Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Leaf Blower Rebate topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conservation committee proposes $100 electric leaf blower rebates; village staff flags audit limits on administering program
Summary
A conservation committee proposed a Shorewood Foundation-funded rebate of about $100 per resident to replace gas leaf blowers with electric models. Staff warned audit guidance may prevent village administration; the committee was asked to coordinate with the foundation and report back.
The Shorewood Conservation Committee presented a proposal to create a rebate pilot that would incentivize village residents to replace gas-powered leaf blowers with electric models, asking the Shorewood Foundation to supply funds and proposing a roughly $100 per-unit rebate.
Erin Kovac introduced the plan as a rebate program: "...we have a proposal to the Shorewood Foundation to run a pilot program. It's essentially a rebate program to incentivize people who live in the village of Shorewood to retire their gas powered leaf blowers in favor of purchasing an electric powered leaf blower," she said, adding that the requested amount would be "approximately a hundred dollars at this point."
Why it matters: Committee members and trustees said gas-powered leaf blowers produce both noise and air pollution; the pilot would provide a low-cost incentive to reduce local emissions and sound impacts.
Administration and audit guidance Village staff told the committee that prior audit guidance advises against the village serving as the fiscal agent for externally funded programs administered outside normal municipal processes. Village Manager Bart Ewald summarized the situation: the foundation asked the village to administer the program via the village website, but staff noted that doing so could conflict with audit recommendations about cash handling and third-party administration.
Manager Ewald explained the workable alternative offered in the memo: the village could post the application on its website so submissions would be routed directly to the program administrator (the foundation or another designated administrator), with the conservation committee reviewing applications and recommending reimbursements to the finance director. "Those applications get pushed directly to you," Ewald said, describing a model where the village supports outreach and hosting but is not the fiscal agent.
Committee direction Committee members asked the foundation to confirm whether it could continue as administrator. Several trustees said they did not want to add staff workload for a small pilot. The committee asked Erin and Alan (committee representatives) to confer with the Shorewood Foundation about whether the foundation would administer the program or whether the committee could (or should) run it; the committee then agreed to seek alignment and return with the foundation's response.
Program scope and next steps The initial pilot was described as a modest, residency-based rebate with proof of purchase and proof of residency required. Committee members discussed possible expansion to plug-in lawn mowers if resident participation in a leaf-blower rebate proved low.
No board-level appropriation was made at the meeting; the committee sought further coordination with the foundation and clarified the division of administrative labor before moving forward.
