Board of Public Works - Regular Meeting

Remove any headbear and face the flag.

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.

We will welcome public comment. I have your cards. Frank Palm. Come up to the podium and announce your name.

Good evening. My name is Frank Palm. I live at 625 Chicago Avenue. I'm here tonight to try to persuade you to put a guardrail in front of the residents at 524 Madison Street. In recent years, we've had two accidents going up the hill, one of which the car jumped the side jumped the curb over the sidewalk and stopped when it hit a retaining wall to a home.

Second one, which was recently, same thing occurred. The car jumped the curb over the sidewalk and, ended up up against the porch of the residence on, I think it is, 2524. Both of these to me seem to be proof that there needs to be some type of guardrail at that particular spot. I understand, your reluctance to do that, and I know they recommended putting a chevron indicating that there was a turn in that particular road going up the hill, but I think that would not serve the purpose at this time. In both cases, I believe, there was excessive speed going up the hill and also, possibly intoxication in both accidents.

I understand that there's also a couple of comments that I would like to make in your cover sheet that you've got. One of which is the that the proposed guardrail would only prevent vehicles from traveling uphill from running off the road. That is true. It would only prevent them from going off the road, going up the hill. You presently have a guardrail on the same side of the road to prevent cars from going off the road only only going down the hill.

And if you did a little research, you would find out that in the last probably ten years, there have been no accidents against that guardrail. But in fact, the cars have made the bend and have gone off the road and ran into the Salvation Army's front stores, front doorsteps, which case Salvation Army has already put up two bollards to stop that problem. So that guardrail going down the hill really has not served purpose. So the rationale about putting it only for the uphill doesn't make a lot of sense. The other one would be to the idea of putting only on chevrons indicating going up the hill.

Presently, you have five Chevrons there already. The last accident, the car knocked that Chevron down, one of them down, which proceeded to hit the front porch. So I don't think adding a sixth one is gonna make any difference at this point in time. A guardrail and the other part of this passage down at the bottom here says guardrail with reduce, would have problems with the right of way and that due to this increased risk, is not recommended that engineering perspective that to install additional guardrail along Madison from a aspect of risk to the city. My understanding is that, that's not really the case.

The first accident that occurred, the gentleman actually jumped the curb and hit the retaining wall. He then proceeded to back up and drive farther down to his home, farther down Madison Street. So the idea of risk of injury to the person driving the vehicle is not does not make a lot of sense. In the first place, the car is gonna absorb any guardrail contact along with any of the airbags that will deploy. So risk to a driver or passengers passengers in that vehicle is not really real. I think there needs to be a guardrail. I wish you to consider it. I wish you proposed that they put a guardrail there. It is not that expensive. Alright?

We're talking $1,500. And if it's gonna cause a problem because it's gonna take public works away from from other jobs, I always thought that when a job came up, you put it on a shopping list of jobs to be done. They were prioritized, you went according to that. Not whether it's gonna take them away from leaf or branch pickup or other items. Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks. Lisa

Good evening. Lisa Selb. Seld. 434 Madison Street. I can see this, curve out of our window, and I, agree with everything that Frank said.

In fact, I was the president of the Tower Hill Neighborhood Association and, we're very active in the park. We have a bulletin board. I was changing it today. We have a lot of foot traffic, right through that area as well. So that's also something to consider and I was snapping some pictures and as Frank says, there are already four chevrons there and they have not served the purpose of stopping potential hazardous things happening in that area.

Another thing to mention, our our neighborhood does the planting of the planters every year and we have had multiple concrete planters hit right in that area as well. And so if they're coming up the hill and hit a 200 pound concrete full of wet soil, wouldn't it be better for them to bounce off of a guardrail than hitting that head on? So that would be something else to consider as well. So please for the safety of our neighborhood, let us have a guardrail. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other public comment? Not seeing any, we're gonna move to approval of minutes item 4A.

4A, got the minutes for February 19 for you.

Any moves? Kevin Riley seconds.

We have a motion and a second. Any questions or comments? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. Casson's aye.

Kevin Riley aye. Piper aye.

Paint aye.

Motion passes. It is six a. Oh, sorry. Five a.

Five a. Approval of payments. There are two payments for this round. If there's any questions, Brad or I'll answer.

Viper moves for payments as presented.

Paying second.

We have a motion and a second. Any condiments or questions? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. Passes aye.

Kevin Riley aye. Piper aye.

Shane aye.

Motion carries. So item six a.

6A, first bid we received on February 20 was for the North Moreland Boulevard and Michigan Avenue traffic signal improvement project. We received multiple bids that we use. The department recommends moving forward with the bid from Leyland Contractors for the base bid and alternate number one in the total amount of $433,976.2 The budget for this project is a $05,000,000 If there's any questions on the bid, Brandon or I'll try to answer.

Piper will make a motion to approve the bid as presented with a second just a quick question.

Kevin Riley seconds.

It's just it's nice that it's coming in under budget. Just any idea as to why? It's about $60 under budget. Just curious if there's anything that jumped out at you guys when you looked at the bids?

Nothing really jumped out. We just tried to make some assumptions on where the pricing of traffic signal equipment and all the above was when we do our budgeting. So we're happy to see that was a competitive bid and we did get a little bit lower pricing than we expected going into CIP budgeting season. Okay. Thanks, Brandon.

The two bids are really pretty close together too, if you've noticed that. Very competitive.

Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. Casson's aye.

Kevin Riley aye. Piper aye. Potion

carries. Item six or we jumped to 70.

Six b. We have one more bid.

Oh, gotcha.

The other bid is for concrete pavement patching. We received three bids on this project. The low bid came in from state contractors who's performed this project in the past. They're a little bit of $595,190 is what the department would recommend moving forward with.

Paper, I'll make a motion to approve. Green, second.

Questions or comments? Call. And And to to the

then forward for the audience that's in here tonight. So this is the item that was spoken about by multiple residents. This is was brought forward by Alderman Eric Payne as a referral to the Board of Public Works to to review and look at installation of guardrail at 524 Madison Street. So I'll turn it over to Brandon to provide some additional explanation and if there's any questions, answer those following that.

Thank you, Alex. Yes, so just to give a little background on some of the engineering perspective comments in the cover sheet of the based on Alderman Payne's referral to add this section of guardrail and somewhat of a response to the comments being made as well. Our recommendation for this item from an engineering perspective would be to not install the guardrail and look at other alternatives such as additional Chevron signing, other options. And the reason for that is when we have guardrail around the city it's used in limited capacity usually to either protect one of two items. The first one being like a steep slope or some hazard that the car is going to traverse over that that guardrail is protecting that is worse than the guardrail or the car hitting the guardrail.

So that is one item that we use guardrail for. The other item is to protect property, you know, like a park or a very close proximity building, all the above which is why the existing guardrail in this location is protecting the park area for cars going down the hill. That's why that one was originally installed. The concern with guardrail installations within the right of way is that gives another fixed object for vehicles to impact. Yes, most times if a slower moving vehicle was impacting a guardrail, there isn't going to be potentially the concern for the driver's safety.

However, there are instances where you have bad crash results when vehicles hit the guardrail that can cause a higher concern for that driver than not hitting the object that they're trying to protect. So from an engineering perspective, protection of public safety of the drivers that could hit the guardrail, that is the backing of our recommendation regarding not installing guardrail at this location because of what it's protecting behind it and the risk to the driver which would explain that secondary, the additional comments on the cover sheet. So that is some background on that from the engineering perspective. Just kind of a concern from the crash impact of vehicles hitting that guardrail. The end treatments also aren't We wouldn't be able to fit a end treatment end terminal that is crash rated at this location, it would have to be the rolled ends which are a risk if a driver would perfectly hit that end treatment, also a higher risk of driver injury.

So that is our recommendation as far as that to look at other alternatives. There is Chevron signing there already, we could add more, could look at other options. That's why we just put some different alternatives in the cover sheet. So Alderman Payne, don't know if you wanna touch on the background of the original referral and kinda go from there.

I I do actually. I'll tell you I'm a whole lot less concerned about the person driving the car.

Eric use your mic.

Would you

It's on.

Oh it's on. Okay. And

then I am the pedestrian's walking on the sidewalk, the lady in that residence of 524, the people that live there doing yard work and getting run over by a car coming up the hill because of a drunk driver driving too fast. Alright? The car's got airbags. It's got steel around it. The driver's got seat belts on hopefully.

Hopefully. Yeah.

They're protected. The people outside of that vehicle are not protected at all. I contacted the police the other day. I don't know if you guys ran any numbers or not. I had said go back five years.

There was three reported accidents in five years. There's been 35 calls for service to that exact location, that stretch of lane road. So some of it was for debris from somebody hitting a planter or a pole or the or the fence, a wall, the retaining wall next to to this address. But 35 times in five years. So and and I know for a fact just because I go that way a lot, I I noticed the tire tracks up over the terrace and into the yard.

And this last time, the sign that was just replaced was up in the yard of that residence. So the signs might do their job for a a normal sober speed limit driver but it does nothing for the impaired person. They don't care about the Chevron signs. Alright? It doesn't stop them from plowing through. So, I I am wholeheartedly in favor of the guardrail or I wouldn't have made the referral. The neighborhoods, not not just the neighbors that are here tonight but the ones that couldn't be are in favor of

the

guardrail. Besides, I would like to know Brandon besides another sign that doesn't do anything. You said there's other options. What what were your other options?

So one option is a is a do nothing and leave it as is, that's always always the option. Right? I think we also put on a cover sheet, you know, we could look at some kind of concrete bollard as well. That is an option. It is cheaper than the guardrail.

There is crash test risks associated with that type of installation as well. So there's a trade off of which may be more crash worthy, the bollards would be a less expensive option from an installation standpoint. So those are some of the options that we looked at in response to the referral. We could go back to the drawing board and look at multitude of different options potentially, but those were the fastest or the quickest ones that came to mind as possible options, the additional signing or the concrete bollards.

Okay. Because I I know that either either option, I know the PD told me they would support me on it. So with that, I would oh, I don't know if anybody here has got anything to say. I I would like to know from Frank or whoever, what do you think about option two?

Which is?

The ballots with the concrete filled pipes basically.

How about multiple ones?

Well, would have to be. Okay.

It be multiple. Yeah.

We're looking at. But to do nothing makes me furious inside. And I'm sorry if a driver would get hit up and hurt. But a baller is to me is a

Chris, could you just step up and

Check it. My name is Chris Nestingenbaum, 625 Chicago Avenue in Waukesha. The option to do nothing is ridiculous, and I resent that that's even talked about. Why do we do anything then? Bollard system seems like it's possibly a valid solution. I am sorry if a driver would get hurt. I'd be more sorry if a person got hurt that was walking or living in that home or coming out the driveway or a child running across their own driveway. Something should be done. That's all. Thanks.

Thank you. Just what was your last name? Paul.

Steve. Same as Frank. Do

you want me to

No. Okay. Got it. Go

ahead. Eric, if you make the motion for the guardrail at the $7,000 I'll second it and speak Alright. To

I'll make a motion to approve the installation of a guardrail at or near 05:24 to cover that span.

And this Piper will second. And I I think that when when for me, when it comes to traffic stuff, I I defer to the alderman of the district. That's just been kind of the rule for me over almost twenty years of doing this because they're hearing from their residents. Residents are coming here tonight to talk about it. And my rule is always or my math has always been for every one person that calls you, there's probably 10 or 15 people that are feeling the same way that don't have the time to come or don't don't wanna call their alderman.

And it's $7, which is a fair investment. However, we just came in $67,000 under budget on Northmoreland and Michigan traffic traffic signal improvements, and we already borrowed the $05,000,000. We have the 7 And if we need to reallocate the money, we'll make a referral to the finance committee and reallocate the funds to cover the $7 for this installation if it passes. So I'm in favor of it. I think it's just I think concrete bollards, I don't know if I'm I guess if I'm driving the car, I'd rather hit a guardrail than a concrete bollard. But I agree with Eric and the and the residents here tonight. I said I've I'm more worried about the people that live behind the behind the guardrail than the folks that they're driving into it. So I'll support it. Thanks.

I would only add one thing. On engineering standpoint, I think we would support the guardrail over the bollards as well. Additional alternatives for improvements in this corner here could be looked at when the road is being reviewed for reconstruction and resurfacing. That's when you can have a more substantial analysis and that sort of thing. So doing something like this would be more of a temporary probably, but there's other improvements that Brandon and his team could find when this would go to being rebuilt or resurfaced.

Right. I'm good. I'm good with that.

Anything else? Okay. I can't spell the word work. Okay. Alright. Any other comments from the public? I'm just plaxed.

We got a motion and a second.

We have motion and a second for 7D. It's time to take a vote. Casson's aye for the bollard No. Guardrail. Guardrail.

Kevin Riley is a yes too.

Piper aye.

Aye and aye.

Motion passes for guardrail.

Thanks for coming out everyone.

Thank you guys.

And thanks to the committee.

All right, item 7A.

K. I'm pretty confident you're all familiar with the drop off center, but if anybody isn't, it's an area location for residents to bring items to dispose of such as yard waste, landfill material, oil, etcetera. Historically, the drop off center has never operated as a revenue neutral site. And the current disposal contract, which was signed in 2025, is a 3% increase annually over the the course of the five year term, 15 over the entire five year term. And then to cover the continuously increasing cost of that contract, we would like to discuss increasing the fees for usage of the drop off center.

So we have two different proposals for that. Current pricing as of January, so January 2025 was the last time that we increased pricing for the drop off center. The year end, I guess, total was negative 80,000 or so. So we are looking to get a little closer to a revenue neutral for that. We have some general assumptions and notes for this.

Cost of yard materials is going to stay the same as the cost for city garage composting is approximately the same as the revenue collected for that. And then the overall driver for the increase would be that landfill collection cost. So we pay for both the tonnage and the exchanging of the dumpsters. And we base the tonnage off the '20 five collection amount, so that was, you know, a rough estimate. Estimate. And then the fee would increase 04/01/2026, and we are going to take credit card.

Emma, when are we gonna start taking credit cards?

I would like to do that as same as April 1.

That would be fantastic.

Good. I'm glad you're excited. Yeah. I'm very excited to go live with that. So the first proposed change option would be a slight increase in the overall cost of the landfill materials.

You can see the list here of the the different increases. So a sedan going from 8 to $10 and so on. That would bring the projected year end overall cost to a negative $53,000. So that saves us about $30,000. This is a slide of the general comparisons between some of the other city drop off centers in our general area.

We would still be well with under the some of the other city options. But we hope we would be a little bit more competitive with them so people would not try to bring items from, you know, other municipalities to our drop off center. And then this is the Yeah.

Go ahead. I

don't wanna stop the presentation.

No. That's fine. Go for it.

I I noticed that it seems most of these look like pretty reasonable adjustments for not recovering your costs. It looks like the biggest jump, any one thing is that largest U Haul from $35 a load to $75 a load. Do we get a lot of people taking advantage of that largest U Haul? And is that creating a large amount of cost to the city by the sheer mass of it?

We don't get a ton of the extra large U Haul sizes. I'd say we probably had 10 last year altogether. So no, that is not contributing significantly to the increase. I think we get more pickup trucks and trailers than anything.

Then what's the rationale for that one being the big jump? Do you think it was undervalued before and just needs

to be

brought up to a similar value? Or

In my personal opinion, the people that come with the large U Hauls are completely full of items, and it wasn't, like, relative to the tonnage they were bringing in. If we look at If we look at you know what the equivalent is of one of the other municipalities, it's it's more equivalent to that 75 mark than it is the 35 it currently is.

So you kinda answered my question. I'm gonna assume that we've been undervaluing it more than the other things.

Yes.

Yes. That makes sense. Thank you.

These are neutral charges then. So we were wanting to jump all the way to a revenue neutral option.

Sorry. Sorry for the interruption.

So it's okay. So you'd see, like, the prices go up a little bit more, but it's still not necessarily a a huge jump. We go from $8 for a sedan to 15 for a sedan, and the projected year end is then in the the positives.

Steve had a question. So Emma, sheet that we have here, the 2026 drop off center price adjustment summaries and table that has got, for example, a bunch of no changes at the top twenty twenty six proposed kind of the example that Kevin mentioned, kind of taking the largest U Haul from 35 to 75. That's the one that gets us not quite that doesn't get us to being in the positive, but that gets us that narrows the deficit down to roughly 53,000. Is that?

Yep, that's correct. That's the first proposal.

So that's that guy there?

Yep. Okay.

I mean, I don't really have any questions and I'd wanna Are you done? Were you done with your presentation?

Yeah, pretty much. I will say so if we were to do with the first proposed plan, there would have to be two more price increases done to get to that revenue neutral goal in 2028. So I would recommend doing one then in 2027 and 2028 to cover to get to that

revenue Getting revenue neutral is going be up to the council and the board. Mean, so it's it's a good goal. Sure. But it's at the end of the day, it's gonna be up to the council on whether or not we wanna get to revenue neutral. So before I make a motion, I'll yield back to the board, see if anyone else has any comments or anything. Yeah. I do.

Is like brush, yard rakings, clippings, is that still gonna be free?

It will still be free for the senior residents and the pricing will stay the same for those that are not. Alright.

And and my other question would be, when you figure is the tipping point when we start getting over pricing and people not coming and and dumping stuff off on terraces throughout the city. Where where I have you figured a point where we're not gonna be charging too much and people are still going to come or that's a fine line, I know.

And I guess I can try to answer that. We don't know exactly where it's going to be. There is always that risk, but where we're recommending moving forward to this level that at least the next for the rest of 2026 and future years at least. I don't I'm think we'd be

just thinking where because I I do see now from since we got John's that I'll I'll see a chair or or a couch sitting on the terrace here and there. Know, it's it's not to a a great extent but it's it's there.

I think bringing in a load of a full truckload of waste for what was the revenue neutral number, can you flip to that slide? Of 25 for a truckload of stuff that's still much cheaper than having currently the what the contractor is charging for a pickup. So in my mind, a $25 for a whole load of stuff is fairly reasonable still. And it is still comparable to Wauwatosa and West Allis and Milwaukee. So the opposite side of that is we we work extremely hard to try to keep track of stuff that's left out on the the sidewalk or the the terraces.

Emma put together how many letters? It was a very large increase eight letters as the board 400

that were sent out to properties about bulky items.

What did that compare

to when Waste Management had the contract?

Because Waste Management offered that bulky item, I don't have a great comparison, but I think it was more like a 100.

Mhmm. So

I think to Eric's point, I think the the bigger the bigger challenge we have that I'm hearing from folks is just ensuring that they understand what the new bulky item pickup process is with John's Mhmm. Because it's different than waste management.

Yes.

So I think to Eric's point, we need to I think and I know we're doing this through social media and all the other fun stuff, but I think we need to do more of that because that will probably I know that'll help because I am seeing more stuff on the terrace, And I'm picking up more stuff on the terrace now than I have probably in the last five years. So I think if we can improve communicate just continue to communicate, over communicate the new bulky item pickup, I think that's gonna go a long way with helping me not have to pick up a chair, call you, Emma or Brandon to go pick up a chair somewhere.

You're not sticking

a chair in

your Oh,

you'd be surprised.

We've changed our practices with that in our time frames and reducing time frames so that when that letter is handed out that we're going and making that next visit a lot quicker than we had previously to make sure stuff is getting moved in a quicker time period. And then if it's not gone within that shorter time period, the city garage is going in and picking up and we're sending them a bill for it. Then when we get a routine offenders, we're giving them little to no time. So we're being a lot more stringent on that. Additionally, Emma just recently started working with other departments on having more eyes out around Waukesha to make reports and actually do the first notice to save extra trips on her part.

So people that are out and about can make that first notice, and then she follows up with the inspection. And that'll be a lot more, let's say, enforcement on that realm.

You had a follow-up. Emma, how many so boats, hot tubs, pianos, jet skis. How many boats, hot tubs, pianos, and jet skis do we get a year?

We got all of six large items last year.

Okay. Because I'm thinking if I wanted to get rid of a boat, a $100 at the old City at the at the old dump is a pretty good pretty good that's a pretty good bargain to get rid of a boat. That that should be higher. So, you know, I I think for the next round of recommendations, I think let's let's take a peek at that because now we just jinxed ourselves. Right? Now you're gonna get six boats on Saturday.

I sure

But I I I agree with Eric. I think I think getting rid of a hot tub for a $100 as a city resident is quite the deal. Yeah. So I I'm gonna I'll make a motion to proceed with your recommendations this evening as presented. But I'd also like, you know, to have you track and it sounds like you do, but the these over heavy, bulky trash items, I think the next time you bring this recommendation before the board, I would like to see something closer to 2 or $250 on something like that. Because again, getting rid of a piano for $100 I think is a good deal. So that's my motion. Emma, you.

I got a question. Oh, I'm sorry. Second. I'll second it. When we have something out on the terrace, that big item, whatever it might be, dresser, couch. It's not always the people that live at their residence that put it there. So how do we

the most part, the assumption is that it's the resident that the notice goes to the property owner that lives there.

Okay.

Because if it's illegally dumped, we have we have no idea of that doesn't come up very often. Typically, there's illegal dumping, like what you're saying, that usually happens. I don't wanna say it out loud, but at the end of dead end streets or in the woods or or something like that, it's typically not in front of somebody's house.

And then because of do our city guys pick that up then?

Or Yeah. Mhmm. We don't talk about Thank you.

Just want to make I agree with everything that's pretty much been shared. And I have noticed any increase in stuff left out on the curb. My personal observation and this might be anecdotal is these tend to be rental properties. And so is there a way that we can target that specific population of the rental owners to educate them that if people were to leave their stuff out there that's coming out of their security deposit or I don't know if we could reach out to them.

You mean like reach out to the tenants directly?

No, reach out to the landlords.

To the landlords.

Because they're the ones that are ultimately going to get the bill. And if they were put it in their lease, that if you leave stuff on the curb, it's coming off your security deposit.

I would I would think that they would be chasing them down the first bill they got. I mean, I'm sure you're you've heard about that.

I do have property owners, like, write me in or request pictures and evidence of what occurred at the property so they can then go back to their their tenants with that.

I I agree. I guess what I'm saying is a good way to head it off at the past is have an outreach to the landlords so that they put it right in the lease items left on the curb, you will be charged for out of your security And that because people do at least look at their leases and want to get their security deposits back. But anyway, that's just a suggestion and I don't know if it would be.

When it are you done?

Yes. Thank

you. Just one more quick. When we have like a four family or or a side by side or something that has a bunch of junk out, does and they don't pick it up or call it in, whatever. And it's pretty much a move out and they abandon whatever. Does that bill go to the property owner then?

That bill would go to the property owner. Yes. Letter also goes to the property owner. They're the ones that are told that there's an issue and then they do call me a lot and we have conversations about it if they can get in touch with me to explain the situation. But yes, at the end of the day, it does go to the property owner.

Sometimes they're hard to track down who owns the property.

Mhmm. They're

in Florida or Texas or Alright. Thank you. You're doing a good job.

Thank you.

I do just have one more observation or comment, and that would be this kind of goes back to our drop off center. The John's pickup for large items is fairly cost prohibitive. It's pretty pricey as somebody dumping something on the curb, at least compared to what it used to be when, as homeowners, we could just put something out and they'd take it away for free except for very specific items. So I'm wondering whether anybody would if these landlords or these repetitive places would just find a way to hire their own person to take it to our drop off center and save a few bucks by hauling it themselves. It would almost seem like a business opportunity for somebody to take advantage of in the city.

I think that is the case.

I do have people landlords call to get permission slips to utilize the drop off center to bring those items from their tenants. So that does happen typically at the end of the month during move outs.

I wonder if we could somehow engender somebody locally to take advantage of that and make a little business out of it. If you get all the landlords, you could come and pick it up, they'd save a little bit of money over the John's or the are picking it up. That

goes then towards the revenue the larger expenses at the drop off center. So the more tons that are disposed of at the drop off center, the more money that costs the city. So the city is paying for getting rid of it either way, I guess.

You for your time. I'm just thinking.

That's what this

is for. Yeah.

Otherwise, we don't get direction.

Okay. Thank you. Do we still get a motion on the floor?

Yep. Okay. Have a motion

on the floor. We are talking during the motion.

I'm

done. Anybody else

with any comments or anything? We're We're open to a vote for seven a. Kasson's aye.

Kevin Riley aye.

Piper aye. K and aye.

Motion passes. Moving to 7d.

7e, would you mind? You. So 7e, this is to review and act on the storm water management practice maintenance agreement between the city of Waukesha and Bolinsky Homes for the Old Farm subdivision. You've seen these quite often here. This one is between the city and Belinsky here. There's the agreement is attached. If there's any questions, Brandon would probably be the best to answer any of those questions.

Piper, I'll make a motion to approve as presented.

Kevin Riley seconds.

I have a motion and a second. Brandon, did do wanna share something before we proceed?

You know, there's a representative from Belinsky here. Just continue sir, thank you for your continued investment here in the city of Waukesha and wish you all the best with the development.

So this development, just so the board is aware, you haven't looked at the had I had done the documents here. It's the off of Madison Street, Overton Avenue, so West side of town.

Anybody have any other questions? Comments? Seeing none, let's take a vote. Passes, aye.

Kevin Riley, aye.

Piper, aye. Dan, aye. Motion passes.

We'll go back to seven b as in bravo.

Seven seven b. So this is to review and possibly act on a contract with Compost Crusaders to compost residential food waste in 2026. So this is basically just extending a contract that we have with Compost Crusaders. Residents are able to drop off compost down at the drop off center. Comes from And

then the

And scraps. So, I mean, it's going pretty well of in my opinion.

Mhmm. Is it same I mean, rough I mean, anecdotally, roughly the same 20 folks every weekend that come?

We have regulars. Every once in a while, there's somebody that shows up that says, oh, this is exciting. This is the first time I've, you know, dropping these items off. So that's always an interesting discussion. But they usually end up coming back.

So similar to yard waste, I'm sure there's the regulation.

Yeah, there's the regulations. I know.

They're typically the same people too.

So from a cost standpoint, it looks like this costs roughly $3,000 but it's saving us about 10% of that, about $382 on tonnage to landfill. So the net cost is $2,700 $2,800 a year. So I guess when do we start charging something for this? Or when I mean what's the goal? Is the goal to get this to cost neutral? Do we need to do more promotion of that to try to get that those 20 folks to 40 folks to kinda get this this delta down a bit?

I guess two feedback pieces. So the next, like, I guess, thought in my mind of where this would go is to do a pilot at actually curbside locations for different properties. So maybe targeting those 20 people that are coming and saying, would you be interested in just directly contracting with Compost Crusaders, kind of having the city step out of it. And I guess the second thing is that I did include the cost of the composting service as part of the expenses for the overall operating for the drop off center. So price increases for the landfill materials would include, I guess, these as expenses.

Okay. So that what we just approved earlier will help

Will help with this.

Will help with this. Correct. Is this a is this a one year contract?

Yes.

Okay. I I'll I'll make a motion to approve the item as presented. And with the second, I guess, my point would be is maybe we give this one more year and see if we can promote a little bit more. And then maybe we pursue something a little bit different. And maybe that's I don't know what that is. Maybe that's composting in other other parts of town. But I just wanna be sensitive to the fact that if we're, you know, if we're spending roughly $2,700 for 20 folks and it's not growing, I just wanna maybe we just keep a closer eye on it. But like I said, I'll make a motion to approve the item tonight for another year.

Kevin Riley seconds.

Can I ask the board, would you consider be interested in us? I mean, we have had discussions with Compass Craders Crusaders. They have reached out to us. Is that something that might be of interest of offering a service to the city if it's at no cost to the city and it's directly related to the residents that use that service, that's something you guys would be interested in us looking into further?

Say that again. So basically

working with compost compost crusaders, somewhat promoting their services. Right? Or another composting company to allow them into the city to contract separately with residents in the city.

What would prevent them from doing that today?

I think they need our approval to do that. I believe there's something in our agreement with John's that we'd have to work out some sort of agreement that they'd be the ones that'd be able to do that.

Yeah. I mean, if if that I would be open to that. If that would help cover the cost, this roughly this $2,700 that we're still incurring. Sure. I mean, don't see the difference. I understand there's probably something in the John's agreement, but this wouldn't be any different than having anybody else come to your house for something, whether it's a plumber or

whatever. Sure. That's this just be something that we would kinda manage and promote internally in the engineering division. And then it would be it would be a service to the some city residents if they're interested.

So I I will say too, composters say it does currently service this area. Nobody does. So this would be kind of an up and coming program. So we would we would definitely need to advertise that as an option for city residents if they were interested in doing so.

So, Emma, when when someone comes to the drop off with compost and they come up to the little house, what do they say? I just have food to compost?

Food scraps, typically.

And then they just wave them through?

Yep. Okay. I mean, we check and verify that they live in the city, but yes.

Okay. Gotcha. Thanks. Yeah.

I have several comments that may or may not be off the specific topic. But as an avid home composter, none of my leaves, none of my kitchen scraps end up leaving my house. They all go into my own personal compost bin. And I have heard a lot of excitement. Obviously, I run-in different circles than Joe, but a lot of the people I know were really excited about this program, probably unusually so about the ability to compose.

But on a stepping back at it and looking at it, it doesn't strike me as a great actually, initiative to have people get in their cars, drive to the compost center, dump it, and drive home with small amounts of compost when the whole idea should be, you should compost it as close to your own source as possible. My suggestion would be we might wanna reach out to Park and Rec. This would be an excellent program for them at the local parks to do composting. Although, I know their plate is pretty full and they probably may or may not be in their wheelhouse. And we're also losing the county gardens.

And so maybe we could tie that in. But my thing would be promote home composting, promote local composting as close as you can. And I would think that would be an obvious for Park and Rec, but we'd have to cooperate with them on the program.

That's a bad idea. Thanks.

That was my point.

I also home compost and it's nice to have the drop off center for like the meat scraps and things that I cannot compost at my own property. Okay. That is my I guess my personal benefit for the situation.

Just a suggestion. Perhaps because you have less than 25 people you say right now that are coming in?

Per day, yes.

Would it would it be worthwhile to put out a questionnaire with with, you know, the different options and and hand it out when they come through the gate and ask them to bring it back next time they come through or whatever?

Yeah. Absolutely. That's something we could definitely Or

have a have a end date like, you know, please have this turned in by so they're not out there for six months

and But, come

yeah, just give you a that way you'll know their feelings, you know, whether they would have somebody come and pick up their stuff or or would they be willing to pay a buck or $2 or whatever to to dump it off at drop off center or whatever. Just a few few options and I think that would give you some direction. Yeah. Absolutely. Alright. I'm good.

So we have a motion by Joe and a second by Kevin. Any other comments or questions? Hearing none, we'll move to vote. Casson's aye.

Kevin Riley aye.

Piper aye. Dan aye.

Motion carries. Item seven c.

Seven c, this is a review and possibly act on an update to 13.055 city ordinance on residential solid waste and recyclables collection. So the majority of this is result of some of the changes that we've had recently both with those contract change to John's, but also with the user fee moving forward. So I'll turn it over to Emma to explain the changes that you see in there. There's a I believe a final version in here and then a red blind version attached. Maybe not my attachments.

Didn't put red line. Sorry.

I have the summary of changes is what I'm going to be referencing when I talk through this.

We can send out a red light Yes, absolutely.

The two main things that were changed with this was we added a definition for the the term dwelling unit. Dwelling unit was already referenced in thirteen o five five. This is just adding context around what that means. And then the other item was the an addition to the special eligibility rules. So we have an option right now for non eligible properties to be considered eligible.

We do not have the other way around. The two properties that makes the most sense for these situations would be any of them owned by the housing authority. So there's been a couple properties that they have been interested in using a private dumpster because it just better serves the property in terms of space and, you know, public health reasons. And right now, we don't have an option for them. So this would allow them to stop paying that special charge and not utilize the city carts and get their private dumpster contract, which would be cheaper for their their situation.

So if somebody so I mean I'm glad to hear that because you think if let's say if there's a cluster of four homes, that might be cheaper just having one dumpster. Mhmm. But say Joe Piper just wanted to have a dumpster instead of the city pickup. Could would a resident be able to opt out of that?

No. There are there has to be specific criteria that we would meet. So it's like the the street parking, the properties being better by a dumpster overall, the reasons related to public health safety, and then just general department discretion.

Okay.

So in this situation, you would write me and say, wanna do this, and I'd have to say, sorry, Joe. We can't we can't let you do that.

Gotcha. So it's okay. Good.

I It's for very specific situations that we basically it these situations arose when we were implementing the fee. And we're like, well, it doesn't really make sense for these buildings or these parcels to have a sea service, basically. The the women's center on East Avenue on East Avenue?

Yeah. It's on East Avenue.

Yeah. They have

They have four different residential properties and then the larger building, and they have to pay for city service as of this point too, but they also utilize a private dumpster contract. So they have not been excited about the special charge implementation in that way.

Just to clean that up.

Yeah.

So is this going through O and L? Or is it us? Are we the first step?

So with the change yeah. No. The first step is Board of Public Works. It will be the first reading, and then it would go to council for the second and third reading.

Is it going to go through O and L?

It typically no, did it? I guess we did last time, but from what Brian Running has said in the past or recently now is when things are specific to board, you know, coverage that the first reading can be done at the board of public works and then the second and third at at council. If you wanna send it to o and l, that's perfectly fine, but it doesn't need to be.

I guess, I'll make a motion to approve the item this evening going direct to council. But I think I'd I'd ask you guys to reach out to Paul Witeska and just get his opinion on it, whether or not he wants to run it through his committee as well. Okay. But I'll make a motion to I'll approve the make a motion to approve the item as presented.

Kevin Riley

seconds. Without and L?

Yeah, without O and L.

We'll reach out to them. If they want us to run through O and L too, that's fine. We have no problem with that.

So we have a motion for approval and readings here and at council with a review of O and L. Any other questions or comments? If not, we'll take a vote Casson's aye.

Kevin Riley, aye. Piper, aye.

Ben, aye.

Item seven c passes. I

think we're done with seven now after we bounced around five times there. Sorry.

Thank you for reminding me where I'm at. Eight and nine.

Matter of report, I don't have much to report. The communications and referrals, we've got communications for official notices for the Alley reconstruction project and then the 2026 Asphalt Street resurfacing no, Asphalt Street utility repair project, sorry, resurfacing not resurfacing. That's where we're at. Anything else? No?

Anything else? Good. All good?

Thank you.

We are adjourned. Thanks, Have a nice job. Thank you.