City Council - Regular Meeting

All right. I'm going to call this Tuesday, August 18th, 2026 city council meeting to order. We will start with roll call. Alderman Wells is excused.

Christine.

Here.

Everett. Here. Wigderson. Here. Piper. Here. Vantriese. Here. Wells is absent. Mannion. Here. Moulton. Here. Witeska. Here. Anderson. Here. Helgastead. Here. Matthews. Here. Miklitz. Here. Lemke. Here. Camacho.

All right, thank you. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right, before we get to our business, we do have a presentation of an award, and I believe it's only one award. I know it's listed as two. But we have an award to present to Megan Magrits, one of our dispatchers. So if you want to come up here and do your presentation, and then we'll take pictures after.

Where would you like me to stand, ma'am?

If you want to maybe speak into the microphone so that way everyone can hear it. Sure. I don't think we have a portable mic.

So the VFW, the Veterans of Foreign Wars Organization of the City of Waukesha, nominated or got a nomination to put Megan in for Dispatcher of the Year. We originally thought that this nomination was going to be a city-level award, maybe even the state level at the VFW. And what ended up happening was it went all the way to national and won the National Dispatcher Award. So congratulations. So I can read this award to you, and then we can do a little round of applause. So the Veterans of Foreign Wars VFW National Dispatch Award is awarded to the Emergency Communications Center Supervisor, Megan Magrits, in recognition and sincere appreciation of her dedication and selfless service to the City of Waukesha Communications Center. During emergency communications center supervisor Megan Magritte's outstanding career, she has maintained a record of highly professional and exemplary service to the community and the nation. Her extraordinary commitment clearly illustrates the proud core values and traditions of the dispatcher profession, further highlighted by the degree of admiration and respect of both her peers and the local public she serves. Emergency Communications Center Supervisor Megan Magritte is truly an exceptional example to all dispatchers, and this honor reflects the proud ideals and high standards of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. Signed by the Commander-in-Chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

What's the backdrop like? Come on, Joe, get in there. All right, perfect. Thank you. Yeah, everybody, the whole group. Yeah, don't dream.

That's pretty cool. The National Room Award, that's really cool.

That's a big one, you guys. Yeah. Okay, get it squeezed together.

up next we have public comment first i have paul reese if you could come up to the microphone say your name and your address and then you'll have three minutes

Good evening. My name's Paul Reese. I live at 505 Rawlings Drive. I'm here tonight to talk to you about the e-bikes and e-cycles that are riding through our parks. It started about 10 years ago with the e-scooters, but they're limited by ground clearance and wheel size, so they weren't so much damage. But now we have e-bikes and e-cycles that are just tearing through our parks, and they're making our baseball diamonds unplayable. There's some reason they think it's fun to go in there and do donuts and dig trenches in these diamonds. And it's dangerous. They don't understand what it takes to make a baseball diamond. Even our police officers don't understand when you call and make complaints. But a baseball diamond isn't just regular dirt that's packed down. It is special. It is a clay that's on top so that when you step, you don't turn your ankle. And they put these ruts in there, and then they think you can just fill it in. You can't. It has to be packed and leveled again if you don't want people turning their ankles. And our baseball diamond just north of Bethesda Elementary School is our U8 baseball field. It's the one that Park and Rex uses for our kids. And it is absolutely atrocious what's been done to that baseball diamond. The amount of the digging up. They'll park on home plate and just dig a trench there. Park the front break and light it up until they make a trench in there. And then how are we supposed to play with it? I don't have the money to join sticks, to go to do private things. I don't have that kind of money. I go to our local parks that I pay for with my tax dollars to play baseball with my kid. And I can't use the parks. My backyard is in better shape than our baseball fields. It's absurd, and you call the police in this town, and they act like it's not a big deal. And these aren't e-cycle bicycles anymore. These are e-cycles. There's no bike part to it. It is like a moped. You have 12-year-olds riding motorbikes on the road. They're not licensed. They think it's fun to do this down the road. How are you supposed to know as a driver when a kid's going to pop out in front of you? Kids have been hurt and killed. The kid who got hurt last year in Sussex, it was a year ago from this past Christmas, almost two years now, lost parts of his hands, his legs. It was amputated. He survived, but he'll never be the same. This is what's going on. And we're allowing this in our towns. We just ignore the fact that this is happening. Our cops willfully turn a blind eye to it. These kids, when I grew up, they at least protected us. The police officers protected us from ourselves. I would have done the same in a heartbeat. I would have rode my motorcycle up and down the roads if they would have let me, but they never would have let me because it was against the law, because it was dangerous for everybody involved. And right now, our police department does not care. They turn a blind eye to it. Oh, I'm out of time. Thanks.

Thank you. Anyone else for public comment? All right. Moving right along. Approval of the minutes from the August 4th meeting. Is there a motion? Alderperson Manion?

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

Alderperson Molson? Second. Thank you. Are there any questions or comments regarding the minutes? All right. Then please vote when it is before you.

Mayor Clumby, aye. Piper, aye.

All right, that motion passes 14 to 0. Next up is consent agenda. Are there any items to be removed from consent?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I motion that we remove for further discussion 26-04087, the review of possible action of the engineering consultant selection, please.

All right, we will remove that from the agenda, and we will discuss that under the Board of Public Works report. Are there any other items to be removed from consent agenda? All right, then other than ID 26-04087, everything else on consent is passed. Moving on to new business, we have first up the approval of revisions to municipal court bond schedule. Brian?

Thank you. You may recall that earlier this year, we passed an ordinance that amended quite a few provisions in Chapter 11 of our code, added such things as, well, a lot of it had to deal with prostitution. We created a dumping ordinance. And we also created an unlawful assembly ordinance. And what that means is that the bond schedule needs to be updated to include bond amounts for those offenses. And that's what we've done here. We created a new bond schedule that places the bond amounts approximately in the middle of the range for them as we usually do. It goes to the police department for their review, and then, of course, it has to be approved by the municipal judge. The judge is really technically the one that sets the bond schedule, but it is subject to approval by the council. So anyway, police department has signed off on it. The municipal judge, Judge Fabian, approved of this revision, and it's now before you for your approval and adoption.

Thank you. Are there any questions or comments or motions? Alderperson Manion.

I'll make a motion to approve the municipal court bond schedule as presented.

Alderperson Matthews.

I'll second the motion.

All right.

Any other further comments? All right, then please vote when it is before you. The motion is to approve the revisions to municipal court bond schedule as presented.

Lemke, aye. Piper, aye.

All right, that motion does pass 14 to zero. Thank you. Next up, we have some claims for property damage. I'm assuming those are also for you, Brian.

Yes, we have a handful of claims for property damage this evening. The first one we'll look at was submitted by Mr. Kevin Peterson. This is for damage that was caused by a limb a large limb falling from a city tree which on its way down took down some utility wires which in turn pulled the mount off of the side of Mr. Peterson's house and pulled off some siding. And the claim is made for $1,767.29 for repair of the electric wires. If you took a look, you'll see that he submitted photos that show the damage and also show the tree. Now, as you know by now, the city is not strictly liable for anything that results from a tree. The city has to be shown to have been negligent somehow. And negligence in the context of tree damage means that we were aware that the tree presented a hazard but failed to take any preventive steps to keep it from causing harm. So when a claim comes in like this, the first thing we do is we contact the city forester, Aaron Lehnert, and ask him to review the records to see if there's any record of problems with the particular tree in question. Their records will show if calls have been made asking for service to trees, and it'll show if in their tree, as they inspect the trees, as they do periodically, they identified the tree as being problematic somehow. And in this case, Mr. Lehnert said that there is no such record. and therefore we do not believe that the city was negligent in any way. This was something that happened as a result of wind, and large limbs do blow out of trees periodically. If we had something that showed that the city was aware that this might happen and cause damage, then we would look to see if any preventive action was taken, but there is no evidence that we were aware. So in these cases, we will ask for disallowance of the claim.

Okay.

Alderperson Moulton.

I move to disallow the claim of Kevin Peterson.

Okay.

Alderperson Miklitz. I second.

Okay.

Any discussion? Alderperson Van Traester.

This is a topic that we go through quite often. It's a city tree. It's private property that that city tree affected in some way. And I, I want to say on record that I think this is kind of absurd. Some of us are benefiting. We have underground utilities. Other people don't have that luxury. And I think we've got terrace trees that I can't even get in my own district, I can't even get the suckers from forestry pulled off the trees, which over time makes them more susceptible to diseases. With that, I would like the Common Council to vote for approval for this. This is an ongoing issue. We all deal with the sidewalks popping up because of terrace trees. And now it's affected by wind and all that from the trees. It's never going to end. So I think we better get something put in writing how we're going to address this going forward. Thank you.

Okay, any other comments? All right, then the motion is to disallow the claim. Please vote when it is before you. A yes vote is to disallow.

Lemke, yes. Piper, aye.

All right, that motion passes 13 to 1. Next up, we have another claim for property damage.

Yes, we do. And I would like to say before we go on to that one that all of the claims that are before you this evening, I have no doubt that the incidents actually happened and these people did suffer the damages that they're claiming here. It doesn't look like anybody is trying to defraud the city and it's unfortunate that all of these circumstances happened to them. So I certainly can sympathize with all of them because any one of us here could be in the same situation. The alternative for them, if the city does not pay their claim, is to look to their own insurance. For instance, the last case, a claim should be made to the homeowner's insurance for coverage on that. So I hope that they all have that kind of coverage for their property, but I just wanted you to know that these things do happen, and I have no doubt that the damage that they're claiming is genuine. Okay, next up is Daniel and Paula Miklig who unfortunately were driving past Buckner Park while a ball game was being played, and they say they were hit by a baseball, and their vehicle suffered $875.27 of damage. Again, this is not something that the city has strict liability for. There has to be some showing, some indication that the city was negligent in causing the damage. And in cases like this, I don't believe that there is negligence on the part of the city. It's just something that happened. You may recall that not too long ago, we disallowed a claim from an individual whose car was damaged by a ball at the Frame Park field. So this kind of falls into that same category. If there were some way the city could take reasonable steps to prevent this from happening, then maybe we could consider this. But to put a fence or a net or some sort of protection around a ball diamond that's sufficient to prevent all balls from leaving the diamond and landing on a street, I don't believe that's within the capability of the city to do. And I don't think that that would really be a reasonable attempt to mitigate the damages. So... We're also asking that this one be disallowed for that reason.

Okay, Alderperson Molson.

I move to disallow the claim of Daniel and Paula Mischling.

Okay, Alderperson Camacho.

I'll second.

Any discussion? All right, then a yes vote again is to disallow the claim. Please vote when it is before you.

Piper, aye.

All right, that motion passes 14 to zero. We have another claim for property damage.

Yes, this one is submitted by Kathy Rempe. This involves a sewer backup that was caused by a water utility work. The water utility did some excavation and severed a sewer lateral. And it was determined that the reason that the excavation severed the lateral was because it was improperly marked the location of the lateral was improperly marked. Upon further inquiry, we learned that it was the city that marked the lateral. So it was, in this case, a case of negligence by the city. So we are recommending that this claim for $1,300 be allowed.

Alderperson Molson?

I move to allow the claim of damage for Kathy Rempey.

Alderperson Evert? I second. All right, there's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All right, then the motion is to allow the claim. Please vote when it is before you.

Piper, aye.

All right, that motion passes 14 to 0. Next up is another claim for property damage.

Yes, this one is submitted by Mr. Tyler Paddock who had an unfortunate incident on Madison Street. Now this is back in April when we were having some extremely heavy rainfall events and a rainfall, heavy rainfall, sudden heavy rainfall apparently popped a manhole cover off. and it was claimed to be about eight feet away from the manhole. Mr. Paddock was driving up Madison Street and drove into the open manhole, severely damaging the underside of his car. So he is asking for the value of his car because he is alleging that it's not repairable. He submitted a claim for $6,200. And I don't doubt, again, that this happened because we checked our weather records and found that, yes, that coincided with an extremely heavy rain event. The police department had an incident report showing that this happened. And it's unfortunate that it damaged Mr. Paddock's car. However, this is another one of those things that we really cannot foresee happening or predict happening and really don't have a means to prevent it from happening. Other problems that we had with this particular claim are that Mr. Paddock did not in our opinion submit sufficient proof of the amount of his damage. He pulled the $6,200 figure off of some website for the sale of cars locally. In addition, the documentation that he submitted of the damage to the car really was inconsequential or inconclusive rather as to whether the vehicle was totaled. So the combination of those factors leads us to recommend a disallowance of the claim.

All right, Alderperson Moulton. I move to disallow the claim of Tyler Paddock.

Alderperson Helgestad.

Second.

All right, any discussion? Alderperson Ventrieste. Okay.

Brian, could you tell us, was there any insurance claim that was presented at all from Mr. Paddock?

To his automobile insurer?

Well, to his, but also then whatever he might have received from that insurance company. Did we see any of that?

No, I have no information about whether he made a claim to his auto insurance or received any money from any other source.

But nothing was presented along those lines, okay. Right. All right, thank you.

Okay, any other discussion? All right, then the motion is to disallow the claim. So yes vote is to disallow. Please vote when it is before you.

Piper, aye.

All right, that motion passes 14 to 0. Next up, and hopefully our last one, is another claim for property damage.

It is our final claim to deal with tonight, submitted by Mr. Kenneth Ward, who suffered a sewer backup into his basement. He's claiming $3,598 in damage. And the allegation of negligence on the part of the city is that it was roots from a city tree that clogged the sewer. And well, very clearly that is not something that the city can be responsible for because it's not foreseeable when a tree is going to send its roots into a sewer. There's nothing we can do to prevent it in any event. And we cannot take any kind of steps to mitigate that sort of the possibility of that kind of damage. In this case, I hope that Mr. Ward had submitted a claim to his homeowner's insurance policy. I don't know, but we do recommend that this claim be disallowed.

Alderperson Moulton. I move to disallow the claim of Kenneth Ward. Alderperson Halgastead?

Second.

Any discussion?

All right. Then the motion is to disallow the claim. So yes, vote is to disallow. Please vote when it is before you.

Piper, aye.

All right. That motion passes 14 to 0.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, Transit Commission Report. Alex?

No meeting, no report.

All right. Water Utility Commission, Alderperson Matthews.

No report. Next meeting is Thursday at 6 o'clock.

Thank you. IT Board, Alderperson Mannion.

No meeting, no report.

Landmarks Commission Report, Alderperson Krasine.

Thank you, Mayor. We discussed some grants for improvement, some local homes. We had three people come before us, and they received the permission. And then we talked about the expansion of some different springs that are going to be opened up and unlocked, literally, for Waukesha Unlocked, October 10th and the 11th. Excellent.

Redevelopment Authority Report, Alderperson Lemke.

At last night's meeting, the main focus of our meeting was the 2012 Central City Master Plan, how we've been doing on implementing that. And I got a four-page printout, both sides. If somebody wants to come and see it, they can come see it, or they could email Jennifer, and I'm sure that they would email a copy of it to you all. We're making good progress on it, and that's all I can say. Thank you.

Excellent, thank you. Parks, Recreation and Forestry Board. Alderperson Wells is absent. Alderperson Camacho.

I'm going to substitute a lot tonight. No meeting, no report.

Thank you.

Library Board report. Alderperson Haglis said. Thank you. We met last Thursday at the library and wanted to report that we saw the summer reading program end on August 1st and this year it was a very successful program with a 14% increase in registration and reading this year. We had in total about 4,600 kids, teens, and adults log roughly 2.7 million minutes of reading this year. Fall programming handouts for adults, teens, and children have now become available at the library and on the website. And Waukesha Reads, the official launch is coming up on September 8th with more events and details to come on that. And I'm really excited to announce that the library has added two passes to the Farm Wisconsin Discovery Center in Manitowoc to the collection. So like the zoo passes and such that people can check out, you can go get a pass to go to the Farm Center in Manitowoc. Other than that, I'd encourage everyone to come to the library and check things out and to report.

Thank you. Cemetery commission report, Alderperson Crizine was on vacation, so Alderperson Camacho was going to fill in.

Told you I want to substitute a lot tonight. So the big news that we had, we went over some of the budget for what we're looking for, and we're moving that into budget season as it comes. So we're starting to discuss that. And the big fun news is that we have the tombstone trot. So please sign up for that. It is a 5K run, and for those that don't want to run, you can walk. That's why we call it a trot. It will be Sunday, October 18th. You can sign up right online, or I do have a QR code with a flyer. So go exercise. All right, I got one victim already. All right. So anybody else, please join in. All right, thanks. End of report.

Excellent.

Thank you Walker shot Housing Authority report alderperson Piper no report this evening Our next meeting is actually tomorrow at 9 a.m. At the Housing Authority on Arcadian Avenue all are welcome to attend and you Community Development block grant Jennifer no report.

Okay Public Art Committee alderperson Molson no report Plan Commission Jennifer no report Finance Committee Report. Alderperson Piper.

We are one week away from the kickoff of the 2027 budget that is the show and tell at the City Garage at 300 Century Drive at 6 o'clock. I encourage all members of the Council and members of the public to attend to see the various pieces of equipment that City staff and directors are looking to replace as part of the 2027 capital budget. I also want to extend my thanks on behalf of the Council and the Committee to the staff and directors that pulled this together. This is a little bit of work, a lot of work to get the building set up, organized, and get the equipment there for all of us to take a peek at and for members of the public. And again, on behalf of the Finance Committee and the Common Council, a big thank you to our team, Tony, your team, and all our directors and staff for pulling this together. And we will see you all next Tuesday. End of report.

Excellent, thank you building and grounds report alder person Molson no report ordinance and licensing committee report Paul I believe everything is gonna go over to Emma We'll start with the Waukesha Municipal Code six point one two Yep, I can go over that so I know about these things.

I'm an engineering technician so the The item here is the update to municipal ordinance 6.12 for snow and ice removal from sidewalks, curb ramps, bus pads, and fire hydrants. This item did already go to Board of Public Works as well as ONL. And then the two attachments for this document is one is a red line that goes over all of the changes that are being made in a cleaned up version as well as the ordinance format. So a couple major things that are changing. Reviewing against other municipalities and realistic timelines for enforcement. So we are changing the 24-hour limit to 12 hours for enforcement. So the example I have given a few times. Other way. Oh, sorry. Thank you. So the example I've given a few times of the various meetings we've gone to is typically we do these right away in the morning at 8 a.m. If I was to go back and do the investigation after that, in that evening, it would be 8 p.m. And at that point, the contractor is not available for any clearing. And then the other things that we changed, we did combine the sections. So previously the sidewalk, bus pads, fire hydrants, and curb ramp sections were all separate. We did decide to combine those because they have very similar requirements for clearing. We added a definition of what a sidewalk was versus a pedestrian path. And then we added information on Like right-of-way distances and sidewalks so we were better set up for a purpose of enforcement in the future So depending on how large the right-of-way is they are now being encompassed in this ordinance and then we did increase the admin cost for those that are Occurring several times within the same snow season. So if you are within the months of October to I think it's April and you have not cleaned several times, then you would get an additional admin fee.

All right. Any questions or discussion? Alderperson Matthews.

Just 1 quick question in section 2, it says the penalty for that in the synopsis that in the write up that we had, it says the fine was going from 25 to 50 dollars. But in section 2, it says it shall be increased by 50 dollars. So, is that 75 dollars for the fine? Or is it. Is that a typo and it should be increased to 50 dollars.

It was increased from 25 to 50, so you're right. I guess we would have to define that better. It would be the work being charged in addition to the $50. Okay.

So it's $250, not increased by $50. Yes. All right. Thank you.

Okay, any other discussion?

Alderperson Wachowska? The one point I'll note out. This was approved unanimously at O&L. Even though this went to buildings, grounds, and O&L, I think this still technically counts as the second reading, so there's no action needed tonight. But if you have any concerns or questions, you can reach out to Emma, and she will be happy to answer your questions.

Yes, thank you. That's what I was about to say. Anyone else? All right. Then just as Alderperson Wateska said, this is the second reading. So we will move on to the next item, which is review and recommendation on an ordinance determining the polling place for November 17th and December 15th special election. I'm assuming, Katie, you are handling this one? No?

I can talk about this one.

All right.

We have, due to the unfortunate passing of Paul Farrell, we've got a special election coming up. And the timing of it did not allow it to coincide with the general election in November. And it's going to be held on December 15th. So we're going to have a lot of election activity in a relatively compressed timeframe. And because of that, the clerk's office has requested.

Hold on, Brian. There's a tornado siren. How do you want us to proceed? Because I'm assuming we need to pause.

Well, is it a tornado? Do we have to evacuate or head for shelter?

I'm going to defer to Tony on this one. I don't want to intentionally endanger anybody here. I can hear it, yeah.

Well, I think that means we're all supposed to go outside and look to see it, right?

Yes. Good suggestion.

Yeah, why don't we go into recess for now?

All right. Alderperson Mannion?

I will make a motion to recess until a time that it's safe to continue the meeting.

Thank you. Alderperson Evert? I second. All right. Is there any discussion? All right. Please vote on whether or not we can go into recess. Can we do a voice vote on this one?

Christine, aye. All right.

All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All right, let's go. All right, given that the weather seems to have calmed down, we are back in normal session. All right, so back to you, Brian, regarding the polling places.

All right, thank you. I think I had explained that we were going to have a A couple of elections in a short amount of time and the clerk's office has requested that we condense the polling places for the special election in December in order to minimize the having to regather all of the volunteers and go through all of the logistics that would ordinarily be needed for using all of our regular polling places. I think they're anticipating that maybe this special election won't generate as much interest and as many voters as the general election. And they're anticipating that they should be able to handle it here. So this is an ordinance which determines the polling place For if a primary is necessary, it would be on November 17th, and then the December 15th special election. It would only be for those elections. It's not a permanent change of the polling places. It makes that clear. It also requires that notices shall be published as according to law regarding the location of the polling places. There are pretty strict rules about that. And in addition, prominent signs shall be posted at all regular polling places on the dates of the elections, giving notice of the change in case people show up at their usual polling place so they're advised where they should go. And then the final Section 3 is Municipal Code 103, which is the listing of the regular polling places, is not amended by this ordinance and it shall remain applicable to all other elections until such time as the Common Council would change it if it saw fit. So as much as Katie does not like to speak at council meetings, I think regarding the logistics and the need for this change, those questions probably ought to be directed to her.

And I will just add to Brian's talking. We did contact all our current locations and a number of them aren't available for both dates. They're available for one or not the other or not at all because it's not something we requested back when we knew the election dates.

Do we have, so this would be all or nothing? It would be everything here at City Hall or would there be certain ones at the regular polling place and when those ones aren't available, they would come here? Is that?

All of them. This would be, City Hall would be the only polling place in the city. Thank you.

Okay, Alderperson Piper and then Wateska.

All right, just for further clarification, Brian, Katie, this pertains only to the county executive race. Is that accurate?

That's right. That's the only reason there's going to be a special election is just for the county executive.

So if there's if there is a primary needed, it'll be everyone will vote in just the county executive race on the 17th of November and then the final general election for that race and only that race would be voted on here on the 15th of December.

That is correct. Thank you.

Alderperson Lemke and then. Oh, sorry. Yes, Alderperson Montesca.

Mine was more just procedural. Do we need to do a third reading with this, and do we have the time to do that, or is this something we need to pass tonight, or make a motion on tonight?

The rule on the readings is for ordinances that amend the code. I don't know that, strictly speaking, this amends the code, and it even recites that it doesn't amend the code. I don't know that we're in enough of a time crunch on this that we would need to waive a third reading if that were required, but it does affect a code section. in the sense that it overrides that code section for one election. So I think that you can, it's up to the council how you wanna handle that. If you think it is required to go to a third reading, I don't think the council rule would require it.

Okay. Katie, does your team, knowing that you're gonna have to handle Two elections in two weeks in November, potentially, and then another one in December. Do you need this done sooner or later? Do you care if we wait another two weeks for this?

We can wait. We have until the end of September before we have to let the county know.

OK, thank you.

OK, all the personal and keep will have the two week early voting also to help relieve some of the strain on Election Day.

We will, yes, it starts November 4th.

Okay, Alder person man, Tracy, Katie, this is to you. Are we going to go and find out, for instance, if we can have maybe Elmbrook church. And have, like, drive in voting there. You know, someplace that could accommodate that size of a crowd.

The anticipation is 15% turnout for the county executive position, which is roughly 6,500 voters, which includes absentee. So City Hall would be able to handle the traffic.

How about one other question I had, too, earlier the last time we voted, April 7th it was on that one, was about the handicapped, you know, easy access. We've got a District 5 has to meet over at the Expo Center. And there's a little bit of logistics issues with that. There's still quite a walk for people that are handicapped. So just wanted to bring that up too.

Curbside voting is always an option at all polling locations.

Okay, thanks.

Any other comments? Alderperson Anderson.

Sorry, I just want to clarify how many expected voters. This is a county-wide race, not city-wide.

So it's a county-wide election, but then it's the entire city. So it's about 6,500 voters for the city.

Okay.

Which includes absentee as well.

Okay.

Anyone else? Alderperson Lemke.

I just wanted to make a motion to have the third reading waived and just get on with it. I don't think there's any question, but that's up to the council.

Is there a second to the motion to waive the council rules? Alderperson Miklitz is the second. Is there any discussion on waiving the rules and waiving the third reading? All right. Then this is just to waive the third reading. So please vote when it is before you. And I will note that Rico did have to leave when we were on break. So Alderperson Camacho will not be included in the total.

Molson, no.

Lemke, aye.

Alderperson Wigderson.

Wigderson, aye.

Alderman Witeska.

No.

Alderman Anderson.

Aye.

Other person? All right.

That motion passes 10 to 3. So this is going to be voted on tonight. Is there any discussion, further discussion regarding the polling places for November 17th and December 15th?

Was there a motion made?

No, not yet.

Alderperson Wateska? I'll make a motion to approve the ordinance for determining the polling places for November 17th primary and December 15th special election for county supervisor.

Alderperson Manion?

I'll second the motion.

All right, any further discussion? Alderperson Kruseen?

Thank you, Mayor. I just voted no because I was going with Katie's recommendation. So just another way to get some more word out about what's going on. Thank you. Okay.

Any further discussion? All right. Then there is a motion to approve the polling location for November 17th and December 15th. Please vote when it is before you.

Lemke, aye.

Moulton, yes. Wigderson, aye. Miklitz, aye.

Anderson, aye.

Alderman Everett?

Aye.

Alderman Piper?

Aye.

All right. That motion passes 13 to 0. Next up, Human Resources Committee Report. Alderperson Anderson?

Tomorrow's meeting has been canceled.

All right. Next up is Board of Public Works. We did have one item that was removed from consent. That is review and possible action on the engineering consultant selection for the RAISE grant bike and pedestrian bridges. Brandon?

sure i'll just kind of do a quick overview and then kind of open it up to questions comments concerns as this item was pulled off consent um i know the last time that we have talked about this project you know we the council may have had a different look to it there might be some new alders so just a quick recap of how we got to where we're at today with this project we did request the funding for this project in the 2026 cip and that was approved which included a portion of this project being funded with federal grant dollars and a city cost share so it was an 80 20 cost split for the total amount of the project In February of this year, we did move through a grant agreement with the U.S. DOT to proceed with this project for the planning, study, preliminary, and final design of two pedestrian bridges over the Waukesha Bypass, one on the south side of the city near Fox River Parkway, and one on the east side by the New Berlin Trail crossing. So just a cliff notes of HOW THIS PROJECT HAS EVOLVED OVER TIME. OBVIOUSLY I HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS PROJECT TO A FEW OF YOU QUITE A BIT, SITTING IN THE SAME SEAT, SO NOT A STRANGER TO THAT, BUT, YOU KNOW, JUST KIND OF WORKING THROUGH THE NEXT STEPS OF THIS PROCESS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO TO EXECUTE THIS PROJECT IN ITS TOTALITY, FOLLOWING ALL THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW FOR THE GRANT AGREEMENT WITH US DOT. The next step is to pick an engineering consultant. So we went through an RFP process. We had a review committee to review the RFPs that were submitted on to the city. We did have seven of them in total following the city's policy for engineering consultant selection on federal projects, which was recently developed, updated, passed through board and council as well. Following that set of processes, we have to follow federal requirements, which is the Brooks Act. What that means is it's a quality based selection. We do not get to consider cost when selecting an engineering consultant. So that's what this item is, is to move forward with the selection of our top ranked engineering consultant based on the city's review committee. That committee was comprised of myself, I'm a roadway group manager, a member of community development, as well as a member of parks, recs, rec and forestry. So as a committee, we recommended, we scored the RFPs. ranked the top three consultants based on those RFPs and moved forward with in-person interviews. We picked the top three. We gave them basically 45 minutes of interviews. Each interview was conducted in the exact same fashion. They were able to present for 15 minutes, and then we walked through five questions. At the end of the interviews, we met as a panel again. We decided to move forward with our top-ranked consultant. And you can see in the cover sheet and the attached documents of our scoring table, we proceeded to move forward or recommended moving forward with AECOM as our top-ranked consultant. we had great proposals we had great consultants it was really splitting hairs down to the wire the review committee did select aecom as our top trained consultant we presented that to the board of public works at the last meeting that was unanimously approved to move forward with entering contract negotiations which is the next step of the product process with aecom so the In general, that's what is presented in front of you tonight. I guess any questions that you may have, definitely feel free.

Alderperson Matthews.

So, thank you. I appreciate the clarification on the process, and I understand where there's that. My question and one of the reasons I wanted to discuss it further with Council is, can you refresh our memory what the actual contract, what we allocated for the fee for the consultant was? Yep.

So our grants agreement with USDOT, the total cost of the project is anticipated to be $1,396,000. which would be eighty percent federally funded sold that eighty percent the federal funding is one million one hundred sixteen thousand and eight hundred dollars which would require a city cost share of two hundred seventy nine thousand two hundred now that is estimated costs right now of what we anticipate the expense will be if we do proceed moving forward tonight with a ecom we will move into the next step which is contract negotiations that will start out with two meetings to determine the exact scope so we're going to agree upon what the scope of this project is just really fine-tune on number of public meetings or very detailed elements and then they will provide a cost proposal If it's anything less higher, we get the chance to negotiate that contract and that will be brought back through board and Council for final approval of that contract where you will see the final dollar amounts for what you would be approving.

Thank you for clarifying that I have another follow up question. So with that being said, our portion is going to be roughly $280,000 that we would have if to pay for the consultant to see. And the way I'm looking at it, this would be under the assumption that we would go forward with the project. I mean, because why would we spend $280,000 on something that. We may not do in the future. My question also is concerned about what is our cost going to be? If I remember during the presentation, we had a ballpark figure of roughly what? 14Million. Current dollars, and then we would be responsible for 20% of that. So I'm looking at this and saying, we're going to spend. potentially $280,000 to consult, which I get. It's the state requirements for that. And that's going to kind of put us on the hook for an additional $3 or $4 million current price today, not considering this is probably going to be a two-year-out project. So we could be on the hook for 3 or 4M dollars down the road that we are. Obligated to buy if we do this consulting fee and take the money right now, we almost have to move forward. Correct? Or would we just walk away from it if we decide in the future not to allocate the city's portion of those funds going forward?

Yeah, great question. So. To summarize what in totality the total scope of this project is, is for a feasibility study for both bridges. getting the alignments, all of the preliminary engineering, walk through the entire NEPA environmental process, all items from a planning perspective, then move into preliminary and final design. So at the completion, if this project were to move forward, at the completion, we would have two 100% shovel-ready designed bridge projects to be able to proceed with construction. that is what the grant and the grant agreement that we all executed is for there is no commitment to move you know that we're we are not tied to or committed to anything beyond that So from a construction perspective, we would have two ready to go projects that we would need to, as a whole, decide how we move those projects forward. Could be an onslaught of things. It could be, hey, we really like one of these bridges. Yes, one of the bridges is likely in the eight or $9 million range per bridge. So that's about what we're looking at from a cost projected from construction dollars. We might like one of the two options best. Maybe it's the New Berlin Trail crossing. That makes the most sense. We have the highest users. Yes, it's more of a complex construction. We want to move that forward. We could use all city funds. Working $9 million into a CIP, that might be hard to do. What else can we do? We can look at other funding sources. We can look at this RAISE program, and instead of applying for a planning grant, we look at a construction grant. That is, when we have a shovel-ready project, that makes it much more viable to pursue federal dollars in the RAISE program because we'll have a benefit-to-cost analysis already done. Everything we need for that application from a construction grant standpoint is ready to go. And federal government would have already committed $1.1 million to this project. They are already invested too. We have a higher chance of moving that forward from a construction grant standpoint. So what we would do is look for other sources of how do we get this constructed, knowing that it's a big dollar amount, but it also allows us to utilize. Hey, are there state programs like tap that we can go after STP? Anything like that that gives us an opportunity to fund this 80% 90% and not have it be all city funds. OK.

One more quick thing. I get that. But to me, this is spending $280,000, which is probably going to be slightly more if we're looking at it, we're going through a contract. We're doing that for something that will allow us to apply for a grant or we can look and say, hey, here's what we need to spend and maybe work it into a CIP project or things like that. To me, as a council member, I think we're spending money for a design project that we would like to do and we still haven't secured funding for it or it's a great project. I'm not anti bike path. I'm not, but $280,000 could do a lot of other things right now for something that we don't have secured funding for. We don't know if it's even gonna go through. We don't know that 100% that we can get federal funding. And if we do, we're still gonna be on the hook for another 20%, which could be another three to $5 million that you know, it's gonna be difficult in the next couple of years. So that's my position and my thing. I don't agree with spending this extra money for something that's not solidified, in my opinion.

I do want to just reiterate something that Brandon said, which is this money was allocated as part of the CIP. Just to be very clear, this is just proceeding with money that was already allocated during our CIP budget process for 2026. And we did have some of this conversation. I know you're aware. But I just want to make that very clear for everyone. Alderperson Lemke.

So the reason that I voted for this way back when is we don't know how popular the trail is gonna be. And part of the study is gonna tell us we anticipate that this pedestrian crossing will be used 400 times a day. Let's say it comes out that number. That's more than most parks get, the small parks in the city, other than maybe Buckner Pool in the summertime. Now, I don't know how many times that New Berlin Trail If 200 people are crossing that street on a day on a bike, there's a big incidence of people getting hurt. So I think that it may even, the feasibility study will tell us the information we need rather than guessing how many people this trail is going to use. So that's why I went ahead with the study. I'm not convinced yet that we need the bridge. I'd like the study to tell us the real thing, and I think if the government is going to pay 80% of it, I think it, from what I got at the last meetings, quite a few people pass that New Berlin Trail.

Alderperson Wigderson.

Thank you. I just want to say, with all due respect to aldermen, Matthews, the New Berlin Trail Bridge is actually in District 3, which is my district. It is probably one of the most common calls I get whenever we discuss it. We passed the money already in the CIP budget for the study because we do need to understand as Alderman Lunke already said how often it's going to be used. I'm going to tell you that it is very frequently used, that path, and if you've been down the bypass, you know how many people try to cross to the New Berlin Trail, and it's an accident waiting to happen. So I think it would be, I also want a lot of respect for for you and the work that your team did on this to get this grant because there was a lot of work put into this to get this program or to get this grant and the amount of money that the federal government's gonna pay and they're not going to invest that many millions of dollars in a study if they're not going to consider us for the final project It is something that my district wants us to pursue, to look at. I respect not making a decision, obviously, on the construction since we don't have enough information to make that determination. But I do feel, because this council has approved everything already, that we should move forward with what we've already approved and get this going so that we can see what a benefit it will be to our community.

Thank you.

Yes, I would like to make a motion.

All right, thank you. Is there a second? Alderperson Moulton?

Yes, I second.

All right, thank you. Alderperson Krasine?

Thank you, Mayor. Every time this gets brought up, I say the same thing. I'm not in favor of it. I've gone to finance committee meetings and have mentioned this. I've been told by city staff it can't be stopped. I was told no sidewalk will be put in. They don't want a sidewalk. I do believe they put a sidewalk in already. This used to be in my district, but it is no longer in my district. but it has not changed. A little bit further south, a little bit further north, there's the crosswalk. Press a button, things stop. Safety is a concern, obviously, but I will vote no at every opportunity I can, and I know this is just for, well, whether or not we're gonna go to the consulting fees, but I'm still gonna vote no.

Tony, I'm going to let you go.

Just to clarify, the motion that I believe she was making was to approve the engineering consultant selected by the engineering department related to the race grant in this bridge.

Yes. Correct? Okay. Thank you. Tony? All good. Alderman Van Trieste?

Brandon, this question is for you. This was a while back when I first got on Common Council, but I had heard $19.2 million back then. You're now saying it could be cheaper than that. And every time I have a discussion about sidewalks, well, you know, if we wait, it's gonna be more expensive. But for whatever reason right now, this project's gonna regress monetarily. How did that happen?

Yeah, my quick numbers to Alderman Matthews was 8 to 9 million times I buy two were in that same 18, 19 million dollars. I mean, right right now, those dollars were a very high level scoping type estimate. Moving through this work on this project will really lock in of what those actual dollar amounts are We're looking at we don't have a route exactly lined up. We don't know how much is going to be on structure Don't know how much path work needs to be done grading work. How many retaining walls? That's what this project is going to give us is going to give us those exact details where we can take that 18 19 million dollar target amount from a construction dollar standpoint and say, this is actually what each one of these locations is going to cost. We'll do a full benefit to cost analysis moving forward to say, do these actually feasibly make sense to move forward with construction? So this project work is critical to actually lock in what those exact dollars are. We are looking at a 10,000 foot level of what that cost is, and that's where we're at. One thing to think about, and I appreciate the discussion tonight, is that we do have a lot of staff time invested in this project to get to this point, even through the grant. Writing the grant, everything to get to now, RFPs, reviewing those, consultant interviews, we've done a lot of work to get to this point. I think we've had additional discussions at the finance committee if we want to move this project forward. It's tough to defend each time that this comes up, this will come again. So I think really, we really should come together to make a decision if we're continuing to move forward down this path, we're going to have additional items that we do need to approve like that contract with the selected consultant and other items that. You know, we just want to know that, hey, we're we're spending our time wisely besides, and so we're not throwing away the staff time as we're already committing. So just something to think about as we kind of move this forward tonight, that there will be other items that we do need to discuss and approved, such as a contract. And we want to make sure that we're allocating our staff time to a project that is supported by the group here tonight.

Alderperson Matthews.

One last comment. I appreciate all the hard work you do. Your department does a great job, and we appreciate everything you do. I understand you got a lot of time invested into it. I'm gonna vote no for this, not because I'm anti-bridge right now. I'm not. I just think that this is going to be something that we're going to come into a situation in the next couple of years where we're going to need to allocate funds in something a little bit, and I don't wanna say more critical, but I think in two years, this may be a want rather than a need in what we're gonna be at. And the last piece I have is, yes we did allocate this and vote this for cip funds i get that but i've also been in votes in here where we've reallocated cip funds so just that's my take on i'll be voting no thank you okay any other discussion alderperson van trieste one of the discussions we've had in recent times is we've got infrastructure that's growing and growing and growing and and it has to be maintained

These bridges will have to be maintained as well. We're in conversations recently where maybe we're just going to plow one center in the center of the road. We're going to make one plow pass, and that's the way it's going to be if it comes to that. We've got to make concessions. I don't see any concessions or any talk of ongoing maintenance, what that's going to be over the years. A 10-year study, everybody's talking about, well, we'll be shovel-ready. But there's a cost to every infrastructure need we have or want the infrastructure wants that we might want. So have we looked at what that might cost from a 10,000-foot view over several years, what the cost might be? And then you've got to factor in maybe these kids that are so wanting to mess up diamonds, baseball diamonds, are they going to mess up our bridges too? And maybe we can have more graffiti in the city because we've got a bridge to... to amplify it. I just would like to hear some talk about that.

Your Honor, could we please restate the motion?

Yeah, so the motion is to approve the consultant selection for the raised grant bike and pedestrian bridges over USH 18 and 59.

And who is the consultant?

It's AECOM. AECOM, correct.

Okay, so this motion is to approve AECOM as the consultant.

Correct. Correct? That's all it is. That's all it is. Yes. So I'm guessing that we need to focus the conversation on whether or not we are approving this selection.

Please.

Yes. All right, any other discussion? Alderperson Piper.

Brian took stole my thunder, so I was going to ask for the to counsel to kind of focus on what the agenda item is, and I'll make a comment that I'm on the Board of Public Works and this came through Board of Public Works. It was it was unanimous through the board and the reason that I'm supportive of it is for a lot of what we talked about tonight is we had a pretty robust conversation as part of the budget adoption process a year ago as it relates to this project and one bridge two bridges and. And I certainly won't speak for the Council, but my consensus was that I thought that we were thinking that kind of that Lincoln Avenue, Pearl Street neighborhood was probably a better way to look at it. So I'm supportive of this because it does get us to the point of at least seeing if this is a viable option. The other thing that I'll mention is that I have not heard that we're only going to plow the middle of the street. And I would hope that if that is part of the plan, which I don't think it is, that Public Works would notify the Council. Thank you.

All right. Any other discussion? All right. Then the motion is to approve AECOM as the engineering consultant selection for the raised grant bike and pedestrian bridges. Please vote on this before you.

Wigderson, aye. Molten, yes.

That motion does pass nine to four. Board of Public Works. Anything else, Alex?

Nothing else for me tonight. Thank you.

All right. Director, Director of Public Works. You don't have anything I'm suing for that city attorney.

Yeah, I'm happy to announce that the litigation trail of our chicken ordinance has finally come to an end. We received news from the Supreme Court today that the petition for review of the case brought by Amy Manthe has been denied by the Supreme Court. That's the end of the road. We finally have some finality.

Excellent. All right, city administrators report.

Yeah, just a couple items related to the budget. The first is with regard to the greatest meeting of the year on August 26th. What you'll notice in the CIP books this year, that's a little bit different.

August 25th.

25th, excuse me, excuse me. I just did that so he could come and clarify it So in the CIP book there will be an icon next to the vehicles or equipment that is on display So I know alderman Lemke had brought that up in the past so you all know then in advance what items will be at the meeting and The other thing was with regard to the operations budget department submitted their request this past Friday. And then we will kick off the operating budget at finance committee on September 29th at 06 PM. Another item is that the council workshop is scheduled for September 16th So again, if you are at all able to make it Please do because those end up being very good meetings where I think there's a lot of thoughtful discussions that happen and then lastly I would just say that if I'm just going to follow up on what Alderman Piper said. There has not, to my knowledge, been any discussions about changing the plowing method. If we were to go down that route, what was suggested would be a significant difference in the level of service that's provided. And if we were to have those discussions, undoubtedly the council would be involved in those. End of report.

Thank you. All right. Mayor's report. I don't have anything additional. Any referrals? Alderperson Lemke. And then McAdams.

I would just like to... clarify the plowing down the city of the streets. I just mentioned it, that the city of Wauwatosa plows down the center of the streets. And that's where that idea came from. Never in the wildest dream would I think that we would ever have that for the city of Waukesha. So I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. And Tony could verify that.

Thank you for that clarification. I'm glad that we provide a higher level of service than Wauwatosa. Alderperson Miklitz?

Yes. A referral to remove the caution deaf child sign on Cody Court. Thank you.

And I'm assuming you're going to send that to the clerk. Thank you. Any other referrals? Alderperson Van Trieste?

I've got three of them. E-bike registration. I don't know if I should even pursue this at this point because we haven't made a determination coming out of the police department exactly what we're doing. So maybe I'll resend that. Meadowbrook Park PRF, Meadowbrook Park Fencing parallels Judith Lane. We've got a lot of buckthorn in there and I've had constituents ask if PRF would consider removing that buckthorn and putting in some decorative plantings. And then finally, I've got a sidewalk repair. I'm not sure My constituent said two people fell in recent times. They tripped on a corner of the sidewalk and I don't know how that, how it works. I do know that we do repair curbing and sidewalks, but can I make it for a specific address, Alex?

Send us the address and we can take an inspection of that.

Okay. Thank you That's it. I'll submit these are we still submitting these to Katie or is it going right to Tony?

You can just submit them to me I mean those are really operational issues that we can handle without going to a council standing committee.

Thank you All right anyone else All right, much more exciting meeting than I think we were expecting. But yeah, with that, we are adjourned.