Board of Public Works - Regular Meeting

Now we're all set. Alright. Welcome, everyone, to the Utilities Committee meeting for Tuesday, November 11. I am calling the meeting to order, and we will begin. Let's rise and join me for the pledge of allegiance.

Thank you. Please be seated. And roll call of membership, let the record note that Alders Dougherty and Heffernan are both excused tonight, and we'll introduce ourselves starting on the left.

Adrian Stanssel Martin, District 11. Verad Meltzer, District 2. Josh Lambert, District 1.

All right. And then we need an approval of the minutes from the previous meeting, twenty five-thirteen twenty eight, to approve the October 7 Utilities Committee meeting minutes.

So moved. Second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any nays or abstentions? There are none. Those are approved three-zero. We do not have any public hearings or appearances today, so we'll move into the action items. We have 20 five-twelve 12, the Providence Trails Drainage Study findings and recommendations.

A motion. Oh, wait. There's not a need to motion, is there?

I think we always need a motion to bring something back out onto the table.

Then I will move to proceed with option three. Is that what we're talking about right now? Okay. Yeah. Second.

Alright, we have a motion and a second to proceed with option three. So as you may recall, we talked about this at our last meeting then. There was an opportunity to look into some option relating to an easement. And so we referred it back to committee to give some time for staff to do those communications so that then we have it back in front of us now. I think this might be a good time to turn it over to staff. What mic do you have? Go

ahead.

Thank you, Chair. So as Chair mentioned, at the 10/07/2025 Utilities Committee, staff recommendation was to pursue alternative three right of way easement and lot improvements. So that information is again included in the meeting packet. I'll just reiterate again for folks who may not recall that discussion. Alternative three was right of wayeasement and lot improvements involving 164 lineal feet of yard drain lead upsize and four sixty lineal feet of new 24 inches storm sewer, adding a dry pond flood storage area south of Apple Creek Trail, placing up to 14 yard drain inlet castings, private improvements at the discretion of the homeowners with an estimated cost to the storm water utility of $330,000 So that made it to counsel with that recommendation on October 15 and was referred back to today's Utilities Committee meeting.

As Chair mentioned, the there was opportunity to do additional investigation with TC Energy, the easement holder in the area occupied by the trail. The question at hand was whether TC Energy would be willing to permit a parallel storm sewer pipe within their easement that could have, if formidable, could have presented a fourth alternative. So there were multiple emails that went back and forth between local property owner, City of Appleton staff and TC Energy kind of drilling down into the question of whether a parallel pipe within the easement would be formidable. And we did receive an email from TC Energy with what we think is a definitive answer on that, which is that a parallel pipe in the easement would not be permittable. And if the TC Energy were to receive application to that effect from DPW, they confirm that they would not approve it.

So with that being the case, staff would like to reiterate its previous recommendation to pursue alternative three.

Thank you. I just I want to take this time to thank, staff and thank the neighborhood for taking the time to, discover this opportunity and explore it to its conclusion. I trust TC Energy has very good reasons. Gas pipelines can be very dangerous. So if they say this isn't something that they would allow a permit for, That's not an aesthetic decision or something.

That's really a matter of safety. So, definitely appreciate the investigation that was done to get that question answered. It is unfortunate that we weren't able to find a fourth alternative. But I guess so that just brings us back to where we were last time when we sent this item forward to counsel. At this point, would anyone in the audience have any comments that you would like to share? You can go ahead and approach the mic and just remember to state your name and address for the record.

Name is Tom Rasler. I live at 3023 East Fall Creek Lane. And we've been discussing with NR Pipeline who takes care of the GC Energy's gas pipeline. And I've talked to the property manager for the NR Pipeline pipeline and a technician. And they both thought that the likelihood of having a parallel line was not likely, but it was worth pursuing.

What they did tell me is a perpendicular pipeline is often approved. So it might be possible to put in a perpendicular pipeline in the areas where we have flooding. That would allow water to be moved from the north side of the trail to the south side of the trail. And that, I think, would eliminate the flooding in the majority of the remaining properties that will not have the the flooding will not be abated by option three. So I think it's worth, since we're talking about next spring when these improvements would take place, I think it would be worthwhile to look into this other option, moving the water from the north side of the trail to the south side of the trail, specifically where that new dry retention pond would be located.

The other point I'm not sure it really makes all that much difference, but the gas pipeline on the north side of the trail, there's one on the north and one on the south. On the north is a six inch pipeline. And that one has been filled with mortar and has been abandoned. So the gas company cannot use the pipeline on the north side of the trail. But they are currently using the pipeline on the south side of the trail.

And I want to really reiterate that there are nine properties in our subdivision that have the risk of flooding. Option number three will only improve the flooding situation on four of those properties. So I think options one, two, and three identify the fact that the city knows that there's potential flooding in five of the nine properties. And that could be liability against the city if that's not resolved because it identified the fact that we do not have the water capacity in the current pipelines in our subdivision. So that's all I have to say.

Thank you for your comments. Would staff like to respond to any of this at this time?

Thank you, Chair. Regarding the potential to put a perpendicular pipe to take water from the north side of the trail into the subdivision on the south side of the trail, DPW did do a high level analysis on that potential existing storm sewer system on the south side of the trail was not sized to handle any water from the north side of the trail. So broadly speaking, if additional pipes were installed without speaking to the feasibility of actually clearing the gas pipes within the easement that hasn't been looked at. But doing so system on the south side of the trail. So that system then would have to be upsized.

Staff took a very high level look at it and determined about $1,600,000 for that. So the price tag on that is ballpark speaking ballpark wise is about the same as the price tag for alternative two, but it doesn't address as many of the properties on the North Side. So it costs the same as alternative two, but it's not as effective as alternative two.

I appreciate the diligence that went into doing all of those analyses. I think that one thing that we do have to reckon with or grapple with is, making sure that as we adjust certain parts of the system, we don't destroy, the situation for other parts of the system and, you know, take solve a problem for four properties by causing a problem for five or seven other properties. And I think that if we had the funding available to just overhaul the entire system all at once, that is what I would love to do. We unfortunately don't have the resources for that.

And just a question Chair,

do you

have anything? Yep, go ahead.

And I read it in the memo but I just wanted to reiterate that if we are to move forward with alternative three, it doesn't preclude us from the upscaling of the other lines if and when it becomes viable or more necessary or the timing and refurbishing can happen at the same time as let's say repaving or replacement of the streets.

That's correct.

Thank you. I certainly think that having a deeper understanding of the issues right now empowers us to be able to leverage whatever funding as soon as it does become available. So things we can't do right now, we can still have a plan of priorities for what we will do in the future as soon as we have the budget opportunities.

A follow-up question, actually. For that situation, right, if we move forward with alternative three, how would it be kind of this option to be kept in the back of or on the radar for you all in the Public Works Department for if there is an improvement opportunity. So just is how does that get tracked, I guess, for myself and anybody else that might be here and interested?

So DPW tracks planned improvements with a planned storm sewer map that it keeps on file. And we refer to it each plan our street reconstruct projects so that we can see, hey, as we're reconstructing the street, the map indicates that based on this study that was done at some point in the past that these proposed storm sewer pipe increases, just speaking hypothetically here, were proposed at the time. And so that's how DPW keeps tabs on planned improvements or potential improvements.

So then when considering if we have additional dollars or something like this happening, would we look to where the biggest number of properties that could be addressed with whatever the solution or the intervention would be. I'm just wondering about the triaging of those various options.

So I think we had mentioned in previous meetings at this committee that one of the decisions that factors into the overall price tag of a project is whether a project is going to be done in conjunction with a street reconstruct that would be done anyway anyway or whether it would be independent of a street reconstruct. And therefore, the costs of restoring the pavement or reconstructing the pavement would be borne by the stormwater project as opposed to just be a cost that would naturally be incurred over the life cycle cost of the pavement. So that would be something that could be considered when as an opportunity to not incur those additional payment costs when the street was reconstructed. I think we had mentioned it in earlier meeting that this payment isn't very old right now. Want to say I think it's only about 20 ish years old at the most.

And these pavements usually last about concrete pavements usually last about seventy five years. So it could be many decades before we'd be ready to reconstruct the street. But again, there's nothing precluding counsel from budgeting for a project that would be independent of the street reconstruction.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Alright, let's go ahead and take our vote. All in favor, aye. Aye. Oh, looks like we do have one more question from the audience.

Tom Rasler, 3023 East Bald Creek Lane. I just have a question. The city is planning on digging a retention pond on the south side of the trail. Twice in the last eight years, I've been standing in my backyard on top of the storm sewer where the water is up to my knees. There's no water that comes over the trail.

So and when I looked at the option one where the water would theoretically be, there are no properties on the south side of the trail that experience any flooding. When I was standing on the storm sewer, there was no water coming over the trail to the north side of the trail. What would be the purpose of digging a retention pond on the south side of the trail? I could see maybe on the north side of the trail where we have a I know there isn't any property there where you could put it. What would be the purpose of digging a retention pond in an area where there's no flooding?

Deputy Director Newburger, could you please answer that?

Sure. So this goes back to another situation that we mentioned in previous meetings is there's the modeled event that represents a particular set of conditions regarding depth of rainfall, duration of rainfall, antecedent moisture conditions and that sort of thing and the actual event that took place historically. So based on the modeled event that we did, the model predicts that during a one hundred year event, the trail does overtop, sending water from the south side of the trail to the north side of the trail. So based on the modeled event, modeled one hundred year event, the model predicts that if we provide detention on the south side of the trail, it can provide benefits to the north side of the trail.

And would there be grading and stuff involved with making sure when that retention pond is installed that water is being directed towards it as opposed to maybe being blocked by a grading angle?

Right. So there's some obviously, there'd be some design refinements that would need to take place to take this from the study phase to the design phase. But during the design phase, we would look at a detailed grading plan, right, to verify that the discharge to that pond would be directed in an appropriate location at a rate that would be sure not to create any new problems in relation to what's happening today.

Thank you. I I do feel from from my, studying of these, alternatives that this is the alternative that provides the the greatest, benefit, with the budgetary constraints that we have. So I guess we'll just move back up to committee here. Are we ready to take a vote? Do we have any more questions? All right. So now we will vote on this item. All in favor, aye.

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed or abstaining? There are none. So three zero. This item is recommended for approval. This will go to common council next week at 07:00. The common council vote will determine if it actually moves forward or not. Alright. Thank you. And, moving down, our next action item, 25 Dash one three six one, amend 2025 a contract with Brown and Caldwell for stormwater management plan reviews in the amount of $40,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $120,000

Move to approve. Second.

Alright. We have a motion and a second. Director deputy director Newburger, did you want to speak on this one?

Yes. Thank you, Sherry. Just a quick comment. As noted in the memo, the amount of work done under this contract is directly related to the number of submittals that we get and the the complexity of the submittals that we get. So as listed in the second paragraph of the justification for this request is that the amount of work that we've received for review exceeded the amount of work that we anticipated at the time of our initial contract award.

And it really has to do with some North Side subdivision developments, including Mission Ridge, Comet Ridge, Glenmore Park subdivision is listed. But Glenmore Reserve is another North Side subdivision that all kind of fits into the overall increased workload that we have under this contract to do.

Thank you.

And then another note that Director Youngworth reminded me that's worth noting is that the ordinance allows for pass through charges. So we keep tabs on the amount of consultant charges that we're billed. And then through the stormwater permitting process, those review costs get billed back to the applicant.

Thank you. So what I'm hearing

Yep, go ahead.

That the additional cost is not actually going to be borne by the city. It will be borne by developers in those subdivisions or at least the cost for those specific new projects will be borne by those individuals.

That is correct. That doesn't go back to the ratepayers. It goes back to the applicant up a one to one ratio. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed or abstaining or none? So that is also recommended three zero for approval. Moving down to information items. Our first 1, 25Dash1329 is the twenty twenty six utilities department budget discussion. So last chance before we adopt the budget tomorrow night. Any final questions?

Not for me.

All right. Then we have

up here just in case.

But Yeah, I saw that. I was hoping that you would have a last minute question. Like, I can't make up my mind whether I'm going to approve this or not. All right. All right.

Our last information item here, 20Five-thirteen59, the water main break report for September 2025. It is a little bit disappointing, but we do have, one less water break this month compared to last month. I don't think we have time to get our year our full year back on track since we've already exceeded twenty twenty four. But, yeah, any comments that staff have on this? No.

I'm just going to hope that hope that the pipes do better next year. But I do think it's always worth just sharing educational information and stuff. And sometimes when you go in and strengthen one part of the system, then the adjacent weaker parts of the system are under more stress. So sometimes, as we make things better, we have water main breaks that point out where things aren't quite better yet.

Also, thank you to the police or the fire department for helping find some of these, right? So with the hydrant testing, APD, things like that.

Go ahead, Director Loper.

Thank you. So just an educational opportunity. It's actually our public works crews that help all the hydrants because we want them working for the fire department. We work close together. But yeah, our public works crew, we go out several times each year and especially over the winter because some might freeze up. So we're making sure they're operational. We have a crew that goes around every year, make sure the caps can spin off. We don't want any delays in the base. Seeing lot on incredibly low. We lucked out.

So this year, we're still better than average, just not as good as we were last year.

That makes me feel a lot better.

And also thank you for the education opportunity. Sure.

All Alders, Stansel Martin.

Thank you. How often I mean, do water mains freeze over often during the winter, would you say? Just curious.

Yeah. So the mains typically won't freeze, but the ground freezes above.

And

even just this past weekend, we always see in November when the temperatures drop Yeah. The mains start to break. So I think Sunday, we had three water main breaks between Saturday night and Sunday. So it's just something happens with the ground, with the colder water in the pipe and what will happen is the pipe will crack or it might even shear a little bit and when that drops down, that's what creates the leak. There are some water services.

So the service is what would carry the water from the main to somebody's building. Some of those are shallow enough in the city that those would freeze in the winter. We know where we think we know where all those locations are. Might be surprised to find one, you know, here or there. So the ones that we know are susceptible to freezing on the city owned side, the utility side, we'll take care of those proactively and get into properties and instruct them to let their water run for a while, and we'll adjust their bill accordingly.

But that just little trickle of water that'll come through, we'll take care of it. Other properties where it's susceptible to freezing on the private side, We still instruct the property owners to let their water run throughout the winter, but they don't get a billing credit for that. The thought is that we give them one free thawing over over the lifetime. And then after that it's up to them to make sure that they maintain that service so it doesn't freeze up. Thank you. Yeah.

Thank you. All right. Anything else?

Move to adjourn. Second.

All right. We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor, aye.

Aye.

VAN We are adjourned. Thank you all.

Thank you all.