Board of Public Works - Regular Meeting

Are they around here? They are. 1992. All right. 35.

All right. We'll go ahead then and get started with the Board of Public Works meeting for Thursday, August 6, 2026. We'll start with a roll call. Chad O'Connell.

Kevin Reilly. Joel Piper.

All right. With that, we'll move to 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,

Okay, seeing no one for public comment, we'll move to item 4A.

4A, you have the minutes from July 23rd for your review and approval.

Piper, I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Kevin Riley, seconds.

All right, any discussion? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. O'Donnell, aye. Kevin Riley, aye.

Piper, aye.

All right, motion passes. We'll move to item 5A.

5A, we have approval of payments. There are seven payments, including one final payment for your review and approval. And if you have any questions, feel free to let me know.

This is Piper. I'll make a motion for payments as presented. Kevin Raley seconds.

All right, any discussion? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. O'Donnell, aye.

Kevin Riley, aye. Piper, aye.

Okay, motion passes. Move to item 6A.

So 6A, it's bids received on Friday, July 24th for the Waukesha Public Library Revolving Door Replacement Rebid Project. We would ask that we hold this until the next board meeting to make a decision.

All right.

Hold we need a motion.

Do you mind if I just ask a quick question? Sure. based upon what I'm seeing, is this in line or is this way north of what we anticipated?

This is north from a budgetary perspective of what we anticipated and what the budget amendment that passed finance committee and council was. What was that dollar amount, Brandon? I believe it was 50,000 was the budget amendment that was passed. So we are evaluating additional options, not only with finance director, but with the library and city administrator. All right.

And for the record, the number that we're looking at is about $79,000. So a little north of what I think was anticipated. Correct. And no, Chad, we don't need a motion to hold it.

There's consensus there. All right. Well, then we'll move to item 7A.

So 7A, this is to review and possible action on the engineering consultant selection for the Rays-Grant bike and pedestrian bridges over US 18, State Trunk Highway 59, and US 18-59-164 projects. If you recall, we've definitely talked about this project a bit in the past regarding the RAISE grant, but as a quick reminder, we did receive federal grant funding for the study and preliminary design of two pedestrian bridge structures over the bypass, both on the east side at the New Berlin Trail crossing and the south side at the Fox River Parkway location. So that was included in the 2026 committee investment program. That was an approved project. So the first step in executing this project work is to choose an engineering consultant or complete our engineering consultant selection. So the first thing we did, Department of Public Works, Community Development Department, Park Rec's Forestry worked together on a combined request for proposals to various engineering consultants. We did receive seven submittals, which is a very good number. We're definitely happy about that. It's very competitive. We've received seven proposals back. We developed a review committee to review those 7 proposals and included on the cover sheets. You'll see the 1st table is a. Summary of the scoring of those 7 proposals with the highest scoring being on the left. Lower scoring being on the right that was the 1st step of the consultant selection process based on the. recently updated policy for engineering consultant selection on federally funded projects. So after we evaluated the proposals, we invited the top three engineering consultants to attend in-person interviews, which, again, with a selection committee, an interview committee of city staff to review Their proposals, their responses during the interviews, that was the next step of that process. So we held those interviews on July 15th. We did have a selection committee. For so the top 3 firms were engineering, a com and. So the 2nd table on the cover sheet is a ranking or a scoring. Of the in person interviews. So combining the proposal scores, the in-person interview scores, it was the committee's recommendation to move forward with AECOM as our consultant or top selected consultant and move forward into the next step, which would be Starting the contract negotiation process, but we do need board and Council approval for that. Selection before we enter those negotiations, so that's our recommendation and definitely. Feel free to ask ask any questions that you might have.

So, based on the preliminary. when we had the seven in, KL was first, AECOM was second, and then after the in-persons, it kind of flipped. I'm just curious, Brandon, what flipped it?

It was, I mean, it was very close. Realistically, I mean, we got seven great proposals. We whittled it down to the top three, and really the top two, based on the interviews, it was... more or less splitting hairs between the two. Not necessarily a coin flip, but we were really looking at very, very minute details on their answers to the questions. And one of the things that kept cropping up that led us to lean towards AECOM was their experience with previous raised grants, previous actually apples to apples raised grants, previous federal grants, and their They basically have a team that is going to make sure that not only are we meeting those federal requirements, we're hitting all of our quarterly reporting details, deadlines. They're gonna be very instrumental in delivering that on a quarterly and make sure that the project is delivered exactly how we need it to based on federal requirements. I mean, we don't have a ton of federal project experience, So having somebody with an in-depth experience is invaluable to us. They gave us a great alternative analysis in their proposal. They gave us a few different just high-level 3D renderings already. They were very interested in the project. They came with the best team forward and ranked highest in the interview. So some of these very minute details were why they slid just ahead of KL Engineering.

And this is, because I know we talked about this quite a bit at budget, and I think even at council, in terms of the council's desire or appetite to potentially do one of these bridges, maybe both. And I thought that, and again, I'm certainly not speaking for the rep balance of my colleagues on the council, but I thought that there was some consensus that there was maybe a little bit more interest in kind of the east side one, kind of the Lincoln, Pearl Street one. So it's my understanding that as part of the grant, though, we need to proceed with at least some design and, engineering for both but the city would have an opportunity to decide to only do one of the two or are we are are we going down a road of having to do both bridges

As far as construction or design. So I think that's a big thing. That's a big difference. I would say as far as construction. Yep, absolutely. So the grant funding that we were awarded is a planning grant, which means it's only basically studying the feasibility of the project and taking it through preliminary and final design. So all of the You know, feasibility studies, making sure that, yeah, we can actually fit bridges at these locations on alignment with all the other constraints, whether it's utilities, wetlands, all the above. That's a big just starting point of the project. Obviously, if. We can't come to a feasible alternative in either location. We're not. gonna go through preliminary design if it's not feasible. That may make one dead in the water right there. I don't foresee that happening. I think there are solutions to come up with, but that's an option. But this is the planning and study phase of the project. There are no, this grant does not cover any of the construction dollars. So the construction dollars will have to come at a future time through either city funds, through other federal programs, WSDOT programs, finding alternative funding sources to actually fund the construction is not related to this grant. I will say that part of a cons interview, they did go in depth about. Finding other alternative funding sources and helping us guide us to the right programs to potentially fund the construction. And at that time, when we're pursuing construction grants, we can decide to go after 1 or 2, or that's the time where we can. really thin the herd on okay let's focus on the new berlin trail piece let's go after a grant for one of them that's kind of our decision making of instead of two focus on one on the construction side so the one million one hundred and sixteen thousand eight hundred dollars that we got that's federal money that's going to help that will cover the preliminary review

Site and does that take us all the way through through final design of the bridges as well? It does. Yep. Okay.

Yep. All of in, including all the environmental document process through the federal level, the NEPA process, all public involvement. Preliminary final design, basically shovel ready construction documents. Yep. And also included is the. Benefit to cost full benefit to cost analysis that's going to be required to go after. Construction raise grant or construction funding at that time. So we're basically setting ourselves up a 100%. To really go after alternative funding.

So for the board, what I remember from conversation at council, it was having the federal dollars to get us through the design phase, that's great. It would still be up to the city or other funding sources to actually build the project. And then the council made a really good point. It's like, okay, if we build these, then we have to maintain them and eventually perhaps replace them. So there was some conversation at council about, you know, is there a need for one or both of these, or is there only a need for one? So I guess I wanted to give you guys some perspective on kind of where my line of questioning is coming from. So, Brandon, if we say the council, we get through the process, and the council says, you know what, we only really want to do one. Do we have the ability to go back to the federal government and say, hey, we really only want to do one. Here's some of this money back. Or could we go to the feds and say, you know what, we've reached consensus with the council that we only want to do one. And the design, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, for one bridge is $510,000. Is there a way to petition the feds to use the other part of this grant for construction of the one that We decide to do, and again, I want to be very clear that. I'm 1 of 15, I mean, the council may come back and vote. We want to do both.

I'm just trying to kind of play this out a little bit. As far as asking for the adjusted what it would take is we would need to amend our grant agreements that we have with. So we would have to approach them if we wanted to only, say we got through the feasibility study of both of them, they do both seem feasible, but in order to get into preliminary and final design, we wanted to trim that back and really just focus on one bridge. We would need to amend our grant agreement to with us dot and get them to agree or concur to a smaller scope of work that. Basically, we were awarded for the grant, so to speak so. That would be the avenue it would take there as far as construction dollars. We would not be able to. Take the cost savings and apply them to a construction style because we were awarded a planning grant. It's a different funding avenue. And the construction grants on the federal level require extra submittals, like the benefit to cost. Analysis in full, and that is a big piece of when they decide to allocate construction dollars. So our dollars are only for planning. We can probably get them to agree to a pared down. Scope from a design perspective on the planning side, but we could not use those funds over on as allocation for construction.

Okay, I guess the 1 ask that I'd have is just, I think this is this is 1 of these types of projects where it would be good as we go through the steps just to give the board an update. And then I maybe asked Alex and for you just to. This is 1 that I just know the council is going to want to keep an eye on as we get through the process. So, if you guys, if there's a way to give us kind of. Updates every once in a while, because I do think. And again, as chair of the finance committee, I do think there's going to need to be conversation once we get into this project and we get through the feasibility part, we're going to need to go back to the council and really have some. Conversation around. Do we want to do this at all? Do we want to do one? Do we want to do two? Because there is going to be a long-term carrying cost to this structure. Absolutely. With that, I will make a motion to approve AECOM as the engineer for the USDOT RAISE program to study and design two pedestrian multi-use bridges across the Waukesha bypass at Fox River Parkway and at the New Berlin Trail. That is my motion.

Kevin Riley seconds. All right any further discussion? That will take a vote Donald.

I haven't really I Piper I.

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

So 7B, we have review and possible action on the inter municipal cooperation agreements between the town of Brookfield City of Brookfield and city of Waukesha for the Davidson Road project. So as funded in the 2026 community investment program, the city is completing street and utility improvements this year, right now as we speak, along the city section of Davidson Road, basically from Main Street or the cul-de-sac on the very west side all the way to the east to the city limits, which those city limits meet the limits of the town of Brookfield. And then further east on Davidson, it actually transitions into a split between the town of Brookfield and city of Brookfield. So really our project that's occurring right now is actually a piece of all corridor improvements along Davidson road. So we had worked together with the town, with the city to. Outline everybody's responsibilities and ties and in 1 agreement, just to make sure that we're all on the same page and this agreement outlines what the town is going to do what the city is going to do as far as Davidson road goes what we're going to do. Most of our work is just at city cost. We aren't tied to the towns project or the city or the city of Brookfield project. We're not letting as part of their project. We went on our own. Their project is pushed into 2027. so that's when they're going to complete their work. We were able to get in there a year early. Do our section 1st, there weren't as many utility impacts and complications. So this agreement really just outlines each party's responsible item. We have some storm sewer that we're connecting to the town system that is outlined in here. There's a piece of sidewalk that we are not going to install as part of our project. It will be installed as part of the town's project. We will incorporate that section into the plans. As far as cost goes. We do have a maximum. I don't anticipate really any costs being sent our way, but the town is going to incorporate very minimal amounts that piece of sidewalk into their project. They may. Send us an invoice for design services to incorporate that work into their projects. But that's basically that is what the agreement details outline outlines. There is a the last page of the agreement is kind of a map of the various sections if you're curious, but that's what we would ask for your approval tonight and feel free to let me know if you have any questions.

Brandon, I'm just curious. On the map, there's this TID 1A half mile buffer. What is that?

That is a, so this came from the town of Brookfield. That is the town of Brookfield's TID. That's for the coroner's project. Correct. They are funding. A piece of their section was LRIP funded, but another piece of it is also TID funded as well.

I'll make a motion to approve the item as presented. Kevin Riley, seconds.

All right, any further discussion? With that, we'll take a vote. O'Donnell, aye.

Kevin Riley, aye. Piper, aye.

Okay, motion passes. We'll move to item eight.

Eight and nine, I don't have anything to report tonight, and we don't have any official notices, so that's really all I got. All right, that we are adjourned. Thank you.