_03302026-243

Village Special Board Minutes – March 30, 2026 Page 1 of 2 VILLAGE OF TWIN LAKES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING MINUTES March 30, 2026 – 5:00 p.m. Village Hall, 105 E. Main Street, Twin Lakes, WI Minutes are a record of actions taken by the body and are not a verbatim transcript. CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE / ROLL CALL President Skinner called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Present: Trustees Barb Andres, Jim Baxa, Kevin Fitzgerald, Aaron Karow, Bill Kaskin, Ken Perl, and President Howard Skinner. Also Present: Village Attorney Chris Geary, Village Engineer Greg Droessler, Administrator Laura Jager, and Clerk Sabrina Waswo. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS None. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH OTHER MUNICIPALITIES FOR THE REGIONAL ROAD MAINTENANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS CONSORTIUM Discussion was held regarding the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement with the Village of Salem Lakes and Village of Paddock Lake for the Regional Road Maintenance and Public Works Consortium. Attorney Geary reviewed the agreement and explained that it had been developed quickly due to the State Innovation Grant application deadline. He noted that the agreement had been revised multiple times by multiple parties and that the short timeline limited the opportunity for full Board review during the drafting process. The purpose of the consortium would be to combine certain road maintenance and public works services among the participating municipalities in an effort to obtain better pricing, standardize services, and qualify for potential Innovation Grant funding. Attorney Geary explained that the agreement would transfer road-related services to the consortium for a five-year term and that there was no clear exit provision once the Village entered into the agreement. Attorney Geary identified concerns with the draft agreement, including unresolved practical questions regarding bidding, withdrawal from projects, contract administration, liability, quorum language, and how disputes or contractor issues would be handled if one or more municipalities chose not to proceed with a project. He also noted drafting issues, including duplicate language in Section 3.4 and inconsistent quorum language in Section 4.9. Trustee Karow acknowledged that the agreement was not perfect due to the rushed timeline and asked whether the agreement could be amended later if all participating municipalities agreed. Attorney Geary explained that Article 9 allows amendments by agreement of all municipalities, but it was unclear whether the Wisconsin Department of Revenue would accept substantive changes after submission for grant purposes. The Board discussed the Innovation Grant requirements, including the five-year service transfer, the 115% spending cap, cost-savings documentation, potential grant reimbursement, and uncertainty regarding how the Department of Revenue would interpret and enforce the requirements. The potential grant reimbursement was estimated at approximately $185,000 per year for the Village, which was a significant factor in the discussion. The Board also discussed whether the consortium would still be beneficial if grant funding was not awarded. Brian Filiatreault, 125 Silver Lake Road, spoke regarding the potential benefit of the consortium and the importance of considering the collective roadwork of the participating municipalities. He noted that the Village Special Board Minutes – March 30, 2026 Page 2 of 2 agreement was intended to satisfy Innovation Grant requirements and suggested that certain issues could potentially be addressed through later revisions. Village Engineer Greg Droessler expressed concerns regarding the financial and logistical impact of the agreement. He questioned whether the required spending level was fiscally sustainable for the Village, noted that the Village could lose control over project timing, pricing, specifications, and inspection processes, and explained that additional legal, accounting, engineering, software, audit, and insurance costs would be required to operate a separate entity. He also noted that the Village had current road projects planned and that signing the agreement could affect the Village’s ability to bid those projects independently. The Board discussed the possibility of approving the agreement and attempting to clean up the document before grant awards were made, but concerns remained regarding the lack of an exit provision, uncertainty over whether later changes would affect grant eligibility, unresolved administrative costs, and the risk of entering into a five-year agreement with multiple unanswered questions. Trustees discussed potential options, including approving the agreement as presented, declining to participate at this time and allowing the other municipalities to proceed, or waiting until a more complete agreement could be prepared for future consideration. Several Trustees expressed concern that the agreement may have a path forward but was not ready for approval in its current form. Skinner/Karow motion to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement with Other Municipalities for the Regional Road Maintenance and Public Works Consortium. Roll call vote: Andres – no; Baxa – no; Fitzgerald – no; Karow – no; Kaskin – no; Perl – no; Skinner – no. Motion failed 0-7. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON R2026-3-2 APPROVING INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH OTHER MUNICIPALITIES FOR THE REGIONAL ROAD MAINTENANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS CONSORTIUM No action was taken after the failed motion on the Intergovernmental Agreement. ADJOURN Skinner/Andres motion to adjourn at 6:07 p.m. Motion carried 7-0.