[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6194448,"mediaKeyId","3864186-53c839a956209ff31fd7fed756e89d4e","parentId",3864186,"title","Monona council declines to acquire decommissioned solar panels; Legacy Solar to remove arrays","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",2338000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3864186-53c839a956209ff31fd7fed756e89d4e&start=2338&end=2338","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3864186-53c839a956209ff31fd7fed756e89d4e/thumbnail_2338000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6194448/Monona/Dane-County/Wisconsin/Monona-council-declines-to-acquire-decommissioned-solar-panels-Legacy-Solar-to-remove-arrays","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6194448-d3b88f9fd86f4d6a4490771881e1dd0f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191478&Signature=X5ebaPfEPxjVp9NsqXgZuXTJ3rANwVCs52u7e2MNnftkAdjNjWEdLpj75VWMbKvXZxAGioWMi4XRjBhbovmejLcRHL0hYnb8ceoFud-Cu94x4Qt3a7hAJqgWny758eevJ4xE2WYpZls32gYB6iQls3OwXxuo-iLVbfsD-wYYuAapVo6f2YB~XbZV9~fX~5I4XBvcXziATJ6Oh2PhiRXzqeaehPSQPF-CYgWnFwOtd598SWA6j7uWwlDLSYkoaltuGgQM44Fq8m7QPnbOx-e2ikW1c3~3wROD8x5USj9J2DTcUqVRWMM3KeIQWQqHAxk-K5Z23mq7QtFIsG-y3Iw8gg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Monona, WI","date","2025-06-17T13:50:45Z","article","The Monona City Council voted down a staff request to acquire used solar panels being removed from the public works garage, leaving the panels to be removed and disposed of by the installer, Legacy Solar Coop.

Neil (City Administrator) summarized three options staff discussed with Legacy Solar: (1) have Legacy remove and dispose of the panels at no cost to the city; (2) acquire the panels for a one‑time $10,000 purchase price and store or redeploy them; or (3) pay roughly $40,000 to have the panels taken down and reinstalled on the public works roof. “If it’s simply a financial evaluation, then option 1 is probably the best,” Neil said, noting a tradeoff between short‑term simplicity and possible longer‑term reuse opportunities.

Neil and Brad (Public Works staff) told council the panels are roughly 12 years old and would total about a 150‑kilowatt array if ground‑mounted at Well 3 (the site discussed as a possible reuse location). Staff said ground‑mount reuse would require additional capital—initial estimates ranged from about $65,000 to $100,000 for mounting and related infrastructure—and that the panels’ remaining useful life and maintenance requirements make payback uncertain. Brad noted panels arrive in 18 pallets and that the city lacks substantial indoor storage; storing the panels would likely mean outdoor tarps and added risk.

Questions from council focused on economics, storage, spare‑parts value and timing. Alder Bernstein and others asked whether the ground mounts could be forward‑compatible for future panels and whether the city could recover cost by selling equipment if the city later decided not to use it. Staff said Legacy has considered salvaging parts for other maintenance needs and that resale value and transport costs are uncertain.

At roll call by voice, the motion to approve acquisition, removal and transfer of the panels failed on a voice vote. The mayor announced, “The motion is denied. Gotcha. K. The motion is defeated, so the panels will come off,” and staff said Legacy Solar would proceed with removal and disposal; staff will continue to evaluate other ways to offset lost renewable generation.

Why it matters: the decision affects the public works garage roof project timeline, the city’s renewable energy portfolio and potential short‑term maintenance support for existing rooftop arrays. Council members and staff said they prefer to wait for full cost and usage data before committing capital to salvage and repurpose older panels.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Meeting - June 16, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Council defeated a motion to acquire used solar panels from Legacy Solar Coop for $10,000, leaving the company to remove and dispose of arrays from the public works garage ahead of an impending roof replacement; staff outlined reuse options but flagged capital, storage and maintenance costs.","taxTitle","Monona, Dane County, Wisconsin","taxId",70921,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_46":80,"_48":81,"_50":82,"_52":83,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":84,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":85,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6194454,"Monona staff seek clearer ordinance language to bar contractors from yard‑waste site",395,1882000,2277000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3864186-53c839a956209ff31fd7fed756e89d4e&start=1882&end=2277","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3864186-53c839a956209ff31fd7fed756e89d4e/thumbnail_1882000.jpg","/articles/6194454/Monona/Dane-County/Wisconsin/Monona-staff-seek-clearer-ordinance-language-to-bar-contractors-from-yardwaste-site","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6194454-6176a3be5f1f199159dcb5b4e702e081/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191478&Signature=EExDErKBPBVqU5CojCBxybmHm3NG0kzGp0ud3gI3IhETocJ3rLXDYw4zTsvzdBzmg7Upfy5Dlds~D4YA0teWpa~5Sc2huXvFh5IeQNGbaVj4B7bumUxhueCQUMLKsf~sS8Bh0SexuTZa3orHH3uUI9dMUVEO32UHgEZF5azGRgOGFSPhheh-m-lvB54nmbXPJgOpclEp7IvPt9xNHFvzwGH2arSwByYdq1ULA6rscZ6NzW~5k1FxESCmnmGPxNQRuWKQFpKGvIVzly0vV4HE8PeTR8MpaeX0aBNEPBhUJF-3u09lWgZSoVGtEwkG8XhGO2AsCksqtNX1pGwqqRXtlg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Council reviewed an ordinance amendment to chapter 3-81 clarifying who may use the city yard‑waste facility and to tighten enforcement language against contractor dumping.

Dan (Public Works staff) told the council the proposed change removes unclear language and replaces it with a direct statement: “The yard waste facility is open to City of Monona residents only. Businesses, landscape contractors, and other nonresidents are prohibited from using the yard waste site.” He said the change is intended to give code enforcement and police a clear citation reference when contractors dump at the site.

The proposed amendment applies to lawn‑waste provisions (grass clippings, leaves and garden debris) in sections 3‑81‑3(h) and 3‑81‑4(j)(3). Dan said the code update was prompted by recorded instances this year of contractors dumping at the Arcway site and by a staff review that found the prior wording did not clearly authorize a contractor citation.

Council members asked whether signage at the yard‑waste site notifies users of fines and surveillance. Dan said there are signs stating “no contractor dumping” and camera notices; he did not confirm the exact citation language currently posted. He also clarified that the yard‑waste rule is separate from the city’s curbside leaf collection program, which addresses leaves under a different section of the code.

The item came from the Public Works Committee, which recommended approval. Council discussion focused on enforcement: staff said they contact the police when there is a readable license plate or vehicle ID, and the operator is given the choice to remove dumped material or receive a citation. No final vote was recorded on the ordinance at this meeting.

Why it matters: the amendment would clarify enforcement authority, aiming to prevent outside contractors from disposing of business waste at a city facility intended for residents’ lawn and garden debris.","The council reviewed an amendment to Chapter 3-81 that would state explicitly the city yard‑waste facility is for Monona residents only and prohibit business, landscape contractors and nonresidents from using it; the change was presented by Public Works staff and was recommended by the Public Works Committee.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_46":92,"_48":93,"_50":94,"_52":95,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":96,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":97,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6194459,"Monona staff propose 20% sewer rate increase after sharp Madison Metro fee jumps",1368,399000,1767000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3864186-53c839a956209ff31fd7fed756e89d4e&start=399&end=1767","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3864186-53c839a956209ff31fd7fed756e89d4e/thumbnail_399000.jpg","/articles/6194459/Monona/Dane-County/Wisconsin/Monona-staff-propose-20-sewer-rate-increase-after-sharp-Madison-Metro-fee-jumps","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6194459-7035434e9adad90f4e25ee0becb4a02b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191478&Signature=BLFmEd6wtK5Px0iHvHqE2vniB1WnmDcmdBTajnWY9haED4X5N9pZGMZyZL-xD2k45boFI2EsZbUIIg9MFMvUpcDCFs9FRJ17hXIZCsJ4KtdzbaX9bEsr7-NggSj3qWAt~EJFf2McZLZe2J4V0hB8e0fkYAkBJJX7cnBdfNoYMdhb5A8Sh7RF~PShclyoiECF~geD9TZlnyH4IZdOgFu9I9R2T6fGuLs6usJYn7xNGN3e6DbVXViR9z5L6JELONe~SPxTQB1J2UY6r4lViUnR72cVP8gyI05kmuLROV7QSeKHL2NuxPI3Oyt8k6G8TSYPxMMRmv25viQp33D6xRWlqw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Monona City Council heard a first reading of a resolution proposing a 20% increase in the city’s sanitary sewer rates, city staff said, to maintain required revenue coverage after large fee increases from the regional sewer authority.

Mark (staff member) told council the proposal is driven mainly by higher charges from the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District. “So what I’m recommending is a increase to the sewer rates of 20%,” he said. He added that the city faces a covenant tied to revenue bonds requiring that operating revenues (excluding depreciation) exceed 1.25 times the highest annual debt service.

The increase is intended to keep Monona in compliance with that covenant and to close an operating shortfall created when MMSD charges rose sharply in recent years. “We’ve had changed at basically 72% over those years, you know, average, about 8%,” Mark said, and he flagged a roughly double‑digit jump in one recent year as a concern for the city’s sewer fund.

Council members pressed staff on how MMSD calculates charges. Mark and other staff described MMSD’s billing as a hybrid of monitored flow at a handful of “quads” and customer usage, and said MMSD typically samples one week per quarter and applies that measurement to the quarter. “They take one week out of the quarter... I don’t think that is the whole average for the whole quarter,” Mark said, describing how a wet monitoring week can raise charges for the entire billing period.

Alder Rademacher said she understood the need to raise rates to meet obligations, but asked whether the city would continue to press MMSD for clearer methodology and better communication. Another council member said members of the Dane County Cities and Villages Association have raised the same concerns at that association’s meetings, and staff outlined a proposed two‑track response: a finance‑director workgroup to review MMSD’s financial assumptions and a technical group of public‑works directors to evaluate whether MMSD project claims (for example, that work was required by DNR standards) are valid.

Council did not vote on the rate change at the meeting. Staff said they will return with additional information — including a clearer description of MMSD’s billing formula and city usage data — before council votes on the proposed increase at a subsequent meeting. “The next meeting is to vote on the increase,” the mayor said.

Why it matters: a rate increase would raise household sewer bills and shore up the sewer fund so the city can meet debt covenants and pay MMSD charges; staff emphasized that MMSD charges make up the largest single operating cost in the city’s sewer utility budget.

Council request/direction: staff were asked to get the MMSD formula and more detailed usage figures and to continue coordination through the Dane County Cities and Villages Association. No formal motion or vote on the rate increase occurred at this meeting.","City staff recommended a 20% increase to Monona’s sanitary sewer rates, citing large, recent cost increases from the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District and a debt covenant that the utility’s revenues must meet; council heard the first reading and directed staff to return with more data before a vote.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Monona council declines to acquire decommissioned solar panels; Legacy Solar to remove arrays

Monona staff seek clearer ordinance language to bar contractors from yard‑waste site

Monona staff propose 20% sewer rate increase after sharp Madison Metro fee jumps