Airport Commission - Noise Abatement Subcommittee - Regular Meeting

Okay, it's 5.30. That's called meeting of the Public Works and Transportation Committee meeting of August 18th to order. And I'll do the roll call.

Okay, chairing over here. Supervisor Besser, here. Supervisor Bruchac, here. Supervisor Bally, here. And Supervisor Eicher, she, excuse me.

Excuse me. She shows up online. So we've got first item B, consideration of minutes. Minutes from the July 21st Public Works and Transportation Committee. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Moved by Valle. Second by Brucek. Anything on the question? If not, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? So ordered. Thank you. Item one for referrals, or I'm sorry, fund transfers. We've got 2026. Fund transfer number nine, Alliant Energy Center redevelopment project support fund transfer. Is there a motion to approve? Moved by Prusik, seconded by Balig. Kevin, you want to give us an update on this?

Yeah, so we use VanWall and Associates. We've used them for at least the last 10 years to help us with execution of the master plan this year. We had a lot of things going on with the mixed use development and the exhibition hall approval process. So they had to add to their scope and they're helping us with leadership through getting these projects approved through the city, through the entitlement process. We have advanced the mixed use project to the point where we started to rezone parts of the campus to ensure that it was zoned properly when we let the RFP So some of the things occurred this year that we thought were going to occur next year. So the work that they've done is to get through the end of the year is going to cost about $40,000 more. So that's what we're asking for. Any questions for Kevin?

The campus lighting and electrical reviews, just like for maintenance for campus lighting stuff, how much of it has been used this year?

It looks like this year we haven't used any. That's been there for, that line item has been, before I got here.

Okay. Any other questions? Okay. If not, the motion's been made and seconded to approve fund transfer number nine. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? So ordered. Thank you. Item two is 2026 fund transfer number 10, funds transfers requests for the Department of Waste and Renewables. Is there a motion to approve? Moved by Balik, seconded by Gruszczak.

John? This is to move money from one fund to another just for accounting purposes within the contract. It has no budgetary effect. The overall contract for all the buildings had to be broken into multiple base beds because we have different depreciation schedules depending on whether it's infrastructure or buildings. The contractor mistakenly sent out two of their base bids, so it's the same amount, but they have the wrong amounts in two of those, so we have to transfer one of those funds to the other so that we can pay for it out of the correct fund.

Okay. Any questions for Donna? How are you doing? Thanks.

So great.

She's here. Yeah.

Actually never been in this building before. It's kind of great.

Yeah. Okay, motions have been made and seconded to approve fund transfer number 10. Anything else on the question? If not, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?

I'm going to abstain on it as I missed the session.

Yeah, you bet.

Thank you.

So Mark and Lisa abstaining.

But also present.

And present, yes. We're on to D, referrals. Item number one is 2026, Resolution 51, Authorized Lease with Employment and Training Association of Dane County for space at the Dane County Job Center, thinking to recommend a pool hall. So moved by Boruchey, seconded by Balik. Shereen.

Yes.

You're on, after postponing it for how many times?

I think this is the third, what, three times? So yes, John Danforth from EATA apologizes for all the postponements. So they had some issues with their funding when their lease came due, and so we were trying to figure that out. The first resolution was for 13 cubicles, five offices, and three conference rooms, and they've had to actually reduce that to nine cubicles with the same conference rooms and offices. It's a two-year term. We're kind of backdating it to July 1 at $193.80 per space for $34,884 annually. Is there any questions for Shereen? If not, a motion's been made and seconded to recommend approval of Resolution 51.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? So we're gonna just secure the meeting.

Oh, that's a good question. Yeah, go ahead. So I see that there's a sub in here proposed by Supervisor Woodley. Yeah, actually this will be reported to the County Board and this will be the, and that will be the question before the County Board, I'm gonna get to that point before, and then Supervisor Woodley will offer her sub at that time or?

Or did we just vote on the sub? Well, I think we just voted on what the recommendation from the committee was. So that would have been the sub. So I think we just need to clarify that what we approved was the sub. Yeah. Okay. So you're going to make that clear? Indeed. You bet. Thanks. Okay. Item number two. is only 26 resolution, 59 waste and renewables contract the parish. That's the a D a and remote monitoring and control system for Dane County landfill say number 3 is there a motion to recommend approval. Move by Russia, second second by Bolling John.

Yes, this is with SCS. The Personnel and Finance Committee in May had approved a bid waiver for us to be able to award this contract to them. So this is the actual contract resulting from that bid waiver. This is for the SCADA controls. So all your monitoring controls, remote monitoring of all the systems at the new landfill, including condensate, leachate, remote monitoring, underdrain system, etc.,

Questions for John?

John, because it is remote, where do you report to? Where does the information go?

So it goes back to a central IT closet in the office building, and then depending on the type of alarm, there's a phone tree established on who it calls out in what order, and it'll keep calling down the list until somebody responds to that alarm. Any other questions for John?

to approve, recommend approval of resolution 59. If there's nothing further on the question, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? So ordered. Thank you. Item number three is resolution 2026, resolution 105, award of contract for unarmed event security services at Alliant Energy Center. Is there a motion to recommend approval? So moved. Moved by Wallach. Second by Bruchek. Kevin?

This is the contract for CSE, which is a security firm that we've used for several years to provide security services for our events. This contract is a result of an R&P that went out in spring. We had three vendors respond to the R&P. very decent terms for us in that there's only information that's unincreasable over here. So we recommend approval.

Questions for Kevin?

There's a small error in the form. You had $250,000 total, but then $500,000 per year. I think you just dropped it, sir. I don't know what I mean. So...

You see that, Kevin?

Not in the resolution, but in the contract? The policy and fiscal note.

My guess is that this year's half because it's the half of the year. It's $500,000 annual.

Okay. So, oh, because of the start date of the contract?

Okay. The start date is 9-15-26, which we didn't hear yet.

So the annual estimate is half a million, but then this current year would be less than that because it's part of a year. Is that correct? Yeah.

Other questions?

I have a question. When you say event security, can you define that a little more? What is event security?

So we have events that require security services. So people that move... systems or they will stand post at the door to make sure nobody comes in that door unless they have a ticket. When there are events in the Coliseum, they handle security, front of stage, back of house. And they do control, security control of our loading dock. So when shows move in and move out and their freight comes in, So this used to be managed by staff prior to the pandemic. I think we've always used an outside service. Right. These are different than ushers. So we also have ushers that are our staff. Okay. That take tickets and, you know, scan people in and provide guest services kind of services.

A long time ago, J.D. had been CSC for a while. Okay, so...

So how's this compared to the previous contract? It's in line. It's a little less. So if you remember last year, University of Wisconsin went out for their bid for security services. Typically, we've followed whatever company they have used. So we moved to BESC, which is the service they use. Their rates were a little higher. And then, unfortunately, they were unable to really satisfy our needs. do our falls, so we had to do our own thing. So this is a little less than that.

So is it the same amount of people that they're providing or similar costs?

It fluctuates based on the event. So if there's a small event, we have very limited needs, but if we have events in the Coliseum and we need 75 people, we had a show, the Bulls, Bands, and Burrows this past February. I think the call was for 60 people and they could get us 10. So I didn't put an RV out at that point. Don't put that possible.

Okay. Are these uniformed people?

They're in a uniform. They are not. They are unarmed security personnel. Colin? I see sometimes sheriffs have these there. You're paying for that? Yeah.

Sure. Oh, I'm sorry.

No, that's it.

Go ahead. So I was looking at the pricing. So it says that it's $500,000 a year, but I'm guessing that's kind of a max or an estimate amount because you're paying by hour. So what did you pay this year?

Off the top of my head, I don't know.

We're not sure, but you figure it's probably going to be below $500,000 a year.

It's going to be lower if we get the contract with the Coliseum because that is... a high demand situation. So events over there, so we did Nate Bregazzi, I think the call was for 80 security personnel. Rarely, if ever, do we have that call for events elsewhere on campus.

So this is mainly only to cover the AEC itself, not to cover the Coliseum?

Once we don't manage the Coliseum anymore, that will be their responsibility to get there secure.

Is the 500,000 right now estimated to cover both? Yep.

But I think if it's not needed, you won't need it.

If you don't need it, then we will have less. We have enough if we don't, if that contract doesn't go through. Any other questions?

If not, the motion's been made and seconded to recommend approval of Revolution 105. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?

So ordered. Thank you.

Item number four is 2026 resolution 108, contract change order number one for the waste and renewables, sustainability campus, initial building and infrastructure construction. J.P. Cullen is the contractor. Is there a motion to recommend approval? Moved by Cullen. Second. Second by Bollig. John.

This is a pressure washer and associated solenoid valves and a couple of light bulbs that were just, they were supposed to be out of the drawing. They were missed by the architect engineer. So we would have ended up paying for this. There's a bit of a markup being a change order, but it was just a miss by the AE.

Take questions for John. The motion is in vain. Seconded to recommend approval of resolution 108. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's the order, thanks. Item number five, 2026 resolution 109, agreement change order number three for the Waste and Renewables Sustainability Campus. Consultant is Strang, Inc. Is your motion to recommend approval? Moved by Baruchik. Seconded by Bally. John.

So this is our design consultant. They are also helping construction, some construction administrative tests. The IVC International Building Code change took effect on September 1st of last year, so after our contract was already signed. And those changes required additional inspections and materials testing at key points in new building construction. So this is additional scope of work that they have to cover.

Questions for John? So when they change zoning codes, there's no grandfathering these days, huh? No.

I was on fire suppression recently. Two big projects we had to go back. Yeah, we had a big one at the jail on that.

Okay, any other questions for John? Not. The motion's been made and seconded to recommend approval of Resolution 109. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? So ordered. Thank you. Item number six, or I'm sorry. Item number six, 20.6 resolution 110, contract change order number two for the Dane County landfill site three, phase one, cell one. Contractor is R.G. Houston. Is there a motion to recommend approval? Moved by Baruchick, seconded by Botting.

John? As part of the overall move to the new site three, we're assessing a number of functions. One of the things is what we call the can yard. So can is a big roll off dump. So you see a construction site, you've actually called cans. But that area on the current site cannot remain a can yard. Once the current landfill closes, we have an agreement as part of the local negotiated agreement that says that that becomes conservancy area. So we need to find and build a new site for this can yard. We did actually go out and get bids on this. The bids came back. We only got two or three bids. We felt the prices were very high. So we did not move forward with that bid. And we were actually able to negotiate a change order price with RG Houston through the work that they're doing on the site that was more than $100,000 lower than any of those bids.

Any questions for John? If not, the motions have been seconded to Recommend approval of resolution 110. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? So ordered, thank you. Item number seven, 2026, resolution 111, authorizing an agreement to terminate Dane County contract number 12204 with VFL Solid Waste Midwest LLC for the operations of the construction and demolition recycling facility. Is there a motion to recommend approval? So moved. Moved by Ballard, seconded by Baruchick.

John? So we have a construction demolition recycling facility on our site. We own it, but a private company operates that. The company that operated that got bought out last year, kind of all of their Wisconsin assets got bought out, and the GFL, which bought those assets, did not buy those to run a C&B recycling facility. It's kind of a niche area that they weren't really interested in. They approached us earlier this year asking to get out of that contract. So this is the negotiation to allow them out of that contract. A couple of more important things with that. We did, as part of that negotiation, require them to continue to bring us the minimum amount of tonnage into the site, which is about $1.2 million a year in revenue. So that's part of this agreement. And then in the last public works meeting, you approved us moving forward with a new operator, Pelletier and Waste Systems to run this facility for us. Okay, questions for John? If not, motions have been made.

Seconded to recommend approval of resolution 111. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? So ordered. Thank you. Item number eight, 2026 resolution 112. Addendum A to agreement for operation of the Dane County construction, demolition, recycling facility. Is there a motion to recommend approval? Moved by Balik, seconded by Boruchek.

John? As just mentioned, we recently, this committee recently recommended approval of that contract with Pelletier to take over the operation of the C&D recycling facility. Part of that agreement required us to make some upgrades to the facility. We were going out and getting quotes for that. And actually, Pelotaria is able to do this work at a cheaper price. We're confident in them being able to make these facility upgrades. So it's installing some safety catwalks, some upgrades to some of the destoning equipment, things, misting, fire suppression, things of that nature. They run other recycling facilities and are well-versed in this type of work.

Questions for John? John, so Dane County used to run this?

No, we've Since day one, it's been, I think, 12 or 13 years. We own it, but we do not offer it.

I'll see who subcontract it. Okay.

Any other questions? If not, motions are made and seconded to recommend approval of Resolution 112. If there's nothing further on the question, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? So ordered. Thank you. Item number nine, 2026, Resolution 113. Agreement change order number two for the public electric charging infrastructure for multiple sites in Dane County. KL Engineering Inc. is the consultant. Is there a motion to recommend approval? So moved. Moved by Bollock, seconded by Grusik. Kathy.

This is me. This is me. So let me remind folks, it's been a little while since we talked about this. So we have a $13.2 million grant with Federal Highway Administration to expand affordable EV charging in the county. And we're focused on level two charging. So along the highways, you think about really fast charging. Most of us who own EVs charge most of the time in our garages, but increasingly we have a robust used EV market and lots of people in Dane County don't have their own garages. So essentially our quest is to get affordable charging into neighborhoods across the county. So that's like the context for this. This is all partnerships. None of these chargers are going to end up on Dane County property. Okay, we're not doing this. It's schools, it's apartment buildings, it's a variety of folks who are going to host these chargers. We did three rounds of RFPs. We have 64 active sites, which means they're sites that are KL Engineering team has done preliminary design at, and the site hosts have agreed to all the federal terms that come with getting this charging equipment. The grant is in two phases. The first phase is about 1.2 million. We have that now, and that's planning, including doing NEPA at all these sites. So because this is federal funding, we're going to do, well, slightly abbreviated NEPA at all of those sites, even though I'm essentially installing clothes dryers. I mean, that's the electrical equivalent of a level two charger, but so be it. And the way it works is we're supposed to get NEPA approval and then that unlocks the construction funds. That's how things would work in a normal Federal Highway Administration set of rules. We got our first round of NEPA approvals in March and federal highway headquarters in DC just says to everyone, they're still reviewing the program. So they're not releasing funds to anyone. The Wisconsin attorney general, along with a number of other attorney generals is suing the federal government about that. He's not suing on our behalf. He's suing on behalf of all the people in Wisconsin who don't have their own garages and still can't get charging because this is all locked up. We don't kind of know where that case is. People think it's optimistic, but it's just out there. Well, the new development here is that Wisconsin DOT got $78 million to do EV charging across the state. They've spent about half of that And there is a lot of talk now that the new federal highway bill is going to claw back unobligated funds from them. So WisDOT, along with a number of other states, are starting to look at these community grantees like us and go, you got sites that are approved? Maybe we are interested in your sites to fund. So yesterday, WisDOT issued a request for qualified sites saying essentially, If you have NEPA approved sites, give us a list of them. Maybe we want to fund them. Of our 64 sites, 61 are NEPA approved as of this morning. And that RFQ isn't due for another week and a half, so I might get those other three approved yet. It's a complicated thing, but we have a lot of forces in our... What we're doing here is in our original grant, we envisioned hiring a staff person in our office who would manage this grant. And when all the weird stuff happened at the federal level, we did not go through with the hire because we just didn't know if the funding would continue and it seemed too risky. So instead, we sort of juggled things around. So we ended up with staff money we didn't spend. And now we have the opportunity for KL, our design engineer, to start doing some survey work that would validate sites and put us in a better spot to move forward with the WSDA funding. And so that's what we're doing here. We're shifting money that if something happens with the federal highway bill, we would lose because personnel dollars aren't considered obligated in this universe. um and instead we're obligating them to kl to do some design work so that's that's what's happening here so it's federal funding we're just shifting it from one line item of their budget to the other and it's in the course of the 1.2 million it's small enough that they don't They don't kind of care.

Are we losing on the other end where you pull the bonding from?

So we're not because we're, I mean, we didn't hire that staff person. We don't, we'll get funding for, we hope, my plan now is to do a half-time staff person through construction that's funded under the WSDOT stuff is sort of how I think this is going to work. So this kind of just lets us keep things moving in the meantime is what we're doing.

So is this all of the locations then?

So this, I think very likely this will be, you know, we were saying 60 to 70 locations. And if we get 64 that WSDOT wants to fund, I'm feeling pretty good about that.

Other questions for Kathy?

Kathy, you know, is there a, list somewhere that we can access?

So, you know, I was thinking, we have a, there's a map on our website, and unfortunately, it just lists the first two rounds, the last, like, 17 sites. Haven't been updated on that, but I could, I could send a list of them all around. I am, what I would say is, we've got some really strong partners, like the Madison School District has, like, 10 or 11 sites that they want to put charging at they're really interested in being an asset in neighborhoods in the last round we got um marshall and deer field and cross plains all to identify sites so we we pushed really hard on more rural dane county uh good smattering through middleton and wanakee and sun prairie and all of those suburbs that you would expect. Folks are pretty excited about this because essentially the grant, the grant pays for the equipment. We're going to handle the construction and under the grant, we'll cover some operations and maintenance for the first five years because we're obligated to make sure they run. So people become ED site hosts kind of with us holding their hand a little bit. So they, you know, they're going to learn how to do this with some support and then maybe expand to other sites they have. We'll see.

So there is a list somewhere.

There is a list and I can get you the list of the 64. Okay. Thank you. Yeah.

Other questions? So the... the funding that we don't get from the feds. I mean, is there some funding we're not getting from them that we should get in the future?

There is a scenario, and I've been talking to, you know, there's Federal Highway Wisconsin people who've been terrific and are super supportive, and then there's the headquarters that they're not getting very much communication from. From the feds? Yeah, the feds, the real feds. It is possible that this could go forward And WisDOT could fund our sites, and then the courts could decide that our other money is available, and we might get to do more then, kind of thing. But there are also some other, like the feds are talking about new restrictions on Buy American and things that could make it impossible to use that by the time it gets released. It's hard to predict.

But it would be known that the federal transportation secretary used to be a congressman from northern Wisconsin, Daphne. Any other questions for Kathy? If not, motions have been seconded to recommend approval of Resolution 13. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? So ordered. Thank you. Item number 10 is 2026 Resolution 114, authorizing the acceptance of a donation of land from the City of Madison near the Dane County Regional Airport. Is there a motion to recommend approval?

So moved.

Moved by Bruchic, seconded by Bally. Our airport young lady, go ahead.

That's what our business card says, yes. Thank you. This is a resolution that would accept a 50-foot strip of land that runs basically between where we want to expand our economy parking lot. And it basically runs right along the railroad track. Some of you may know the city used to own the airport where they sold to us for a dollar. And I think this is just a little strip that somehow got missed in a survey. So when we were doing the survey for the parking lot, we discovered that they still technically own this little strip of land. They're willing to donate it. They've agreed to donate it. This will just formalize that agreement. The city council is also working the same thing through on their end. They introduced their resolution on 4th of August, and it will be back full circle to the full city council on the 8th of September. And that's that. Any questions?

So now we have to move on?

Here we are. I don't think anybody knew the city for a while, so we've been going in already.

Any other questions for Kerry? They should compensate us for that.

They're just willing to hazard a reason to help us expand the parking lot.

Okay. Motions are made and seconded to recommend approval of resolution 114. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? So ordered. Thank you. Item number 11. 2026 resolution, one 15, improving a scheduled airline signatory operating agreement and terminal building lease with breeze aviation group. Least number DCRA 2026. Oh, one direct motion to recommend approval. Well, by Bali second, by Russia carried.

Yeah, so Breeze has been operating at the airport since 2024. They're one of our smaller carriers, but growing. And when a new carrier comes in, sometimes they don't come on as a signatory because they're kind of just expanding, starting out. But becoming a signatory, they now wish to do that because it does get them a better rate from us from the airport. And by doing that, it also signals their growing commitment to being at MSN. So we're happy to have them as a long-term partner, hoping that they expand service to other areas in the future. And this agreement, I think, signals that maybe they're considering that. So this agreement will go through the end of 2028. Okay.

Any questions for Kerry? If not, the motion is made and seconded to recommend approval of Resolution 115. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? So ordered. Thank you. We're on to E, items requiring committee action. action 2026 action item number 71 aspect change order number six for the courthouse cooling system upgrade contact with jm brennan inc their motion to approve vote moved by brushek second second by valley yeah we have a change over here gm brennan on the courthouse chiller project

Basically, the scope of this change order is to replace the entire refrigerant detection system. When we did this project, our intention was to retain the original equipment. But when we opened up the panel, we found that it was full of water. We don't know how it got full of water, but basically all the electronics were destroyed. So there was no reusing that. So we need to replace the entire panel, all four sensors, including complete back net integration to our building automation system, tying into the strobes that are outside the door to allow people to know that there's a refrigerant leak and also tie into the exhaust fan for evacuation of that room in case there was a refrigerant leak. So that's the scope of this changeover.

Questions for Todd? If not, motion's been made and seconded to approve action item 71. Go ahead, Jerry.

I see it's $26,000, Todd. Do you have that in your budget? I assume you have it in your budget. Thank you.

Any other questions? Not? For approval of action item 71, all those in favor say aye. Opposed? So ordered. Action number two is 2026, action item 84, contract change order number two for the election center construction.

Okay, this is the chain door repair construction. The first two components of the doors were kind of a wash. One door was required by the HTA, which is Madison Fire, and then removing three excess door control hardwares kind of washed that part out, but this changeover memorializes that change. The biggest component to the fiscal part of this is the change from CAT 6 cable to Cat 6A. Our design standards that we gave the designer at the time of the design started were Cat 6. Cat 6A is more appropriate for this type of a facility due to the security and nature of elections. Obviously it's a big change though because it's the entire building and Cat 6A cable is more expensive. The jacks are more expensive. That's basically the

Questions for Todd?

Todd, what is CAT 6 versus CAT 6A?

It's different. It's got different insulating properties to it, so it's supposed to be more secure cable. Harder to work with, but it is 30% to 40% more expensive from what we understand. It's just a different technology. It's newer cable. We started with CAT 5. That was CAT 5E. That's CAT 6. Now it's CAT 6A. It's the progression of things as the technology and the wiring, communications wire. It's just a more secure type cable. When you say security, you mean? Meaning for being able to tap in, things of that nature. Election security is foremost in this situation. So we want to have a good shielded cable. And that's what this will provide us.

The biggest difference as you go up each level is the twist of the wire. The more the wire is twisted, the more the more it cancels out its own EMF signaling. And so it is better shielded, less vulnerable to electromagnetic interference from any other nearby electrical wiring. So it can transmit data faster. It's our resident electrician. Yeah, you and I understood that. I've installed more than a few models of it. And terminating it is much worse, more it's twisted. That really tracks the price too.

Any other questions on Action Item 84? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? So ordered. Thank you. Number three is 2026 Action Item 88, Contract Change Order Number 2 for the Waste and Renewable Sustainability Campus. Initial building and infrastructure construction Contractors JP Cullen and Sons. Is there a motion to approve? Moved by Bolling, seconded by Bruch.

John, go ahead. This is for the new Office Education Center. In the bid package, our design consultants listed four options for elevators. General contractor reached out to us and told us which one they had done their faces a bit on, but then said there were some challenges with timeline and wanted our opinion on which of the four we wanted to go with and cost impacts. We actually reached out to facilities management to see if there's an overall county preference on elevators. I'm surprised to find that we have a elevator consultant on retainer basically. So that was good news. I talked to them and they recommended actually changing over to a traction-type elevator that's better for lower buildings, two-, three-, four-story buildings. So that is what their recommendation was. They said it's a lot better for long-term maintenance to be able to bring more people in, not proprietary technology or components. So that was their recommendation, and it actually matches the amount that the contractor – pretty closely matches the amount the contractor wanted to charge us to continue to meet the schedule of the other option anyways.

You said they recommended a traction elevator?

Excuse me, hydraulic over traction. Sorry. Thank you. Any other motions?

Okay. The motions are made and seconded to approve action item 88. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? So ordered. Thank you. Last action item is number 4, 20.6, action item 90. Contract change order number three for the Human Services North Port Facility Powerhouse Deconstruction. H.M. Brandt LLC is the contractor. Is there a motion to approve? Motion by Baruchek. Second by Balik. Todd?

Okay, this change order here basically is a reroute of the water line. The administration building and the old powerhouse, the water line came into the building that is going to be removed. Initially, in our bid docs, we were going to reroute that water line close to a three-phase power line and then tie it back into the tunnel. The assumption there in MG&E's guidance is that two power poles could remain in place. City of Madison after bid said, no, those power poles got to stay. So those power poles got to stay. And then since they have to stay, we're going to leave a section of the old 1920s tunnel in place, about 18 feet of it. And so that tunnel, the line was going to roll right through where that tunnel now has to stay. So now we have to go around it. It's a little longer, and so we got to pay more. Basically, that's the gist of it. It's still going to tie back into the base of the tunnel where it normally was going to be, but it's just a little bit longer route around.

Is it like a historic restoration?

No, it could have gone. This has all been run through historical. It's below grade. Nobody will ever know it's there. But it was just going to go because that would have been part of it.

Yeah, I got a question. Are the bats cool? What's happening to the bats?

So the bats, we did reach out to Dina. This is a separate tunnel. It's adjacent.

But, you know, you're disturbing the area, man. Yeah.

DNR, the bats never made it. They never used it. So DNR said, you can abandon it. We don't want it anymore. We're not monitoring it because they never used it. So that will be fully encapsulated and sealed off permanently underground.

You're going to put anything cool in it before you seal it off?

Yeah. They can't leave a little hole for the bats.

There's no plans.

No plans.

All right. At least there's something cool in before, yeah.

Any other questions?

Just to understand a bit, you know, most contracts we have that 10 or 15% contingency. This now went above that. So did we go above what was contracted for this one or this one?

We got a really, really solid bid on this. Our budget was like $500,000. We got a bid at $270,000. So we have plenty of money to cover this. And this is really the big component of the water is for fire protection because we got to reroute the fire protection header. And another component is too, we thought about going through the building and not having to route so long, but Madison Fire is only giving us $12 to do this. They won't give us any longer. There's just no way we can do it if we go through the building like that because we have to protect it from the falling debris. So we're kind of pushed into spending this. It would have been cheaper to go through the billing a little bit, but.

But the money is there.

The money, yeah, we have plenty.

Okay, any other questions? If not, motions are made and seconded to approve action item 90. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

So ordered, thank you.

Okay, we have presentations. We've got one, we did have the, Question memo of June 26 entered on the attachments to the agenda and also data request from the administration. So I don't know if anybody's had a chance to review any of that stuff, but this is your chance to take a look at the information and give questions to Nick or the administration. Is Shelby online? Yes. Okay. So, Shelby, I just wanted to ask you if you have anything to add to this. After the discussion, it's just on here for information for the committee members and for information to the public. And then Nick will be giving a presentation at, I believe, at our September 15th meeting. So, Shelby, go ahead.

Yeah, hi. I don't have anything else to add at this time. Nick did amazing work and worked really hard with procurement and with Supervisor Engelberger on the questions that were asked and what we can deliver to you to answer those questions. He wanted to be here tonight and then realized he had a previously scheduled vacation, so it does get pushed to September for the actual presentation of this information. where he can answer some more questions or go more in-depth for you and what you need to know. But if there are things I can plug that he can be prepared for, that's also helpful either tonight or over the next few weeks while you are all reviewing what he's prepared and what's on the agenda. So thanks for giving us an opportunity to present that. I know Nick's excited to do that in September.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions for Shelby?

If not, committee members can look over the information and have questions for Nick. either prior to the meeting or at the meeting next month. And we'll do some more discussion on it at that time.

Well, I'm wondering, maybe you could actually answer a little bit of this. When I was looking at the financials on the contract spending sheet, but basically it gave like, for example, the electrical maintenance contract, the contract was budgeted for 900,000. Who are you asking? Todd. Todd. Okay. I don't know.

Is this a management line?

It doesn't say what lines. Yes, right there. So you look at, it says electrical maintenance contract, $900,000. I'm guessing that's probably using the state contract and just saying we budgeted X amount in case you need to bring them in.

Yeah, this is not sure. This is more for, this is a facilities management thing. They would run the, like, this would be for, like, Auburn or Houston State.

Yeah, Shelby, do you have an answer for that?

Maybe. I'm having a little bit of trouble hearing the question, though. I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

Okay, so the question is basically, I was just trying to understand that 900, just to take an example, the 900,000 electrical maintenance contract, What was that initially authorized as in the sense of, was that just for contingency that if we needed to bring contractors in to supplement our own staff? And then when only the 100,000 of it is actually spent, does that mean the $800,000 goes back into the GPR? Does it go into fund balance? How does that move in the next budget?

That's a good question. So that $900,000, I can't speak to what that line actually is. I can follow up on some of those questions, but it could be we contract out to fulfill services that we cannot do. But I know we also have some PO spending as well when we have gaps in the immediate needs. But if the actual spend is $110,000, then you just don't spend your budgeted amount. And that's considered a next year's base. So then we would look at, oh, they only spent $110,000 for the move for the next year. and these contracts too can also extend over multiple years so i think there's a few questions that could be answered that we would really need nick here because he did all this data work himself to know was that 900 000 for one year or for all five years um and then what would that actually cover in the year of 2026 but if it's not spent then it just doesn't count against gpr you just didn't spend the budgeted amount right and then that leads you the question of

you had the revenue, you didn't use it, where did it end up going into the next budget?

It would just stay within your GPR accounts. You would just budget out for the next year with that GPR funding. It's not like there's a pool of money just sitting. It's just that's what you could spend. But if we don't, it's just not against GPR. That kind of leads to your excess surplus in areas, right? When contracts underspend, then you have an additional surplus there.

And then, yeah, and I'm guessing that that goes into the... The reserve, well, rainy day fund, whatever you call it?

No, it just sits in GPR still. If we have this budget, we have the balance budget of $900,000 and you only spend $100,000, you just have $800,000 excess sitting in that GPR account that you didn't spend. It's not like there's dollar bills that we're giving out and it's just sitting there. It's just the totality of that GPR expenditures.

Okay. All right. Well, I guess we'll find out more next one then.

So just another question, Shelby. For the total amounts on all of these. Let's see. I guess, does it include all of our contracts for all of these different items throughout the county? Or is it Is there certain amounts that, like if a contract is under $10,000 or something that's not recorded here, is this all, everything on here?

This is all of the labor-esque contracts that were requested. It doesn't matter the amount that was actually budgeted for. Okay.

Yep. Sounds good. Any other questions? If not, we'll talk more about this next time. Take a look at them during the next month and before our meeting next time. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, G, reports to committee. Todd, reports on change orders under 10,000.

Yeah, kind of on this round, on various projects. The first one is for the Halfway Prairie to CJ Kavon, basically for additional fill and then some erosion matting. Fill that was brought in to bring grades up along the property line, just to make the site a little bit better, not so steep. $2,700 for that work. That's a biodegradable stabilizer and a living matting. So that's generally what we use in those situations. The next one is for the PSC 911 facility, change order 56. This one here, basically adding data drop to floor boxes and some floor receptacles, again, owner driven. As they see the site coming together, uh, they, you know, they have ideas and they know how they want their data. Uh, there's plenty of budget there to support it. Some $7,400, uh, you gotta give them the tools to perform the job that they need to do. So we went along with that one. Um, 257 for PSC 911 center to Volvo brothers. Two upper spandrel glass panels. Basically, this is just a missed detail by our architect. They didn't include bird glass. The rest of the facility, all is bird glass. These two, missed. We thought we should probably be consistent throughout the building. $3,700, and that will all be consistent through all elevations of the building. Change order 58 for PSC, the Vogel Brothers. This one here, Basically, it's in adjusting some supply and return grills. They put a partition across the one training room. As they saw it, they wanted to add a glass partition across there to kind of segregate to get two separate areas. Basically, this is just for air balance, $1,600 to allow that airflow and allow them to utilize that space a little more efficiently than what they initially thought when they were in design, fairly typical. Number 60 to PSC Vogel Brothers. This one here, basically, we're adding some stone, some washstone in some places around the emergency generator and the photovoltaic converters. It's basically some areas that are really narrow and close to the building that if you were to plant grass, you'd have to mow that or maintain that and then sweep it off. And it's just going to be, it was just clunkier, so it's easier to put in washstone. in those areas so you don't have to maintain them in the future. So $3,400 just to kind of target there will be another one of these coming down the road because we made a decision this week that we're going to do something very similar between the south boundary of the photovoltaic and the parking lot and the fence because it's only like four feet wide and it's just going to be silly to try to mow that. So there'll be another one very similar to this in the future but we'll be basing it on those pricing, on that pricing. Change order 59 to Vogel Brothers for the PSC. This one here, we have two very large outings. If anybody's been out there on the south side of the building where the staff parking is, there's two very large solar arrays that cover parking structure. The deck structure of that was covered by bonded membrane. For a little more robust finished product, we decided we wanted to switch that to a fire-treated plywood with bonded membrane just for durability's sake. For $6,700, it takes care and changes all of that. We get the credit from the JIP to three-quarter inch plywood. When you actually see it, you'll understand they're very large. There's a lot of area here. So we didn't feel that that was too bad of a price to pay for the durability and longevity of that. The next one, change order one for the Northport demolition to HM Grant. Basically this year, we need to refeed the tunnel that the photovoltaic car chargers are fed from. There was a man tunnel that used to go down to the powerhouse. It was fed out of the powerhouse and we didn't realize that. So now we need to refeed that from the administration building. So this here is to refeed those lights so that there's lights maintained when we get into the construction. So that one's for $3,400. Change order two in Northport, powerhouse deconstruction to HM brand. This one here is for future planning. That water line that we just discussed, when that comes into the base of this tunnel that I just talked about, we're going to put a T in there and a valve so that that water line can be extended to the garage on the north side of the campus in the future. If we decide right now, the existing maintenance shop is going to be demolished. They're gonna be moving up to the little garage building If we do decide to do anything more with that garage building in the future, we'll need fire protection and we'll have to get fire protection from this line. But putting this T and valve in right now, we'll be able to tie into that line without a future water shutdown for the main administration building. So we're trying to think ahead for $2,600 that'll provide a set tab. The next one is change order number eight to the courthouse district attorney's remodel. For Joe Daniels construction, this one here is for $1,000. Basically, we have to lower the acoustical ceiling in the lobby area due to the fact that there was a conflict with the casing around the transom windows on the old courthouse entrance. Basically, we got to raise it up about four inches. Otherwise, we were going to be right in the window, and it looked just bad. So it was more for aesthetic purposes for $1,000. We just raised that ceiling up. Obviously, it changes everything else that's associated with the ceiling. And then finally, change order number nine for the courthouse district attorney's office remodel to Joe Daniels. This one here is adding CAT 6 cables and jacks and some new wireless access panels or wireless access points. They had to move the ceiling back where the mezzanine comes out. We had to have them cut it back a little bit further, and we have to relocate those wireless access points. And the DA has also kind of evaluated what they're going to need for the additional office. They went from cubicles to offices in a lot of these spaces, and they wanted to add some more wireless access points so that they could get better connectivity. So for $2,500, we're going to accomplish that with this changeover here. And that's the final one.

Any questions for Todd? Okay, thank you. Eight future meetings, items, and dates. Next Public Works and Transportation Committee meeting will be held on September 15th. Note the time change and the change of location. It's going to be at 4.30 at the City-County building, and that's because I believe there's a budget thing that we're going to have at At 5.30 at the city government building, right? Yeah. So hopefully we can keep that meeting to an hour so we can attend the other one. Mindy has listed the other next bunch of meetings that we're going to have. None of them are going to be here. One's going to be at the Henry Violet Zoo. We're going to try to get some tours of the zoo on the 29th of September. And then We've got the October meetings that are going to be some of them budget meetings and that kind of thing. So any questions on that? If not, I have public comments on items not on the agenda. I don't believe we have any. Such other businesses allowed by law, I don't believe we have any. And that brings us to K adjournment.

Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn by Follett. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? So ordered.