Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears options, avoids decision on Marchstone water infrastructure and costs
Summary
Trustees reviewed three engineering options to provide water storage and pressure to the Marchstone development but did not select a plan; officials asked whether the village would accept a water tower and whether residents would accept increased water rates to pay for storage.
The board of trustees received a technical briefing and discussion on multiple engineering options to supply water storage and pressure to the Marchstone development and to meet village-wide storage needs. Brian Bergquist, the village engineer, presented three “bookend” options ranging from a comprehensive multi-zone build-out (most flexible, most costly) to a targeted installation to serve only Marchstone (least costly, least system-wide flexibility). All options include additional storage and boosters to maintain fire flows and household pressure across steep local topography.
Officials and project proponents agreed the village needs more storage. Bergquist said the 2021 water study projected a need for another 139,000 gallons of storage as the village grows; current village storage is spread across a 500,000-gallon reservoir and a smaller 48,000-gallon tank. Engineers advised that gravity-fed pressure depends on elevation and that providing adequate pressures to higher-elevation subdivisions would likely require new boosters and either an elevated tower or additional ground reservoirs sited and sized to serve distinct pressure zones.
Trustees pressed two policy questions staff said they need answered before pursuing design and cost-sharing proposals: whether the village would accept an elevated water tower (the tower would be approximately 90 feet tall per the engineering discussion) and whether the village is willing to raise water rates or assess utility customers for construction costs. Village Administrator Jay (title as presented) said there is no practical way to pay for the storage without utility revenue increases; engineers and developers said the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) would have to approve cost recovery and that the village should present 10–20 year load projections as part of any PSC filing.
Developers and their representatives said the timeline for Marchstone’s planned phases is time-sensitive and requested a focused follow-up to quantify cost-sharing. Developers’ representatives asked the board to consider option 2 or 3 (mid- to low-cost scenarios) and requested staff present cost-sharing models. Village staff and consultants cautioned that option 1 (the most flexible, systemwide option) better serves other potential development areas and long-term redundancy but is more expensive.
Staff and the engineer also discussed operational implications: any of the options increases utility operational complexity and likely requires additional water staff to maintain new facilities and pumps. The village administrator and public-works staff said they anticipate at least one additional staff position over time for system maintenance if new infrastructure is built.
No formal action was taken; trustees asked staff and consultants to return with more detailed cost estimates and scenarios, a proposal for how costs would be shared between Marchstone and village ratepayers, and analysis of PSC approval pathways.
