Board of Public Works - Regular Meeting

All right. Welcome, everyone, to the Utilities Committee meeting for Tuesday, October 7. I'm calling the meeting to order. Please all rise and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you all. Please be seated and let the record show that Alder Heffernan is excused, and we will do roll call starting on my left.

Adrian Stanson Martin, District 11.

Fred Meltzer, District 2.

Josh Lambrecht, District 1. Denny Dougherty, District 15.

Thank you. Now we need an approval of the minutes from our previous meeting, twenty five-twelve oh nine, to approve the September 23 Utilities Committee meeting minutes.

So moved. Second.

I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Are there any abstentions or nay votes? Seeing none, that is approved, four to zero. We have no public hearings or appearances today. We'll move down into our action items in a moment. When we get I'm assuming that no one here is here to speak about the lift station valve. So we'll get that out of the way quickly. And then when we get to the next item I think also there's two action items.

We'll get those out of the way. When we get down to the Providence Trails drainage study, at that point I will open up for public participation. But I will also let staff speak a bit first before we get there. So just be patient, and thank you all for being here tonight. Let's start with action item twenty five-twelve one zero, award the Midway Road Lift Station valve vault modifications bid to Sabo Mechanical in an amount of $78,600 with a 10% contingency of $7,860 for a project total not to exceed $86,460 Can I get a motion?

So moved. Second.

All right. We have a motion and a second. And let the record be revised to show that Alder Heffernan is present. Record All right. And did, anyone on staff want to speak to this? Do we have any comments or questions from the committee about the valve vault modifications bid? All right. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and take our vote. All in favor, aye. Aye.

Any opposed or abstaining? There are none. That is recommended for approval, five-zero. Moving down, 20 five-twelve 11 approve the wastewater rate increase of 4% for general service and special hauled waste service to be effective 01/01/2026 and approve truck scale fee of $5 per weight verification. Can I get a motion?

So moved.

Second. All

right. We have a motion and a second. Director Stumpa, did you want to speak to this? What mic do you have? District two?

If there's questions, otherwise this is an annual notice to the committee regarding a rate change. And just with the caveat, there's some significant projects that we're undergoing right now that may change the need for a rate change as part of a future rate study starting next year. So we'll know more this fall, what leads into some of the project needs next year.

All right. Thank you very much. Any comments or questions from the committee?

My only comment or question is just to remind me that this is fee for service, correct? So these are the rates that individuals are paying for?

Yes. These are rates that were already forecasted as part of the last rate study, adjusted as capital needs and operations needs have changed, tweaked a little bit, but really following that rate study from a few years ago. So really not much of a surprise here. The 4% was planned for last year.

Excellent. Thank you. Thank

you. All right. If there's no other comments, let's go ahead and take a vote on this. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed or abstaining? Seeing none, that is recommended five-zero for approval. Now we have moved on to 20 five-twelve 12, Providence Trails Drainage Study findings and recommendations. Can I get a motion?

Second? What are we motioning this

regard? Okay. I'm sorry. Yeah. So it looks like we're going to have to make some choices. So can we just start discussion on this without a motion? Or what would you recommend?

I think just withdrawing those two motions for now would clear the table for introduction, comments, and then there can be a motion after that.

Okay. We'll go ahead. Are we all consent do we have a consensus to withdraw those motions? Yes. JULIET Okay. All right. So there was a sign up sheet circulated. Director Youngworth is going back to collect that right now. And would Director Youngworth be starting us off? Okay. Deputy Director Neuberger, what mic do you have? There you go.

Thank you, chair.

At this time, would you like staff to provide the background on this topic? Or would you like staff to do a detailed walk through each one of the alternatives, including the staff's recommendation and considerations?

Could we get a background and then a walk through so that when we take public comment, then people are responding to everything so that we don't have to do as much back and forth?

Sounds good. So a memo has been provided. The most significant difference this time as staff has come prepared with a recommendation. Much of the information that we have to share with the committee in the memo is the same as the information that was provided at the information item at the last meeting. But I will recap that information for the benefit of folks maybe who seen that discussion.

So following severe rainfall events in July '4, public works compiled a list and an initial review of flooding reports. We then identified the highest priority areas for further analysis beginning late last year and through this year. So these areas include a consultant led study in the NorthlandBeller Watersheds, which we've spoken about as an information item twice previously this year and which is an information item later on in this evening's agenda as well as a DPW staff led study in this item, the Providence Trails area located South Of Ashbury Drive, West of Providence Avenue, and north and east of the recreational trail. So after providing courtesy notices to residents in the Providence Trails drainage study area, DPW staff had presented initial drainage study findings that included three potential alternative approaches at the last utilities committee meeting. We have considered additional input received during and after the Utilities Committee meeting from elected officials and other stakeholders.

EPW staff used the information gained since the meeting to make further model refinements, the most significant of which is the addition of one more residence, which reported as having been impacted by surface flooding. And that residence is on the North Side Of Sable Ridge Drive in the vicinity of Yard Drain Z48. And if you want a graphic depiction of that, you could take a look at alternate one in the handouts. You'll see another lot now that has a color boundary around it. This one is purple.

It's located on the North Side Of Sable Ridge Drive in the vicinity of AZ48. With the added input and analysis, DPW updated the alternatives exhibits, which were provided in this packet and which we're referring to on the screen. And we're presenting to the Utilities Committee no significant changes to the alternatives presented to the Utilities Committee for consideration at this time. The modeled alternatives include the following summaries. Alternative one, which I believe is on the screen right now.

With that alternative that involves and reflected in the model for alternative one, public infrastructure, including replacing up to 14 yard drain inlet castings. We had talked last time about the fact that most of the yard drain castings in this plat are the flush type castings. When we talk about replacing the Ardrain inlet castings, it would be with a stool type casting, which has a higher capacity and is more resistant to clogging, say, from wood chips and things like that. It also includes private improvements at the discretion of homeowners. We had mentioned last time that all the reported and modeled structure flooding involved walkout basements.

So staff included in the model potential private side improvements that private property owners could potentially take to mitigate the flood risk within their own lots. And the estimated cost of the stormwater utility for this alternative would be for the public side improvements, the 14 yard drain castings. The estimated cost of that is about $25,000 So that's alternative one. Alternative two has its own exhibit. It involves 1,800 lineal feet of storm sewer main upsized in Fall Creek Lane from Apple Creek to Sable Ridge Drive, another four eighty feet of yard drain lead upsizing within the three easements south of Fall Creek Lane on the north side of the trail and then another four sixty lineal feet of new 24 inches storm sewer to be extended from Providence Avenue to Apple Creek.

In addition to that, the alternative includes adding a dry pond flood storage area on the South Side of Apple Creek Trail. That's in an area that's currently operated and maintained by the park department. Additionally, replacing up to the 14 yard drain castings that we mentioned before, potential private improvements that could be made at the discretion of homeowners. And this one has an estimated cost for the stormwater utility of $1,600,000 And then finally, alternative three, which we're calling right of way easement lot improvements, involves 164 lineal feet of yard drain lead upsize in the easement south of Fall Creek Lane, just West Of Providence, four sixty lineal feet of new 24 inches storm sewer from Providence Avenue to the outfall at Apple Creek, adding that dry pond on the south side of the trail, again, replacing up to 14 yard drain inlet castings, private improvements at the discretion of the homeowners. And the estimated cost of that alternative to the stormwater utility is $330,000 So with that being said, DPW, as I mentioned, has come with a recommendation for the utilities committee to consider.

And that being DPW staff recommend that the Utilities Committee and Common Council approve DPW to pursue public infrastructure improvements for alternative three for construction in 2026, dependent on stormwater capital, account 5230 funding and the time necessary for DPW to develop engineering plans in a bid package as well as to obtain any permits needed. DPW staff also provides some consideration notes below that recommendation. So we note that the implementation of alternative three public infrastructure does not preclude future implementation of additional mitigation improvements, say as identified in alternative two, or the ability of property owners to implement mitigation measures on their respective properties. DPW staff anticipate that the 2024 D study will be completed in the 2026, and again that's the Northland Bel Air drainage study, which will offer additional information to elected officials regarding other potential city flood mitigation projects and associated cost estimates, along with the opportunity to reconsider potential storm water utility project priorities and timelines for this and other locations. That is staff's presentation at this time.

All right. Thank you very much. Do we have any comments or questions from the committee before we go out to the audience?

One question here. So with the newly reported showing up on here, I was just curious, this is reported from the 2024 event or is this a Is subsequent there a possibility that other structural flooding has not yet been reported or would not be reflected in this?

That's always a possibility. And we had talked at the last meeting about the many, many variables that are encountered in real life that may or may not be able to be modeled or may not reflect the specific modeled conditions. So that is always a possibility, yes.

Thank you.

Alder Heffernan.

Is the recommendation from staff for alternative three one of the questions that I had last committee was how much is it going to cost for some of the other watersheds? Is that part of the reason why we're looking at alternative three versus the second one? Is after having more information we know what we're going to

have to spend in other parts of the city.

That was the message that staff heard from some of the elders who had commented at the last meeting was that it was very difficult to know exactly how the problems faced in this area would compare to problems in other areas and then associated alternatives and potential costs associated with those alternatives. So that was a consideration that staff made in giving recommendation.

Thank you. All right. Thank you. At this point, I will open up for the audience to speak. Since we do have quite a number of people here, I have eight people signed up to speak.

So I'm going to ask if people hold themselves to five minutes. And then if you did not sign up but you decide you do want to speak, you'll have the opportunity at the end there as well. I'll go ahead and call people up in order. So let's start with Scott Clausen. Oh, I'm sorry.

I assumed that everyone was here for the action item. I did not factor that in, that some people were here for the information items. So yes, we are speaking on the Providence Trail item right now. When we get to the information item about the other flood study, there will be a separate chance for people to speak on that topic so that we keep these items separate. So Scott Clausen, are you speaking on Province Trail or the Bel Air study?

The other flooding issue.

Okay. I will note that. And we will come back to you later. Okay. Dave Mucinski. You Okay. Jonas Back? James Back? I'm not sure.

1800 Northland.

Okay. Okay. Dexter Peterson. Next issue, please. Okay. Diane Albrecht. All right. Come on up and state your name and address again for the record.

Diane Albrecht, 3229 East Fall Creek Lane. So if you look at the map that's on the screen, in the lower right hand corner where there's that big pool of water, that's where we live. And I have photos from the day after the flood. What I had raised at the last meeting was elevation. Right where that water stops just before Providence Avenue is a berm.

The berm is like a dam for the water. And I have photos from the day after showing where the wood chips reached only a certain height on that berm, and then the water all diverted back into our yards. So the berm is also an obstruction for water. We have a drain in our backyard, and I know you're talking about improving the size of the drainpipe underneath, which should help. But the other drain across the trail, AU 40 wait a second.

AU 66, I never see water reaching that drain. As you can see on there, the water barely gets to that drain on the opposite side of the trail. That's also higher than our side of the trail. The north side, where the arrows are, that's where all the water flows, comes down, hits the berm, Providence Avenue, and then into our yards. So my request is that you also consider the elevation issues that we have, and I think that our neighbors have a concern about the pond back there, too.

The water on their side, where you see the red box and the yellow box, is not going to empty over to that holding pond because it's lower on their side. It's going to go in their yard and perhaps go down the trail. A disadvantage of a flat is that you don't see it. So I have photos I brought along, since I didn't think anyone was able to come out, just to make those points.

Thank you. If you would like to share those photos with staff, I think that that would be useful. I was not able to find any time to come out, but I really appreciate the generosity of the people who did invite us.

And, like, all the photos show the mulch that was remaining after the flood, which kind of shows you the pattern of where the water went and where it stopped, like, especially at that berm, and it couldn't go higher. It just came in our yards.

Thank you. Okay. And Tom Ressler.

My name is Tom Rasler. I live at 3023 East Ball Creek Lane. And after our last meeting, I gave that option number two and three a lot of thought. I know option two is very expensive, but option three doesn't really solve many of the flooding problems in our subdivision. With option three, there are still five things that are likely to flood.

And our situation will not change one bit. So I put together a proposal, and I send it to our alderman, Sherry Hartzett. And believe she forwarded that to you. In that document, I showed photographs of our backyard in 2018 and 2024. We had water about a foot and a half up our basement window.

And a good portion of that water seeped into our basement and we had about $15,000 worth of damage. I also put together a proposal where the piping from the proposed piping in option three would be extended to our backyard where we have a storm drain. I believe that would be much cheaper than the $1,600,000 option. And also, that would eliminate the need to put in a diversion pond, which really wouldn't help us. We're right next to the diversion pond, that blue triangle, with the yellow house bit

I I a think

that's

color

bit on that's currently going from the bottom backyards bottom of along Fall Creek and into the sewer system in the street. So that might have the additional benefit of reducing the amount of water going into the storm sewers and roof lane. And I'm wondering if you had a chance to take a look at it and what that might cost.

Thank you. It's my understanding that that option was thoroughly reviewed. And so when we divert water from one place, those other places that we're diverting it to then have to be able to handle an additional amount of water. So I believe that, the, suggestions that you had made, would have required a lot of other work for the pipes further down the chain. I can let staff respond to this as well. Deputy Director Newburger.

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, Steph did take a feasibility level look at that, and that is correct. So the storm sewer system in the plat that's on the south side of the trail was not designed to take flow from the north side of the trail, and it also was designed preordinance. So same standards were in place for that for that flat south of the trail as for the north side of the trail. So staff had determined that any any attempt to direct more water to the storm sewer system to the residents on the south side of the trail would need to be mitigated by upsizing those pipes.

And so we did a high level cost estimate that would involve upsizing those pipes all the way down to that system's outfall at Apple Creek. The estimate of that was about $1,600,000 which was about the same as the estimate for alternative two, but it does less to solve flooding issues north of Fall Creek Lane.

Thank you.

So where we're at is we've had three contractors look at our situation. We've had Schmaltz, we've had Maloney's, and we've had Sure Dry. And none of those contractors, even though they can make money on the job, said they had any opportunity to improve our situation. So with the current weather situation being so crazy, it's just a matter of time, and we're going to have another flood and we're going to spend another $15,000 and six months to repair our home. Our neighbors across the street have had two floods in two years.

Their house has been on the market for six months and they can't get anybody to look at their house. So I am assuming that our property values are going be affected as well. And this $300,000 $360,000 proposal is not going to affect the majority of people that are being flooded right now. We've got some good people that live in our neighborhood, and we just can't afford to do this every year or two or three or whenever we get another flood. So I don't agree with the position that we go with the cheaper option.

I know you're going to save some money, but we're going to be I guarantee you, we're going to have a flood. If you could come over to my house and give me a solution for our problem, we'd gladly listen to it. And we would do it. But we can't find a contractor that will provide a solution for us.

Thank you very much for your input today. At this time, I'm going to bring it back to the committee and to the alder persons present. As you're the alder for this district, Alder Hartzheim, did you want to make any comments?

District 13. Oh, thank you. Thank you, chair. My heart feels this. It is extremely difficult to deal with the mitigation of flood, issues with flood.

However, I also see the entire city and see the next item on up for bids, Northland Bel Air, and know that we're facing a really large issue within the entire city. Since item number three, which is recommended by staff, does not preclude this committee or the council from doing item number two next, I believe that the recommendation is unfortunately the right one at this time. I looked at the budget book because I'm sure

we're all going through that.

In the next five years what I could find, just based on my looking, my little digging around, dollars 16,275,000.000 is on the next five years for flood mitigation studies and flood mitigation actual activity. But that's all I could find. There might be even more there. And I don't know that that amount is going to fix what we're looking at here as far as an entire city issue. So I'm reticent to commit to the most expensive option at this time simply because of the unknown.

But I do want to help as much as possible within this neighborhood. So difficult as it is, I do feel that we have to go with alternative three at this time, and I would recommend that the committee look at that as well. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Any comments from the committee here?

At this time, I'd like to move for the alternative three to be considered by, the utilities.

Do we have a second? Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve alternative number three. I also am concerned about the bigger picture. And I do think that the fact that this does not preclude future implementation of additional mitigation improvements that were identified in alternative two, that is something to keep in mind.

And as we move forward with this, certainly, the more knowledge we have of the different issues experienced by each property, the more we will be able to, keep those, things in mind as we work towards future solutions. But I do think that at this point, with our first dip into the funding pot, so to speak, I do think we need to be prudent and be cautious, just to make sure that we have enough funds to cover all the different projects that are going to be coming up. And I think that 16,000,000 or $17,000,000 in five years is probably not everything we will be spending on this. And I think that especially this early in the game to kind of get a sense of what the priorities are. So rather than looking for a perfect fix for everything, but looking for something that in a generalized way provides some measure of mitigation to the maximum number of residences.

Alder Hartzheim. Thank you, chair.

I apologize. I forgot to ask a question in regards to what Ms. Albrecht brought forward as far as berm obscuring the ability for floodwaters to go anywhere. I'm wondering if we can get a quick shot from engineering as to what their thoughts are in that regard.

Thank you. I I had a question about that as well. Can we do anything with that berm?

So I I would say that the the proposed storm sewer that's identified is going through the easement through Providence Avenue and down to Apple Creek in both alternative two and alternative three goes underneath underneath that berm and gets that water from one side of the berm to the other side of the berm. So our thought process is it does that underground rather than risking unintended consequences of removing that berm and letting the water pass potentially from one side of the street to the other side of the street over the sidewalk. So I would say staff would, again, without having the benefit of doing any modeling, I think staff would support the alternative that involves putting that water in a pipe and sending it to the east.

Thank you. Attorney Glad. I missed who seconded the motion just for the minutes. Thank you.

Alder Heffernan seconded the motion. Let's see. I do want to bring us back for a vote, so, I'll go ahead. And I do see your hand up back there. I will, take one more comment from the audience on on, this item, if you'd like to approach the mic.

With regard to diverting water, I'm wondering if it would be possible to get an estimate on how much it would cost additional cost to get some water diverted from the north side of the trail to the south side of the trail into that diversion pond. That would really help us out a lot. We get a lot of the water that comes from the west of our house. We're the low spot in the neighborhood. And if we could divert some of that water that tends to go towards our house into that that would help us a lot if it's not that expensive.

Thank you. I think that that's a wonderful thing to keep in mind. And if we do approve that diversion pond going in, then we'll have the opportunity to explore that modeling. All right. Anyone else? Alder Ahartzheim, did you still have a comment?

Yes. Thank you, Chair. I'll be brief because I already gave most of my thoughts in this regard. But I appreciate that the third option is trying to do as much as possible. And I unfortunately also still recognize that there are individual property issues.

And I'm hopeful that we can, and I know that staff is very good at this I'm hopeful that we can I mean, obviously there's a risk that the city can't make recommendations to a private property owner about what they should be doing about their property? But I'm hoping that we can have some idea generating that might assist some of these property owners with some better diversion and construction techniques and thoughts. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Do we have any other questions or comments from the committee? Are we ready to take a vote? Alright, let's go ahead and all in favor of selecting alternative three, approving alternative three, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed or abstaining? There are none. So that item is recommended for approval, five zero.

This will be going to common council next week. So on Wednesday, that will be the final vote to adopt this. Thank you very much for your time and your input. And I also want to thank staff for the extra time that you've taken on feasibility studies and processing the input that we received after the last meeting. Okay.

So that was our last action item. We will not be taking any more votes tonight, but we do have the information item 20 five-twelve 13, the Northland Bel Air flood study update number three. So we'll go ahead and hear from staff about that, and then we will take public comment.

Thank you, chair. Staff have provided a memo for information item for Northland Bel Air flood study update number three. Prior updates were earlier this year, in the spring and summer. Again, just to recap, on 11/20/2024, Common Council authorized DPW to contract with stormwater consultant Brown and Caldwell for the twenty twenty four D. Northland Creek and Bel Air Watershed stormwater evaluation in response to significant flooding that occurred following severe rainfall events in July '4.

The study limits are approximately bounded by I-forty 1 to the North, 441 to the East, Mason Street to the West, and Packard Street to the South. DPW staff have been coordinating closely with Brown and Caldwell and are providing the following summary of progress along with ongoing and upcoming tasks anticipated for this contract. Under completed tasks, would the chair like staff to read through items that have already been previously reported as having been completed? Or should we just go on to new changes since the last update?

Let's go ahead and recap just to keep everyone on the same page. Certainly.

So tasks reported as being completed at the last update meeting, including included a kickoff meeting held December '24, reviewed the location description of the July 2024 and historic flooding reports with DPW and Brown and Caldwell. Consultant updated the previously developed system models to reflect current industry standards for rainfall distributions and depths. The consultant merged previously developed Northland model and Biller model into one combined model incorporating both watersheds. The consultant performed field site visits to verify previously modeled existing conditions, including flow paths. The consultant reviewed and updated the model based on existing and surveyed storm sewer information from the performed watershed level inlet capacity calculations and sensitivity analyses for two different antecedent moisture conditions.

I'll just pause and make a note there that one thing that was somewhat unusual about the July flooding event was that there were high levels of moisture in the ground at that time already and that does have an impact on the amount of water that would run off under those conditions than if the ground were drier to begin with. So that that difference is is more noticeable when you have areas of lawns and things like that versus areas of concrete that doesn't matter what antiseptic moisture is. We ran a sensitivity analysis for concept level scenarios using ten and one hundred year storm events to narrow potential improvement locations and practices for more detailed evaluation. Basically, that was just a cost effective way to pull large levers and see what the impact of pulling those large theoretical levers would be so that we knew if you pull a large lever and you don't see what is anticipated to cost to be a cost effective impact, then you know it's not worth modeling smaller, more realistic, and implementable levels levers in those areas. Again, alternatives evaluations using sensitivity analysis findings.

The most detailed evaluations to date involve combinations of storage and conveyance components in the Central Northland Watershed area. We'll get into more detail on that in a little bit. Conducted an initial utility conflict evaluation in that Central Northland Watershed area for potential storm sewer improvements and adjusted potential sewer inverts and sizes to avoid known potential conflicts. So those were items that were previously reported as having been completed. Since the June update, other completed items include obtained existing and proposed conditions modeling for planned improvements by the town of Grand Chute upstream of the city portion of Northland Creek watershed.

That's kind of a street project area that they've got going on East Of Richmond Street, North of 00. Discussed with parks and recreation staff, potential Memorial Park South Pond, you'll refer to in this memo later on as MPS Pond, expansion limits relative to park use goals, and performed initial modeling of MPS Pond expansion with nearby conveyance in Northland Avenue. So I can pause there and see if there are any questions regarding completed items.

Do we have any questions regarding the completed items? All right. Let's go ahead.

All right. Ongoing tasks include modeling storage and conveyance improvement, alternative components that could potentially be coordinated with or follow a possible MPS Pond expansion analyze utility conflicts related to above alternative components update cost estimates for previously studied conveyance alternatives involving past studies for that looked at construction of a large storm sewer or sewers from Bel Air and Northland watersheds to the Fox River. That's basically just leveraging previous work and basically updating it. And then update and refine estimates for previously studied Bellaire drainage area flood storage alternative components at various locations within the right of way. And that really refers to a technique that could potentially involve large storm sewer pipes underneath the right of way that provide not only conveyance but also are large enough to actually store flood storage within right of way areas.

And I'll just emphasize, in this case, I think I had referred to it already in the last meeting, and ongoing analysis that's happened since then continues to point in this direction. And that is that an expansion of the Memorial Park South Pond seems to be shaping up to be a very cost effective component of what could become a favored alternative or part of a series of favored alternatives. More analysis still needs to be done on that. But right now, it is looking favorable. And so as we continue moving forward with additional analysis, as it says in the second bullet point under ongoing tasks, much of the current effort tends to be situated toward Memorial Park South Pond and, and conveyance improvements in Northland Avenue, and potential conveyance improvements branching off of Northland Avenue, Avenue and potential storage and conveyance improvements farther up in the watershed.

So more work still needs to be done in that regard, but right now that looks quite favorable at this point in time. Any questions on the ongoing tasks?

No. Thank you. Future

tasks. We anticipate utilities committee update number four in January 2026. We anticipate continuing to analyze storage and conveyance improvement components within the watersheds. We anticipate developing a prioritized list of potential inlet capacity improvements based on the sub watershed level capacity calculations and other system information. One factor to consider there is that the detailed modeling tends to happen with the conveyance and storage components, including storm sewer pipes.

And this item right here is an attempt to identify areas where there may be a bottleneck that's represented by the actual inlets that are being used to get the water into the system. So this is an opportunity to look for those types of bottlenecks. Continue to refine potential improvements, check and adjust for potential significant utility conflicts. Develop two d SWIM water quantity models within four to be determined priority areas to further enhance model output level of detail. That simply is taking advantage of GIS based ground surface elevations to get a more accurate picture of, given a calculated water surface elevation, what does that elevation represent in terms of flooding extents using that topographic data.

It can also be used to identify conveyance avenues that might not necessarily be obvious through 1D modeling. Combined potentially viable based on constructability and cost effectiveness components into combined alternatives and present to utilities committee with recommendations for approval anticipated 2026 develop wind slam water quality models to identify potential stormwater pollution reduction measures that could be incorporated into the stormwater quantity project alternatives that are under consideration develop design refinements for selected combined alternative to help resolve utility conflicts in preparation of future design phases and prepare a technical memo documenting the procedures, recommended improvements, and conclusions for all tasks under the project. That is Steph's presentation.

Thank you very much. Do we have any comments or questions from the committee right away?

So, I have a question. So one of the, cost factors with the Providence Trails was going to be street, like needing to rip up the streets to put in, and that's going to be some of the highest cost. Do we have a sense right now of what the life of the streets remaining in the Bel Air kind of areas are, if that is something that, you know, we need to be considering as well down the line?

So we do have a sense of that. It's about five square miles. So clearly, we're talking about a big footprint there. And so there's going be a tremendous amount of variety depending on which location we're talking about. However, as we do develop cost estimates, they will include the cost of pavement restoration.

And I think we had mentioned at a prior update that one thing that can be done to mitigate some of those costs is to time the underground improvements at a time that you would typically expect to see the street reconstruct project happen anyway. So that would be a case like, you could call it saving money or you could call it getting a 2.4. But basically, that would be one way to potentially reduce the direct costs associated with that project and distribute them among costs that would be incurred anyway as part of a street reconstruct project. And that is certainly something that staff can take a look at when we kind of get into that refinement phase. Certainly. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else up here? All right. We'll go out to the audience and we'll start with Scott Clausen.

Yeah. Hi. Good evening. Thanks for letting us talk with the committee here. I live at 907 East Pershing Street in Appleton. And we've my wife and I have lived there for twenty four years now. And we've experienced flooding at least two times a year, every year. And I was just wondering on with the studies and everything like that, how does this affect that area and Viola Street also with Purging Street?

All right. Would staff like to respond to this, or should we just let everyone speak first and then take up the questions altogether?

I think staff are prepared to talk to that. So clearly, staff are focused on that area in the vicinity of Pershing and Biola. In fact, I'd mentioned earlier that some of the areas of greatest interest involve doing some two d SWIM modeling. That's one of the areas that we're looking at doing some two d SWIM modeling on. So that area is definitely in our crosshairs.

All right. Thank you.

I'm not sure exactly what that all is as a technical aspect. I know there is some talk about putting in bigger inlets and trying to get the water into the storm sewer system. But I don't believe that's a correct action to go considering the water in the storm sewer are blowing are getting down there and blowing off man covers manhole covers all over and actually down there. But it just seems that it's either the size of the piping or there's a bottleneck somewhere because after an event, it takes at least two hours for the road to to drain. And after that, you know, we've had utility people out there and they they're saying that there's nothing causing that to plug up.

It's just the the the pipes themselves can't handle that kind of water. And I've had contractors out there. I've spent $38,000 of my own money re landscaping around my house to try to divert any of the floodwaters, and it nothing works. The landscapers, everyone that I've had come out there and every contractor I've had come out saying that if the city doesn't correct the problem, there's no way you're gonna get rid of it. So and that's been an on ongoing problem for many years in that area. And I would like the committee to take that under consideration too.

Thank you. I appreciate that. And your area definitely is one of the priorities and focuses of the modeling that we'll be doing. Doing.

Thank you. Thank you.

All right, let's go ahead. Dave Moschinsky.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee. What I'm going to say today, I put in a letter last week and gave to the committee members. What is the reason for the combination of the Bel Air study and Northland Avenue study?

Deputy Director Neuberger, would you like to speak to that?

So there's actually some interflow connections between those two studies. And staff and our consultant felt it was important to do a combined model so that we could model the interaction between those two watersheds.

What is the limits of the Bel Air area?

Should I go ahead and answer that?

Yes, please. Sorry.

What's the northern boundary of the Bel Air study area?

So the Northland the

Northland limits of the Bellaire area is roughly Glendale Avenue, but that but that Glendale Avenue boundary does not extend East of Meade Street. Once you get East of Meade Street, that boundary kind of heads southeast a little bit.

Two questions. Don't know in this utilities language if these items are covered or not. But we have lived at our address at 2613 North Viola for fifty two years. When we moved in there, there was nothing north of Northland Avenue. That's all been developed in the last fifty years.

Two issues. Northland Avenue used to be Highway 41. It was curbed up to between Viola Street and Lillian Court. Then it is uncurbed. All the water that rushes down Northland Avenue breaks off those curbs and starts flooding the backyards of Iola Street.

Secondly, when you try to put more retention ponds north of Northland Avenue, the intersection of Ballard Road and Northland Avenue, there are two drainage wise that come together at that point. The drainage system that proceeds South Of Northland Avenue, just by pick and save there, does not appear to handle the intersections of all the water flowing North Of Northland Avenue and South Of Florida Northland Avenue, you have two Ys coming together. So it's not only we got flooded in Northland, we got 12 dumpsters on the block, But the whole area North Of Northland Avenue was flooded also. Because when those two whys come together, that remaining ditch causes a backup all the way to his house, to our house, and Northland Drive up in North And Northland Avenue. Do any of these recommendations deal with that intersection of those two water flows?

Well, at this time, we are gathering information and we haven't done the modeling yet. So we're not looking at any recommendations. But I think what you are describing is part of why we're looking at both the Northland and Bel Air watersheds together, to model them together because of the obvious impact that they have on each other.

When Viola Street sewer system was put in in the late 50s, early 60s, it was scheduled to drain over to East To River. But when the development started north of Northland Avenue, you had that water flow right into the same drainage system. Those areas back up. Take a look at that, please.

Thank you. We will take a look at that. I see Alder Croats. Did you have something specific to his comments that you wanted to add?

No, but I was hoping that staff could address the question or comment about the Ballard Northland Intersection being included in this study. It's my understanding that the boundaries are I-forty 1 to the North and 441 to the East. So that would tell me the answer is yes.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Let's go ahead. And I think this

is

James Ball, James Back?

James

Bear. Sorry for mispronouncing that. All right, take your time. And again, thank you all for coming out to speak to us on a Tuesday.

As you heard, I am James Bear. I've got property on Norseman Avenue right adjacent from Park and Rec Department. And I've constructed a couple of letters already to the city. No response whatsoever. What you plan on doing?

I contacted the engineering department, and they said that they would be out there the next day to inspect a property, which never happened. So when I called two weeks later, they said it was too wet to go out there. That day, just before that, when they were supposed to come, the park and rec department was out there mowing the lawn, mowing mowing the yard. It wasn't too wet for them. So then waited a few more weeks and called the engineering department, and they told me they'd get to it whenever they could get around to it.

That's twelve months ago, thirteen months ago. They never got back to me. So I've had $218,000 damaged because I have a business there. And I would sure like to know what the city plans on doing. And I sent some letters even to the mayor's office.

No response. I don't know how you run the city, but I sure would appreciate somebody getting back to me and letting me know what's going on. And there's a lot of other people that needs help. Nobody's helping them. But when this first took place, my alderman told me that they would be there, bring a dumpster in so we could clear everything up.

That never happened. Never heard anything. So I don't know what else to say, but there's a lot of people that could use some help rather than some of the money that the city's spending on various different projects, like a new bus station and doing something at College Avenue, which I just heard lately. Why don't they help some of these poor citizens that have been paying taxes all their life? You know, I've been here for eighty five years.

I've had my property over on North Avenue for fifty five years. Never had a flooding problem until this happened, till he redid the park and put the holding ponds in and severed I had for fifty five years, I had drainage on my property because I got an extended parking area there. And the park came in, and they severed those drain lines. That's why it got flooded out. I had four and a half inches of four and a half feet, excuse me, of water.

Took care of my whole basement, three of my vehicles that were there, and, that's all I got to say. So thank you for your time.

Thank you for your input. Did staff want to, speak to I'm sorry. Please, we we have a policy not to clap in council chambers. But, did staff want to speak to any of the issues that were, raised by Mr. Baer?

So I would say Mr. Baer lives in the area that is currently being studied.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And, next we have Dexter Peterson.

Hello. Dexter Peterson, 2701 North Viola Street. One of the things I you know, a few pieces of feedback. After being at the and looking at the previous model from last meeting, I do think it would be really helpful if there was a percentage difference in the level of a one hundred year water level, as the light blue and blue was kind of hard for me to understand. But the other thing is now this is more of a specific question is when you looked at drawing the lines or where the studies are taken, was that done by like a district basis or with the kind of the idea in mind?

Because to go back to my question would then be, is there a possibility that as these studies continue that if once we go to the block west of us that we find out that there's a lot of water from that being pushed into our area that wasn't factored in upon initial modeling? Modeling.

Thank you. Director Youngworth, did you want to answer that?

District 4. These are assessed based on watershed area. So they're delineated purely by ground elevation within the vicinity. So the highest elevation is gonna be the outside boundary of that watershed. So they're not by district. They're not by road. They're purely by elevation Okay. And where the water is draining.

And if during the course of the study it was discovered that an adjacent piece of land was a big factor in what was going on, would that then be able to be, brought into the study area?

We would we always look for opportunities to refine the model, and that's part of the ongoing process. I would say it's pretty fundamental in terms of where the high spots are in the direction of the ground surface drains. So I think we pretty much got that figured out at this point.

Thank you.

And then in regards to Northland, I believe is a county highway. I don't know if there's any additional help that goes through from coming from the county or anything like that. But, I mean, I'm sure they also thought everything was fine when they made those adjustments. So I just ask for not to look at it in cost effectiveness, but reduction in a hundred year high water mark levels. So if we could understand which model actually reduces that amount greatest, I think, you know, going with that would make it easier to identify what is a more aggressive model in terms of helping these people keep water out of their homes.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. I don't have anyone else on the sign up sheet, but I do see with your hand up, go ahead and approach the mic. Please state your name and address for the record.

Dave Moshinski again, 2613 North Viola Street. I have not talked with any of my neighbors relative to what the costs are of this flooding. But I would estimate on Viola Street alone there was over $2,000,000 worth of damage from this flood. That's a lot of money. Just want to share that with you. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right. Is there anyone else who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and bring things back up here. Alder Croats, as the alder person for this district, would you like to speak?

Yes. Thank you, chair. We're embarking on this process of doing the watershed study, and we're on update number three. So we're getting closer to the point where we're going to get some real answers. And I think that's what these folks are looking for is when are we going to get something like this, which was presented previously for action. I'm from the memo, I'm gathering that to be '26, with an update in January. So just a couple of things. This is, and I'm glad Mr. Muczynski asked about the combination of the watersheds because that take did you say it's five square miles?

It's about that.

About five square miles? It's a large area. And I just did a quick look on map. The comment was made about districts or roads. It's about five or six aldermanic districts in total. But the biggest impact of the flooding occurred in District 14 and in their neighborhoods, and it was obviously significant. And I don't know about the damage numbers, but that's a big number. Whether it's accurate or something less or more, it doesn't really matter. It was significant. And these folks were very much impacted. I was at a lot of the properties that day or shortly after I was at

the Bayer

property. Significant damage for sure. So definitely looking forward to the next steps. One question that I had was you commented when you were going through the completed tasks about the Memorial Park South Pond being one of the possible things that gets looked at for a component I'll call it a component to a solution because it alone will not be the solution. Just like the enhanced or larger intake rates are not the answer.

But those are maybe an easier thing to look at as part of a more comprehensive package of solutions. I just wanted to make sure that I was correct in hearing what you said about the pond expansion not being by itself an answer. Because I think previous meetings said that buying land and making another pond weren't really a viable solution, but expansion of that pond could be a significant component to a solution. And again, we don't have any answers at this point, So just wanted to

get your thoughts on the pond itself. Right. So what I'm anticipating is that the pond in combination with increased conveyance to help direct more water into an expanded pond would be, at the very least, a major component of an alternative. We're not sure yet how we might package those alternatives, but certainly a major component. But if you don't increase conveyance to get more water into an expanded pond, you're not going to get all the benefits that you might otherwise get.

So I would say pond in combination with conveyance, then there may be additional conveyances further up in the watershed that have not yet been determined and potentially other flood storage areas that also have not yet been determined.

Okay. Thank you. And if I may continue. I know this was asked previously, but development North Of Northland over the past couple of decades, obviously a significant part of the growth in Appleton. Can you just comment about how that either has been or will be considered as part of the study? Yes. So the There seems to be a consents some thought that a lot of water comes from the North and travels south.

Right. So the modeled network that includes ponds or excuse me, that includes pipes and overland flow paths does include the entire drainage study area, including the area from Northland Avenue to the North study limits, which is approximately I-forty 1. So that we're not shortchanging studying that area. It's being studied with the same amount of level of detail as areas South of 00.

Okay. Thank you. And then lastly, I referenced this Providence Trail document from earlier. Is this the type of thing that we will see at some point where there's options presented to the committee for consideration with a staff recommendation? I'm just trying to, you know, make sure that these people are aware of how this process works. So at some point, would there be something like this for the Bel Air Northland watershed study?

At this time, yes, staff anticipate that there would be several alternatives or combinations of alternatives with cost estimates that would be associated with it. At this point, without knowing what those alternatives are, it's hard to say exactly when or how staff might say, this is staff's recommendation. We really want to be careful about not trying to prejudge or pre conclude anything before all the alternatives have been given a fair shake. And in many cases, there are opportunities to consult with elected officials too about their take on different alternatives. So there certainly is going to be some discussion, much discussion that's needed between now and any time that staff would feel comfortable presenting a recommendation.

And thank you

very much. I'm not looking to lock you into a number of recommendations or dollar figures or anything like that at this point because we don't know a lot of that yet. I'm sure you have some ideas of where this is going based on the study and the feedback from the consultant. But I've said this to a fair amount of people that at some point, we're going to have some big decisions to make on this, and some of those decisions might be really expensive. So just saying that because we need to be prepared for when those options do come.

We had a one was it 1.6 or 1.8 option in here that wasn't recommended and wasn't taken up. But, yeah, just want to be prepared for that and and help these folks understand the process. So next up would be an update in January with another step closer to the end of the study, correct? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Nothing further, Chair?

Thank you, Alder Groth.

Thank you for that.

And any other comments or questions from the committee?

None at this time.

All right. Well, this is certainly a lot of work that has been done and work that is ongoing. And definitely looking forward to the next steps we, get into, the deeper details of this. This, there's a lot of hard work that's going into this from staff and from the consultants, and I also appreciate the time and patience from the residents. I know that that you've been through a lot, and, we are all working together to try to make sure that things are better in the future, in future storm events.

Motion to adjourn.

All right. We have a motion to adjourn. Is there a second? Second. All in favor, aye. Aye. Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you all very