Board of Public Works - Regular Meeting

All right, we'll go ahead and get started with the Boer Public Works meeting for Thursday, July 9th, 2026. We'll start with a roll call. Chad O'Connell.

Kevin Reilly.

Joel Piper.

Eileen Miklitz.

All right, with that, we'll move to the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States

Anyone here for public comment? Seeing none, I'll move to approval of minutes.

Minutes from June 18th are attached to the agenda for your review.

Piper, I'll make a motion to approve.

Kevin Reilly, a second.

Is there a motion and a second? Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. O'Donnell, aye.

Kevin Reilly, aye.

Piper, aye. Kip, it's aye.

Okay, motion passes will move to item 5A.

5A, I'd ask that you move that down to after the discussion and recommendation items, there's a change order that would be attached to one of those partial payments.

Okay, we'll move to item 6A then.

6a this would be the first bid we would be reviewing tonight that would be for the luke avenue born place and walton avenue street utility improvement project we've reviewed the bids and recommend moving forward with a little bit from muslin brothers in the amount of one million four hundred eighteen thousand six hundred fifty five dollars and fifty cents so any questions brandon or i try to answer

Kevin Riley, make a motion to approve.

I'll second it.

Any discussion? Seeing none, let's go vote. O'Donnell, aye.

Kevin Riley, aye. Piper, aye.

Miklits, aye.

All right, motion passes. We'll move to item 6B.

6B, this is a bid we received for the Greenway Terrace Playground Resilient Surface bid. We recommend moving forward with the bid from Blue Mills in the amount of $112,800. And for your reference, this park is on the north side of town near Reuben Drive, right? I have a question. Go ahead.

So I know when we first brought this forward, we had everything in here and it was too much. So now we're just getting a resilient surface. So what happens to the other stuff that's on the bottom?

We're going to be working with park rec to complete that work on the side. Okay. Outside of the bid or side of the contract.

Okay.

The prices for that did not come in very favorable either for those items. So in the future, we'll look to do the same thing, but hopefully bid this earlier in the season so that there's opportunity or more opportunity for concrete contractors and such to put a price in for that work.

And is this one part of the, like they're going to put a new playground on it and everything? Correct. So is there a timeframe when that playground has to go on?

So that the playground will be removed at some point. Then there will be the installation of the base and the concrete band and then I'll play a community build for the playground itself and then reopened. I'm not sure the exact time frame. Brandon, are you over that?

Yeah, I know that PRF with the delay in the bidding is going to adjust the time frame of the community build. So then it works with the new schedule of the project.

I just I lean to handle a lot of my questions I guess to kind of piggyback off of that is this something that we're expecting to get done yet in 26. yes absolutely yes yes absolutely okay and then is the the other stuff the the items under the alternate bid is these are items that are required to do the surface though correct correct yes and then so we'll have either garage and or prf staff do this work correct yep okay thank you that's the plan to ordinate that and then at some point and we i would just like to know what the cost difference is per square foot from just a solid color versus the mix i remember right i think those two are pretty i think they've kind of come into parity but i'd just be curious Not for tonight, but maybe Brandon we can talk offline. I'm just kind of curious where those are, where those numbers are starting to fall.

Yeah, absolutely. We can we can chat about it. Thank you.

So on the bottom part where Parker Rex going to do that? Are they going to be coming back to us and say OK, we need X amount of money because we need to purchase this or this or this?

No, it'll come out of their existing budgets OK. Any more questions?

With that, we'll take a vote. O'Donnell? Oh, we need a motion? Okay.

I'll make a motion to approve the bid to Blumles in the amount of $112,800. I'll second that.

All right, now we have a motion and a second. We'll take a vote. O'Donnell, aye.

Kevin Reilly, aye.

Piper, aye. Miklitz, aye. All right, motion passes. We'll move to item 6C.

6 see how this is the Grady Park irrigation installation project as you can see the bid single bid from always came in higher than the budget $64,425 compared to $57,500. As you remember we did not receive a bid the last time We received the bid this time, which is good, and we believe the bid is probably fairly accurate here. There is some difficult work here, but what we'd recommend is to move forward with the base bid in that amount, but it'd be pending approval of additional funding from the Waukesha Community Foundation. So we wouldn't move forward with the contract unless that work was, or the extra funding was made available from the community foundation.

Kevin Riley will make a motion to accept the bid.

I'll second it with a question. So what we're looking for from the Waukesha Community Foundation is this additional $87,000?

No, it's actually that difference between the 57 and the 64 plus some work for water connection for the system. And that's not in this bid. It was actually in another bid. So that needs to be funded as well. Okay, I get that. That's about $20,000.

As bid in the Lucanborn project.

So I just have a question for clarification, so the. The city is. Doing the contract, but the funding we're assuming is going to be coming from the Community Foundation, which was the not for profit set up to fund the Grady Park Memorial, correct? OK.

So these are, yeah, these are for the public that are watching. These are not city tax dollars or levy dollars. These will be donated dollars that are already in hand.

Correct. Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. So we're only approving it pending. That would be transferred over to cover that additional funding.

all right any more questions that we have a motion in a second so we'll go ahead and quote uh o'donnell aye kevin reilly aye piper aye all right motion passes we'll move to item 7a sorry my page here 7a this is to review an act on uh

Contract change order number one with advanced construction. This is for the Southside Pump Station Consolidation Project. This is a rather large project that's been going on for some time, and this is kind of wrapping that project up. So I'll turn it over to Chris for kind of walking us through the items on this. I will mention that the net result of the change order is a net deduct of $92,720. So we'll go through that. the ads on that one.

This change order consisted of several items. The big deduct, so item number one, there are various unused quantities throughout the whole project. Some of that was coordination and timing with other projects in the area that we Primarily in Fox River Parkway the northern end of it We put down a temporary asphalt with the idea that we were coming back the following year with the resurfacing program and tearing that up again So we didn't do the full full depth and that one, you know pavement markings and everything that went along with that That was the bulk of that item, which was that two hundred and thirty one thousand three or almost two hundred thirty two thousand And savings there There was extra work that was requested by the city. Right at the beginning item, 1.1, right at the beginning of the project. Before any major work really began, we had a leak at the force main at the West Avenue site. The contractor had equipment in the area. And they were available and did that as a time and material as it, you know, we didn't want to sink a lot of money into it. Um, so as a time and material repair for the $4,100, um, item 1.2, um, We were crossing West Paul Parkway at Sunset Drive and replacing a portion of the Milky Way. Force main from the pump station that's further South on Milky Way Rd. There was no real good. Borings in the area the couple that were right in the area that were shown on the plans did not indicate bedrock Would be a problem fortunately the contractor when they started Excavating and drilling they ran into bedrock before they even got into under the highway So the $42,000, almost $43,000 was for the different equipment they needed to rent and the manpower and time that went with that. The next item, 1.3, when they were working at the higher pump station, it was discovered that we did not include the painting of the basin walls as part of that project. Which we've done in other and other projects similar to this. Unfortunately, it came after the fact and. Contractor needed to set up scaffolding in the basement, which is about 25 feet deep. Prep it, they had scraped all the walls down, prepped them, primed them to coats of. You know epoxy paint. A lot of that is just material and the scaffolding set up and labor for putting that paint products on. 1.4 was an extra gate valve on the force main, which allows us to shut down the force main along the route if we ever have issues with that. So we asked the contractor to install an extra gate valve on there. 1.5 goes back to the hired pump station with the painting projects. When they cleaned and prepped the walls, they discovered a couple of areas of deteriorated concrete that needed to be addressed. which required some removal on that and patching material, and that was a TNM for that almost $4,500 there. Also, higher drive. There was a newer roof on the building, so we did not look at the roof during the design phase. When we got out there, the soffit and fascia around the building was pretty beat up. Some of it, I almost would say, would be kind of vandalism from kids trying or people trying to climb up there and get on the roof, which created voids and gaps in the covering. So we ended up replacing that to improve the weatherproofing on there, and also it was pretty beat up and just time for replacement. That was the $6,000 there extra. Next one, 1.7 at both West Avenue and the Fox Point Stations. Just the actual sizing of the equipment and some of the valves and stuff in there created a code conflict with the main electrical disconnect switch. So we ended up having to move that from the inside of the building to the outside. So that's where that $4,700.25 comes from, or $25 comes from, was changing those out to stainless steel to be more corrosion resistant, being outside, and then also the effort to move them from inside to outside. The northern portion, 1.8, Fox River Parkway storm inlet replacement. We had repair work. We did not have an inlet, an actual full replacement on there. One of the inlets they came across was in pretty bad shape all the way down to the bottom, and it was easier and more cost-effective to remove the whole structure and replace it and reconnect all the piping. Which accounted for that eight thousand six hundred forty four dollars And then West Avenue there was some revisions to the planned retaining wall out there There was an extension and then on part of it and then also replaced Some of the existing wall that was near the stormwater station That was starting to fall over that was not included in the original plans and that came to the eighteen thousand dollars So as Alex mentioned, the total net change order for this is really a deduct of $92,720.43.

So just to clarify, we saved some money on the first one, and then the money that we saved we were able to use to complete these other things that we need to get done?

That is correct. Okay. So in the overall contract, we're still at $90,000 under the original contract. Okay.

And the total contract on this project is $13.6 million. So it came in overall really well for us.

And is this the end of it? I mean, is there going to be any more change orders after this? This is complete then after this?

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

I'll second.

Any further discussion? That will take a vote. O'Donnell, aye. Kevin Reilly, aye. Piper, aye.

Miklitz, aye.

Okay, motion passes. We'll move to item 7B.

7 be hand off the next several items here are in their stormwater management practice payments agreements or developers agreement so go through those here. You've seen these many times before they're just different locations. The first one is a stormwater management. Maintenance agreement between the city and Carol University for their property located at 2.45 North Barstow Street.

Kevin really make a motion to approve.

Paper will second in this. Is this for the business school development? Correct? OK, that's what I thought. Thank you.

Alright, any discussion? That will take a vote when I don't. I Kevin Ray Lee I Piper I make let's say motion passes will move to item 7C.

7 see this is the stormwater main management practice maintenance agreement with the city and in your walk a shot gas engines for the property located at 1101 West Saint Paul Avenue. They have an expansion going on there.

I will make a motion to approve and with a second of a question.

Kevin, a little second with them.

I guess Alex, what are they? Are they going to put a pond in or are they? I mean, given the proximity to the river, I'm just curious.

I believe the majority of it is some some things like that. Because correct, there's not a lot of room there for putting a stormwater pond incorrect. It's either underground or it's like storm sewer catch basins and things like that. All right.

And the addition that this is going to go off the backside of the building, correct? Kind of along the closer to the river, the selfish South Waukesha, southish side downstream side.

Yeah, OK, thank you.

All right, any further discussion?

That will take about what I don't like Kevin Riley.

I Piper I could say.

Motion passes will move to item 7 D.

70, this is a review and possibly act on the developer's agreement with the city of Waukesha and the Skyline Waukesha LLC for phase two of the Skyline subdivision. This is an area located north of Summit, west of 318. And the developer is here, I believe, so if there's any questions, but.

I pro make a motion to approve. Kevin Riley will second.

Okay, any discussion? That would take a vote. O'Donnell, aye.

Kevin Reilly, aye.

Piper, aye.

Miklitz, aye.

Okay, motion passes. We'll move to item 7E.

7E, this is a stormwater management practice maintenance agreement between the City of Washington and Walensky Homes for the Waypoint Villas development. This is off of River Road and Rapids Trail on the southwest side of town. So any questions, we'll try to answer.

Paper make a motion to approve and I have a question with the second Kevin right a little second. I know since gentlemen from the developers here. I'm just curious. How many units is this? 24 okay. Thank you, sir. Oh These are those side-by-side, okay.

Thank you, sir All right any further discussion We'll take a vote. O'Donnell, aye.

Kevin Reilly, aye. Piper, aye.

Becklitz, aye. Okay, motion passes. We'll move to item 7F.

This is a review and possibly act on the stormwater management practice maintenance agreement between the city and ProHealthcare for the development at the Meadowbrook Road site. So this is also west of 318 north of Summit in that general area.

Piper, I'll make a motion to approve. Kevin Riley, I'll second.

Any discussion? That was a go out. O'Donnell, aye.

Kevin Riley, aye. Piper, aye. Piper, aye.

Okay, motion passes. We'll move to item 7G.

This is another one in the same area there. This is Stormwater Management Practice Maintenance Agreement between the City of Waukesha and the Carol O. Smart Survivors Trust, et cetera, for the Country Crest Lane development. So Country Crest Lane extends to Summit, just west of Torhorst. So it's for that area southwest of that pro-healthcare project we just approved. Went through.

Kevin Riley, I'll make a motion to approve.

Piper will second.

Okay, any discussion? Okay, now we'll take a vote. O'Donnell, aye.

Kevin Riley, aye. Piper, aye.

I think that's right.

Okay, motion passes. Then we'll move to 7H.

7H. I missed one here. Oh, this is the developer's agreement, sorry. I was like, this is the same one, but no, this is the developer's agreement between the City of Waukesha and Smart Realty for the Country Crest Lane development in that same area as the stormwater management agreement, which is the approved one.

Piper will make a motion to approve.

Kevin Reilly seconds.

Any discussion? I'll take a vote. Aye.

Kevin Riley, aye. Piper, aye.

Bigwoods, aye.

Okay, motion passes. We'll move to item 8A.

We could do 8A. Yeah, that's fine. We'll do 8A. We just have to remember to go back to payments. Oh, yeah. So 8A, this is to review and possibly act on some one-time sewer credits. These requests came from Madeline Nowak at 201 Woodlark Court and Badger Smear from Jersey Circle. These items, the first one was for Madeline Noack at 101 Woodlark for a one-time request for watering trees. So let's make note of that, that this is watering trees with a soaker hose. And then the other one at Jersey Circle was also for watering trees. This is a one-time sewer credit request that they've made. The department is gonna recommend moving to deny these requests. specifically because it says it's spelled out in ordinance. It's very specific to the landscaping must be just, it's basically restoration of grass. It doesn't, focus in or even mention the placement of trees and establishing trees. It's very specific to the square footage of grass restoration or installation of new grass. So we're recommending that. It's up to the board to decide if you'd want to move forward with a request for watering trees. We can confirm that if they were indeed watering trees, the water didn't go into the sewer, which is kind of one of those ideas we look at. But the reason why we're kind of required to recommend no is because of how specific it is in our ordinance, referencing back to the definition of landscaping. And the definition of landscaping in our ordinance is specific to a square footage of grass and either replacement of that grass or installation of a new lawn. We haven't received a request up until this point for watering of anything besides grass.

So were these folks notified of that when they put their request in, or are they going to get?

We told them that we were going to deny it, but it's up to you potentially for.

They're given the language in the ordinance. So it's you know I I wouldn't. Say they're looking one way or the other. It's really up to you guys as to how you want to approach these.

So I I mean I I would agree with Alex. I don't. I don't recall in my time on the board where we've been requested to for reimbursement to water for trees.

for planting of trees. Yeah, that hasn't happened.

And I don't have the ordinance in front of me, so I'm going to lean on you guys. We're confident that the verbiage is very specific to the restoration of grass.

It says, well, you can read part of it here. So it says... For special circumstances such as filling a swimming pool or establishing new landscaping as defined in Waukesha Municipal Code 13.11, which defines new landscaping as vegetation installed at a one time of a construction of a new house or which alters more than one quarter of the area of an existing yard or which alters an area of 3,000 square feet of an existing yard.

Were these trees part of a new house?

No, these are existing trees.

OK, I guess they might have. They might have had me a little bit if it was establishing trees in a new in new construction because you kind of have to do vegetation landscaping. But if you're saying that these are existing properties that they're they put. So these are existing homes. They planted trees, watered these trees and are asking for a credit because they watered the trees and it has nothing to do with the establishment of a lawn.

Correct. A new lawn. So like I said in the definition there, installed at the time of construction of a new house, multifamily or industrial or commercial building, or which alters more than a quarter of the area of the existing yard. So existing yards, installation of existing grass, and redoing grass, which alters an area of greater than 3,000 square feet. That's what the definition says. Okay.

all right so neither one of these chris were no they knew they were existing lawns and they replaced or they added trees in a very you know localized area that and watered those trees directly for 52 000 gallons on a tree Again, that is what you know. I think their landscapers told them they need to water them X number of hours per day or their warranties are void, so that's what they do. And then they get a notification notification from the water utility. You know at the next meter reading that they've got a huge increase an. You know, so they look, you know that they call and. You know the water utility and. And they talk and water utility sends them back to us sort of thing so.

Alright. This is Piper. I'll make a motion to deny the one time credit for Madeline Nowak and the other gentleman correct and Jersey Circle 201 Jersey Circle Mr Bun Amis Adar Lagoon. Lagoon sorry Sir at Jersey Circle, so I'll make a motion to deny both both of these one time credits.

I'll second it with one question. Sure. Why does this come in front of Public Works? Why does this not go in front of the water utility?

This is giving them a sewer credit. So they're paying their water bill. They don't get a credit on the water that was used and consumed. This is a request for a one-time credit for treating the water. So the Board of Public Works oversees the wastewater operations at the city. Okay. So that's why.

Any further discussion? We have a motion and a second, so we'll go ahead and take a vote. O'Donnell, aye.

Kevin Reilly, aye. Piper, aye.

Ricklitz, aye.

All right, motion passes. We'll move to item HB.

This is additional one-time sewer credit request. This entails one from Timothy Ryan at 101 Fleetfoot Drive, one from Beth Schultz at 3827 Retzer Court, one from Ruth Ann White, 2200 Summit Avenue, and one from Deborah Crawford, 1707 White Deer Trail. So these two of these involve establishing a new lawn. So that falls right in line with meeting the ordinance and Chris verified it meets the either new lawn installation or the square foot area. But also if there's two of that, it involve a leaking faucet. As you know, we seem to have a lot of leaking faucets. The board has recommended both for and against those. What we're recommending is approving the two for the establishing of a new lawn and then denying the leaking faucet. We believe that the leaking hose bibs, we have no right to prove whether that did occur or not occur other than the higher water usage and It was recommended to us that that's basically negligence and it shouldn't be refunded. So I guess it's up to the board to decide on those two as well. But we'd recommend no on the two for the leaking faucet and yes on the establishing a new one.

I have a question. Yes, of course. So this Beth Schultz on Russer Court. This is for June, July, August, September, October and November of 2024. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Yes, that is the I have to go back in my notes real quick. I have a feeling it's one of those where the neighbors Ritzer Court is a newer area. I think we have a couple other requests that have come in overtime and as neighbors talk, she was made aware that there's a process you can get refunded. So that's where that is. We do require a full year worth of usage to compare. So there can be a delay just based on new construction. It's going to be at least a year before we even look at processing a credit for them to figure out what that additional usage is. But I think it's one of those, the request came in fairly recently.

This was in 2024 that they were establishing the new lawn.

They established the lawn in 24 and I will, I don't know which.

And it was six months for establishing the lawn?

We look at typically we look at a full growing season. Because if they put inside or seed, you know, depending on how hot or dry that summer can be, it can take time to establish on.

You're also looking at the high usage where it's compared to really lower the other months. If that makes sense, so. June, July, August are high or even September and October are high from their normal usage. There isn't a ton of normal usage on this one because it's a newer house in 2024, but there were two other.

Yeah, the request came in late late late March of 26.

So we do like I was telling you before we we do our best to to estimate the extra usage and that's what we recommend. We have no way of verifying that it was watered every single day or if they had a leaky faucet. We don't have any idea of knowing. We can look at the amounts of high water usage and then go off what they tell us. And if they have a new lawn, you can tell that.

OK, then that was my other question for the last one then on White Deer Trail. So we had one in 2024 that had six months for $668 at the requesting and then you have one. For 2025. And that one is only two months and that one's $1000. So I don't know. Is it because it's based on the size of the lawn then or how much they watered their lawn?

Yeah, it comes into how much they watered their lawn and they might. Sorry about that. They may have looked at their watering bill and said, we're not going to water our grass anymore. It seems to be growing fine. I don't remember. Actually, 2025, if I recall, last summer was a pretty decent year for lawn establishment. It was a pretty cool and wet year as far as rain. They may not needed to water as much in those later months and decided not. It didn't show up as a huge spike or anything.

But but it's all based on. It's all based on what you you're looking at the usage and then you're deciding this would be would would be the appropriate reimbursement, correct? Not what they're asking for necessarily correct.

They have really no normally with new lawns. I asked for a start date. And start looking, you know, for the full year and then you can kind of see where they dwindle off and you get into normal domestic usage sort of thing.

So that one did use a lot of water in a very short period of time, if that's what you're wondering. 102,000 gallons over two months, yep. So they really soaked their yard.

Or were they doing trees then as well?

we don't know we don't know they might have been but you know it's they probably throw sprinklers out there and that's what they do i mean a lot of them they the landscapers will come in and they will set up the sprinklers on a timer so the homeowners aren't even aware of what they're using right away until the water utility comes and says hey you've used a lot of water over you know, the last billing period. So there's typically a delay from when they start watering, when the water utility notifies them, and you're into the second billing cycle at that point already. So you end up with at least two months on any given incident, because you really can't pinpoint, is it this month or that month? When did they stop?

I guess my question, Alex, is I could be mistaken, but I thought we've issued credits for broken hoses in the past.

We 100% have, yes. It was, I think, the last one or the previous one, and maybe you weren't here, but one was recently denied. So you're correct. We have issued them, and we haven't issued them. but i think we've heard more on the side of issuing them than denying correct i think i think the one that you denied was one that was extremely a lot of water so i guess what's the what's the what would be the premise to deny these then If you'd like to approve them, that's completely okay with us. We're not going to hire you.

I mean, from my standpoint, that's why we've always made it very clear to homeowners that this is a one-time, it's kind of a one-time deal. And we didn't treat the water. So I mean, I'll see where the rest of the board feels, but I just, I think based upon my experience, we've approved more of these one-time credits for people that have had a, broke a leaky hose bib or left a hose on, even though, you know it's an accident or whatever i'll make a motion to approve all of these as presented erring on the side that in my experience we've we've approved more of the leaky hoses than we've denied and it's a one-time credit and we didn't treat the water so that would be my that's my motion that's that's correct alvin piper it is definitely we've approved more than denied i'll second

All right, a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Yeah, I do have a point I'd like to make. How would we go about getting the ordinance reviewed so that we can clean this up, tighten it, and make it more clear what the intent is and what the limits are? Maybe put some parameters on... who pays for when a developer builds it. We've been finding situations where part of the time the developers are looking for the credit and then, or sometimes the new homeowner gets it. I would just like to see this ordinance cleaned up so that we can have clear parameters on what we what we're going to accept, deny and where the criteria, sir.

In the last revision of Chapter 29, there was some revisions to this part of the chapter. Remember that was specifically Chris we had recommended. We had recommended, I think I would have to go back. We'd have to go back and look, but there was discussion on this part of that chapter 29, but that's how we would do it. Typically, we look at the ordinance when there's multiple things to revisit. If you guys want us to, the group here wants us to revisit that ordinance and make recommendations on how to adjust this, we're completely open to that.

I think, Kevin, the mechanism would be under item 10, communication and referrals. Okay. And I think we as a board, it's been a long time since we've done something like this, but we as a board could make a referral to O&L to have them review that section, section 29.

Okay. I will bring that point up at that time then. Okay.

And if you have a recommendation in that referral on what you'd kind of like to see, that would help us as well.

That would be the advice I give all my fellow council members, too, is that if you make a referral, have some ideas around what you'd like to see. Okay.

It doesn't have to be this time, but in the future, 100%, we're open to it.

All right. Any further discussion? That will take a vote. O'Donnell, aye. Kevin Reilly, aye.

Piper, aye.

Nicholas, aye.

Okay, motion passes. So we'll jump back up to approval of payments.

All right, so there are 11 payments for this round of payments. I do want to point out one item on one of the final payments. That's to Always Contractors. It lists the original amount of the contractor, but we had accidentally left off the amended amount amount of the contract on that sheet there. So the amended contract value is $265,000. So if you're looking at our total payment on there, we're not going over the contract without amending the contract. So we had just mistakenly left off the amended dollar amount on that partial payment.

Piper, I'll make a motion to approve payments as presented. And with the second, I have a question. Kevin Riley seconds the transit center boiler replacement was that is part of that covered by the feds being that it's so is that an 80 20 was that an 80 20 20 split and then the 20 is covered by the

the special funds, the Christian funds and the ARPA funds and all of that stuff. So zero cost to the city. Zero cost to the city.

So I'll just reiterate that for the group. So 80% of that 52 is covered by the federal government because it's related to a transit building. And the 20% city share was covered by COVID dollars that our transit authority received as part of COVID. So zero to the average taxpayer. 100%. All right. Thank you.

Alright, that I guess we can take a vote without line.

Kevin Riley I Piper I.

Motion passes will move to item 9.

Just for report, I would just mention that to the board that an invite was sent out to the council for touring the clean water plant. That's open to the Board of Public Works as well. That would be on July 21st at 4.30 before the next council meeting. If you're interested, let me know and show up there at 4.30 for a tour of the clean water plant. And then on our July 23rd Board of Public Works and Transit meeting, we're planning to hold that at transit.

What day is that?

The 23rd, so that same week. All sorts of fun that week.

23rd of July. Yes. Yes. So 23rd of July, public works meeting at transit. And transit.

Yeah, bus wash should be completed. You don't want to see the bus wash? Absolutely. 100% fascinating. And then we're also going to, Brian will give a little presentation and explanation on bus sizes and why we do what we do down there. Okay. i'd like to give you a tour of the buses and then show you the bus wash so exciting times coming up in july here that's all i have for report okay uh move to item 10. uh communications we've got the library revolving door replacement rebid project out again and then if there's any referrals let us know

Kevin Riley would like to make a motion for a referral to ONL and or the council to review the sewer credit ordinance, specifically to help tighten it up and redefine it so that we know who's entitled to the credits, what the rationale is, and maybe some parameters and limits to how it can be used. Sounds good.

Do you need a motion on it? No. Nope.

All right.

OK. With that, we are adjourned.