Joel moves to recommend one‑year extension of water/sewer contract with Certop; motion passes with one dissent

A committee meeting to discuss water and sewer business recommended a one‑year extension of the operations contract with Certop so the municipality could meet an EPA filing deadline and continue service while staff finish an in‑house staffing plan.

Joel (identified in the transcript) moved to recommend the contract extension “as presented,” and the motion passed after a voice vote; one member (Michelle) was recorded as opposed. The transcript does not state who seconded the motion by name, and the number of affirmative votes was not specified in the record provided.

Staff told the committee that a recent EPA notice led to the need for a new, dated contract form. A staff speaker said the EPA filing must be completed by Feb. 2 and that the group had an email copy of the EPA letter dated Jan. 9 but had not yet received the mailed notice.

Committee discussion indicated the contract language itself remains unchanged and that the only adjustment in the proposed renewal is a rate change tied to the consumer price index (CPI). Joel asked, “So nothing changes except for the rate, essentially?” and a colleague confirmed the CPI‑based adjustment.

Members also discussed operational readiness if the contractor stopped providing service: Joel asked whether an operating manual existed to guide takeover. A staff member said AOP has prepared an operating manual and that staff have recorded procedural videos to document plant procedures and recent changes.

Several speakers said the municipality has explored alternatives to continuing with the current contractor. Staff reported those options had been discussed but not finalized; one option under development is an in‑house position (a municipal employee with a job description similar to the existing JR position), but the job description and hiring plan are not complete.

After the vote, a participant urged that this be the last outside contract and that operations return to fully in‑house management when feasible. Another member said they would have supported a shorter contract (three to six months) but could not back a full one‑year extension given unresolved performance concerns.

The committee moved on to additional agenda items after approving the motion. The transcript records names mentioned later (Andrew, Harold, Matt) as the meeting progressed but does not indicate additional formal votes on this contract within the provided segments.