more interactive and
engaged for us in regards to the budgeting process but as I've told you before we continue
to build this process out so that it's something that that works for not only the village staff
but yourself as the board and then also the community.
Thank you Bill. Comments anyone?
Jim?
I know I've asked for this in the past and I guess I'm trying to look at the calendar but I
can't quite read it but my what what I what I don't like about the process that we've had
the few years that I've been here is that we have the presentations and they're very well prepared
in the desires and wants of all the departments but I have a hard time say comparing that say to
maybe a previous year what I anticipate the budget to be because it's one department at a time
and that can be okay but I guess the ask that I'm getting to is that usually when all the
departments are done they get sort of packaged together in our draft budget and that's sort of
the first time we see all the sort of asks that are in competition with each other.
I don't know quite how to get around that but one idea that I have is that when the department
heads come in to do their presentation it'd be nice to have the comparison to like say the previous
year so maybe we can use that to start anticipating the competitiveness between the
different asks that makes sense. Yeah that's completely reasonable. I think there's been some
desire not to do that just because at that time there's usually so much unknown but I think if
we just make some estimations and I'll know that it's still very much in flux that we can
with these maybe move forward. Yeah so that that's always a concern with how early our budgeting
process is when departments are making these presentations. Obviously we can get quotes and
bids and I'll be able to factor them in and we can compare them to per se in analysis of what
it looked like at this time or middle of the year last year because those numbers will be skewed if
you're looking at actual whole year versus what is projected you know this year or next year.
So I have to think about that obviously it's going to put pressure on each of the department heads
and I'm looking at you guys to get your budget sitting a little bit earlier especially the numbers
and where we expect there to be changes and so you know that's something that we'll have to
coordinate as we come along here. Now I'm okay with doing that as long as you can promise me
that that we're not going to be held exactly to those numbers because those numbers can change
in the sort of time span especially given the market climate that we're currently in.
The other comment I'd make too is I worry about having the second public meeting too close to
the adoption as I feel there's a redundancy to change when you're getting that tight.
So I'd prefer it to be a little bit further out but I guess I'll let staff decide what's most
appropriate. Thank you. Jamie you're talking about the second public information meeting in October.
You guys are going to figure that out staff? Yeah we'll figure it out and we'll share that.
I'm going to say we all know that I am no spreadsheet reader but I kind of like that.
If I can see what this department had in 2025 versus what they're asking for in 26 like one-on-one
that would be kind of cool. My two cents? Anyone else have any? Just a quick question on seeing
the comparisons are you wanting to see is the group wanting to see the full budget or their
particular items that you're looking for? Or is it just the genius?
Does some of these budgets have 200 roles? No I don't want to make that much work.
Jim? I guess my concern is I know like when we look at say a sheet that is
I guess I'm picturing like one sheet that tends to have what say 30 or 40 roles on it.
A lot of it is like human resources I'll say and I know preliminary or say in the middle of
summer a lot of those numbers are going to change because it's based on like the insurance and
things like that but I'm looking more at say like the hard numbers or say the number of trucks
or drill for else is being requested. I guess there are some lion items that can be said
relatively early compared to the human resource. So you're looking more for a comparison of just
like capital items in more particular versus. Yeah I think so too the stuff.
Yeah I was thinking it would be nice to see like a personnel would be one lion item and if you had
an NFTE why is there an extra 80 grand in that view to tell us why you know those big changes.
Capital things I think I don't want to tell any of you how to
budget for your teams but if there's big expenses big variances just the explanation of why.
So I can tell you I mean I can just for my experience I can tell you that the majority of the changes
will be in personnel and staffing. You're not going to see any of those changes in July or
you're not going to see a change in that until you tell me what you're comfortable with raising
rates you know we can plug in a number and say hey this is what we expect the cost of living
adjustment to be and and have you gauge that as okay do you go up percentage from that or down
percentage from that but it's going to be challenging to see that because a lot of the plugins that
we'll have for the data are going to be dependent on how you direct us towards it right so a lot
of the more capital items I think that's an easy solve in regards to a display but at some point
here we'll have to calculate the cost what what is the cost of operation and the cost to continue
the service as it is here and how we've been doing it in the past is any any additional
wants above needs then we have come to the board for kind of a decision on that so that's kind of
the struggle we can try to put something together but that's that's part of the struggle that we have
with budgeting in process and that being able to provide you with all the information that you
want to be able to make a decision because quite honestly we don't have all that we don't have
all that information yet so it's going to be a work in progress I can promise that it's going to be
perfect but we're willing to work in that process with you
we good
we certainly can share you show you you're over here the capital improvement but it will be wildly
different from year to year because a couple years ago we asked for two new patrol trucks they're 200,000
a piece that put our capital improvement number probably significantly higher than we would have done
in previous years there are some things that are pretty standard where we trade out tool cats or
tool cats or skid steers every other year right so there's just there on a rotation so there might
be a minor price increase or getting from the bobcat dealer where we get the skid steer from say or
so those things are certainly easy to justify or order to book year to year but when you start
adding road projects reconstruction projects those can be vastly different right and we don't
in the past we had a number we tried to adhere to like we're only doing $2 million in road projects
that that's changed lately to where it's kind of what the needs are and if we've got you know so
this next year in 27 we'll be doing vinvern who could possibly be doing highway b right so there's
those will be bigger projects that take more dollars than the the year after well two years
after when we get done with whole them in 28 now there's different ranges so it can be difficult
but I mean we certainly can share those numbers with you but it'll it's not you're not truly
comparing apples to apples when it comes to the cip part that's finally concerned
well then it sounds like we're just kind of wasting everybody's time
can I can I just clarify well I think my understanding is that the board wants to understand
potentially where are the big expenses coming in not necessarily projects but
correct because operations can have a large price a large cost adjustment as part of that
so what what I would recommend I think maybe this this is a good meeting in the middle here
is I'll work with the department heads and in finance here that if there is a
a large expenditure that's above and over what the previous year was that we also show
that number so that you can compare it to and some of these things will fit into categories
for example you know we fit office furniture into operations line item you won't see the
furniture on the in the budget but you'll see the operations you know fall under that
and so we can provide a listing of what all falls under that operational line item
and compare it you know when all said and done here's how that section is going to look like
compared to the previous year that makes sense does that provide some clarification just complexity
between what I think you're interested in the particulars versus how we budget was
more general that's exactly what I was talking about you say operations that really doesn't
mean much to me um if you show me that you're getting seven news stand up fancy desks or whatever
my question is why do we need that you know that's that's where I'm coming from yeah and mine you
gotta remember we're dealing with a simple mind yeah and part of that is the complexity right so
like for example this year we may have ordered five desks two computers and all within the
line budget of operations had five thousand dollars in store numbers next year we so many
have five thousand dollars in that line item but it's instead of tables and and computers it's
cheers and something else bookshelves um so I think I think we need to understand that you know
there's different layers of complexity in how we list the items and then how they get
represented in the budget because while there's interest in the some of those details here
um capturing all of that onto a budget document is is challenging
anybody else want to add anything Jen?
um I don't say that I feel like the last couple years that I like the process we've been using
and I feel that we're getting enough information and the right information to make the decisions
going forward so I'm pretty happy with the way it's been
I don't disagree
all right you got what you need you're gonna take it from there
make us all happy yeah what we need thank you
next step discussion regarding mountain bike park planning jud and Greg
so
Okay.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
So.
All right.
So we.
Wanna bring.
One to start.
Yeah, he's got to share it.
I want to start talking about our future.
Possible mountain bike.
area that we've.
Recently.
Acquired down there off a.
Windsor road.
It's roughly 16 and a half acres.
Mostly force it a couple wetlands.
Locations.
The forested areas can consist of mature pines.
Oaks, cherries, hickories and box elders.
Butts the.
Up to the one village of Windsor and you are a river.
And.
This last year we had the University Alliance produce.
A documentation helping.
The.
Prevent further impacts the erosion.
And native vegetation and along the heart river.
So that document is kind of helping us guide.
This project with the mountain biking.
To.
Prevent.
Future.
Issues with the ecology.
In this area.
So.
Our next steps.
If the board approves enough for the next.
Budget year or 2027.
We'd be looking at.
Looking for planning dollars and possibly some building of trails.
On this property for mountain biking.
We're working with court, which is capital off road path liners.
To help design and possibly build sections of trails.
They would provide possibly some funding.
To build the trails and fundraising.
For trails and also volunteers.
So they've got.
A big group that's.
Willing to volunteer their time to help us build trails.
And then actually mark all.
Where the trails would be on that land.
There's also once we get there, but I guess.
So.
They core best remains about 13.5 billable acres.
For the mountain bike areas, but.
We think that's a little.
Too much.
Between John and I's.
Calculations.
We think there's eight and a half to nine acres available.
Land for trails.
So and then.
Rough sketches of trails.
Minimum would be both.
One and a quarter miles up to three miles.
Could be on on that parcel.
Corp would help with the engagement of communications with residents and.
Build community ownership.
As well.
There's.
School mountain biking club that.
Is very interested in helping.
They keep asking one when we're going to get this mountain biking.
Course and some lower.
Work on it.
Possible relics.
This is a drawn up.
Real rough.
Plan that.
Corp.
Came up with just kind of showing.
Hey, it could.
Look somewhat like this.
But the outer orange area would be.
Volunteer built sections.
And then.
And then.
And then.
And then.
And then.
Be.
Volunteer built sections.
And those would be very easy.
Maintainable.
Pass and then the inner red areas would be.
Professionally built trails more.
Skills based kind of.
Pass there.
So there would need to be some boardwalk and.
There would be some boardwalk.
Through the wetlands on the north section.
Way up here.
There would be boardwalk through.
Through here.
And then Windsor.
We would have to work with village Windsor to get access.
They've got kind of a stormwater.
Pond.
Park area.
That there's nice high ground that.
Maybe if we work with them, we could get access.
And not have to use as much boardwalk through that section.
And then there is a trail on the east side of the.
Parkland that we could possibly use to.
Help get to that.
Location.
So.
In talking about mountain bike course.
And the.
The trees out on this property.
A majority of the trees on this property.
Our red pine.
We did an inventory went out there.
Marked all the trees with GPS.
And we've got nine hundred six hundred.
Three trees.
Six maples.
Two hundred and fifty eight cherry trees and one hundred and
forty one folk trees.
Now.
That.
Just in the sections that are marked.
In the green and red and purple.
I didn't mark.
There's a.
Area up in the north west corner.
Is mainly all.
White pine, which.
Are really mature.
Really nice.
And then the middle section is.
A lot of oak.
So.
A thick, really nice old trees there.
That we did not mark because there's no plans on there.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I have.
I don't know.
There's no plans on there.
I'll go the next page.
So we would.
The shady would kind of talk about that.
The shaded middle section is oh,
And then the white pines are up above.
We'd be.
Looking to send out the red pines,
which are all the red dots through there.
In the reason we would be doing that is.
We'd be opening up the canopy, it would help the red pine with being able to grow because
they're getting constricted now because they're so thick and it's never been thinned.
So another thing that could happen is we could get an infestation, some sort of bug comes
in and it'll take out all the trees, whereas if we spread them out, they'll be healthier,
they can maybe resist the insect that comes and then they can grow bigger and we'll be
able to get sunlight to the forest ground and put native grasses and flowers in there
and then start planting the future canopy.
All of our natural areas were kind of converting to oak savannas, so I would recommend we'd
start planting oaks throughout the pine plantation area and when those pines start to die out
or we need to cut them down or they fall down or whatever, we'll have some trees to replace
them.
We've been working with talking with a forester from the DNR and try to get a forestry plan
and our rough calculations, we have about seven, eight acres of red pine plantation,
there's nothing growing on that forest floor, there are some sporadic buckthorn and homiesuckle
plants, but for the most part it's just all pine needles, so opening up the
pines would help that get the water and sunlight to the ground.
We're working with the DNR to possibly set up a logging bit, so we would reach out to area
loggers and say this is our project and the DNR is willing to help us through this process
because we've never done that, so they said it could look like where these loggers would bid
out, bid on the project and then we'd just take whatever one feels right for us.
Red pine is not very attractive to loggers because it's not worth anything, it's typically
pulp wood that they use that for, for the logging business. There are projects that
like the village or the school could use some of the red pine for like if we wanted to work with
say community, we'll have a day where we bring our sawmill and then we can show people,
hey this is what, how we make two-by-fours and kind of make a community event, an educational
event for the community and the school district could use that lumber or like making in their
shop classes for sheds or whatever village could use some of that wood for park shelters.
So there's possibilities out there of educational components. We're also estimating the pine
plantation is roughly 50, 60 years old. The typical plantation is 60 to 80, 90 years that they last.
We'll go to the next one. So we kind of talked about the uses, the wood sale,
possibly the community involvement in the benefits, educational benefits.
So this picture kind of shows some of the trees that we've gone out and marked.
VNR showed us like, hey these are trees you want to look for. Any defects in the trees,
you want to remove whether they're curved or they've got block rubs or any defects,
you just want to remove those right away. This picture is not the forest but this is what it
could possibly look like in the future with the removal of the thinning of the red pines.
That little pathway almost would mimic a mountain bike trail through that area. These are just a
couple photos, drone photos we took. So you can see the red pines through there. That's pretty thick.
And then along the sides that's white pine and in the middle is all like oak,
hickory, and some cherry trees. Desirable trees, you know, more red pine on the sides are
oak, nice oak stands. We will not be looking the thinning of the white pine or oak sale.
And this is a Windsor road at the bottom of the screen. I got some red pine and then on the west side
of the picture there is all really mature, nice oak trees. There's the white pines,
mature white pines. So some of the educational components of this could be, you know, when we do
the mountain biking project, we would want to do some educational components with a signage.
You know, we could put some interpretive signs out there showing why we thinned the woods,
what the wood could be used for, and what the benefits are, just to show residents and people
that use the park, you know, why we're doing some of this stuff. Because we not only will that
park be used for mountain biking, but there will be used for hiking as well.
I guess that's about it. I think Charles got a couple things.
We had to share this last night at the public services committee meeting. I think they were
generally supportive of it, right? We're just trying to make sure this information is shared.
We will have Stacy share. We can share this slide on engaged to forest,
point people to watch this video for other information on this, but we just want to make
sure it's open transparent so people are familiar with it. This is coming at some point.
I'm assuming, again, it's amenable to the board. And then we'll be beginning to plan to work
through these things with RFPs forbidding for logging and then ultimately to the creation of
that. So we might even start to walk with Corp through there and kind of plan a trail, right?
Just planning stages, nothing being put in the ground or anything like that, just more marking
the path by which we might want to do these things. So questions, concerns?
Do the DNR say if this was eligible for like an MFL or is it too little acreage?
They didn't really talk to them about them at all because that's typically a tax advantage
for private landowners, but we could definitely ask them about that.
Managed forest land? Yeah, oh, yeah. And then I'm guessing, excuse me, not much
expected revenue then if you have it logged out. I don't, according to DNR, they didn't expect
it to be high value logging. I mean, if we took the oaks, then we're talking a lot more money,
but the red pine is not very valuable. We might even have a hard, really hard time
finding a logger to come in and take it. We'll have to wait and see.
Jim?
I'd say I like the idea. I wish we could move even faster along with the planning and development
of it. The one come that I have is you don't have to bring it up, but like when you're showing
like the different rail layout, yeah, and I see that there was like one crossing of the wetlands,
and I think you called it more or less like a boardwalk. And I just wonder to me, it could be
an advantage even to the mountain bike group if we maybe have some plane crossings too,
just for their skills in crossing the wetlands. Is that undiscussed or thought of?
What kind of crossing, sorry? Sort of like a plane curve scene
videos where they'll cross the wetlands and whatever two I ate.
Oh, a plane. Yeah, I've seen that too. That could be a possibility.
One thing that Corp will help us with is they've got people that will come out and
look at the courses and they'll put on their website that
paid the forest courses closed today and they'll let us know, hey, we need to close it because it's
too wet. What you don't want is the mountain bikers go out there after it rains and they just
make a mess and destroy the trails. So that's one good part about Corp as well as it'll help us
maintain that course. Anyone else? Go ahead. I remember there's a project to do part of the
river, the bedside that you're going to be. Registration. Registration, right? Is this area
part of that at all or is it not affected? Yeah, there are phase three and four will probably be
will be working from innovation south. I don't know exactly how far we'll get on
those two phases, but we should be pretty close to those, you know, to that area.
Make it work to match those two while they're reconstructing this.
Either way, I'm really supportive of the project. Yeah, we could definitely look into them.
Hey, if that's it, thank you, gentlemen. Thank you.
Department updates, administrative update, Bill Chang.
One update from me, I attended the Dane County Cities and Villages Association meeting.
It was their annual meeting, which took place last Wednesday.
There is a new leadership there, so long-term president Abbouffer stepped down,
and so the new president of DCCVA is Lisa Haneer. She is the city of Middleton Mayor.
Vice president is Tim Swali, who was the mayor of the city of Stolen.
Secretary is Julia Arrada-Frada, who is the city of Fitchford Mayor,
and then the treasurer is Aaron Hoppertheimer of the city of St. Perry,
and then Abbouffer was the past president or at large member.
So I wanted to just note that, otherwise, that meeting went wild. There was also a welcome
speech from the mayor of Middleton, and there they had spoken about the importance of building
up instead of sprawling out, which is in line with some of the
framework from Carpsey and the Clean Lakes Alliance in regards to growth.
Do you want to have any more discussion on growth, philosophy, and the framework from Carpsey?
We couldn't provide that to you, but that was the majority of that meeting.
Thank you, Bill. Finance update, Brandon.
Yeah, so the village we were able to successfully file our form C through the Wisconsin DOR on time,
so by doing that, we're not taking any penalties on our general transportation aid, which is a
fantastic thing for us. We also had an exit call with our auditors who had said that it was a
great audit year for the village team over here, and they're going to be looking at putting their
financial or their audit presentation on the first July meeting.
Okay, thank you. Police Department update, Chief Olson.
Yep, anything, just a couple quick things. Obviously, we had a significant crash
investigation in the construction on CV just late last week. You were actually between the
old springs, different turn ins. I'm told that the victim of that crash is still recovering,
which is a good thing, based on the injuries that were on the scene. We did have the state
patrol coming in, reconstruct the crash, so they're still working through that process. That's still
ongoing. And then last night, we responded to help the state patrol. Coincidentally, they had a
crash into, I believe, into one of the troopers that led into a pursuit in a driver fled. Officer
Crawford, using our drone, was able to locate the subject as he tried to evade everybody else
stayed in the car, but the driver took off. Again, thanks to working together budgetarily,
we have a drone that's a little bit more robust, and it has just phenomenal
capabilities camera-wise, whether it be thermal or otherwise. So we were able to find the person.
It has a spotlight that could light the guy up in the field. I'm told somebody's canine actually
got a bite in this well. So good work by the team overnight. Thank you. I agree. Jim.
Can I ask the victim of the crash? Is she out of critical condition, do you know? I believe so,
yes. Thank you. And the trooper? I wasn't told of any issues that way. It's injury-wise. I'd
have entered the property crash. Thanks, Chief. Public service update, Ted. Three things quick.
Ager Parkway is continuing on on the reconstruction project. It's moving on at a pretty good pace.
If you have residents reaching out asking questions, I encourage you, especially if they live in that
zone, they can sign up for updates. We send them out regularly, at least weekly. Stacey does a
great job. Great. That's a great job. Building updates and states are getting them out to folks,
so I encourage folks to register for that. And they are item-by-item, right? So we're not spamming
them with everything that's happening. It's they sign up for Ager Parkway. That's the notification
they'll get. We recall we've had some issues in this room with the audio-visual and connectivity
things. So I have put together an RFP. We'll be going out for bid for that. It wasn't a budget
item this year. We didn't have dollars set aside in previous years for the upgrade of the
other visual equipment in here. It's time for us to use that. So I think Brandon's probably
been brought to speed by that with Carol, but so we'll be like looking for updates and quotes on
that. So we're moving with that as well as this is the last year for our current garbage contract
with LRS. Sorry, GFL. So we will be going out for an RFP for garbage services for another five-year
term. Typically, they get us a better rate than we might have. What is if we extended the current
contract? Nothing really wrong with GFL. I think they've done a better job than our previous one,
but it also gives us the opportunity to see other additional things we can add in,
change, and bring back before you like recycling every week, which is the thing that I've heard
from a lot of folks. The cost is rather great, but at least we'll have that price so you guys can
make the determination if that's something you want to add in next year, which you could then
see line behind what we paid last year and what the cost will be for the new year.
Great. Dan.
We have our current garbage contractor for five years, or was that switched mid-term?
Okay. The current one has been, this is the fifth of the five-year degree.
That went fast.
Thank you, Judd. Community Development Update, Alex.
Just a quick one. As we mentioned before, tomorrow we will be officially accepting applications for
the Home Reach Portable Housing Program, which has down payment assistance and home improvement
loans. Our team has been working to get that out in the community, making that known to
realtors, various associations, the school district, our local employers. We've already been
getting a number of inquiries via email, phone calls, particularly from our school district,
which is exciting to see as that was one of the main priorities. So, fully expecting to get an
onslaught of applications in the next week or two. Thank you. Administrative Services Update,
Kelly's not here. You got anything, Brandy? No. Okay. Recreation and Community Enrichment Update,
Tricia. I'm excited to share that we have less than 50 tiles left for America 250 murals.
So, we're moving along with that. Next week, we kick off our summer series with our first
movie night in the bike rodeo with the police department. So, that'll be one of our first summer
events. And tomorrow we have a touch-a-truck event with the library and public works. So,
we'll have a right outside of here. And then we just wrapped up our soccer season. So, that was
with, I don't know how many kiddos there were, but we had a bunch of kiddos that participated in
soccer. And we've been busy out at the athletic complex already this season. So, it's a busy time
for the park and rec department. Things are popping. Thanks. Any other business that
lawfully comes before the committee for discussion only? Anybody have anything?
If not, next item is adjournment.
Motion to adjourn. Second. Motion by Alisha. Second by Jan. All those in favor say aye.
Aye. All those opposed? No. We are adjourned at 552. We will resume for the Village Board meeting at 6.
All those in favor say aye.
Ready? Okay. We're good. Number four on the agenda is announcements. I don't have any announcements
if anyone else does. Number five is the consent agenda.
Approval of the minutes from the Village Board work session and Village Board meeting from May
2nd. I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Motion by Jim. Is there a second?
Second. I heard Alisha first. Second by Alisha. Motion is for approval of the minutes from the
two sessions on May 2nd. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. Motion
carries unanimously. Also on the consent agenda, approval of resolution regarding approving an
agreement for whether a family dental or a sponsorship. The Village of Deport is quick for
doing something. You approve that as part of the consent agenda. You're good.
Okay. Never mind. Public appearances. This will be public appearances for any topic that is not
on the agenda for tonight. And I think I have Marjorie Haniman.
Which is to speak.
Hold the mic over there, Marjorie. Hit the button. Tell the little green circle on the bottom. Turn
screen. You're good to go. Hi, my name is Marjorie Haniman. First time. So let me address please,
Marjorie. I'm 13 Maple Street. And that's part of why I'm here is because I live on Maple Street.
We were paid a visit by a lion energy yesterday. And the man at my door said,
I'm sorry, but we're going to end up decimating your treat. Those were his words.
And we had a few more conversations. And I found out that I could refuse,
which is what I did at the time, as did a number of my neighbors.
I actually thank you so much, Miss Little, for taking my phone call. And we had a conversation.
And my purpose here tonight is to speak for the trees. So if you've read the Lorax, you know exactly
what I'm talking about. I think it's time that we stop cutting down trees to make poles or lines
that are easily buried. And I know after speaking to Mr. Blau, it's not as easy as saying easily
buried because there's a lot of working parts. But I guess I'm here to say our neighbors want to
have a conversation and start a conversation to burying lines in some of these older sections
of town. It's better for the environment. It's better for our trees because we can replant
and we don't lose the existing old trees and anyone that lives in that area around South
Street and up the hill that got decimated with that storm knows how many old trees were lost.
I would hate to see mine have a 90 degree chunk taken out of it, especially when
maples should never be trimmed unless it's before they bud or after the first frost.
And the fact that a lion energy seems to not care about that really bothers me.
So we want to set up a discussion. I did ask today because there was a second
a lion person in the neighborhood to speak with an engineer and to see why couldn't they just take
a foot off above and below the line, not 10 feet. They're doing it so they don't have to come back
for 10 years. It's from my understanding. But so I guess I'm willing to help write grants done
it in the past. If people give me some direction and some committee information and working with
the lion and working with spectrum or who else needs to come in to hopefully find a way to bury
our lions. The other thing is there are phone lines that are still attached to our homes that
are drawing power and it's on our power bill and we don't have landlines anymore who removes those.
So that's a problem too because those are the lowest hanging ones. So when we have
your time is done, I apologize. Oh, no problem. Okay. So thank you. We're going to have a meeting
and we'll be talking to Pauline and hoping you guys will come and listen to us and the
neighbors when we set it up. Thank you, Marjorie. Do I turn this off? Either way.
Okay. We have no one else wishing to speak on this topic not on the agenda.
Presentation. We have none. All business resolution 2026. 057. Resolution
directing the director of public services to resume fluoridation of the village's public water system.
Do we have a motion?
Presentation first and then public comments on this agenda item and then discussion and
actually got myself out of order again. Staff presentation by Mr. Chang.
Well, actually, it would be Judd and then we have their biker here to provide
the presentation on their findings.
Deere, go ahead. So we work with our biker, their engineer for a lot of our projects.
I reached out to the biker and asked them, they've got an architect on staff that we've been working
with for probably a couple to three months. When this topic first came back up, Darren,
we worked with quite a bit. You remember, Darren was at our meeting at the high school where we
presented our water supply service area plan. He had put that together, worked diligently to
generate that. So we asked him to help us put together what would be needed if we were to add
fluoride back into the system. So I've got Darren here. His memo was shared with you all, but I'll
let Darren take it from here. Okay. Thanks, Judd. I'll briefly go through the memo.
And so we were asked by Judd to prepare a memo that looked out what would be needed to reinstate
fluoride at your wild facilities. And so our memo, the first section looks at the required
equipment and any improvements that would be needed to make that happen. And we just went
facility by facility here. So the first one is well number two. In that facility, fluoride was
previously added, but there currently is no equipment there that was removed once when fluoride had
been stopped being added. The well house there is one room where all the pumping equipment is in
the fluoride equipment was in that room previously. The current admin code, if you were to fill the
new pump house, would require that the fluoride be in its separate room. So, but according to
correspondence with Amy Cooley at the DNR, they wouldn't require separate room for chemical
or for fluoride equipment at well number two or any other well-facilitated had previously
had fluoride being added. But I noted in the memo that fluoride vapor is highly corrosive.
And it can etch glass and other surfaces and probe metal components of the mechanical electrical
and plumbing systems within the building. So that being a single room pump house, if you would put
the fluoride in there, there's it can lead to premature equipment failure due to the
the corrosiveness of the of the vapor from the fluoride. And we've seen this happening out of
well facilities where they've had just one room where the tiles and windows will
the glass and those will be etched over, we clouded over.
So our recommendations that if fluoride is added back at this facility, we would recommend
constructing a separate room for the fluoride to be housed and it would have a separate entrance,
separate ventilation system, separate lighting system so that there's no chance that the
vapors could go from that room into the pump room where the expensive pumping and control
equipment is. So in addition to that recommendation, when we were looking at that facility, we did
note that there were some deficiencies, some things that needed to be repaired to the age.
And things that the ceiling was starting to to sag, the roof probably needs to be replaced.
And there were other items that were need and repair of that. So our the cost opinion that's in
the memo also includes a line item for those repairs as well. And that is separated out from
what cost we needed just to have the fluoride equipment.
So that's well number two. And then well number three, that was previously.
Fluoride was previously added at that house as well. And the storage tank and the feed equipment
are no longer there at that facility either. This well house does include a separate room to house
the fluoride and the chemical feed equipment. So that feed equipment could be re-installed
in that room. There is an existing eyewash station. So because of the nature of fluoride,
it's corrosive chemical. And there was an eyewash station in that facility, but not a
drenched shower. And Wisconsin admin code chapter in our 811
requires that whenever you have a corrosive chemical, your employees could be exposed to
corrosive chemical that you provide eyewash and drenched shower methods for their safety.
This is stated in our 81142C1. And then also that actually points to
SPS building code, which then refers to OSHA. So it's ultimately coming from OSHA. So it's
an occupational federal standard. And then for those units that eyewash and drenched shower,
the water should be tepid, meaning it should be between 1600 degrees
per an ANSI standard. And that's so that if you have cold water on you, you're not likely to
stand in the shower or wash your eyes for a long enough period to remove that chemical.
So for this facility, then we recommend that an emergency eyewash and drenched shower installed
in addition to reinstating the chemical feed equipment. And then we have a cost opinion
for that at the end of the report as well. Well, number four is similar to well, number three,
and that there was a room there. And it previously fed fluoride at that facility.
So the equipment could be reinstalled. And again, there was not previously an eyewash
and drenched shower station. So we recommend that for OSHA requirements that you would
add the eyewash station to drenched shower and a hot water heater.
And then at well, number six, fluoride has never been added at that facility.
So in accordance with the current DNR administrative code, the fluoride tank and equipment required
for that, including a drenched shower and eyewash station would need to be put into a separate
chemical room. There's a space available in the existing meter room. And then also there is a
restroom that's adjacent to the existing chemical room. And because of the proximity of the restroom
to the chemical room, it would make it a better option to install the feed equipment in that
restroom after renovating that into a new fluoride room. And then framing out in the corner of the
meter room, a new restroom facility. And there's a cost of opinion for that at the back of the
proposal memo as well. So regulatory approvals would be needed for this or the DNR.
At the facilities, two, three, and four where you had fluoride added before,
they would still require you to submit plans that show the extent of the
heat equipment. And then they would need to prove that. If you were to add the
chemical feed room to well number two and well number six, make the renovations there,
those plans as well would have to go to the DNR approval. There was a question from staff about
if these buildings needed to go to the state, Department of Safety and Information Services
for building plan approval. And we looked into that and basically the volume of these buildings
is, these are not public buildings there. And the volume is less than 25,000 square feet.
So they don't need to go to the state for plan review. And there's citations in the memo there
that explains, explains that. And then the last part of the memo is the schedule.
And I guess that's that's outlined there. I guess one caveat I would say that
with the schedule that, unfortunately, well number three there, at the time I didn't catch
this revision that was needed. But the schedule for well number three should match that a well number
four. At first, we didn't realize that well number three did not have eye wash and dress shower in it.
So the schedule for well three should match well number four.
I think that's all that you mentioned at this point without getting too much into the details
or the weeds. If you have any questions, I can certainly answer those.
Melanie.
I think I heard you say this, but just to make sure I'm understanding correctly for well number two,
those additional repairs that you identified, like the ceiling and the roof.
And I think there are some electrical items identified. Is that line item number four alterations
to existing building just to get an understanding of the cost of those separate items, about 67,800
number? Okay. Thank you.
Alicia.
Looking at the cost for well number two, are the costs for, can they be separated from the
maintenance cost, like the roof versus, like, is that necessary to flow forward the maintenance?
It is not. So yeah, so line item number four under the cost opinion for well number two
is alterations to the existing building. And that is alterations that
most fire maintenance repairs that we're recommending in addition. So line items one through three
would be ones that you would need or just adding the floor back to that facility.
Right. And so if we decided to move forward with that, I guess I was just asking is line item four,
could that be put out another time, like moving or doing the roof on the building,
or that's not necessary to reflect floor eight, right?
Correct. Okay.
I guess I should clarify, there is a couple items, or one item.
That would carry over from line number four into
the floor at feet equipment number two would be a new water heater or the fluoride room.
Or if you don't do the separate fluoride room, you need to put it in the pump house.
But that's about 3,500 dollars to add the new water heater in the I wash drenched shower.
And that would, and I'm sorry, I need to clarify to what I previously said,
not items one is the fluoride room addition.
So item number two in three would be the line items that you would need just to add the fluoride
and then add to that the 3,500 for the water heater in the I wash station.
Sorry, misspoke earlier about that.
Thank you. And I have can I ask a follow-up question?
The adding of the additional room, is there other options
to satisfy the requirements of safety?
Like could we put vents in there, or are there any other options that could have been explored?
I mean, the tank, if you put it into the main pump room,
it should be vented. No matter where that fluoride tank ends up, it should be vented to the outside.
That's a, you know, our requirement and something we recommend too, to keep any off-gassing
from out of that room. But, you know, these systems aren't 100% completely sealed.
So there is chances of off-gassing happening.
And then when you open the tank and to replenish the fluoride, that's when vapors are most likely
to escape from the tank and from the filling up the tank.
So there really isn't another good option other than putting it in a separate room by itself
to totally mitigate any vaporscape from the fluoride tank.
Okay. So it's not like we could have put vents in there or anything else.
You could, but the vapor is still going to be...
Or fans or anything. No other things to mitigate as risk will.
Okay. That's...
All right.
Forgive me, I have quite a few. I'll just keep going on that. We
had fluoride in that building before that pump or that well.
Well, and didn't have that separate room or almost had vents.
So is this a needed requirement or is just best practice?
It would be our recommendation at this point. It may be in a best practice.
The DNR has, through correspondence with Amy Cooley, has said that the DNR would not require
another separate room for that adding that feed equipment in.
And then along with that would be...
With the staff requests to take a look at other things in there that might need to be improved.
If electrical system is replaced, if there's improvements made in there,
and then put the fluoride in there that would etch and corrode all those new equipment in there.
It just... it didn't seem like it would be remiss of us not to recommend putting that
fluoride in a separate room. And then the same thing with the shower trench. Is that a requirement
or since it was existing before all you need is eyewash? That's an OSHA regulation that you
need to provide a method for eyewash and drench shower whenever employees are exposed to corrosive
chemicals. So previously they were just grandfathered in and didn't need to provide that?
Correct. And then the water heater again, that's a necessity. That's a requirement since it wasn't
there before. As if you need to provide tepid water to the eyewash trench shower.
And then what... you mentioned that the storage tanks were removed. What timeline was that?
I would have to have a judge answer that. So when the board authorized the discontinuation of
adding forward to the water, we removed those components. At the time when this was brought
forward, those pumps were failing. And during the debate time that we had, the three, four months,
one of the pumps actually did fail in that time frame. So there were two other pumps that were still
working, but barely. So when we discontinued it, those pumps were at or near the end of life,
so we just discarded them appropriately, as well as the containment systems that held
before it, the tanks that held before it, we got rid of those as well. So was it early last year then?
Yes, that seems right to me. And then the roof replacement, I understand you took
actual look, but if this would have to be done with a well, that wouldn't that be planned work
that's already in progress?
When we had this discussion, when Florid was discussed to be brought back, that's when we had
Verebecher and the architect, Marty, from Verebecher come and say, what do we need to do to these
wellhouses and share with us all that information, just so we knew, because if we're going to do a
bit and do a project at that wellhouse, it makes the most sense just to do it all at one time.
It's not to drive the cost up. These are the maintenance things that we would have
discovered at some other point in time and brought forward, but if this is the time that you want
to add Florid back in, we might suggest we do this at the same time. So it's one project,
one bid out to somebody to handle that at this time.
And if we didn't replace the roof right now, was the timeline where that would be a necessity?
I don't, I don't, I don't think roofs fail when they fail, like I don't know the, I don't
can't give you, it's going to happen in three years or two years, right? Their, their assessment
is that the roof should be replaced, so that's when we will do that. Okay. Question about the
supervisory controls. Was that previous, what was previously discussed as needing replacement as
a pumps or what exactly is that? So that's equipment then that monitors the tank levels
and then alerts staff, if those levels get too low, or if there's a malfunction with equipment.
So that was taken out of your control system when Florid was stopped being added. So now
with the new equipment being added back, that has to be reprogrammed and, and, and add it back in.
So there's some hardware and then there's some software reprogramming that your skater provider
needs to provide. And then last question, I have a curious on the timeline.
Wouldn't all of these improvements be done at the same time, building construction,
room additions and that four months for one and then four months for the next construction
part, right? They could, could it occur concurrently? Thank you.
Yeah.
So I'd say thank you for the detailed explanation of well two and Alicia for bringing that up.
So I guess when I originally looked at this, I thought they were all,
all due to say Florid. So I wonder if we could look at the other ones and maybe have a bit of the same
discussion because I can tell you at least with the well two, when you take out what you said was
like the 53,600, the 5,900, 5,300. Then I think you said 3500 of the number four is all due
to the Florid edition. Then if you add in the consistent, their contingency in engineering,
you're at about 90,000 rather than this 173,000. And I guess what I want to do is I like to get
some round numbers of what really is say the the Florid edition with the other wells.
And then my continuing question, why I originally raised my hand, is I think these are the four
wells that are existing. Is that correct? And we're talking about building another well soon.
So I'm quite, I would like the answer of how much it would be to add Florid approximately to a
future well. So if you look at the estimate for well number four, can you move closer to the mic,
if you if you look at the estimate for well number four, those three line items, adding the
Florid feed equipment, the eye wash and drench shower and water heater, and then the SCADA system
updates, if you chose not to add the extra room to well number two to house the Florid,
and if you chose not to make the improvements with repairs that we're recommending,
this would be the cost that would be needed for well number two to add the Florid.
Hey, can you bring up the other two wells? Is it the same thing?
Three and four would be the same. Number six is different because that
that facility you didn't add Florid for. So the the the DNR is not willing to accept
the plan of just putting Florid into the chemical room there. They would require that a separate
Florid feed room be constructed at that facility. So that cost opinion for number six,
as it is presented with those four items would be the cost that you need to
add Florid at that well facility. Okay, and then I guess the final question and
the future well, would that be somewhat similar to well number six then?
That's I mean you would
that's a little more difficult to ask me off the fly for well number six.
You know, we're doing some alterations to an existing room where a new facility we would
build that right away purposed for the Florid room. So there would probably be less the the
Florid related construction and equipment would be the same, but the construction would probably
be less than what would be incurred for well number six.
That's all I had to know. Okay, thanks, Jim. I have a couple of things.
Skata, is that how you say it? Skata system? Skata system.
Previously used, this is an update on the Skata system. So we had one, but it was
this both of? No, so you have a Skata system right now. So that's supervising control and data
acquisition with Skata stands for. You had the that had each well facility that fed Florid before
you had it monitoring the Florid feed equipment. So there's equipment that monitors the level in
the tank and that there's a small computer there that then transmits that information
to the master control. So that the hardware that was monitoring the tank levels
needs to be reinstated or purchased and put back in wiring connections need to be made
and then there's reprogramming that your Skata provider needs to do to add monitoring those
Florid from those facilities back into the system.
So is that system still there, but it's missing part of it?
At the mass? At the current corridor. Yeah, so you're monitoring the chlorine that's being fed
right now that's being monitored and the well pump operation is being monitored and the elevated
tank levels are being monitored. So everything's being monitored still? Still, right. It's just
the Florid was taken away. Yeah, what does that entail to take that away?
To take it away? Yeah, it's just the physical removal of the equipment. I think at that time
with scales that we're monitoring the level in the tank. Is that functional equipment?
I'm sorry. Is it functional equipment? I presume so. Yeah. And where did it go?
Three wells that had monitoring equipment, right? So the wells had
two by two scales for different type of tanks when we had been switching all the chlorine
tanks to center scales that are inside the tanks. So now the it's a completely different
way of wane calculating the use of the chlorine or fluoride. The sensors are in the tank and
that's how it reads. So it's completely different. Or the old system, the tank set on the scale on
the floor. Okay, so we're talking about updating the tank that's set on the floor system,
the scale that's set on the floor system to something just sophisticated. Yeah.
So we didn't take any parts out and just do away with them. No. Okay. But apparently we did with
the fluoride equipment that was there. Pumps and whatnot because it was all dying?
Pumps are failing.
So they were everything was failing in all of the wells.
That's why I brought it forth in the beginning was because the pumps were failing. So did we
want to spend the money to replace those pumps, which would have been upgrades and different
things. So, I mean, we didn't they weren't you the board voted to discontinue using fluoride.
Those were antiquated systems as it was. So we got rid of those things.
They just we disposed of them properly. I don't know, but maybe you and our vendor might have
taken them to get rid of them would have been the scales one on surplus and we're sold.
Would we offer them? Not much. They're old. Nobody really uses them.
We bought them. Some people buy everything. We had that deep build desk up here. That sold on surplus.
I'm sorry, guys. I'm going to interrupt you.
All of these are sounds to me like well, too is kind of falling down. It's got roof problems,
it's got ceiling problems, it's got all kinds of problems. That was just noticed.
Why isn't it in the capital? So is it in the capital improvement plan? I don't think it should.
The thing that we were looking at really for well, too, is if we were going to add that
extra room, we have to put we have to add a new rough right to that. And that's going to continue
on the roof. So you might as well replace the rough to go over that new rough. So it's all
the same age. And we know that rough is really old. It's an old rubber rough. And I would say
five to seven years, we'd be probably looking at a new rough. But if you're adding a new room that
needs a new rough over the top of that, you might as well just replace it the whole rough on the
building. That was my thought. Okay. Alicia? I think really just a point of clarification to
kind of what Jedd alluded to is the board had previously voted to remove fluoride in lieu of
basically we would have had this conversation anyway if we would have kept fluoride in because
of all of the repairs that needed. So these costs would have had need to be
basically needed to bring us up to par with our system, right?
Most of it? Yeah. I mean, at that point, the DNR said we didn't, you know, we had fluoride and
chlorine in the same room, right? So we would have, I don't know if we would have brought
the subject of putting in a separate room at that point or not. But yeah, otherwise, and at some
point, while six, the DNR should have caught that they didn't. It should have had fluoride.
The second it became part of the villages water system when we took it over from Burke,
or especially when we interconnected the two. But that was overlooked by the DNR at that point.
One more question. And really, too, so where to, I think it's the most important that we have
like all the safety standards for handling with the eyewash station. And then of course, we need
the water heater. So it's type of, but where did, why did we have that lack in our standards being
not, not up being a standard? I guess I'm saying like, shouldn't someone have been checking that?
Or is this kind of like, we kind of open the door to look at it. And so then we need to make
sure everything's up into standard for OSHA. Sure. Probably a little both, right? So it was,
we had eyewash stations in most locations. You know, I, as when the door opens, then we start to look
at what else is, what's there, what should we have, you know, that to meet the today's standards?
I just also want to add, you know, as we're looking at well to the electrical portion of that, if,
if that addition were to be added, that's where the electrical portion came in, is that box is
actually fused boxes, not the normal standard fuses boxes that you see in your homes, breaker boxes.
These are actually bound views. Yes, it's kind of always been there. It's always worked for what
we have there. But if we were to add that extra addition, that's where we would want to come up to
bring things up to code. Brad?
So I get we did an in-depth dive here of what was exactly needed. What's the difference between
the March 17th meeting? We had a 205 to $245,000 estimate to do all this work, and now it's
$100,000 more. What changed in that time frame? Well, certainly once we brought
them in, and they did actual analyzation, right? So
when did you guys come and tour that with us? Is that in March time frame? January, right? So
they had not done any, they were still working on it. So just architects, architectural firms are
backlogged. There's a short supply of architects. So if there's students listening, maybe I'll get
architecture. But anyways, so it's no different with beer Becker and their architect. He's backlog
right? So we brought him in. They did the stuff, but it took them. They started working on it,
then this got paused, then it restarted again. So I asked them to expedite that. So we get actual
opinions of probable costs, not back of a napkin kind of costs, right? So when they were in,
they looked at it, and then that's when the ceiling and other things that are not directly
attributable to fluoride, but it's something that we should consider doing if we're going to be making
these improvements. I'll just add, when we invited that first cost, that's from a contractor,
kind of looking at the building on Mall 2, just saying these are rough estimates, you know,
that we think that it would cost between Mall 6 and Mall 2. So when you look at these costs,
you got engineering and contingency costs just for well 6, that's $23,000, and then you go to well
2, 3, and 4. I mean, that's almost $100,000 right there. I'm looking at it, but it all adds up.
Just have one thing. So I think I read that the DNR confirmed that we can legally place
for our back in all the wells. We don't have to do well 6 to get everything started, right?
So in essence, we could defer that $100,000 cost and start re-fluorinating immediately,
like we wouldn't need to do well 6. You have to do well 6 at some point. The DNR said
they've granted an exception, I guess, that we could begin to fluoridate as the wells are
made available to have fluoride added in, right? So the quickest wells to have fluoride added back
in would be 3 and 4. To as well, if you are saying you don't want to add a separate containment
room, right? We can certainly upgrade well to put the fluoride back in right next to the chlorine,
and then we'd have to add vents because there were not vents previously. So the DNR has
said you would need to make sure that room is properly vented. So there would be a varying cost
to that. It doesn't make, just in my opinion, you can take it for what it's worth. It doesn't
make sense to put it in if you want us to do a separation room, like either we put it back in
exactly how it was and they're right next to each other, or we do a separation room and not
put them in and then move it to a separation room, we just be incurring additional costs.
So that's your choice to give us that direction. So there was a timeline. Was that when I get to
that on here? So the timelines would be six to eight months for wells 3 and 4 to do that, right?
So there's these things that take two months. The DNR review can take up to 90 days. It probably
won't take 90 days in talking with the DNR, but that's their standard is they have to have a review
done within 90 days. So that's why we put that in there. Then there's going over bid.
In contract award takes four weeks and that construction could take two months. So that's
where it's a six to eight month range before that's in. You have a little bit more in depth.
Things happening at wells two and six. So that would take a longer time frame from 10 to 14 months.
But the DNR has said we could start to Florida and we would be under the amount, right? So the
0.7 parts per million is where they measure us at. I don't know they would be there when we'd
send in our samples, but they would know that they're below that deviation.
They're acceptable of that, right?
That's what they confirm to us in in email correspondences.
Okay, if that's it for everybody up here, I guess we'll move on to public appearances
on this particular topic. So we have pre-registered Ed Morgan Roth Jr.
I'd like to come up to the mic. Oh, Mr. Stork is speaking for Mr. Morgan Roth.
You please identify yourself in the municipality.
I'm Mark Stork. I live in DeForest as does Ed Morgan Roth.
Ed's statement is my name is Ed Morgan Roth Jr. And I am a DeForest Village resident.
I did not support the removal of fluoride and I am asking the village to begin fluoridation
of the entire village's water supply as soon as possible. Fluoridation of the municipal water
systems has been widespread across virtually the entire country, including Wisconsin since
the 1960s and 70s. The scientific evidence around fluoridation is very clear. It reduces cavities
thereby improving dental and overall health in a safe manner. My understanding is that there are
no zero credible scientific studies to date using the recommended fluoridation level of
0.7 milligrams per liter that show any harm or negative health impacts of fluoridation.
And I am not aware of any studies indicating adverse health impacts at the recommended level
being cited by the anti fluoride activists. As further support, the following highly respected
U.S. and Wisconsin health organizations continue to support the fluoridation of the municipal water
drinking systems at the recommended 0.7 milligrams per liter level. The U.S. Center for Disease
Control and Prevention, American Dental Association, Wisconsin Department of Health Services,
American Academy of Pediatrics, American Dental Hygienist Association.
For all the above reasons, I urge the board to vote tonight to implement fluoridation water
treatment for the entire village at the recommended level and to direct the staff to begin a phased
implementation immediately. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. I'm sorry, folks. I keep forgetting
to say that there is a three-minute limit on speaking. I have a question. Go ahead.
I wish Mr. Morgan Roth was here because I'd like to ask him this question, and Mark, you
probably won't be able to answer this question. But since I could say Ed, if I were, you know,
had gone to a hotel express or something, but I'll see what I can do. Okay, so I'm going to ask
it because it's his statement, and I appreciate his statement. But my question is, and what I'm
curious about is that Mr. Morgan Roth wrote to the village board an email dated May 13th
and requested in that email, it says, I urge the board to vote to implement fluoridation water
treatment for the entire village. And in his subject line, it says the May 19th board meeting,
fluoridation issue. My question is, how did he know about this when the agenda for the
meeting was not put out to the public, nor to even I as a trustee until noon on May 15th,
on May 19th. Excellent question. May 15th, May 15th. I have no clue. I am very curious about that,
and I just have some concerns about it. But thank you.
Okay, just as a reminder, folks, there cannot be conversation, give and take back and forth
between our speakers and the board. There is allowed one clarifying question by the trustees,
and in the interest of time, if you all could keep it short, that'd be great.
Next pre-registered speaker is Amy Anderson, speaking in opposition.
I think the green lights lit, Amy, if you would just identify yourself and the municipality you live in, please.
Hi, my name is Amy Anderson. I'm a resident and a health care provider of the community.
I live at 824 Clover Lane, and my practice is at 124 South Main Street.
I'm here tonight because I'm troubled, not just because of the fluoridation question itself,
but by the process that's been going on. The community already voted to remove fluoride from our water.
That decision wasn't made carelessly. There were a lot of reasons behind it.
It reflected real concerns about the risk, benefit, balance of systemic fluoride consumption,
systemic drinking in our body, and it reflected the will of the people this board serves.
Now, some people want to reverse that ruling, and I want to ask, whose voice are we honoring here?
Pharmaceutical grade fluoride is different than the stuff that we had to water.
That's what the studies were done on. We can get it through toothpaste,
gonadunist, topical treatments, there are other things that people use to prevent cavities,
and it delivers the benefit where it's needed without the risk that come with consuming.
The possible risks and the risks that some studies have shown.
You can find studies for things on both sides. You really have to dig into the science behind this.
The science of ingested fluoride, though, specifically that HFSA can't say the real word,
so I'm going to hyphenate it, which is the waste product and industry, has become very complicated,
particularly regarding children and neurological effects. I have four kids of my own.
They've never had fluoride in their life, and we've had one cavity.
But I also specialize in my practice in taking care of pregnant women, infants,
breastfeeding specialists, and I take care of kids, too.
And a large part of what I do is helping families guide them in making healthy choices.
So many people have come to me. They don't want this, and they're afraid to speak out.
And they don't have time because they're a Paul Knight nurse and they're babies in there.
Tired. The goal here, healthy teeth and healthy kids, is we all share this.
We all share this goal. This is not like us against them.
The disagreement is about how we get it there. And there are methods available
that don't require the entire community to consume fluoride.
And a lot of us object to that, and a lot of us filter our water because of it.
It's very expensive to do.
I urge the board to honor the vote that was already taken.
If there's a desire to revisit this, the right path is broader community engagement,
not a reversal push-through before the oppositions that adequate opportunity be heard.
Please just table this voting for later time. There's a lot of costs that we've seen that.
And as we know when you build, it's going to be probably double what they say because it always
happens. I personally get daily input, like daily input of people in the community that don't want
it. And they're confused that it's even up for a vote tonight. They didn't know.
So if they don't know, how can they come and speak their concerns?
So I just really urge you not to vote on it tonight. Keep it where it's at.
Thanks for your time. Thank you, Amy. Any questions?
Jim? Amy, I heard your bit of your background, and I'm wondering,
say, when do children say would doctors recommend or not recommend giving children
water with fluoride? Do you know that? Well, water with fluoride, but fluoride treatments don't start.
You'd have to ask a dentist for sure. And since we just haven't done them, I think it's four or five
topically. But you brush your teeth early then, but they say don't use a brush. Don't use fluoride
toothpaste because they swallow it in their little. So there's other toothpaste without
fluoride in it for them. Thank you, I guess. I guess I don't spot the water. I'm good.
And there's a dentist in the room somewhere. Well, the kind of to that, like we're breastfeeding
and for making formula, you're not supposed to use tap water because of the fluoride and
the other chemicals right there. Thanks.
Next pre-registered again, and Mark Stork is speaking on behalf of Nina Harms.
Mark Stork speaking for Nina Harms, who lives in the forest.
I have spoken about the need for fluoride in our municipal drinking water before in front of this
board. Unfortunately, I am not able to physically attend tonight's meeting. But Mark has graciously
agreed to read my statement. As a former biology teacher, my first lesson to my sophomores was
understanding the scientific method. We discussed what a fact is, what a hypothesis is, and what a
theory is. We learned how scientists do exhaustive research, which is peer review multiple times.
I think most adults today could benefit from a brief refresher than how the scientific process
worked, but I don't have the time necessary to teach tonight. My master's thesis was about the
scientific literacy of Americans. Back in 2000, it was already a pizmo, and it has only gotten worse.
Science has lost the support of so much of this populace. This was exacerbated by the COVID pandemic,
where the science was not communicated clearly. This is a common problem in the scientific community,
the inability to make things understandable, while the voices of conspiracy theories are
amplified by our media. The exact same thing happened after the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918
and 1919. The public lost all faith in science, and it took the polio epidemic and sulks vaccine
to bring back confidence. I hate to think what it would be take today with all the misinformation
that spreads and breeds on social media in a world where one can live in a bubble and find the answers
that support what they already believe, fact, lose their power. The facts are, fluoride in the
municipal water system prevents tooth decay. Fact, the amount of fluoride in the water is carefully
monitored to prevent overdose. Fact, fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral that is found
primarily in calcium phosphate rock, from which is purified and put in either a liquid suspension
or in a powder form to add to water. If you believe that fluoride comes from industrial waste,
you can find that information on many ridiculous blogs and Facebook posts that completely ignore
reality, but that doesn't make it true. In a world where facts seem to matter less and less
and crazy debunked ideas run among, I fear that this dilemma is much more far reaching than this
debate over fluoride. I shudder to think what it will take for people to reembrace the facts
of science again. Thank you for your attention to this manner. Nina Harms to Forest resident for 16
years. Thank you. No questions. Next up is John Schmidt.
Am I on? All right. My name is John Schmidt, Nick. I own a home at 717 West Mohawk Trail.
I have recited at this residence for the past 24 years with 21 years with my wife Lynn.
As the forest residents and taxpayers, we did not support the removal of fluoride from the
village water supply. As the forest residents and taxpayers, we fully support the village
restoring fluoride as soon as possible. We have all heard the arguments for and against fluoride.
The overwhelming data is and continues to be in strong support of fluoride and the benefits it
provides. As a community, we owe it to our most vulnerable residents to provide this protection.
The village residents, the taxpayers, have clearly spoken on this topic.
A trustee has been recalled and then subsequently defeated in the recall election.
Leading up to that election, an additional candidate entered the contest with similar fluoride views.
Those two candidates combined received 20% of the vote. The taxpayers sent a clear message.
Shortly after the election, a board member with the same views abruptly resigned.
The spring election produced a similar outcome. The anti-fluoride incumbent received just over 12%
of the vote. Once again, the taxpayers sent a message. At the end of the day, the results
speak loud and clear that the forest taxpayers were not happy with the decision to remove.
It's time for the forest to get rid of the black eye. Please vote to restore fluoride
and direct staff to begin phased implementation. Thank you.
Thank you, John.
Excuse me. Next, and I apologize, Becky. Becky, you're safe.
Call me how I did. You did better than some.
They had poor me. Becky, you're safe.
You're safe. Just missed the G. Okay. Thanks.
And I am a resident of the forest and my address is on the forum.
I understand there are strong opinions on both sides of the fluoride issue.
And I respect that people care deeply about our community and our water system.
What concerns me most is that this issue is being reopened after a decision has already been made.
There should be value placed on consistency and honoring prior decisions.
At some point, as a community, we need stability and predictability.
Reopening highly contentious issues every time board membership changes can create ongoing
conflict, frustration, and uncertainty for residents. It risks creating a cycle where decisions are
continually revisited until one side ultimately gets the outcome they want.
I'm also concerned that a decision of this magnitude is being considered while the village
board does not currently have its full seven member representation and issue this divisive
with significant financial and community-wide impact should be considered with a fully seated
board. Residents deserve complete representation before major decisions like this are revisited.
I also believe the financial impact should be carefully considered. We're talking about
spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an issue that has already created significant
division within the community. Whether residents support fluoride or oppose it, I think many
people are simply tired of the conflict and would rather see the village focus on issues that
bring people together and move our community forward. My hope is that the board carefully
considers whether now is truly the right time to revisit this issue. Residents deserve stability,
consistency, and full representation before major decisions that affect the entire community
are reconsidered. I urge you please pause any decision on this matter tonight. Thank you.
You Becky.
Next up I have Sarah with no last name who pre-registered and I believe she's on Zoom.
That is correct. We'll just need a moment to give her ability.
Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, we can, Sarah. Go ahead. You have three minutes.
Thank you so much. In 2024, a federal judge ruled water fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk
of injury. In 2025, the FDA chose to protect children from fluoride by banning the drug for
all children under the age of three. Moreover, the state health department acknowledges that
ingesting fluoride causes disfigurement in children in the form of dental fluorosis. Given these
basic facts, I believe that what this board is doing constitutes its child abuse under the law.
Under chapter 948 crimes against children, specifically 948.03 physical abuse of children.
Definitions says in this section recklessly means conduct, which creates a situation of unreasonable
risk of harm to and demonstrates a conscious disregard for the safety of the child. Using the
waterworks to medicate two-year-olds against a parent's wishes is acting both unreasonably
and reckless because ingesting this FDA-defined chemical drug causes well-established harms,
which is exactly why doctors are no longer allowed to write prescriptions for fluoride tablets
for children. It's clear that this board wants to intentionally put a chemical drug in the water
that causes actual known harms to children. I implore this board to resist that urge because
you have a legal duty of care to protect children, not medicate them. In anyone who fails to act
tonight to stop this barbaric practice to prevent bodily injury to babies is culpable under the
state law and in the eyes of the Lord. Please, do not contaminate the water with hydrofluorosolic
acid commonly referred to as fluoride. For doing so is reckless endangerment of children.
Thank you.
Sarah, for the record, I don't have your last name, the proper spelling of Sarah and what
municipality you live in.
That is compelled speech, so I will not be giving that information, but thank you for asking.
Okay, thank you.
Next is Kerry Spencer, representing the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, also on Zoom.
Hi, this is Kerry Spencer. Thank you for that. Sorry, just a little delay with being able to
unmute. Good evening. My name is Kerry Spencer. I work for the Wisconsin Department of Health
Services and the Oral Health Program. The Oral Health Program received a request to provide
information on community water fluoridation equipment grants to the DeForest Village Board this
evening. Each year, the Department of Health Services has funding for community water fluoridation
equipment grants. This funding allows community to upgrade, install equipment that will make
fluoridation systems easier to operate, provide more accurate dosing, and increase the safety
and environmental conditions inside chemical storage rooms. This grant opportunity is currently
available until June 5th of 2026. Applicants awarded will be notified by June 1st of 2026,
and communities awarded will have from July 1st to June 30th of 2027 to purchase and install equipment.
Information to know about this grant is it's a non-matching grant opportunity. The allowable
project expenses for this grant include chemical tanks and ventilation, pumps and valves, fluoride
testing equipment, scales and radar sensors, personal protective equipment, emergency eyewash
and showers, room exhaust and ventilation and equipment calibration. If the village of DeForest
decides to resume community water fluoridation, the information on this grant has been shared with
you for your convenience. The information provided has what I shared tonight as well as how to contact
the Oral Health Program and where to apply for funding. Thank you for your time this evening
and allowing me to share this information with you. Thank you, Kerry. Oh, I'm sorry, Jim.
That's a question. Thank you for attending tonight, Kerry. I'm curious, or I'm wondering how much you
can share as far as the grant. Is there a range that we would anticipate or hire low or anything
else you could share for the dollar amount we could expect?
Sorry, Jim. I was just waiting to be able to unmute. So there is no limit. So we typically advise
communities to ask for what they need. And obviously, we don't have unlimited funds,
so we award what is within our means. This application does go out to communities all across
the state. So I would say ask for what you need. And we certainly can review it and determine what
seems appropriate and what our funding is available. I hope that answered your question.
Hang on a second, Kerry, Bill Chang. There's a question.
Hi, this is Bill Chang just wondering in regards to application in the application process
at each stage, is an applicant able or eligible to apply two seasons in a row?
Yes. Thank you.
I guess Kerry, I don't feel like maybe you answered the question. Could you tell me the highest
grant you've already ever given and say the last couple of years? The funding varies from
community to community. I would say we have some communities that ask for $2,000 and we have some
that are 40 or 50. Each year, I think we typically fund anywhere between 8 to 12 communities.
And again, the requests are just all across the board.
So it's hard to say, we'll give you up to this amount. I think.
Thank you. That our answer is it.
Thank you, Kerry. Next, Christy Shirley in person.
Just give us your name and what municipality you live in.
I'm Christy Shirley. I live at 301 Riverwood, Benton de Forest.
So first, I'd like to ask you tonight to keep fluoride out of our village water.
Not because everyone agrees that fluoride is harmful, but because every person should have the right
to decide what goes into their own body. You know, we live in a time where my body, my choice,
has become a powerful principle in our society. And we're told that personal medical decisions
belong to an individual. Now, if we truly believe in bodily autonomy, then that principle should
apply consistently, including when it comes to adding fluoride to the public drinking water.
Fluoride is already widely available to anyone who wants it. So in the toothpaste,
mouth rinses, dental treatments, supplements, and people who believe fluoride benefits them
already have easy access to it and can choose to use it every day if they wish.
But for those who do not want fluoride in their bodies, avoiding it is far more difficult and
expensive. It's not as simple as buying bottled water. Fluoridated water affects cooking, bathing,
watering gardens, pets, and plants. And proper filtration systems remove fluoride from an entire
home or costly and unrealistic for many families. So when fluoride is added to the water supply,
there's no meaningful way to opt out. That removes personal choice from every resident in our
community. Leaving fluoride out of the village water is the true compromise. It's a win-win.
Because those who want fluoride can still freely choose it through products and supplements,
but those who don't want it can also maintain that choice without financial burden or forced
exposure. This issue is bigger than fluoride itself. It's about whether individuals retain
the right to make personal choices for themselves and their families. So I respectfully ask the
board to protect that freedom to keep fluoride out of our village water. Thank you.
Next speaker, Bernard Cox.
Good evening, Bernard Cox. I need a nine-liberty drive. I've been a resident for 30 years.
Over the last year, the citizens of the village have watched fluoridation policies spring back
and forth, not because science suddenly changed, but because political makeup of this board changed.
One board removed fluoride, another attempted to restore it and it failed. Now it's another
political shift. The village is preparing to reverse course again, while projected costs
continue to escalate. Residents were told this project would cost around $200,000,
updated engineering documents now exceed $300,000. I continue to believe true term long costs
ultimately will approach $500 to $700,000 when Bill's done. All the infrastructure,
engineering, skate, and integration facility modifications, operational services are included.
That should concern every taxpayer in the village because this is no longer a public health
discussion. This is also a fiscal responsibility issue. It's tied directly to what constitutes
protecting all citizens' health safety. I'm not a scientist and I'm not a toxicologist.
And with all due respect, neither is this board nor the staff are positioned to independently
resolve complex fluoride health and safety questions currently under EPA in court review.
Yet the board continues to move forward as though the questions are already settled.
Because this is a responsibility this board is truly to protect public health and safety
than caution and restraint should be exercised. While nationally recognized experts,
federal agencies in the courts continue to review various standards being relied upon tonight.
In fact, the village owned correspondence with the Wisconsin DNR now confirmed fluoridation
is an elective chemical and it's optional. You're all speaking here tonight like it's required. It's
not. It's optional. At the same time, there's ongoing concerns involving NTB related contamination
impacts associated with known hydrocarbon plumes issue affecting portions of this system right now.
MTB is in our water right now. And we're spending $300,000 to add chemicals to do it when we're
not spending anything to take chemicals out of it. But it's not reasonable to ask whether
taxpayer dollars would be better spent addressing known contamination concerns first before community,
large sums of towards additional elective chemical treatment systems, independent testing of my
own residential water supply also confirms that naturally occurring background floor already
remains present in the village as we speak to the point of point two. And that's when you took
it out already. It's already out. My water test says it's still in. This is not a question.
Zero fluoride versus fluoride. Bernard, I'm sorry, your time is up. Thank you.
Question. Can you go back to tell us why the MTBSs are more important than adding the fluoride?
An independent national lab test my water in in March. It shows clearly MTB's. It's a
byproduct of volume products, usually from underground storage techniques. That was my
fourth day. I worked for the state for seven years at the underground above ground storage
tank progress. They say no. MTB's are impacting the wellhead according to this water test right
now. The point where it's only 0.7 feet seven underneath the legal limits before we had to take
any technical legal actions. MTB's are working. Thank you.
Next speaker is Rebecca Withers.
Rebecca Witherspoon, divorce resident. My address is on file. I am once again speaking
in opposition to the reintroduction of fluoride back into our municipal water supply.
As this board knows, I previously submitted an ADA accommodation request related to this issue
and I am currently working with my physician to provide the medical documentation the
village requested. During that process, blood testing has revealed that I have significantly
elevated arsenic levels in my body as serious medical concern that my doctor and I are now
actively addressing. And yet this board appears determined to move forward with adding a chemical
to our water supply that is known to contain arsenic and other toxic contaminants. This
is no longer an abstract policy debate for me. This directly impacts my health, my safety,
and my ability to safely access the public utility that I am forced to pay for and cannot
realistically avoid. Some have unrealistically suggested I should simply buy bottled water or
install expensive filtration systems. But why should residents be forced to both pay to have
a substance added to our water and then pay again to remove it in order to protect their health?
Also of concern is the repeated claim by some trustees that there is zero scientific evidence
showing potential harm from fluoridation. Those claims are simply false. There is ongoing
scientific debate. There are numerous recent studies raising concerns about neurotoxicity
and cumulative exposure. And in September 2024, federal court found sufficient evidence of an
unreasonable risk of harm to health to require further EPA review, which is currently under review.
You may disagree with that ruling, but you cannot ethically pretend it does not exist.
There's also pending litigation involving this issue here in our own community. My understanding
is that dismissal has not occurred and that that lawsuit was only or that it was only being
discussed because previous attempts to reintroduce fluoridation repeatedly fail.
Now the political numbers may have changed on this board, but the unresolved scientific legal
fiscal and ethical concerns have not. And that is exactly why this board has a moral responsibility
to slow down, not accelerate. When there's unresolved public health concerns, ongoing federal review,
pending litigation, and more than $325,000 in infrastructure costs alone,
that may never be recoverable. The ethical obligation of government is caution, not recklessness.
Waiting for the EPA's determination is not extreme. It is reasonable, responsible,
and physically, fiscally prudent. I urge you tonight to take off the ideological blinders,
stop pretending there is no real controversy surrounding this issue, and do the responsible
thing. Pause this process until the EPA review is complete. And for the record,
I won re-election despite being politically attacked. I also resigned from this board
because my husband died. So let's get off with that subject. Thank you.
Thank you.
Joe Dish is next.
Hi, my name is Joe Dish. I live at 213 South Main Street here in DeForest.
This is first and foremost a civil rights issue, and DeForest already made the correct choice
when we ended the practice of water fluoridation. And again, when we resisted an attempt to begin
it again, people have the right to decide what goes into their bodies. While certain forms of
fluoride applied topically have been shown to reduce dental cavities, mounting evidence suggests
that the ingestion of fluoride can lead to serious thyroid, bone, and neurological problems.
People who want fluoride have many available options, including toothpaste,
mouthwash, and topical treatments. But typical household water filters don't effectively remove
fluoride. So people who don't want to ingest it, inhale it in their shower, water their gardens
with it, must go to great expense to avoid it, if they can afford to do so at all. This is a health
issue, an economic issue, and could eventually become a liability issue. Federal authorities are
currently fast-tracking investigations into fluoride safety, which could lead to a reversal of guidelines.
So far, two states have banned the practice, and 10 more have introduced legislation seeking to do so.
It's entirely possible that after spending considerable tax dollars to restart the pumps,
a change in policy or outright ban at the federal or state level could force us to again change
course, and perhaps face legal liability for harm. We should honor the decision to keep fluoridation
of personal choice. Thank you, Joe. Chris McDonald.
No, you're not speaking. Andrew Burns.
Hello. My name is Andrew Burns. I live at 456 Sunset Drive. I'm here this evening to speak on behalf
of myself, my wife, Kelly Fox, and our six-month-old daughter, Grace. I'm here this evening to voice
my support of the resolution, 206057, directing the Director of Public Services to resume fluoridation
of the village's public water system. As a constituent of the forest, it's important to me
that our elected officials wisely manage the money raised by taxes to facilitate the greater
good of our community. Early last year, my family was disheartened to learn that the decision to
discontinue fluoride addition to our water supply. Since that initial decision, there has been a lot
of community engagement on the topic. Some of the loudest voices are from outside of our community.
They don't drink our water or pay our taxes. Since the decision last year, there have been two
decisive elections. I can only speak directly to the motivation for the votes of my family.
Our votes were informed by a desire for the resumption of public water fluoridation.
I believe many other divorce residents shared this motivation. The U.S. Centers for Disease
Control, a federal government agency, continued to support public water fluoridation. From their
public-facing website, quote, fluorodei water and fluoride toothpaste work together to prevent
cavities. Together, the two sources offer more protection than using either one alone.
Last fall, I spoke in support of your reconsideration, and I thank you for bringing us to this point.
I am more confident in the board today than I have been since moving to the forest two years ago.
I also want to take a moment to commend and thank the board and village staff for their handling
of the potential QTS data center. You made the right decision and saved our community a lot of
party. Thank you. Thank you. Nancy Quirk.
Hi, my name is Nancy Quirk. Good evening, President Little and Pustees. I live at 906,
Besant Lane and DeForest. I was a registered professional engineer in the state of Wisconsin,
and I was recently retired from 36 years of Wisconsin drinking water sector,
including civil engineering roles at Madison water utility, at Waukeshaal water utility,
and then general manager of Green Bay water utility. In Green Bay, we fought for fluoridation
three different times, and our council agreed to keep it going. I just wanted to mention that
we were given accommodation from the children's health network of Wisconsin for protecting
children's health with dental protection with the fluoride that we added to our water.
I live in DeForest and pay taxes here. I do not support the removal of fluoride,
and I do not, and I do support the funding and efforts for the village to restore it.
With my background at the water utilities who also provided fluoridated water to their customers,
I was asked to review the Verbecker memorandum of May 13th. In this memo, Verbecker outlined
the tasks and estimated costs to reinstate fluoride at the village's existing wells,
and you just spent a lot of time going through that proposal. The costs include not only equipment
to enable fluoride to be added to the water, but also improvement to the building themselves,
which came out. So there are required tasks and optional ones that you guys identified.
Well, two, three, and four previously had fluoride injected. The required task
costs to equip well to inject the monitor fluoride into the water again would be lower than the
shown value. Other costs included in their total cost included would be optional. Well,
six never had fluoride, and that's going to require a higher cost, so because it's not
grandfathered in. The State Department of Health has grant money, which you just heard about,
and it will lower your costs significantly for buying that fluoride equipment and getting back
up to speed. I'm sharing this from my own experience as Green Bay's general manager.
I served on EPA's National Drinking Water Advisory Council, which dealt with all water quality
issues in the United States. During my three years there, never was there a credible report
sent to us for consideration to remove fluoride from the water. Please vote to restore fluoride
and direct staff to begin phased implementation. Thank you. Thank you. Jim has a question for you.
So thank you for sharing your background, and what I heard is that you worked for the Green Bay
Water Utility and Madison Water Utility. Yeah, I was a civil engineer at Madison. I was an
engineering manager at Waukesha, and I was a general manager at Green Bay Water. You know of any
instances where there's a pump malfunction that may be brought fluoride above the legal limits
on any of those. Our SCADA systems, the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Systems that we had
monitored that. And if there was a discrepancy, our operators handled that right away and and
shut them off if they needed to be. Or they were constantly looking at, you know, they had a amount
of routine replacement schedule so that there would not be failures in those pumps and things
in the storage. And we had the big trucks come and put them into the tanks where we didn't have to
like put it in ourselves. The hoses would go right into the tanks to fill up the H2S or hydro
flow salicylic acid. Yeah, and so would you agree that with that maintenance schedule that you had,
that you did not have any pump failures? During the time that it was there, there was no pump failures.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Morgan Brooke.
Hi, my name is Morgan Brooke. I'm a registered dental hygienist. I've owned my home at 920 Liberty
Drive here in the forest for about 12 years. I pay taxes here. I've been a hygienist for 14 years.
Patients all day long. I did not support the removal of fluoride and I support the
villagers restoring it. I'm speaking for myself, my children, and as a dental hygienist, I'm speaking
tonight for countless patients who have personally asked me to advocate for them and their families
on this issue. Every day, I see the real effects of dental disease. Cavities are not simply small
inconveniences. They are preventable infections that cause pain, misspool, and work, difficulty
eating and sleeping, and causally treatment that many families struggle to afford. Community water
fluoridation is a public health preventative matter. It is one of the most research and widely
supported public health interventions in modern history. For decades, major medical, dental,
and public health organizations have continued to support fluoridation because the evidence
consistently shows that it safely reduces tooth decay and improves oral health outcomes
across entire communities. As a health care professional, prevention is always the goal.
It is far more effective and less expensive to prevent disease than it is to treat after damage
has already occurred. Water fluoridation is one of the most cost effective ways to improve
public health because it benefits everyone regardless of age, income, or access to dental care.
Not every family can afford routine dental visits, prescription fluoride products,
or extensive restorative treatments. Fluoridated water helps to provide consistent protection
to all residents, especially children, seniors, and the vulnerable populations. My patients are
concerned about losing this protection. They are asking for their voices to be heard, and tonight
I'm helping bring their voices forward. With respect, unless you have worked directly with
patients experiencing dental disease, it can be difficult to fully appreciate the ripple effects
that preventable decay has on families. As a dental hygienist, I see those effects every day.
Pain, missed school, financial stress, and children needing treatment that may have been
preventable. As both a taxpayer and a dental hygienist, I strongly support restoring fluoride
to our community water supply. Please vote to restore fluoride and direct staff to begin
the phase implementation. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? I can assist with questions on
what is recommended for toothpaste if you need it. Do you like to answer a question that I have
about when, say, an infant or a child can? Sure. Yeah. Good morning. So we follow what the ADA
recommends, and what pediatricians recommend. So currently, pediatricians do apply fluoride
treatments until children start seeing a dentist. So they usually apply every six months as most
dentists do. That's what the ADA recommends and pediatricians. So like currently, if your child is
under two, it is recommended once they get their first tooth. So it's dependent on age of child,
but usually around six months is when they recommend the first treatment.
And then once they've established dental care, every six months for fluoride treatments.
Thank you. What I heard is the fluoride treatments, say, starting at when they have teeth, and then
that is also, say, the recommendation of ingesting the potential and testing of fluorinated water at
that time also. Correct. And also fluoridated toothpaste. The ADA recommends a rice size amount,
actually. Thank you. It was previously that they recommended not using it, but our diets have
changed quite a bit. So they do recommend it a pea size amount or a rice size, excuse me,
for children as soon as they get a tooth. Thank you. Anything else? Thanks.
Mark Stark speaking as Mark Stark this time.
And it's the last time you see me today up here. I hope so. Yeah, me too.
My name is Mark Stark, 16 Jefferson Street. I live in the forest. I pay taxes here, and I did not
support the removal of fluoride, and I support the village restoring it. Over the past few weeks,
I've seen several times people asking, why don't we have a referendum on this? And when you first,
at least the village board, not all of you, voted to remove fluoride, at that point in time,
I sent an email to all of the trustees asking, why didn't we have a referendum? And I got
nice responses, except for one, where I was informed that the trustee was elected to make decisions,
they made a decision, and I should be happy with that. I didn't feel that was quite the answer
that a trustee should give, so I began to explore things a little bit more. And at that time,
I found there were other troubling aspects regarding that trustee. And because of that,
I was happy to add my name as the lead on the recall effort for that trustee. We garnered well
over the number of signatures needed from the forest residents over the time period,
and actually quicker than was required. And the recall election occurred, and I am very pleased
to say that that individual lost by a margin of 79% to 21%. Since that time, we have lost another
trustee due to resignation who had voted for fluoride. And this past April, we had another
trustee who had voted to remove fluoride, run to keep her seat. And at that point,
they received only 12% of the vote compared to 81% for the other three individuals running.
In the past year, I have knocked on virtually hundreds of doors between the recall and the
elections. And in that time, I have had one person state to me that they were glad that fluoride
had been removed. And when I asked her why, she said, my bridge player companion told me I should
tell you that. That was the reason. So when people say we need a referendum, I'd say we already had
several referendums. So please vote this evening to restore fluoride and direct the staff to begin
a phased implementation. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. One question just to clarify the percentages
you used. You talked about the last election. I think you said 12 and a half for one candidate,
and then you said 81% for the other group, the three other together, they had substantially more
than the one candidate who did not. But it was election. It was 81% of the total votes,
not necessarily 81% of the individuals that voted. Is that correct? So of the percentage of all
voters, there was 12% approximately devoted for that trustee. There were 81% that voted for
the other three who gained their positions. And there was a small amount that voted for right in.
Okay. But you added the three numbers together. They were approximately all equal.
Okay. So you used that one number. Okay. Yeah. That makes sense. Thank you. Thank you.
Macy Bueller.
Hello. My name is Macy Bueller. I've been to Forest Residence for almost 30 years this summer.
I am speaking in support of adding fluoride back in our water. Did you know that 35%
of Americans cannot access dental care? Why? That is needed in our water. 35% of Americans
need fluoride. They can access it. You might not even be able to access toothpaste with it.
When you look at what's happening to our lack of access to food, yeah, I will talk about that
in a minute. Did you know that one in four children in the Forest School District live in poverty
if you take the free and reduced numbers? And those are often underrepresented.
And so typically there's more than 25% in our area. Since they last took fluoride out to forest,
we haven't had anyone step up to offer free fluoride treatments to children.
I haven't seen anyone offer free toothpaste and toothbrushes to children.
This is a public health issue and why in the 60s and 70s we added this in. And so I hope
to forestize the right thing and they see, yes, it is a choice, but 35% don't have that choice.
So you're doing the right thing by adding that back. And for divorce, for 25% of our children,
it will make a huge impact. So going forward, I want you to think it is a choice that we're going
to help our children. Thank you. Thank you. Jonathan Bronk.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. My name is Jonathan Bronk and I'm a resident
into forest. I did not support the removal of fluoride, but I'm here tonight in support of the
village restoring it to our drinking water. I support the village making the necessary
infrastructure and building investments to bring our pump houses up to code and make these facilities
as safe as possible for our staff. Please vote to restore fluoride and direct staff to begin the
process of updating our pump houses facilities. Thank you. Scott Mink.
Hi. Hi. My name is Scott Mink. I'm from the forest, 5.20 Hanks Hollow,
here for about 30 years. And I'm speaking to urge you guys not to reintroduce fluoride
back into the public water supply. And I was just going to go off script just a little bit
and just talk about being online recently and seeing all the forums talking about fluoride.
And there seems to be a big assumption that people that are that want fluoride removed
from their water are kind of right wing maha movement kind of folks. And I probably wear a
granola crunchy liberal patch. And so I just want people to know that there's another side of that.
I eat organic whenever I can. And you know we don't put any pesticides or herbicides on our lawns.
And we're going to win an actual village board award this year for the most
dandelions per square floor. So yeah, anyways, public water should be kept pure and safe as
possible for everyone. When we add a substance to the water like fluoride, we remove citizens
right to inform consent. Those who want fluoride have an easy way to assess it nowadays with tooth
base, rinses, dental treatments. And in that in that speak, they could also maybe some of the
money could actually instead of spending it on fluoride in our water size system maybe go
towards some of those fluoride treatments in our schools for kids. I'm not sure what the cost of
that would be, but that's an idea. However, people like myself that don't want to ingest fluoride
don't really have an option to opt out of that unless we're going to do expensive filter systems.
Mass distribution in the water supply is actually very inefficient. If you google searches,
tells you that less than 1% of on average of municipal water is actually consumed for drinking.
The rest goes for dishes, showers, watering lawns, etc. Also federal guidelines for fluoride levels
have been lowered over recent years doing to growing awareness of overexposure.
And I didn't know this. Things like, I never thought about it, things like processed foods.
If food companies are using municipal water that has fluoride in it, that's being transferred
into your food. So you're also ingesting fluoride that way and as well adding dental products on top
of that. Finally, introducing industrial grade chemicals into our water system at the necessary
operational costs and potential liability for the village. Our municipal's water department's
core mission should be delivering clean and safe pure drinking water, not managing the complex
dosing of a controversial additive in closing. I'm asking you guys to vote against fluoride
back into our water supply or at least tabling it until you can have more input. Thank you.
Thank you Scott. I'm sorry.
It was just curious because you mentioned you've been in the village for 30 years and
I appreciate your description of yourself as a crunchy person. So I was just curious. We've
heard the topic of lake for folks that don't want fluoride in the water having some solution to
that and I'm curious when there was fluoride in the water before. Did you have a system in your
home or did you have some? What was your solution to that before, if any? That's a very good question
actually. We actually have a whole house water filter system currently that removes chlorine
before it comes into our house and we also have a Berkey water system that it's actually an extra
it's very expensive to filter the fluoride out in addition to all of the other PFAS, etc.
in the drinking water. So we actually filter the village's water now still
and not just we don't have to do the fluoride anymore. So yes, it's very expensive though. Thank you.
Okay.
Sorry. The spot you used but you said expensive and I'm wondering if you could qualify that and
sounds like you maybe have the system. So it's hard to talk about expensive the system but is there
ongoing filters that you need to buy? Yeah. So there's the Berkey system itself comes with a
filter system that's about $100 every six months which is much better. But you have to add fluoride
filters to that which is about another $150 on top of the $100. So yeah. I also don't like them
because they actually sit down in the water as well and they're plastic. So I don't know,
getting microplastics or fluoride at that point.
All right. Yep. Thank you, Scott. Yep. Any more? No. Good.
Grant Smith.
Hi everyone. I'm Grant Smith. I live at 432 Windy Street and I've lived in the forest for three years.
First of all, I want to thank the board for questions that are amazing tonight. I've been
to Village Board meetings for over a year and this is probably the most engaged that I've ever seen
in this board. So I really appreciate that. I'm here to show my support of reintroducing fluoride
back into the water system for the village as a resident and as a taxpayer. The Center for Disease
Control under current leadership supports fluoride and the official website that states
community water fluoridation is the cornerstone strategy for the prevention of cavities in the
U.S. It is a practical cost-effective way for communities to improve the resident's health
regardless of age, education, or income. And also states that communities of 1,000 or more, so
even smaller than the forest, see an average estimate return on investment of $20 for every
dollar spot spent on water fluorideization. So actually this is a way to save money in the
community and the reason that is is that for an average cavity cost between $150 to $450
without insurance. That money, as opposed to going towards the cavities, can be reinvested
into the community by these families who don't have access. Whether that's being able to afford
to go out to you at local restaurants, being able to pay for a child's school clothes or
supplies, gears and sport, gear for sports, participation fees, instruments, private lessons,
etc. We can be investing in our children on money not spent on cavities. And again,
if parents don't have to take time off for work to take their kids to the dentist's office,
that's another two hours that they're not receiving pay. At scale, imagine how much this would
provide to the entire village of the forest. It significantly outweighs the cost of putting
fluoride in the water. Fluoride in the water makes our village a healthier and better place for all
residents to live. Again, I'm Grant Smith and I live in the forest. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody
of questions? Kayla Papci.
Hi there. My name is Kayla Papci and I've been a resident and taxpayer
in the forest for six years now. And I've been a dental hygienist for eight years.
I'm here in support of putting fluoride back into the water. As a dental hygienist, I've seen first
hand the benefits of having fluoride and our drinking water. Many of the children that end
up needing fillings due to decay grow up on well water, which does not have fluoride in it. I have
also heard from many older adults in their 70s and 80s who have a full mouth of teeth and they
attribute that to fluoride in the water. Their parents who do not have fluoride growing up had
dentures by age 30. About 75% of children in Wisconsin go to the dentist, which is great.
However, what about the other 25% that can't? The reality is not all children are able to get to
the dentist yearly and be able to receive fluoride treatments and just general dental care. Fluoride
in our water is something small and relatively affordable that has an impact on the whole community.
It helps prevent cavities and children, which helps kids and parents not miss school and work
to go to the dentist. It helps the kids whose parents can't take them to the dentist for a
variety of reasons due to lack of insurance, finances, or time. Getting a cavity filled when
young will most likely turn into needing a filling crown or a root canal when older.
A filling isn't supposed to last a lifetime. When it comes to the science about fluoride,
which has been in our water for the past 80 years, it has proven to be a public health
initiative that has really worked. The recommended amount of fluoride per liter is 0.7 milligrams.
The CDC and the American Dental Association have come out and stated the recommended dose is
healthy and does not have any long-term effects. Studies that are against fluoride are based on
research that has water with 1.5 to 10 milligrams per liter, which is more than double what
the forest has ever had. In Juneau, Alaska, local officials removed fluoride back in 2007.
And since then, the community has seen an increase in cavities by 50%. We don't want to have numbers
like that happen in the forest. It is not too late to reinstate fluoride back into our drinking
water and help protect kids from painful cavities and parents from having to miss work and spend
money and something that can be prevented. Please vote to reinstate fluoride back into our water
system. Yeah, go ahead. I'm going to take advantage of having a dental hygienist. I should have
asked this before, but I missed my chance. So is there a difference between ingesting fluoride
and the benefits of that versus topical fluoride? It is a different way of getting that fluoride
into the teeth. So topical is like what you get with toothpaste, mouth rinse, top pull at the
dentist, which is great, but not everyone has access to that. Trying to get a two-year-old to
brush your teeth is nearly impossible. Can you get a two-year-old to the dentist? Maybe if the
parents have that care and they can do it, but ingesting water, city water is something that's easy
and relatively affordable for us to be able to do to help people get that. But it is a different
mechanism of how it's ingested and how it helps the teeth. Could you elaborate on that? That was
actually what I was more getting at. Was the hack decision to raise it better? Go on your
differences between ingesting versus topical fluoride. It does the same thing. It's just how
it's incorporated in the teeth. And ingesting it will help when the teeth are developing
versus topical is helping remineralize the teeth as they are now. Does that make sense? Yes, it does.
Thank you. And our last speaker is Brenda Stoutenmeyer.
Thank you. Brenda Stoutenmeyer, 1278, Dodie Street, Green Bay. Sheila Howe, the
divorce resident with the giant dragon on her porch has invited me over this past year to speak
because she viewed me as the most qualified and knowledgeable to discuss fluoride. I'm the
Wisconsin mom who sued the federal government over fluoride added to public drinking water in one
after an extensive seven-year federal case. I've worked in the Wisconsin water industry for over
a decade. I hold a degree in environmental engineering focused on water and wastewater
and I've completed nursing prerequisites and attending college for cellular molecular biology.
Human health in the environment is my interest. My day job is training water professionals across
Wisconsin on ONM, safety, state and federal compliance. Despite social media attacks last
year from patient Smith and others, I was training thousands of operators, engineers and DNR staff
statewide. My work gives me access to industry discussions, emerging concerns and changes
happening behind the scenes. Since the lawsuit victory, fluoride manufacturing and supply in the
U.S. has quietly started shrinking. Plants have shut down or stopped selling fluoride chemicals
altogether. I believe the reason is simple. Fluorides neurotoxicity established in our lawsuit is no
longer a fringe issue and there are concerns of liability. The Obama appointed federal judge
concluded that fluoridation at .7 milligrams per liter presents an unreasonable risk to health.
Litigation made clear that much of what is presented as established fluoride safety relies on
unexamined assumptions. Many medical professionals and members of the public are not aware of the
current science or the federal case since new evidence can take years to reach widespread
awareness. Trustee little noticed that many pregnant women she spoke with had never heard
these concerns which highlights the responsibility on those informed in these meetings to consider
and protect vulnerable populations. What I witnessed in the forest was not a scientific
debate but a process shaped by social pressure, fear intimidation and narrative control.
A PhD trustee nurse was pushed out on the board after supporting informed consent and personal
choice. Meanwhile, residents were repeatedly giving outdated talking points that dismissed
legitimate science and concerns about arsenic lead and aluminum contamination in the flow
of salicylic acid chemicals. The MTP did a meta-analysis on all fluoride brain development studies and
they found that of 72 studies on fluoride in the developing brain, 64 found neurotoxicity.
Of the 19 studies, they concluded as the highest quality 18 fountain developmental neurotoxicity.
Of the 11 studies, the U.S. National Institutes of Health have funded on fluoride and brain
development, 10 of the 11 found neurotoxicity from fluoride levels experienced in optimally
fluoridated communities. The issue has not been sustained by transparency. I'm sorry, your time
is expired. Thank you. Questions, anyone?
I'm sorry, someone what?
She did not register to speak, so we don't have anything for her.
I'll come here.
Okay, that is everyone who has registered to speak tonight on that topic.
Okay, so we'll go back to the agenda.
Resolution 2026-057, resolution directing the director of public works through zone
fluoridation of the village's public water system. I would entertain a motion.
I have a question, and I think this can maybe go to Bill. I often get asked, can this be taken
to referendum at this point, and can it be publicly explained, why or why not?
I was preparing for this, so I'll let it go.
If you had asked that question five years ago, I would have said, yes, you could have, you can
send it to a referendum. In 2023, the legislature enacted a statute that prohibits municipalities
from holding advisory referenda, except in certain specified situations. Most of them are
situations where another statute requires an advisory referendum,
sometimes in response to a petition, sometimes automatically. The only other exception is
for approval of capital expenditures coming from taxpayer dollars.
Because this is a project that would be funded through water utility revenues, as opposed to
general taxpayer revenues, it doesn't qualify for that exception to that prohibition.
Just have a comment.
So, also before we vote, just on the resolution, I assume we would update it,
but the date at the bottom of the resolution in our packets is incorrect, so just to make sure
that's reflected correctly. I'm like that, sorry, and then I also, did you want to comment on that,
where I have one more thing, Al? I actually just wanted to clarify. The referendum, if you could
have one, if, for example, you were funding this with taxpayer dollars,
would only be on the question of whether you should spend the money to put the equipment in.
It would not be a referendum. You could not have a referendum question that asked, should we add
fluoride to the water?
Yeah, I'm sorry. I lost my train of thought come back to me.
Oh, no, I remembered it. So, sorry. So, the way the resolutions worded, it also directs
Village Shop to submit one or more applications to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services
for available funding for equipment costs. I would like to see that include the grant that
was spoken about by, I believe, Carrie from DHS tonight is, I'm not adding it to the, I'm just,
it is. Okay. Got it. Thanks. Yeah. So, in the past, we've also discussed that if we do bring fluoride
back away for residents to bring something to residents that don't want fluoride and to somehow
subsidize that portion. And we did have a resident, Mr. Brian Brown, right to the board,
and he kind of had a plan that maybe could work. I don't know myself because I didn't crunch the
numbers and I don't know, but I thought it was interesting and warrants further conversation.
My question is, if we were to do something like that, voting on this tonight, is that something
that we, we could add in right now, or is that something that we should add in at a later time
with a different resolution? Maybe can it be added? If we don't do that part tonight, can that be
added as another resolution? Can that be brought back, or does it all need to be done tonight with
this? If you're talking about, if I understand you're talking about doing something to allow
people to avoid the fluoride in their system? Exactly. Yeah, that's something that certainly
could be brought back at any time. I was hesitating only because I was trying to figure out whether
that would fit under the agenda item that we have tonight, and I don't think it really would,
but it certainly could be brought back at any time as a separate item. I did have another
question too, which is a bit different. So, I guess this is probably for you, Al. I'm just kind
of unclear as to, we're voting on this tonight, but we still have that pending, there's that pending
lawsuit or whatever that we're waiting for a judge to rule on. How does that plan to this, or doesn't?
From a legal standpoint, that lawsuit doesn't have any meaning to what you do tonight.
In other words, there's nothing stopping you just because there's a lawsuit pending
from you voting, whichever way you want to vote on this particular resolution.
If that lawsuit were successful, the request, the relief requested in that lawsuit is an
injunction, again, implementing the fluoride system, my sense is that that decision will be made long
before any fluoride is ever going to see the inside of one of your pipes. So, if an injunction
were entered, we would then have to stop the process of going forward with fluoride.
Okay, so you're saying that even if we were, if fluoride gets re-implemented tonight,
that lawsuit gets won by the person that brought it, that we could stop mid-term and
not spend the money, or would we lose, I guess I'm wondering how does that come into play, or do we
lose the money? Well, there's a process. So, upon, if the board approves the resolution,
you're providing direction for staff to implement the process. As part of the process, depending on
whether it's a phased approach or a whole approach, will indicate that there's some time in between
there, whether it's four months or two months, to prepare the documents, to prepare the plans
before this, before it's even bitted out, whether it's equipment or construction.
So, I think what Hale is saying is that he believes that there's going to be a response from the court
before, well, definitely before, you know, there's fluoride in the pipe, potentially before we even
spend any money or go out to a bid or issue a bid at this point.
Alicia. So, the question, would we have to make a new motion on the approach if we do full fluoridation
versus a phased approach?
Hale can correct me if I'm wrong here, but, you know, I think if you want that to be a part of the
motion, you can amend your motion, or you can vote this one down and vote our new motion, or you can
provide further direction. I'd like to amend the motion. I didn't have a motion. Oh, I thought,
okay, so I'd like to, oh, I've actually made a calling made a motion, sorry.
So, I'd like to make a motion resolution 2026,
directing the director of public services to reserve fluoridation of the village public water
system in a phased approach through the guidance of back here. What is legally,
what is legally allowable within the DNR with wells two, three, and four?
Just to clarify, so you're asking for the phased approach of reintroducing fluoride into the system
activating wells two, three, and four.
Question is whether or not to move forward with the improvements in
while number two is presented in the memo from Verbecker
the fall amount, or if we are talking just the fluoride cost?
I'm so glad to start it over again. Because within that motion, I'm including the full
of costs for wells two, three, and four. So, can I say, do you, it might be easier. If you want
for your medicine to have fluoride back in, do you want a separate contaminant system at well
to where we had onto well to, or are you asking me to put it back how it was prior where they're
all in one room? I think what we broke down from the guidance is, yes, that the separate is
basically best for the safety of the staff and you guys. So, that's ultimately what I think we
should do for the best interests of everyone. So, if I can, I'll add to that.
I'm assuming you want eventually to well six to have fluoride added in.
So, if a phased approach, if I, I just want, I'm not, I'm just trying to clarify, would you like
us to start three and four, which is the quickest of the timelines, which is probably four or five
months? So, wells three and four, we can add fluoride and well two and six are going to take
up to 14 months, if I recall correctly. So, those would be the fluoride to be implemented at when
those well, wells are done. It's the cleanest way I can explain it, right? So, three and four are
the quickest path to get fluoride back in. We won't be at the optimal level, but fluoride will be added,
but two and six will take equivalently, roughly the same amount of time.
Okay. Second.
Can I just clarify? Sure. I tried to take everything and condense it. So, I said,
willingness to approve resolution in a phased approach of adding fluoride into the water system
under the guidance of what is legally permitted from the DNR for wells one, two, three and four.
No one. Okay. Two, three and four creating a separate well room for well number two and adding
a complete system for well number six. Does that capture everything minus well one?
There is no well one. There is no well one. That's been captain. I know. Great. Sorry.
Yeah. So, my understanding is we will begin the process if this passes for well three and four.
Well, we'll begin the process for all the wells, but three and four will be turned on
when the time when they're capable will be turned on. So,
you don't need this in the motion, but in essence, we're submitting to the DNR three and four,
because those will be the quickest for them to give approval, and then two and six will come
at a different later point. I'm going to try to simplify this. So, it's my recommendation that
the motion language reflect approval of the resolution with a phased approach,
wells two and three first, and then wells three and four first, then wells two and six
in the second phase. All starting at the same time. Yeah. Six.
So, we have a motion and we have a second. Oh, I missed my second. Let's just confirm that the
maker of the motion and the second are both comfortable with that language. Great.
We have a motion on the floor as read by Brandy raising in wells three and four first,
while getting two and six up and running at the same time.
Meet standards they need to meet. Is that correct?
All those in favor, Jim?
I'm just in such a big hurry to get this motion business discussion.
I do have one question that was brought up by the the testimony tonight, and I think I'm looking
at Judd for this answer. Where does our flow right come from? We've heard that
industrial waste, we've heard that it's pharmaceutical made. Do we have any idea?
So, we order our hydrofluidic acid as well. We add to the water. So, that has an altitude
compounds with that undiluted ads fluoride to the water. We order that from Martel
and our salesman there, Jim. I could ask him where it comes from. I don't know that I've ever
asked him that, but it's certainly not a powdery mix or the actual fluoride mineral. It comes
through hydrofluidic acid. Thank you, Judd. And it's another question that I maybe,
to Allen, there's like the EPA's looking into different questions. Do we know any timeline when
that's expected? No, as I understand it there, the last time I checked that case that was referenced
was on appeal and EPA was was challenging that that order that they look into it.
I imagine they're probably looking into it anyway. I just don't know what their timeframe would be.
Thank you, Allen. And I guess I'll state more of my opinion now or as far as like looking back at
the history, there wasn't a whole lot of history put in our packet tonight. So, I just want to
state that we had our first meeting back in November 18th of 2024. We had six meetings. We had as much
or more testimony at pretty much all of those meetings. And on February 4th, 2025, there was a
vote of three to four on a very controversial topic, the topic that's in front of us tonight.
On November 4th, 2025, it was brought back here and was directed to staff to look and report.
And that report was brought back to the village board on January 20th of 2026. Again, a controversial
topic, a lot of discussion. And in that packet, there was 814 pages provided for trustees to review.
And I know some of them reviewed it because I remember Brad commenting how
how difficult it was to review that many pages. At that time, it voted three to three, which
became a failed vote because of the time. So, we had multiple nights with lots of testimony.
And I just feel that coming in tonight, when we had two different failed votes,
and our votes to keep glory out of our water, that now with a matter of one meeting, we're
voting to introduce it again. I think that's a disservice to the people that made those votes
and the testimony that we heard over those eight meetings. I questioned the timing.
I think we're implementing it too fast because I do think we had other committees do
inquiries. Personally, think before we should vote at the village board, it should be sent back
to the public services committee because they were the original ones that looked at this.
We should be getting there. But I think there's opportunities for grants and subsidies.
I think the resolution leaves room for that as it's direction for the director of public
services to resume fluoridation. I think with that wording, there's an opportunity to discuss
the level of resuming so that level could be partial of including money for grants or subsidies
for osmosis and water cleansing systems for individuals. I think it would be good to delay a
vote until we have a seven-member board. I'm a bit concerned that some of our board members
are appointed and even the seventh one will be appointed. It'd probably be better to wait
even until it was all people that were voted in. But at a minimum, we should have a seven-member
board. I'm worried about the EPA reviews that I would hope we get back to, but we just heard
tonight that we don't know when. We have studies that could be coming in and litigation that is
pending. I think there's other opportunities that we could use this money to
provide fluoride to our children through fluoride treatments, toothpaste, the different food pantries
and things like that. So I'd be very much for delaying a vote or not even doing this at all.
But really, they're not doing it at all. To me, that speaks to my choice and why I voted against
putting fluoride in twice already is that I feel it's a personal choice. We heard tonight
a good word of body. I can't even say that word. I'm not meeting. I'm not incoming.
And I think it's physically irresponsible to be putting that in right now. And it should be part
of the budget process if we want to move forward with this. So that's everything I have to say.
Thank you.
Anyone else have anything? Jan?
Well, I agree with a lot of what Jim said, but this is going to happen tonight.
And I guess I just want to move on to the next step saying that this has been a highly controversial
issue. And there's a lot of emotion on it. And this vote's going to happen tonight. And there's
going to be one side that feels that they got slighted no matter which way this goes. And I
just hope that we can finally all remember that we are neighbors. And we can understand that we're
going to have disagreements. I know that there's not one person in my life that I agree 100%
with on everything. But I hope that people will get along again. I have just really saddened
by the things that have been happening in the forest. I can't say that I have ever known it to be
this awful. And I've been here most of my 60 years. So I hope it goes back. And I guess that's
all I have to say. Thank you, Jim. All right, we have a motion. Jim?
Can I offer up the debate or ask Alan, is there room to put in monies for grants or subsidies for
individuals that have osmosis and stuff? And we look into that with this motion.
Take that. I think that would be a separate program from the Florida Asian. I think it really
would have to be listed separately on the agenda. And I'll look noticed.
Certainly. Roll call, please.
All right. Dan Stevenhegan-Ha.
Alicia Williams.
This is Brad Kord. Yes.
Jim Sensen. No.
Melanie Bartloff. Yes. Thank you. Colleen Little. Yes.
Jim Carrey's word or two.
Okay. Thank you. I think at this point, we're going to take a break.
Let's resume about 8.30, please.
Oh, 10 minutes. Okay, we're back at 8.33 p.m.
Resolution 2026-059, a resolution adopting a policy for filling vacancies in village elective
8.2.
Well, by a golly, we do. Back up. Resolution 2026-058, a resolution authorizing the
village administrator to execute a request for release of funds and certification, Alex.
So this is listed under old business because I had brought this forward when we were still
kind of navigating the transition with the pointing of village resident. About a year and
a half ago, as part of the CDA's redevelopment project, is there anticipated to be federal funds
involved in that? We performed what's called a part 58 environmental review,
the village had involvement in reviewing that and certifying that.
We did eventually make a finding of no significant impact on the environmental side,
went through public comment period, noticed it appropriately, and then submitted to HUD,
or since advised that HUD being the Department of Housing and Urban Development, excuse me,
acronyms, that the recipient of that actually should not have been the CDA,
it should have been WEDA because they're the ones that would actually receive the federal funds
and partnering with the CDA to project-based housing choice vouchers in the new development.
So we reissued the public comment period, or the notice went through the public comment period,
did not receive any public comments, and now would be looking for a resolution to
authorize a submission of the request for release of funds, which was included in your packet as
an exhibit to this resolution 2026-058. Happy to answer any questions.
Anyone have any questions for Alex?
No, we have no public appearances on this. Is there a motion?
I'll motion to approve resolution 2026-058.
Second.
Motion by Jim, seconded by Jan. Is there any further discussion?
Motion is a resolution authorizing the village administrator to execute a request for release
of funds and certification.
All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.
Aye.
All those opposed, no.
Motion carries and mostly.
Now, resolution 2026-059, resolution adapting the policy for filling vacancies in village
elective offices, built-in, and we do have one speaker registered.
Yeah, so this policy was discussed, I believe, in the previous meeting and the meeting for that.
As you know, we've had a couple of vacancies in our elective offices.
And so this policy sets forth the process for appointment to the village trustee seat
and also to the village president's seat.
Happy to walk through the policy. Do note that the policy is intended to take action upon the
village for deciding to appoint that office.
If you remember, state statute says that you can either appoint or leave vacant or
have it go to the special election.
Again, the policy is intended to take place once you've made the decision to appoint that position.
Okay, I keep yourself wishes to speak on this.
I still live in the forest.
I understand there is a need to fill the vacant trustee seat.
And I recognize that the board has a responsibility to keep moving forward
and ensure that village business continues uninterrupted.
However, I am concerned that allowing six current trustees to select a seventh member
concentrates that decision in the hands of a small group rather than the community as a whole.
Residents elect officials with the expectation that those serving on this board
would ultimately be chosen by the people they represent.
Voting gives residents a voice and creates accountability.
It also provides confidence that those making decisions
on behalf of our village have earned the trust and support of the community.
My concern is not directed at any individual who may apply for this position.
I'm sure there will be qualified and dedicated applicants willing to serve.
My concern is with the process itself and whether it reflects the values of representation
and transparency that residents expect and deserve.
A trustee who is selected by a small number of people rather than through community input
may begin their service without the same level of public confidence or support.
I ask the board to consider how public input can be included in this process
so residents feel represented and heard.
Whether through public forums, opportunities for community feedback or other measures,
I believe involving the community would strengthen trust and ensure the process
reflects the interests of the entire village, not just the preferences of the current board.
Thank you.
Thank you, Becky.
Anyone have anything?
Fred?
I just had one comment on section four,
number eight, or how to get a president's office filled.
It says the village board may then determine the method to fill the vacant trustee office.
I think that should just basically relate back to the process for filling
the vacant trustee office that's stated above.
Yeah, so you're talking about the last sentence there on the policy.
I think that's intended to say once that village presidency is filled with a trustee
that CC is vacated so then at that point the village board has a decision to make
whether or not to have that go to election or special election or leave a vacant or automatically
appointed. We were conservative in that we left that option open but surely you as the board
can make that option to automatically go to the appointment process for that position also.
Yeah.
So I apologize. I don't want to call you, so I guess I apologize and everybody here for
taking more time than I think maybe could have been taken but I got rather confused as far as
the timelines of when we do appoint somebody or not. I'd say it was had to do with the general
section I think or that that too because I don't know if that was necessarily following what I was
hearing. I think what I heard last time and I guess I'm maybe looking at Brad and Alicia
because I think you guys are once talking about it. If it was close to an election that we didn't
want to appoint somebody because we wanted to say the fully elected or fully as elected as
possible to appoint but the question I have is say if that happens say maybe December we really
want to go through the effort of appointing somebody if they're just going to be elected
month after they're appointed. Yeah so I think I think I've had a couple questions on this so
remember that before making that decision to appoint if it's within 45 days or 60 days or whatever
amount of days that you consider maybe too short for someone to serve you can simply leave it vacant
instead of appointing then this this policy would not apply or you could choose to go to
to wait till election to fill it. Again this policy only applies once you as the board have
made the decision to appoint that position.
Jan? I had the same conversation with Bill today because that was my question number two
under the general rules for appointment and that time frame and he kind of and I guess that
kind of answered the question that we don't have to fill the position but should that
number should the number of days be changed anyways? I don't know how everyone else feels about it but
I'd be open to that but it's just my two cents.
You're saying it should be made longer.
Al? Yeah I just wanted to point out that that 30 days was suggested by the board
at the last meeting it doesn't reflect a recommendation by either of us.
I remember right that was recommendation by one board member.
Do we want to change it?
Do we have any discretion in there?
I don't know Mike how many does I feel it's okay I don't know what are you thinking Jan lower?
It's okay if that's what everybody wants to do but otherwise I'd be open to changing it to like
say 90 days.
Fred? The reason I suggested that is because I know a lot of people at
Angston we even waiting of 30 days to appoint a president so I thought not extending past 30
days would probably be prudent for us to make that timeline and a quick you know change if
we were doing a president spot for instance so I didn't want to wait 90 days if the current
board didn't even want to wait 30 so that's why I came up with that number it's it's very random
but again I think we can again choose to leave it vacant if we were going to do so this is
only if we were the process for appointing.
I think you're right about that I probably wouldn't want to wait 90 days I'm a president.
Yeah.
I'm fine with that the way it is what you all want to do.
All right we'll take a vote on it.
Make a motion to approve resolution 2026 dash 059.
Motion by Brad is there a second?
I'll second.
Second by Jim discussion.
Discussions or comments?
Pardon me?
I have what I believe some minor comments that I don't know how much discussion is
worn with them but the section three or item four in section three I noted that it
I think it said that it needed to be a regular meeting
and I thought we could strike the regular meeting in case the future board wanted to
make it a special meeting I didn't see any reason why it needed to be a regular meeting.
I'm sorry I'm not able to hear you well enough down here.
Sorry I'll speak so on item four that we have on the screen right now it says
on closing an application the village board will review an application at a regular scheduled
meeting I thought we should remove regular believe the option for the future board to
do a special meeting if need be or wanted and I had a similar comment for that in the three
five that are called out as a special meeting because I thought again that the village
board or administrator at the time wanted it to be a regular meeting that that should be available too.
So we'll just say village board meeting?
Yeah I mean again the policy is up to the board I mean we put these these the regular
meeting and the special language in because it's based off of what we're currently doing
where this appointment process but that can be changed.
I guess as the second I would ask the motion the strike that didn't just make them regular or
board meetings. That's a friendly amendment. Thank you.
Okay so the amendment is to strike any reference to special meetings.
Yeah when and regular and just say village board yeah and then sections three number seven
it talked about range choice and I firstly don't think that's the correct definition of
range choice and I the way I was reading the three seven I don't even know if we need that line.
Yeah well it's like you're grabbing. Yeah I just wanted to point out that that is a
typo it's not a ranked choice it's the ranked choice.
Motion got really bad candidate.
Can you repeat the section?
Three it's section three item seven says voltage shall be determined by a ranked
choice voting or it should have been ranked. Should they rank but when I looked up the definition
of ranked choice it didn't seem to be what we're specifying in here.
So I think maybe we just leave that whole line out and just spell out what we're doing.
So there's two different levels of grading candidates. The first is the grading of applications
which is by the point system I highlighted here which I agree with you is not the same thing as
our ranked choice voting system where the ranked choice voting system applies would be
following the interviews so that we can get through what potentially could be a tie.
So the ranked choice voting system would would ensure that there be a top ranked candidate.
But you're saying ranked is an adding up the scores of everybody not the ranked choice voting
that I have read it's getting to a 50% over a large candidate or a large voting pool.
That's correct. So the way that ranked choice voting works is you pick your candidates
in order of your preference and we'll take the tabulation and if there's a candidate that
scores more than 50% that candidate is the candidate of choice. If there are no candidates
over 50% the lowest scoring candidate but then get you know.
Yep and that does follow my understanding. So that's what you're getting at there.
That's correct. Yeah.
And Colleen, I just would point out the ranked choice voting though it's three or more candidates.
If you have two candidates you can always end in a tie because we had I had that when I sat there
when it was between Chip and Dick Josephson. It was three three each way so if you did a ranked
choice each candidate would have been at 50% there were no lower candidates to bump out so
ranked choice needs at least more than two people.
How many did we say we were bringing it down to candidates?
I'll take five. So do we need to change something then?
Quine flip. That's the default right?
Are we good with it the way it is then or do we need to?
I guess I just don't know how to change it and like Judd said it may
be hard to choose but we'll just maybe have to deal with it at the time.
Hope it doesn't happen.
Hopefully I have five.
So it looks like Bill's thinking.
Yeah, it looks like he's thinking.
It's going to speak. No, Al's going to speak.
If you're concerned about a tie, the solution is not to change how you vote because it's always
going to be a tie regardless of whether you do a ranked choice or whether you do it just as a
straight out vote. In the case of an election if there's a tie vote then the
winning candidate is selected by some luck of the draw process.
Only names out of a hat, drawing straws, flipping a coin.
We could add that as a fail safe if there's a tie vote into the policy if you want.
But you have to decide then what method you want to use, you want to use a coin,
did you want to use straws?
Can we just leave it the way it is and hope for the best?
I guess I like the idea of a coin flow because you don't want to be in a situation where we're
just continually debating trying to break a tie.
That's fine too.
And then we'll get us to call the coin to us.
Yeah, you're the maker of the emotional thread, right?
Yes, no. I'll amend the motion to include a coin flip with the person with the earliest
name in alphabetical last name is one and the second is two.
Heads or tails?
Are you serious?
We want to get to detail. There you go.
Order men in motion to include a coin in the event of a tie.
Imagine if we had to debate this when it was contested.
Hey, what if it's a woman with a hyphenated last name? Do we use the first of the hyphenated or the last?
Okay, so I have court amended the motion to include a coin flip in the event of a tie with the earliest
alphabetical last name being heads.
It makes sense to me.
Let's go for me. Okay, we're all good. Let's take a vote.
All those, I think we are, aren't we?
We're all good with the amendment.
All those in favor of 2026-059, adopting a policy for filling vacancies as it has been read.
Indicate by saying aye.
Aye.
Those opposed indicate by saying no.
Motion carries unanimously.
Resolution 26-0-6-0 resolution adopting core values for civility and conduct in the village of
the forest. We have one person who would like to speak, Rebecca Withershon.
Yeah, please.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Just sit there, Rebecca.
Next step, speak.
I can be quick.
Just sit.
So we previously discussed the last, I don't know, the adoption of core values
or modifying and simplifying the core values from 12 to five.
You'll see as part of the packet, a red line version, which indicates where we simplified
and removed language and combined language.
I do want to note that Trustee Corps recommended that the have fun section be renamed
to enjoy the experience. I did miss that.
So please, when you make your motion, if you still want that to be changed,
have that be a part of your motion and I can be done.
Okay, Rebecca, you can talk now.
Nothing's changed, still, Rebecca.
I support the adoption of the resolution adopting the core values for civility and conduct for
the village of DeForest with a caveat.
In today's political climate, at every level of government professionalism,
respect and basic civility matter.
They matter for this board, for village staff, and for the residents who place their trust in you.
But I also want to respectfully say that this resolution does not go far enough.
A code of conduct without enforceability is ultimately just a piece of paper with pretty
words and good intentions.
If there are no meaningful consequences, when those standards are violated,
then the public has no reason to believe the code actually means anything.
I say that not theoretically, but from personal experience.
I found out the hard way that previous, that the previous code of conduct adopted by this
board was completely unenforceful after I, as a then sitting trustee,
was publicly treated in a manner that violated that code by two fellow trustees, including,
I apologize, the now former, or the now current village trust president.
To this day, that current village president has never apologized for her inappropriate
public behavior toward me, despite the fact that I apologized to her for my own less
than professional response to how I was treated.
That experience taught me something important.
Standards without accountability do not protect civility.
They simply create the appearance of civility and allow discord to fester and grow.
And if this board adopts a new code of civility and conduct tonight,
the public will reasonably expect that it actually be enforceable.
Residents will assume there is a process that complaints can be reviewed fairly,
and that repeated violations will carry consequences.
Otherwise, again, this resolution risks becoming symbolic rather than meaningful.
I am not suggesting that every disagreement or heated moment should trigger punishment.
Healthy disagreement is part of public service, but there must be some codified process for
accountability when conduct repeatedly crosses the line.
That could include formal censure procedures, written findings, mandatory mediation, removal
from committee assignments, or other clearly defined consequences determined by the board.
But without something enforceable, this code will likely end up exactly where the last one did,
existing on paper while violations occur without consequences.
So I encourage this board to adopt this resolution tonight,
but I also strongly encourage you to not stop here.
If civility and professional truly matter, then accountability must also matter.
Thank you. Any questions?
Yeah, thank you for that.
Wouldn't the ethics board be your accountability measure?
If there's no enforceable, the ethics code is related to financial stuff.
It's not related to behavioral stuff.
At least that's what my understanding was back in the day.
I tried going that route. I was told that was not an option.
I think the problem we've always had is that being elected officials,
wasn't it? How do you take action?
Well, you're going back a lot of years to something that I didn't think was that big a deal,
but I will apologize right now.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
You're welcome.
Yeah, and again, I do apologize for my reaction.
It was really inappropriate.
But yeah, just some kind of either make it very clear that it is something that is a standard
you're adopting, but is not enforceable so that the public doesn't think it's enforceable,
and that fellow trustees don't think it's enforceable.
I get it. I just don't know how we're going to enforce it.
Exactly. That's a tough one.
Thank you.
Mm-hmm. Okay.
Did you have something to say? I forgot what you.
No, I just raised my hand because I thought we were starting to enter the discussion.
So I wonder now.
I'll let her change the motion on resolution 206060.
Okay, I'll make the motion.
There's a second.
Second.
Discussion?
I guess I'll start the discussion that to me was a my discussion,
but it was talking about is there any way that make it enforceable or anything?
In my opinion, no.
These standards are written as basically a commitment that you are making to each other
and to the public as to how you behave.
The First Amendment lets you say whatever you want.
Okay, with a few narrow exceptions.
You can't yell fire in a theater.
You can't defame people.
You can't incite a riot.
Short of that, the First Amendment protects political speech.
It protects non-political speech, and it especially protects unpopular speech.
We don't need a First Amendment to protect speech.
Everybody wants to hear.
So there's just no way to make it enforceable when the conduct that you're regulating
his speech.
And that's when most of the complaints come in.
I don't like what that person said about me.
That person's twisting what I said or whatever.
People have a right to twist what you say, the right to say bad things about you.
And especially when you're a public official, you have to be
thick-skinned and accept that.
That's just part of the way things work.
So any kind of a governmental sanction on somebody for speech is going to be very suspect
and is probably not going to survive.
Jim?
I thank you for that, Al.
I can tell you two quick things.
I do think we should add to the motion the change the have fun to
was enjoy the experience or whatever it was.
I personally, I mentioned that I'd like to have somewhere added into the wording.
Probably not a title, but have a difficult conversation.
I thought that was important.
And I've had some difficult conversations.
I say with some of the trustees and president up here.
And I think that's really helps say circumvent a lot of misunderstandings and stuff.
So I think it's important to have that somewhere in this document.
The one thing I want to say and I guess does go to a little bit what you mentioned.
Alan is that I think we all have different definitions of what we're really reading because
I can tell you tonight, I'll read it right here in the resolution.
The whereas the atmosphere of insubility and disrespect can have a damaging effect on the
proceedings, the quality of debate, and the practice of Democrats itself.
I feel we had that here tonight.
In my opinion, this the 23 years that I've been on committees,
I think this has been the most detrimental we've had just to keep
bringing back topics over and over again.
But I can understand that's my opinion.
I is a strong opinion for myself.
That's obviously not the opinion that's held by everybody on the board.
So that goes to prove that there's many different definitions of individual words as we read this.
So I don't quite know how we enforce something.
You say that it'd be hard to enforce speech and we're really it's hard to enforce anything
when everybody else has different definitions of individual words that we have here.
I guess if it was me, I wouldn't want to do a motion on this agenda item tonight
as I feel it's a little bit disingenuous or insincere to be acting on this tonight.
Anybody?
Well, then why don't we just forget even having core values in our in a resolution?
Well, I have a we have a motion in a second and then Jim made our friendly as well on that.
So they can just drop it.
I'm sorry.
We're still in discussion.
I think we took the time to discuss this at the last meeting and put our input
and not taking away from the sentiments of the other trustees that I think that we can move
forward with this and the staff is also taking the time to do this as well. So that's my opinion.
That's fine with me. It's too bad we even need to have something to talk about civility and conduct
when it should just be good old decent human behavior. But do we have a motion in a second?
Maybe do I guess can I officially ask for the friendly to change the have fun to enjoy the experience?
And could I ask probably and the take the responsibility to build trust if we could add a
sentence in there is to have the difficult conversations?
Brandy? Hey, thank you. Do you want me to read it? Oh, God, please.
Okay, I have a motion by little seconded by Williams and that I have
sent some made a friendly to add the motion to change have fun to enjoy the experience
and undertake responsibility to build trust and have the difficult conversations.
Something? So I have to second that again. No, no, I made the motion. Yeah, he made the friendly
to the person making the motion. Okay, the person making the motion and the second have to accept
the amendment. We accept the amendment.
All those in favor of the resolution is read by Brandy, but we're saying aye.
Aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. No. What do we got? I have the one. Motion carries.
Thank you. Resolution designating the river turn phase three park as river bend park.
Good staff presentation. Yes, so let's recall river bend phase
three park is what is currently in the river's turn phase three park. We put this out
before the public services committee and back to you to bring forth the three names that we
ultimately put forth before the village and engaged a forest that went to the vote and engaged a
forest. We had 28 votes for sedge metal park, 216 votes for river bend park and then 76 votes
for stone crop park. So ultimately the people who voted on engaged a forest chose river bend
park. So ultimately that staff recommendation ultimately it's up to you all whether you want
to change the name of that or to officially name that river bend park. Thank you. We have no public
appearances on that. Is there a motion? We'll make a motion. Motion by Jan. Is there a second?
I'll second. Second by Jim. Motion 20260061, never designating river turn phase three park
as river bend park. All those in favor into capis saying aye. Aye. All those opposed? No.
Motion carries unanimously. New business ordinance 20260006, an ordinance to rezone
approximately 0.47 acres of the parcel named on the agenda within the time of Vanna in the
deforest Vanna extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction. Brandi, you want to present on it or send the
packets? Just really quick because I do want to just point out one thing to take away any confusion.
So this is a request for a residential rezone from a larger parcel. It's a mom and a daughter
that own land together. The daughter would like to make her land a little bit larger.
But where her site is is currently zoned RE2. The other lot is our H1 which is rural. You can't
combine two lots and have multiple zoning on the same lot. So we're combining a lot to make a
larger lot for the residential parcel while still remaining under the bulk standards for the RH1
parcel. Just want to clarify. So the certified survey map for this is not approved by the village
because it is in the town. We do do a review on certified survey maps for the towns. But those
are all done by Dane County. So one of the things, questions that was asked was the math doesn't
really math in the numbers that I have in the staff report. So I just wanted to explain that a
little bit. The parcel that's being rezoned is .47 acres approximately. That's based on aerial
dynamics, things like that. It's not going off of the certified survey map at this point.
So it's approximately one acre total that's going to have the zoning on the RE2 district.
We just don't have the exact pinpoint how many square feet acres it's going to be with the
right away and everything else that's included with the town approvals. So just wanted to clarify
that for you guys. But that is basically it. So I will be quiet. Thank you. We have no public
appearances on that. Is there a motion to approve 2026 006? Motion to approve.
Second by Brad. Seconded by Melanie. Any discussion?
All in favor and a key by saying aye. Aye. Opposed or opposed no. Motion carries unanimously.
Ordinance 2026 007. In order to rezoned 11 acres from the AB Agricultural Business Zoning District
to M1 restricted industrial district located west of highway I interstate overpass in the town of
Vienna. Again the deforest Vienna extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction. Randy. Would you like me to
do an overview? I can't. I will really quick. So this is property located in Zoe Lane which is
just north of highway V and would be west of a portion of County Highway I picture in your mind
where the new hotel is going over in that kind of area over there Exxon Mobil things like that.
So way north of that there's a plot of land actually Bill has it up on the screen now.
That was used for agricultural business and now they're looking at converting and being able to
do like EV sales of more of like delivery truck small you know kind of utility vehicles like that.
In order to be able to do that that's not permitted in the agricultural business.
Agricultural business is strictly for as it sounds agricultural equipment farm equipment
things like that. The rezoning is proposed over to the M1 because it is the most restrictive
industrial district. We don't want to have large manufacturing or anything in this specific area
but industrial you know does allow for this kind of restrictive use. Comprehensive plan also does
allow for it in the town's comprehensive plan does also coordinate with that. So any questions
I'm more than half of the answer to them.
I'm sorry nobody has any questions we have no public appearances is there a motion to approve
2026 007 motion to approve 2026 007 motion by Jim is there second second second by Alicia
Bowles the favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed no. Thank you and must approve.
Resolution 2026 0062 resolution accepting the lowest qualified bid and awarding a contract
with a construction of a roundabout at Williamsburg Way and Peterson Gross and Boulevard.
Do you have anything to say? There's been one packet as an underground as the parent low bidder.
We have had no issues with them working in the past so we recommend accepting this
lowest qualified bid. No public appearances is there a motion resolution 2026 0062.
I'll make a motion to approve a resolution 2026 0060. Is there a second? I'll second it.
Any discussion? Jim. I'm wondering if you know who the roundabout designer is.
This is curiosity. We worked with KL engineering for the design of the roundabout.
Okay. Anything else?
All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.
All opposed no. Resolution period.
Absolutely. Ordinance 2026 008 an ordinance to approve 7th amended preliminary development plan
for the Conservancy Place planned unit development.
Do we have Mr. Roth for the Mark Troft about two hours ago? I don't blame him.
So I'll up and shit here. It's memo in the packet. It's helpful to kind of paint the picture here.
And this is an amendment to the PDP associated with the Conservancy Place planned unit development
which is out by the athletic complex by the ball fields there for orientation.
Driven primarily by a proposed senior housing development that P&Z had a concept presentation
I forwarded you the recording for that. Mark, hopefully in the exhibit here had sort of a
pseudo track changes where he highlighted in yellow the amendments that were related to that
development in green the amendments that were related to an addition of unit counts for owner
occupied duplexes and then in blue sort of miscellaneous cleanup amendments as well.
High level this would increase the overall housing unit cap from 1330 to 1368
an increase of 30 and that would allow for the addition of those condo units in what is deemed
the Knowles. I don't know if anybody's got GIS on the screen here but I can highlight where that
is off of river road. Yup vacant land through there and then the PDP amendment also exempts
institutional residential use up to 140 units for this sort of senior continuum of care facility
from the unit count as well. It also includes a use restriction of that so it has to be elderly
senior or elderly houses for at least 30 years. That development would eventually have to come in
for a conditional use permit and then have to comply with restrictions around that too.
I guess I can kind of pause the presentation there. I think there may be some questions.
I think Mark also referred to a master development agreement which governs the entire
conservancy place PUD. That is something that is currently being negotiated and I'll probably
lean on Bill and Al for a status update on that but I'll pause there and then we can get into discussion.
So regarding the master development agreement that is the tool or document that ties this approval
the PDP to the right of first refusal or the land and property that is immediately adjacent
to the athletic complex. We are currently negotiating that master development agreement and have not
yet received the response to our most recent red lines to them and so although it does not require
a digital tie between or conflict between the PDP as written here and what is ultimately
will end up in the master development agreement. This board could potentially
confirm the MDA, ensure that the MDA gets to an agreement by conditioning it,
conditioning this ordinance upon approval of that master development agreement.
Sorry it's getting late. I'll go into my words.
I'm sorry. Great go ahead. Yeah a couple questions. Was this restriction on the number of units
for conservancy place specifically or the village? Conservancy place within the planned unit development.
Great and then the second one the video you sent it was great. I appreciate that.
The only thing I saw them show though was the development on the north side of innovation,
not the south. Is that all included or just the north we're talking about right now?
So it would just be whoever's got the cursor it's just along those parcels now is the
senior development which I will just to clarify is separate from this. This amendment would
enable that development to move forward with its approval process. So this the PDP that we're
reviewing covers a much larger section of the village out in that area but within that
EDP or planned unit development the senior development is taking place on the north side of innovation.
So if the village board were to consider this amendment as is it sounds like what Bill
and potentially Al would be recommending too would be to add a condition of approval that the
master development agreement also be approved and I'm assuming the right of first refusal as well.
The first the right of first refusal is an exhibit or to the master development agreement. So upon
approval of the agreement we would be agreed to the right of first refusal and would just require
execution. And so both of those documents or I guess that document with its accompanying exhibit
would come before you all for review at a future board meeting as well.
Okay and we have no public appearances on that.
It's our motion.
I'll make the motion to approve 2026 008. Second.
Are we adding that contingency to your motion Jim? Sure.
Yes. Yes. Okay. Motion by Jim. Seconded by Brad.
It's 2026 008. Approving a Seventh Amendment Preliminary Development Plan.
The Conservancy Place Plan Unit Development. Adding the condition of approval of the
master development agreement. Is that correct? That's correct.
Okay. All those in favor and a cape I say aye.
Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. I. Opposed no. Motion carries unanimously.
Passing. Ordinance 2026 009. Ordinance amending Section 1107. In creating section 15.046
of the deforest municipal code restricting residency of sect offenders. Chief Olsen.
Let me just open a quick point.
I know there's probably a few questions about these, whatever you hear, the word registered
sex offender generally causes some angst.
I do want to clarify a few things and I may have to rely on our house of legal wisdom
to my right, just in case there's some questions I don't really have for you or answers directly
for you.
So this ordinance was adopted about a year ago.
Not even, I don't even think it's that one, but it set the area where a registered sex
offender could live a thousand feet from a safety zone, basically creates a safety buffer
around certain parts of the building.
And now this comes to you as a resident, like in an enforcement, a better place for it to
live is in the zoning code, and we'll kind of walk through a little bit of how this all
came to be.
So it sets a protective zone and here's some of the places that it protects, right?
Schools, public parks, private parks, park facilities, playgrounds, confirmed area, recreation
areas, childcare centers.
So basically, whatever the distance that I'm recommending, 750 feet from the edge of the
property line creates a buffer.
I'm going to show you some photos or some maps that Greg created for us here to hopefully
add a little bit of clarity to it.
That's the purpose of this.
Okay.
So registered sex offender can reside, they can't reside inside that safety zone.
Now with that, the other thing that we have to consider is when you look at the linear
distance, one of the other parts of an ordinance like this creates the lack of clustering.
In other words, you can't restrict so much of the village housing that a sex offender
is all live in like a square root block and they make their own little neighborhood.
It's not exactly the best either.
So those are just a couple of things to consider.
I did take this to public safety, I think last week, days are blending, I'm sorry.
We had a robust discussion about it there, they unanimously approved the 750 feet.
The other considerations that we looked at were 500 feet and 1,000 feet.
So just to put it in context, if you think about a village block, it's about 500 feet.
Okay.
So 750 feet of one and a half blocks is a safety zone where somebody can't live.
So I asked Greg to create a bunch of maps.
Thank God Greg created a bunch of maps.
I probably have like 30 emails full of maps right now, but they do kind of add some context.
So one thing to consider is you have to have available house.
I'll also anecdotally throw out this before I came to the forest, one of the, my last
command at MPD was sensitive primes and one of my duties was our sex offender unit and
we had an ordinance that was so restrictive, we got sued for it.
Okay.
Mount Pleasant has also been sued previously because they tried to rule out their entire
community and that's not going to work.
So part of this is also trying to mitigate the risk of lawsuit and things like that because
you have to have available housing.
You can see when you look at your elementary and 500 feet because of the different corners
of the property, some of the circles look a little bit out long and that's because it's
from the property line.
Okay.
But you can see there is housing around, but there's also a park that kind of skews it.
So there's some darker shades of blue, lighter shades of blue.
When you go to 750 feet, you can still see there's ample housing and again, by available
housing doesn't mean you can move right in.
It means that there's houses in that area that if for sale, somebody could buy and or
rent if available.
But you can see now, Western Green Park also starts to create that safety zone.
Okay.
If you look at a thousand feet, there's very little housing available and that's just one
example.
It's a horror elementary.
If you go to Federal Memorial Park on Main Street, you can see at 500 feet, again, this
one is oblong, park dimensions.
You can see some other things starting to creep in here, Fireman's Park.
At 750 feet, there's still housing available, okay, but it's a little bit less and at a
thousand feet, there's not much available at all, okay?
I can't give you a percentage.
I asked Greg if we could pull it on a GIS, what percentage of housing is available, but
it's not able to do that and I thought it was much asking to count rooftops and do percentages.
So we looked at a throwing here just for your new Stargazer Park, which is just down the
road here off of Yorktown and lavender way, okay, rumly run all it down down in here.
So at 500 feet, you can see there's, you know, quite a bit of housing, 750 feet, there's
a bigger safety zone, again, it's a small park right in here.
And then at 1,000 feet, basically almost the entire community is blocked off.
Last one I did is conservative comments.
I just took the biggest park on Conservancy, again, 500 feet there and this would probably,
I guess I'd have to ask you all, but Sunfish Pond, I would imagine, it's a Conservancy
area, this would also become a film exclusion zone, so we'd have to add that to the map
just for your awareness, right?
So there'd be more restricted here, because, what is it, yeah, that's what the map says,
but anyway, it's a GIA, it's a failure.
It's a trail.
Well, we're not counting the trail, the trail is not it, but it's a conservancy area.
So either way, I took it, it's not a rabbit hole, I'm sorry.
But between that and the athletic complex, okay, so we have some restricted zone at 750,
there's more restricted, but there is still available housing and 1,000 feet, again, it
takes out almost the entire community.
Why change?
1,000 feet is too restrictive, I'll say that right now, there's not enough available housing,
it puts the village in a bad spot, opens this for liability, and it creates too much
of a cluster type situation, where if there were sex offenders to move, and by the way,
there are sex offenders in our community, you can go online, you can see the map, it's
pretty transparent through DOC, but people can search it, it's all open source, searchable.
We just don't want to create a situation where everything is clustered together.
This is a map of the north side of the village at 1,000 feet, with all the parks and restricted
areas, you can see there's been no housing, okay, and this is when I took this to P&C
a couple weeks ago, I didn't have this map available at the time, Greg was not available
to help me make it at that point, he was away at a conference, getting an award and getting
some training, so I got this after the fact from P&Z, but this is the north side, you
can see there's a very little bit of housing right up here, and that's yet.
On the south part, south part of the village, you know, there's nothing, that basically
everything is excluded on the pallet and feet.
This sets us up, I believe, in a bad way, liability-wise, but again, just as a couple
reminders, it's a safety zone, okay, so a registered sex offender can still use the amenities
of the community, they can go for a walk on the trail, they can go for a bike ride, they
can go running, they can't do things like loiter on the trails, take pictures of kids,
have a telescope in their window and all that kind of stuff, okay, but we have to have a
housing available, and again, by available it's just got to be not in a restricted zone.
And again, 750 feet to me is the right distance, it has enough available housing, but at the
same way, it does create a good safety buffer, you figure one and a half blocks basically
on every side of the property, it's a responsible place for the village to be, and again, this
is my professional opinion, and it does create that adequate safety area for residents.
So with that, I don't know, Alan, I miss anything, or do you think of, if not, I'll
answer whatever questions I can.
We have no public appearances, yeah.
Yeah, bring it up as a question, it might be, is Colleen, Grandy, Chief, correct me, but
this is brought up at the planning and zoning, I believe we passed it forward with the 750
with the understanding that we're leaving it up to the board to adjust it, if needed,
so they seem to be comfortable with whatever we chose to do here.
Yeah, thanks for your mind, I mean, I do, that was my recollection as well.
And P and Z had another robust discussion about it as well that commissioners did.
No, any?
I just have a couple of things on this one, and thanks for your presentation, that was
really informative and I think answered a lot of initial questions that many people probably
have when they saw this on the agenda, like I did.
This one initially really took me back and it's been a struggle for me, but I've understood
through conversations and through this presentation the reasons behind it.
So I just want to one clarify for the record that the current, the change from a thousand
which is the current safety zone to 750 would not displace anybody that is currently within
a safety zone and then would be out.
Correct.
Yeah, but as a grandfather.
So that wouldn't be a concern of displacing any current people.
You gave a really thorough overview of the village and that 1,000 foot safety zone and
what that actually looks like, so I appreciate that.
My last question, I guess, I also just, again, coming as like a parent, I want parents in
the community to really understand the reason behind this.
And you've talked about those liability concerns, which are extremely important for us to consider
but I noted in the packet, there is, my understanding is there's an existing appeals process.
And so like if someone was seeking housing within a safety zone and then was denied because
it's within a safety zone, they could appeal and it could be reviewed on a case-by-case
basis.
And so someone might look at this and say, well, if we have that appeals process in place,
then why do we need to change the ordinance?
And so I was wondering, I know we don't have a lot of historical data into forest because
even the 1,000 foot safety zone hasn't been in place that long, but just generally with
your knowledge over the course of your career of these appeals process, are you like, what's
your knowledge of those appeals generally, I guess?
And like, can you just speak to that question that people might have?
Sure.
Yep.
I'm aware of some appeals that happened in my previous department and I can tell you that
in appeals, nobody really wins because they've got to be public hearings and then now you're
basically airing everything to neighbors.
I would say for the forest specifically, our public safety commission is very balanced
and pretty reasonable.
There's none of the people on that commission and two of them are sitting next to you, would
allow somebody to move in next to a park, right, even on a thing, but you have to publicly
notice everything.
So you're basically opening up a story to an entire neighborhood.
I can also say that people that are convicted and placed on the sex offender list, while
absolutely 100%, it's not a light sentence to make somebody an RSO.
There are some that are for offenses that you would think, you know, underage sex, for
example, you're two people in high school and it's all prosecuted by parents.
So it could be a consensual act, but not consensual by age, can get you on the registered
sex offender list.
There's a lot of different reasons.
There's a different process if somebody would always refer to them as 90s or they are violent
sex offenders, somebody like you think of a home invasion, sexual assault type case,
that is a special circumstance.
If DOC was going to try to play somebody in the village of the forest, they have to legally
notify me and they have to have a public hearing.
So that's not what we're talking about in this process.
I just want to make sure you understand the delineation because it gets very convoluted.
But as far as appeals go, I'm aware of some, they generally aren't pretty and they sometimes
lead to lawsuits.
And again, I know we're not going to get rid of lawsuits totally.
It's not everyone I'm trying to say, but I think if we have a balanced ordinance that
meets the needs of what it's designed for, creating a safety zone.
But at the same time, allows opportunity.
There is that equal protection on both sides of the thing that we have to look at.
Our department gets notified of sex offenders placed in the community.
I have my investigative sergeant is detailed, the keeping track of all that, making sure
staff is aware.
There's other things that happen around like Halloween that they can't participate in,
so we monitor that as well.
That answered your question probably way too long.
It does.
I appreciate the length of that though, thank you and the detail.
So thank you for the map.
I wonder if you could pull one of those up because I think my question can be demonstrated.
I'm just about any of them with, uh, do you always kind?
Yeah.
Looks like if you go, go to the 750 rather than the 1000 in like this one.
Not the best example, but I want to say in the ordinance, it talks about conservancy
to conservancy places, space.
Yeah.
Right.
So I'm trying to see where we are.
So to me, the stormwater basins are often zone conservancy.
So to me, by zoning review, that would say we'd have to put the 750 on those two, especially
like the, the conservancy or the, the trail, the conservancy along the, your hair river.
So if we're putting like 750 on those long corridor type conservancies, we are taking
out large swaths of land, which in the personal view, I don't know if I really care.
I'll say because there is that like Melanie brought up, there's the appeal process, but
for a liability concern, I think we sort of want to look at those maps because are
we precluding pretty much 98% of our ability when we start including those conservancy
lands?
Yeah, we did look at that, um, and I can say that I even had 750 with the conservancy
lands included, if still, in my opinion, ample housing available.
This, whatever the board decides that I, that I'll work with Greg to get more of a
permanent map created that we can have available for reference.
Okay.
Again, I'm just concerned that when we include the conservancy, I want to, I want to make
sure that we just don't say drop the conservancy because I would be okay for a lower border
on a conservancy, say 250 or something, if it need be, if it was needed for the liability
concern.
I guess that's why I bring it up.
If you are okay with the 750 for the conservancy, I'll lean to your expertise and thank you.
Yeah.
I'm comfortable.
I think probably the best example to look at is Yohara because you have western greens.
So this would expand up on the bottom of the screen.
Unfortunately, the screenshot I have isn't the best, but on the bottom, it would expand
up just because the conservants land there.
But you can still see there's ample housing around in the north of that.
Wouldn't you also include the land that is the ponds north of Lexington Parkway, as I
think again is conservancy?
I'm going to have to work with Greg to really look at and get the map really defined in
detail.
Thank you.
Okay.
Do I have a motion to approve 2026 009?
Motion to approve.
Motion by Brad.
Second.
Seconded by Dan.
Discussion.
It's been done.
I do believe all those in favor indicate by saying aye.
Aye.
All those opposed?
No.
That carries unanimously.
Convene into closed session.
Thank you, Chief.
Resolution 2026063, resolution determining the claim of Tyler Catsey.
Village Board may convene into closed session as authorized by Wisconsin statute, 19.85
parent 1 parent G, inferring with legal counsel for the governmental body who was rendering
oral or written advice concerning strategy.
To be adopted by the body with respect to litigation in which it is or is likely to
become involved.
Village Board may reconvene in open session and further discuss or take action on the
subject matter disgusting closed session session.
Staff presentation, bill Chang.
Yeah.
So this claim has been brought by Mr. Catsey.
There was a sanitary sewer backup and the sewer then obviously caused damage within
the property itself.
We Mr. Catsey filed a claim or initially informed us of the damages and we filed that
with our insurance carrier that insurance carrier did conduct this due diligence and
as you can see, has found that the village has immunity here.
And so is recommending that we disallow Mr. Catsey's claim.
If there's questions about what that process is, they all can answer what the disallowance
process is and the statutory parameters.
If you are seeking legal advice asked to villages liability, et cetera, I would recommend
that we move it in full session before that part.
We have no public appearances on this.
The insurance company says to disallow the claim.
I guess that's pretty standard stuff.
We need to go into full session for that.
Anybody need any more details beyond that?
We want that better.
Yeah.
I guess I just don't know what to think.
I know I when I lived in Madison, I had suitors back up and I just accept that as a stormwater
thing that happened and we put in a check valve.
So I can see the point that I can maybe go either way, so I don't know if I'm questioning
the legality or if I'm questioning if we should pay them or not.
Speak.
I can only answer from a legal standpoint.
Just want to start with just disabusing people of a common misunderstanding and that
is whenever something bad happens to somebody else is responsible for it, somebody's got
to pay for it.
Liability in this case would be based on negligence.
It was the village negligent in maintaining its sewer system.
Based on the investigation and I am not investigating with myself, the insurance company was handling
it.
I came up with no indication and I'm not aware of any that the village had any way of knowing
that there was going to be this backup prior to it occurring.
Given that they find no basis for liability at neither do I.
I can comment.
Related to sewer backup, our insurance carrier does carry a policy to cover sewer backup
for our residents comes at an additional cost, maybe a discussion for a budget time, but
relates to a job your time had done, who's that volunteer?
I'll just speak to my history.
When it backed up, I was upset about it, but lucky for me, I knew that there was always
a stormwater issue, so I didn't put anything down there.
It's different when the sewer backs up.
We put in the check valve, but it knocked out, say, a washer and what I learned that
you really should have not just protection from storm.
I guess I should ask the insurance person, you need to have a protection for the sewer
backing up and it was like a $5 ad for the year.
It's like, well, why didn't you tell me that?
I can see the liabilities maybe at the individual for not covering himself for that, but I also
feel that it is something that happened in our sewer, and if it was me, I'd want some
portion of it.
I personally feel that's fair, but it's not necessarily going to the liability of it, maybe
more of a policy.
I do want to make clear that if you decide to pay this person money, it's going to be
your money, not your insurance company's money, whereas if he soothes you and wins,
then the insurance company would cover it.
What was the dollar amount of this that he's asking for?
How approximately $23,000?
Yeah, I sell the water backup coverage on all my homeowners' policies.
Well, do we want to go in the closed?
Do we have to go in the closed?
I don't think so.
I'll agree, do we not go in the closed?
Okay.
I'll just offer that the month on the resolutions as April, instead of May.
Still awake.
I was just going to say that.
Yeah, that's true.
Okay, so we're not convening into closed session.
Therefore, we are not reconvening into open session.
So possible action regarding resolution 2026 063, a resolution determining the claim of
Tyler Catsey.
Determining the claim, you want us to say we make a motion to deny the claim?
Pardon me?
Just allow the claim.
All right, I will make a motion 2026 063.
Just allowing the claim of Tyler Catsey.
Is there a second?
A second.
Seconded violation.
Is there any more discussion?
I'll make a quite a discussion where we have this resolution, just allowing the claim that
would still leave the individual opportunity to ask for us to pay something.
I'm not saying we would, but that still gives them opportunity outside of the claim.
He can ask me, he has that.
That's what this is, but he could ask again if you wanted to.
So we're good with the wording the way this says, do I need to change something?
Okay.
All those in favor of disallowing the claim under resolution 2026 063 indicate by saying
aye.
Aye.
All those opposed?
No.
Motion carries unanimously.
The claim is disallowed.
Check my disturbance in your packet.
Committee Commission Board reports update the Forest Area Library.
Who's that?
I don't think we have any important updates.
Okay.
Public Safety Commission, that's me.
We pretty much just discussed our 750 foot range there.
The Forest Area Community and Senior Center.
No important updates.
Community Development Authority.
Nothing?
We extended a loan agreement for the forthcoming pizza place.
Opening and zoning commission.
I have circles on my planning and zoning commission, so I think I already reported on it.
So I'd say there's been no new meetings.
Public Services Committee.
You saw tonight the mountain bike trail information and the renaming of the park to River Bend
Park.
The Forest Windsor Fire and EMS, so I had the groundbreaking for the second station.
We have a meeting, I don't know what I'm doing 11th.
Committee Commission Board reports in your packet, President's report, President doesn't
have one in county cities and villages update.
I think Bill already hit that earlier today.
Nope, don't want it again.
Any other business that lawfully comes before the board?
Next up is adjournment.
Is there a motion?
Motion or adjourned?
Motion by Brad, is there a second?
Seconded by Alicia.
All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
Aye.
All those opposed?
No.
Motion carries unanimously.
We are adjourned at 951 PM.