Public Infrastructure Committee - Regular Meeting

It is 5.30. I will call the Public Works Committee to order. Roll call. All members are present. That takes us to public comment. If there's anyone here who signed up for public comment, you can feel free to do so. Just come on up to the table here. We'll provide a chair for you. And we've got a microphone here that we'd like you to speak into. and we'll need your name and your address, and you'll have five minutes to speak on any subject germane to the business of the Public Works Committee. Anyone here for public comment? Yes, yeah, come on up. Just give us your name and your address, and right over there, sir, in the chair. Give us your name and address, and you have five minutes to speak.

Well, I'm Dave Prince.

Wendy Prince.

1206 Orchard Drive, Manitowoc, Wisconsin. The reason we're here, on Orchard Drive previously, we had flooding on there. And we would like to see North 10th. We heard that North 10th Street is being rebuilt next year. and we'd like to see a bigger storm sewer so that it can accommodate the water from our street so that we don't have flooding in front of our house. We lost a car. Our neighbors lost a car.

Yeah, the storm, when we get... One to two inches of fast rain. Our street, our driveway, it's up to almost our trees in our front of our yard, our little sidewalk. And we cannot get out of our driveway, nor would there be any emergency personnel that could get down our road at all. Like Dave said, we did lose one of our vehicles parked out. We were at a wedding, and we saw it on our camera. The flooding just go right up. So obviously we have that issue to worry about. We put about $20,000 into our house for storm support.

Drainage around our house and some pump so that we wouldn't get any, our basement wouldn't flood.

But we are still having issues. So we just wanted to make sure that we appreciate, we know it's on the budget for 2027. Our other neighbors would have been here, but apparently we're the spokespeople and they weren't able to make it tonight. So thank you. That's all we have.

That's all we have. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, anyone else to speak to public comment tonight? Second call, last call. Anybody online? Didn't think so. Okay, we'll close public comment and we'll move to presentations. We have none. The consent agenda, anything to be removed from the consent agenda by the committee? Seeing none, I'll ask for a motion. Move to approve the consent agenda. Second. Motion by Sitkowitz, second by Anderson. Any further discussion? No, there is no further discussion. Okay, I'll call for the vote. All in favor? Aye. And that is approved unanimously. And we move on to our discussion and action items. And we're going to begin with my all-time favorite, 26-0703, discussion of the 2027 budget and requests of the mayor. Hello, Mr. Mayor.

Hello. Thank you. A couple of you have already seen me for meetings this week, but I appreciate the opportunity to have a conversation about what you would like to see potentially in the 2027 budget, questions you may have about it. You just heard from citizens tonight about one project, usually when citizens actually show up. it becomes a priority. And as they mentioned, we've been talking about that road, for example, for quite some time as well. But really, I sent a budget memo to all the committee chairs, just kind of outlining guidelines and details for department heads as they submit their budget to me. Their budgets, to me, are due by the end of this month, throughout the month of September. We'll compile it, sit down with each individual department, talk about line by line, and then you'll be presented the official recommended budget, executive budget, at your October meeting. You'll have the month of end of October into November to discuss it and hopefully final adoption at the November council meeting. So we're really at the point where if there's anything that you want us to know, want to see in the budget, some things at this point are a little too late to change, for example. You budgeted last year for Franklin Street for engineering and design work to happen in 2026, which it is. It would be hard to say then next year, well, let's not do Franklin Street. Things like that are not being able to change. And we do have the five-year road plan, which the council approved as well, which is just a guideline. It's not set in stone. You can change that, but staff does utilize that to look at projects that are coming up. So now is your time. I just want to have a conversation. If there is anything you have questions on or if there's anything you'd like me to consider as I put the budget together and present it to you. Simple as that.

Hands, anyone? Hands, hands.

alder sitkowitz thank you mr chairman um i guess thank you mayor for this is now the third committee meeting i think i'm sitting through it for the budget stuff um but this is the first real kick at public works in the budget so um i guess i want to first thank you and dan and greg for the work you've done so far on michigan avenue with um from north 18th to

13th?

13th, yeah.

We've worked pretty due diligence with the residents there to try to come up with a plan to make everybody at least understand the reason for the reconstruction there. I've seen some correspondence that we received recently that there still doesn't seem to be much of a consensus of what to do up there, as well as Some correspondence that the mayor has got from Biff Hansen as well up there. So I know we bumped it from this year to next year in the road plan. I would recommend just kicking it out at this point and not proceeding with it. I don't see making anybody happy up there with... any plan that the city has come forward with. It's unfortunate because a lot of those homes have lead services and there's grant money available from the DNR right now for those replacements where it would be 50% principal forgiveness, but that doesn't seem to be enough to even move the needle up there for any replacements of the water services. Currently, that would be in any proximity to a tree. So I just don't think it's worth the headache right now of going through all the design work and then coming to October and being kind of pushed off. So that would be my recommendation is at this point, just set it aside until the road becomes in such due repair that it needs to be fixed because that seems to be the only resolution for up there. But luckily there are plenty of other roads that we are contacted with on a regular basis in the district and I think throughout the entire city I hear about it. So if we were to kick that one out, I would recommend that we take a look at Brookfield Circle in Cypress Court. That's been on the radar for a while for some slab replacement where the base is just completely failing on some sections of that road. It's not a high traffic road, but it's still a road that is in pretty dire repair. So I worked through the process a couple of years ago to get Michigan Avenue included in the budget. We did this part on the far west side from Rapids Road west, but the section between North 18th and North 13th has not been well received that it needs to get done, to say it lightly. Again, I've been contacted about other ones, so let's move the dollars where people want their roads fixed and move forward with that. So that's just my recommendation on Michigan Avenue at this point, but obviously it's for the rest of the committee and council to talk about during the budget. So thank you.

Thank you. I will just, if I could, just note the approved five-year road plan that the council had, again, it's just recommendations, but had about almost $6.8 million of road projects for 2027 planned. 1.6-ish for what the road you're mentioning, Michigan Avenue. $2 million for Franklin Street. Again, that's an estimate. That was from actually probably two years ago was an estimate. But for that first section of Franklin Street, 6th to 10th. North 18th from Michigan to New York, that would also be included in that same project or project. or we do that one this year instead because it would not coincide well if you did Michigan and the intersection. But that one, we have budgeted at 440. That one also, if we do, we would more than likely have to update the signals, which would be probably another half a million dollars. So you're looking at probably a million dollars just for that north 18th from Michigan to New York. Again, if you choose to do that or whatever we decide. South 14th Street from Dewey to Grand, $575,000. Marshall Street, South Lake to 7th, about $315,000. And then North 10th Street, which the citizens were here to talk about from school to read, and the storm sewers, which we're well aware of, but we have that one around $1.5 million in the 2027 approved plan that you have. My point in all that is 6.7 is probably high for what we would normally, it would be very high for what we would normally budget for road improvements in a given year. So some projects probably will have to be considered for removing. So to your point, we'll take that into consideration on Michigan Avenue.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else have anything for the mayor? Okay, well actually until today I had nothing at all. Very pleased with the work you guys have done and the five-year plan, you know, I think we should stick to it. It's really marvelous. It's dotting all the I's and crossing the T's. One thing that I noticed today on South 29th between Meadow and Custer, The street itself is okay. There are a few rough spots, but moreover, there's a company on 29th, Able, I don't know the full name of it. They deal with a lot of kids. I don't know exactly what they do, but they have moved their operation one block down the street. The same guy that owns that used to have sabbatical brewing. Well, they closed sabbatical brewing. That building was much larger. So he's moved that operation and all those kids into that facility. I drove by there yesterday. I slowed down and counted about 18 kids playing on a playground that they've set up next to that building. And they kicked a ball right out into the street in front of my car. And I'm just wondering, I know they're not a public entity, but is there anything we can do as far as signage or a reduced speed limit or anything like that? Just seemed like a real dangerous zone. Just a thought.

Yeah, I think, I mean, we do make signs, children have, or whatever, signs that we have around where there's schools or parks or things like that. Yeah, I think it's called Able. I think that's, you're correct with that.

There's a park, a city park right across the street too.

At Halverson Park. Yeah. And we did do improvements to the crosswalk there at one point just to make it a little more visible because of them. But we can look in to see if there's anything more we can do for it. Yeah, just warning people that there's a lot of kids up there.

Yeah, and as far as the speed limit, we can't lower it below 25 except for in a school zone. So I don't know what they do, if they could somehow get under that, but we can look at that.

Yeah, I haven't talked to them. They haven't talked to me. I just noticed it myself, and I thought this is, it had the potential for some bad things, you know. I'll outside of that if there's you know some group of people on a major street that's set for construction that don't want their street dug up send them over to 23rd Street between the Nash Avenue and Waldo Boulevard because I Hear about that one all the time living over there. So other than that, I think we're covered So Thanks for being here.

Appreciate it. Could I just note one final thing? During our conversation with the Committee of the Whole about goals and where we want to have emphasis and priorities from the council. One of the big things that came out of that was just maintenance of current assets, of buildings, of equipment and things like that that are sometimes very costly. So that rang kind of true to what the council was saying and agreeing with, that we should maybe focus a lot of our dollars on on just maintenance and updating a lot of our equipment and facilities if needed. So that will be something for the Public Works Committee to know that we'll be taking into consideration for this budget as well. very costly. Roads are very costly. I just said $6.7 million. Usually we only borrow around $7 million is usually our annual budget. So if we did all the road projects, that means we wouldn't be able to even buy a new snowplow if that was the limit. So tough decisions, but I just wanted you to know and the public to know that maintenance, as you suggested and staff suggested, will be a priority moving into the budget as well. Thank you. I appreciate it. Great.

Just a comment on it. I know we're talking budget for like next year, but with that five-year plan, I mean, I guess it would. Recommend if we could revisit again, I'm not saying like whole change but whether or not things have to tweak because of Franklin Street some other streets have come up Lindbergh's one of them South 22nd Street behind Shady Lane there's sections that are gravel in the parking lane I think that should be a matter of due diligence just simply to review it and

on maybe an annual basis just to make sure we're on track.

So I don't know how you guys want to do that exactly.

yeah and that's something yeah absolutely updated on an annual basis just like we saw michigan avenue there were things that happened and you pushed it back a year um and some things may yeah come up quicker but it's also dependent on how much money we have to to do it but but the five-year plan is nice because we can staff at least knows where we're looking in the future and if a franklin street or something that's a huge priority comes up we can plan over a few years appropriately for it and not just in one year or it never gets done because we never planned for it. So yeah, absolutely, we'll update that. We'll bring a recommendation of an updated one with the budget again this year.

Sure, if I could make a suggestion, just maybe like once the budget for next year is set and we know what makes the budget, that might be a good time to set an annual, let's take a look at what didn't make it and what new things have come up and maybe revise that plan going forward. Because then there'll be another year to add to it because the five years of moving target will need to add projects to the end anyway.

Exactly. All right. Gentlemen, thank you very much. And we'll just place that document on file. And we will move on to, let's see, 26, oh, wait a minute, hold it. I almost forgot. We've got a previously tabled item that we're gonna move to just to get that off the table here. Document 25-0570. which is the sewer regionalization town of Kossuth.

Nope.

Hello, I'm Dean LeFleur with RAL, engineer for CUSF, and this is...

I'm Emily Michalajczak, the president for the Tonics to Sanitary District 2.

So we've been working with MPU and Greg and Dan, and last month we met with Adam and Greg to go over the draft IA that the city attorney has, and... So the need, KSD, the wastewater treatment plan is from the late 80s, so it's beyond its use of life. So they need, so we did a facility plan which recommended regionalization to MPU. So we'll tie into from Rockwood on County R, we'll come down, I do have a drawing if you'd like to see.

I think we all have that. Well, it's an updated one.

It's updated, okay.

So while those are, well, you can, while those are getting handed out, just in conversations with MPU, the original plan was to have a pressure line all the way from our current Senate, or, wastewater treatment plant, if that's what you want to call it, all the way to, correct me if I'm wrong, close to Grace along County Road R on Rapids Road. Just in conversations with MPU and I believe recommendation by the mayor was that we would put a portion of that as gravity line for any future city expansion. So that map shows, I believe it's in yellow, that gravity line that goes up to Goodwin Road and then hooks up into the city's current sewer at Grace.

So originally you were proposing about 3.2 miles of forest main, which would have been a lower cost to tie into the city's collection system. But the mayor requested that we added gravity up to Goodwin up to Godwin. So we looked at all the grades and we're gonna go a touch more than that back about 400 feet from that intersection. So that's the section of gravity, .78 miles. So it's about a quarter of it. So that's what we're looking to do based on our facility plan. So the advantages for MPU, MPU will get the revenue. It's a small volume and it helps KSD. because their system is so old, it's beyond use for life, and the cost to replace it is not as beneficial as connecting it to MPU. We're thinking that we have the draft IA, so the city attorney's reviewing it. He's had it for, what, a month, Greg?

And then we meet a month ago? And he had it then, right?

So we got it from Rob a couple weeks back, and so Emily has comments, I have comments, and we're looking for the city's comments from Eric, I would assume, right?

Yeah, what got sent? Yeah, something got sent off that class, too.

Yeah, we all got the draft that Rob prepared, which included his rate study and also his draft IA to all the parties, so that would be the city, MPU, and us. And so if we could all get comments to have a final IA to get back to the city so we could get it signed in September because the deadline for grant funding for the DNR is the end of September. Eric gave us some dates for when they're going to meet next. Yeah, for the mayor to 22nd, I think is when it was approved the mayor, the common council meeting if they approve it on 921 that the mayor could sign at 922. Our plans and specs are about 60% complete. And so we'll be at 90% complete at that time. So I will give you the draft drawings to Greg. So, so you have cross sections so you can see the time. Because the verbiage in here, you have the tie-in a little bit further up the road. So this is where we intend to do the tie-in. So you and Greg can look at the cross-sections and see where the tie-in is.

Yeah, and I know because that's part of the draft negotiations of where exactly the force main ends and the gravity begins. And so... I guess that's to be determined yet, so I guess that needs to be worked out.

This is what we're proposing. This is what the mayor suggested when we met in June to do it at Godwin, and then we met in July with you, and these are where the grades are practical. Remember, Adam asked for, he'd love to have the whole thing gravity. I wish we could, but then...

The current graph IA does say it's up to 310. By switching from the fourth name to the gravity line, we're already increasing our cost by half a million dollars. And if we would add another mile onto that, obviously that would be.

It's not practical, plus we've been working on these drawings.

So I think those are the things that need to be negotiated yet, and this is not the place to negotiate those things.

Oh, no, we're just showing you the draft drawing and where we're at, because time is limited.

I understand that. So what, if I could, what are you asking for from this committee tonight? or are you asking for anything from the committee?

We're asking for you to review the IA and look at the force main and gravity, and it's beyond Goodwin, okay? And we'd like to get this approved at the next meeting. So by the next meeting, we have to pick the transition from force main to gravity, because we know the tie-in and we know the length, just to finalize the drawings.

There's 60%.

So this is what we have for cross-sections that we're running now. And we can update these in September, but the added cost and the added distance is not what we discussed when this first was proposed at MPU's meeting, when we met with Rob. Oh, you were there, right? I don't know if you were there, Dan. No?

I think our general request is to allow us to transfer wastewater through the city's lines to the MPU. That IA includes verbiage about that and also a rate that will be paid to the city to allow us to transfer our wastewater to MPUs.

So the general request is... They have not seen it.

They have not.

They have not because it's in the draft right now. It's between the city attorney and some staff have looked at it because it's kind of a negotiation document at this point. So I guess what I would... the way i see it i guess is you're asking and correct me if i'm wrong i'm just reading into this you're just asking for them for general approval on the concept pending the agreement going forward yes yes i can say if i could i couldn't say from a technical standpoint um both mpu and city engineering have looked at it and we we think we've got the capacity we've got more than enough capacity to take it I guess right now it's just getting that agreement in place and it's kind of an important one because as we've talked about before, this kind of sets the tone where if another entity were to come in that this would kind of be a template. So we want to make darn sure we get it right on the first time. Does that kind of sum up where we are?

Yes. Okay, very good. Alder Sickwitz.

Thank you, Chairman. real high level, what's the benefit to the city for allowing Kossuth to hook up to our waste water system?

We, there's, I mean, There's financial benefit because we would hook up to you and then pay a rate per 1,000 gallons. MPU has already given us their rate. That's one thing that is, I guess, still quote-unquote blank in the IA from the city, which, again, it's with the city attorney and stuff like that.

So what rate is the town of Kossuth citizen looking to pay versus an MPU rate payer paying for a wastewater distribution?

I think that's to be determined at this point.

because that's where the real benefit comes in because the rate payers have already paid for the plant, the capacity, and to have an outside entity come and hook up to that at even close to the same amount doesn't benefit the city or the rate payer who's already put money into the plant.

And I think, if I could, kind of what we've discussed at the staff level, in addition to that, there would be sort of a decrease in capacity available for development. Correct. However, that could be offset by them putting in that gravity line as far as possible, where in the event something were to come in in the future, that line would already be there, and it would be a benefit to a future developer.

Right.

Mm-hmm. It's not really the way the city has been growing, though.

The volume of magnitude is MPU's plant. They can handle 7 million gallons a day. I'm aware. And we produce 10,000 gallons a day. So it's a small fraction, just so you realize. And there are 50 users. Correct.

So how many users do you guys have?

I don't even know. Just to get a magnitude of. A lot more.

I understand it's a drop in the bucket of what you're pumping into the system. Yeah. but that doesn't come without a cost to our rate payers already.

I think, like it was mentioned, one of the other benefits is we're already willing to agree to put in the infrastructure for more gravity lines so that if the city would expand that way and annex out some of that land, that that infrastructure would already be there to easily hook up additional land.

So do we have an example of what the proposed rate is versus what the rate of the MPU user today is?

I believe MPU and Rob has been working on that, and that would be wrapped into the final agreement. And again, this would be coming back in September once all those details are ironed out. Right now, because of the deadline, which is what? 930. 930. So next month, in the next month.

With the...

grant application for the DNR. Right. I know you're up against a timeline. I know we had some brief discussions on this at MPU commission, but I have not, and we've talked about capacity and outside users and rate, but I have not seen any numbers from MPU side and I haven't seen any numbers from the city side suggesting what this should be.

And we've not seen numbers yet either. Like I said, I believe Rob was working on that.

Yeah, I was going to say, I know Rob was, because I've been emailing Rob back and forth, I think, for the last six months because he's been working on those rate studies. I was under the impression that they were getting completed. And because there was a rate in the IA for MPU, I'm under the assumption that they're done. But I have not seen anything, obviously. Okay. I mean, I know what rate MP wants to charge us. That's it.

Okay. I mean, as a general concept, I think it's a small amount that's coming in, but if we're going to do it, we better do it right because nobody else is going to be able to afford to build wastewater treatment plants going forward. So it can either set us up for long-term issues if this isn't done right.

Absolutely. 100%.

That's all my comments. Okay. Thank you, Alder Sickowitz.

So I guess what I'm gathering, anyone else? I don't want to step in anybody's thoughts. What I'm gathering from this is that there are gonna be ongoing negotiations until we come around to our meeting in September, and we're gonna have more information at that time. I, like Alder Setkowitz, would like to see more detail in that regard, and then we've got until the city council meeting to get that finalized, of course, but yeah, but when it comes to committee, we'd like to see more detail, and I'm sure we will, okay? And if no one else has anything on this issue, we'll just mark this currently no council action needed and we'll place it on file and we'll talk about it more in September.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Next up, 26-0700, amendment number one for the 2026 sanitary sewer master plan.

Yeah, so on this one, the original agreement went directly to council. I think this had also gone through finance committee, if I remember right. When we did this 10 years ago or more, we had had a laptop in the program and we thought we could do it, but since then, that laptop's outdated. So if the amendment's to hire folks to provide the laptop, the program, you know, that runs it to download all the data from the meters that they got 10 meters out there in various spots of the city. So they got to come here every two, three weeks and then go to all 10 spots, download it. We would have to buy a laptop by the, you know, software to run that. And then it would be the one time deal and we probably wouldn't be doing it anymore. So yeah, We did it the one time, but I know our surveyor's busy too, so he doesn't really have the time to, that takes like a day every time that we're doing that, that then he's losing from doing other stuff for next year's projects or finals for this year's. And so anyway, so the amendment is to have them take care of doing the downloading and getting the data instead of the city. So just looking for approval on that from the committee.

Yeah, Stan. And we did kind of look at the numbers and the costs and how much time, and we do feel it's quite reasonable what they would be asking to do the work. So we would recommend that we enter into it.

Okay, thank you very much. Discussion?

Move to approve the agreement.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Okay. Sikowitz and Benzinger. All right, if there's no further discussion, all in favor? Aye. Passes unanimously. I'll send this around for signatures. There you go. And we'll move on to 26-0701, Wisconsin Department of Transportation Proposed Functional Classification Update, Manitowoc Two Rivers Urban Area.

Yeah, so on this one, the DOT is required every 10 years redo the functional classification map to see if there's any updates or that type of thing and There's four classes if you've looked at it all the four classes of either local street collector or a minor arterial or principal arterial and they have to You know the functional class categories as the streets based on their level of mobility and access that they're providing and I don't know how they set their levels, but once they're kind of set, we can't just go and add 10 miles of principal arterial. And so if you make something a principal arterial, you likely have to take away something from a minor arterial, that type of thing. and so a lot of the changes on here i think there's probably more this time around than there was 10 years ago just because of the two-way converting from one way to two-way change east street you know madison street a lot of this stuff um and so i think that's a lot of the changes that i don't know if they had let's see yeah they had say like northeast street north 11th and all that were principal arterials they're putting them down the minor arterials which i think makes sense since that's not connecting highway anymore so We had looked at all of these and thought that they made sense. I think Adam, we looked at them with Adam and Paul, community development as well, and I think they felt good with them. I did note a couple of, like they have North 7th on here, it should be North 8th, and it's also the pair is North 11th and North 10th. So I gave those corrections to DOT, so hopefully they make them. I know I think one of the things had frickle drive instead of freaky drive. So a few things that it noted that it gave the DOT. So hopefully when they send back the final stuff, it'll be corrected. But they also need the city to provide them with a resolution. So they had a draft one in there that I kind of went through and I guess modified based on our stuff. And I know Eric was looking at it. I don't think they were finalized on it yet. But We have time, we could potentially sit on it until September, I think the DOT was looking for comments from all the cities by September, so we're kind of ahead of the game, but I guess if we feel it's ready to go, because it's not listing, that resolution doesn't list any streets, it's just saying that we agree with the updated plan that they presented, so other than those couple minor corrections that I had, I guess we were okay with what was changing, so. I don't know, I guess recommend the committee to move forward with the resolution, I guess, pending Eric's approval of it.

Okay, so we're basically, basically the changes they're making are boilerplate stuff, pretty. It makes sense, yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, so Alder Sickowitz. Quick first question with it. It really, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter too much what we approve on that because we're going to get X amount of dollars in share revenue for the maintenance of it and just how it's broken out onto what they're looking for for a maintenance plan on those roads, correct?

Yeah, it talks about that assist. There has to do with funding, which I'm sure it does, but it's like...

But it doesn't explicitly tell you how you can screw it up.

They don't say we get so many dollars for principal arterials and so much for we get our state aids for the connecting highways and we get then our local road mileage. But maybe somehow that's all factored in with all their mileage.

It's not broken out. The numbers are already set. Ultimately, as long as the staff is fine with it, I don't see any issue with it.

know we could change one road to this or that it's not going to affect anything likely on data operations so yeah thank you okay any further discussion got a question yes curious does the number of cars play into the uh rating at all or the classification yeah i would think like it said i mean it talked about kind of they look at the level you know

whether local streets are serving locals, whereas then the collectors and arterials are a lot more traffic. So, I mean, I don't know exactly where the numbers threshold is, but that's where, like, obviously, right, like, I don't know how much has changed with, say, Northeast Street, North of Maritime, but they took off that designation. So in theory, more traffic is used in Maritime. So I'm sure they look at that. It's kind of just that balance of what it's for mobility, for traffic to move, and access to whether it's residential or business, I suppose, or industrial. So, yeah, I don't know. It's kind of – I don't know if you want – we don't understand all the ins and outs of – how they get in all the calculations. I'm sure traffic volumes play a little bit of a role on what they're rating them.

Sure. I'm just looking at some local streets around my neighborhood, and I know that 29th Street that Alder Schley mentioned earlier, everybody cuts down there from Custer, and it's very busy, congested intersection. It's almost like it's a major roadway, but it's marked as a local street, probably one of the lower classifications.

Yeah, and whether or not

A lot of times, too, what they look at is what the roads connect. In other words, if they're connecting to schools or to shopping centers or to hospitals, where it's sort of a major collection point, that's why they call them collectors. So if it's kind of neighborhood things, even though there could be a lot of traffic, they probably wouldn't be designated as such.

Sure. Does that make sense? Yeah, and that's what I was hearing earlier. Yeah. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Okay, well, I guess we're looking for what?

Are we looking for a motion here to? I would think that since there's some, if I may, if there's time and there's a couple corrections, it sounds like. We're not looking for any wholesale changes, so I would just have them bring back a clean version next month.

Okay.

Yeah, I would think we could do that. Probably bring back the final resolution in the next month or if there's any updates.

And if there's any comments that staff feels they need to provide to the DOT, I don't, I mean, it's, they don't.

I don't think there was any deadline like it was on the other issue we just talked about. I think they were looking for cities to get their comments back by September, the whole of September, so kind of ahead of the game, like I said, so.

Yeah, works for me. So we'll place it on file and we'll come back in September.

Just hold it. Table it, kind of, and bring it back. No action, yeah.

Okay. And that moves us to 0702, request for a streetlight in 2200 Block of South 9th Street.

So I guess I could, what we know is kind of what was in the packet, I guess, was that a resident had contacted Elder Dunbar. Elder Dunbar had talked to us a couple times. The resident is asking for a mid-block streetlight. The incident that sparked his interest was there was a shooting there like 10 to 15 years ago, and he felt that if there was a light there, the shooting may not have happened. I don't know how true that is, I'm not sure. But we did reach out to MPU and we kind of had a discussion with one of their employees and he said that, correct me if I'm wrong, it's basically the way it is out there right now is typical for a residential section. There is a tree that could possibly be trimmed that we could go take a look at that maybe would increase some light because with the lights on the corner and this being mid-block, there's tree limbs that could be blocking some of the light. but they weren't recommending putting a new light in there because then it would sort of set a precedent for putting mid-block lights everywhere in the city.

Yeah, that's basically the map that was in your packet. The MPU said that basically they light up the intersections, so each one of the intersections at Wilson and Deno and Flambeau all have street lights, and these aren't even that long of blocks, so that... Yeah, I don't know if it would be good precedence to start putting mid-block streetlights all over the place. We could look at the trees, though, because when I drove it, there were... quite a bit of trees in that area that maybe if they were trimmed up, it would give some more light. And the difference is too, the old sodium vapor, they cast the, you know, they went everywhere. And now with the LED, everything's so much more, you know, straight down.

Is the property that's being looked at or was it in question on the map? Of course, is that the circled one? 2226?

What was he at? He might have been. Yes, 2226 was the residence.

your one block, your one lot in from the corner. I mean, it's not even I would call mid block because there's, okay, thank you.

Nothing else, okay.

I'll make a motion to deny the request. Second.

A motion and a second to deny the request for the streetlight discussion. Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. Motion carries unanimously.

Second.

I have a second.

That's OK. You'll get them next time. Speak louder. Sit closer. OK. Motion to deny. and I will send that for signatures and then we will move on to Okay, 26-0704, a request to fund storm sewer repair on easement at Waldo and Fleetwood Drive.

Yeah, so I guess technically this would be looking to potentially do an unbudgeted request through COG for this work. This was sewer was put in and what 2020 when they did well the boulevard and 2022 that that was Alex a lead that lives there budding property only brought it to our attention that it was being undermined so that basically all the support under that and wall is gone. And so then I went and asked the DOT about it and they pretty much said, no, it's not under warranty. They didn't do anything wrong and pretty much washed their hands of it. So then I sent a work order to DPW asking those guys to fix it. And that was in 23. And so whether or not, It was a lack of time. Part of it, from what Billy's told me, is they'd also need to get maybe a bigger back hole, I think, possibly, to be able to lift and maneuver that end wall. So it's maybe not quite as simple as what I had thought by giving it to them. And so since it's been sitting a while, I decided to go back to Vinton and get a quote, and I did that. I know, Sean, the unbudgeted request we're supposed to ask the mayor or finance if there's money available. Technically, I would think we know we saved a bunch of money on the design of Franklin Street. So that theory, there's probably a bit of money in the 26th budget that could fund this. But anyway, so far I went back to, I went to Vinton to get a quote on that, and it came up just under 19,000 to make that repair. And so I guess kind of just going through the process of coming to the oversight committee and then a card request and ultimately finance approval if you want to move forward with it. If need be, I can try to get another quote, but so far I only got the one from Vinton. So I don't know, just looking to see the committee's desire to fix that. I think if you looked at the pictures, I mean, pretty completely undermined. And at some point, it gets bad enough, the whole end wall will fall off and just create more erosion and It was also noted by the bridge inspectors when they did that box culvert, the new box culvert they put in as part of Waldo is actually a bridge structure. So when the consultant was out there, they noted that this other pipe was being undermined too, so they brought it to our attention. And I think that's where some of the pictures came from, but yeah, we're just looking to get that fixed, hopefully.

Okay. Any information from the committee, any questions? Didn't we just redo Fleetwood Drive?

Yeah, this is a little west and on the south side, going over the hill on the south side of Waldo. Okay. So it's, yeah, I mean, the closest intersection is Waldo Fleetwood. Got it. I don't know if you know the Lee property or where the ravine goes in there. It's kind of south side of the road, west of the second cemetery or whatever.

I'm glad you clarified that because I used to drive Fleetwood Drive an awful lot and I thought, I've never seen a culvert that looked like that on Fleetwood Drive.

Okay, so basically what are we looking for here? I was gonna say, do you need a motion to approve and request to COG for funding?

Yeah, I think so.

I'll make that motion.

Perfect, second.

So motion by Sickawitz, second by Anderson to provide COG funding. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. Motion passes unanimously. And we'll send this to council. Signatures, please. All right. Next up, 706, which is usage of Quay Street dock for loading concrete trucks.

Yeah, so Roan Selvidge is gonna be doing some repairs on the north breakwater, and so what they're asking is to be able to, kind of where Fifth Street would kind of intersect with Quay Street, what they want to do, there's pictures and they put like little steel ramps so they can basically drive concrete trucks onto a barge and then get them to the area where they need to do the repairs. So they're gonna put protections down and then anything that gets damaged, they would repair, including grass, curb, sidewalk, anything. It would be three non-consecutive days in mid-September, and it would be four trucks per event going up onto the barge. So the traffic on Quay Street could remain open, but they would close the sidewalk, of course, while they're doing that. We feel that's okay, but I think the direction would be to have Eric work on getting an agreement in place just to ensure that any sort of damage would be repaired.

Yes, Father Zierkowitz.

Question. To the directly west of where they're looking to do this, along the sheet wall, is it still roped off for access with barricade that the public is supposed to stay away from the sheet wall?

We've taken ours down. There's still some over by the farmer's market lot. Well, they got taken down for the fourth. They're back up again. They're back up. Yeah.

Because of the concern along the sheet wall. So I'm just wondering. Yeah.

And so the way we're understanding this, and again, I guess it could be part of the agreement, is that with their ramps, they wouldn't be setting on the sheet wall. They would sort of be above it. right they would ramp up so they wouldn't touch the dock wall but yeah but the weight next to it as they get to the sheet wall and we're concerned about on the it could be yeah but that was my first thought when i read this is yep but the the way that they're describing it um where they put the plywood stuff down that would serve as sort of like a pat foundation to spread out their their weight the force is going down and the fact that it would sort of be a rolling thing just driving over it, I don't think it's that big of a concern, but I'm also not a sheet wall expert either. Yeah.

Yeah, no, I don't. But that's a great point. I'm not sure how to comment on that. A lot of that stuff had come from Reese being, I think, overly... Overly cautious.

Yeah.

Allegedly. Allegedly. And we've had... We had ours inspected. They've had theirs inspected, too. We've not seen their report. We do have a report on our end, and I think we're good down in this area. We've done the due diligence on our end, which this is in our response.

And I didn't see in here, obviously they're asking for access. Are they, other than possibility of paying for repairs and stuff, are they looking to pay for access for that time frame? Or just use it and if they abuse it, they'll fix it?

Yeah, I didn't, I'm not aware of any request or any offer to pay us other than to repair any damages.

And I guess that's why we're looking to have something quickly because we kind of need something. I don't know if we can bring it back to council unless it be in August because if we wait until September, they're probably going to be done with the work or would like to be done with the work by then. In mid-September, they're saying, yeah. The issue is that I think that's where the Corps is doing work. I think Roland was hired by the Corps for that work. So they're out beyond where it goes down the stairs so they can't drive. out all the way to where they actually need to be. That's why they're requesting this and putting the concrete trucks on the barge to then float it out there.

I mean, just as long as we're protected, that's the biggest thing there.

Yeah, I was out there today taking some pictures, so we got some documentation on what it looked like. Okay.

Thank you. Okay, any questions from anybody else on the committee? Okay, then I'll go. I'm confused. Why are we loading concrete trucks in the middle of downtown? Why are they choosing that specific spot?

That's what I was just saying. We've taken a lot of equipment out like the blue rail to where the dog run is, but if you've been out there once you get past the dog run there's a stairway so there'd be no way of getting to that last part of the pier with a concrete truck you could get most of the way out there but then they'd still have to do something with it to get down the stairs to where they're actually working because they're kind of between those stairs and the lighthouse and so the easiest way for them is so It's just going to be, I believe, ready-mix trucks. They're going to come down the street. They're going to ramp the curb, go up the curb, and then get onto this other steel ramp that will get them right onto a barn.

So these are ready-mix trucks? I believe so. And they're loading concrete from?

Well, they'll have concrete in them. They'll just take the whole ready-mix truck over there.

They're unloading concrete, in other words. Okay, because it talks about loading concrete trucks. They're not loading them. They're unloading concrete trucks. Yes.

I think what they're referring to is loading the concrete truck onto the barge. Yeah, it's a little cumbersome wording.

I just kept thinking to myself, we have a perfectly good place for unloading concrete a little ways up the river, but yeah, okay. Yes, Alder Anderson.

I was just wondering, you said unloading concrete trucks in the middle of the city. That sparked my curiosity.

Is there any way we could use the Badger ramp? I don't think so.

No, I don't know. I mean, when we were talking in a meeting the other day, I think somebody mentioned it, but I just, I don't think it would be, we talked about how, like, in the back, the carfer, it gets pretty narrow, whereas the barge is going to be, and we don't know height-wise. Yeah, I think that's... You know, to go through...

That'd be the big challenge. If you've ever seen that thing come back, that's quite a hike.

It did get mentioned, but I'm not sure if that would work. Get in that area secured and stuff and usually lock that. I don't know. It seems like it might be viable. I guess my other question. It's a good thought, though, yeah.

My other question is how long is this process going to be going on?

They said it would be four trucks, three non-consecutive days. So it shouldn't take long at all. Just put four trucks on there, unload it, three days.

I think they're saying about 100 yards of concrete. Yes, 100 yards. So I don't know if there's eight or 10 yards of load typically. So 10 to 15 trucks.

Well, 12 according to their math. Four trucks, three days. Yeah.

Yeah, so 12 trucks then.

Okay, so I guess we'd be looking for a motion then. Or are we looking for a motion?

Ideally, I guess. Ideally, we're over here.

Yeah.

You know, I guess to have probably Eric come up with a quick agreement for, you know, Okay. Any indemnification, and then write that if they damage something, they'll fix it.

So send it to September, in other words?

He would approve of, well, see if we can bring something back this month yet, but I don't know, or just as long as he's good with it.

Yeah, I mean, I don't think any of us have a problem so far, so I guess we could just take it to the council.

Yeah, because I think to meet the course timeline for getting it done before the weather, you know, they want that concrete to be cured before the weather starts getting sketchy.

Okay, so we won't take any action on that tonight, and we'll just wait for Eric to come back with paperwork on that, and we'll take it directly to council.

Yeah, I mean, unless you wanted to make the motion directing him to do it, or... Well, that's fine.

Yeah, approve of it pending his agreement, I guess.

But if you want to see, yeah, if you want to see, you can bring it to council.

We could do that. So we'd be looking for a motion to approve pending the completed agreement by the city attorney.

If you're comfortable with that.

Okay, somebody want to make a motion?

I'll make the motion with the city attorney agreeing to it.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Second by Bry. So it's Anderson, Bry. Okay. All right, any further discussion? All right, all in favor? Aye. So, that's approved, and that exhausts our agenda, unless there's anything else. Motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

We are adjourned.

Do I have a second to adjourn?

I do. Thank you.

You familiar?