[0:10] Everybody ready?

[0:12] The common council of the city of Glendale is now in session. All rise for

[0:15] the Pledge of Allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[0:20] United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation

[0:25] under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[0:32] » Ms. Granger, would you please call the roll?

[0:35] » Mayor Kennedy. >> Here.

[0:36] » Alderman Dorothy. Alderman Gerhardt.

[0:39] » Here. >> Alderman Franklin.

[0:40] » Here. >> Alderman Schmaling.

[0:42] Alderman Shaw. You have a quorum. >> Thank you.

[0:46] Public comment. Glendale residents, business owners, and property owners are

[0:49] invited to speak to the council on items that are not on tonight's agenda, but

[0:52] are within the city's ability to regulate or control. Is there anyone

[0:55] wishing to speak to a non-agenda item? Up to the microphone, please.

[1:00] Um, Marcy, do you know if that microphone is

[1:02] on?

[1:11] There you Would you please start by stating your

[1:13] name and address, please? >> Uh, Trisha Matutina, 1124 West Riverview

[1:19] Drive. >> Okay.

[1:21] » Um, I didn't

[1:23] call anybody to be able to speak. Uh, my question that I have tonight is not

[1:29] directly related to F, but if it is tangentially

[1:36] related, should I get your permission now to ask it or wait until

[1:43] F? >> Uh, you can go ahead and ask your

[1:46] question now. >> Okay.

[1:49] You have on the plan, you are going to be, um,

[1:53] uh, approving, uh, money for demolition of three properties on the river.

[1:59] Okay, this is an acquisition of property. I'm not sure what the plan

[2:05] is. That is what I want to know. The acquisition has been on the mind of

[2:11] Glendale since the time Dick Maslowski was city administrator. So, where do I

[2:18] find details of the acquisition plan? And can you briefly tell me what it is

[2:24] and what it's for? >> So, the the plan is part of a federal

[2:27] program that is funded by the Federal Emergency Management Association uh

[2:32] administration and by the Department of Natural Resources for the state of

[2:35] Wisconsin and MMSD. The city doesn't pay any money for this. We are reimbursed

[2:40] our share of it. But, it's a federal and state program and then the the short

[2:44] it'd be the city's is Sorry. It's for reimbursed by MMSD. Um the way

[2:49] this works is we are taking homes that are in a floodway

[2:53] and those homes are being demolished and they're being restored as green space

[2:57] only and not to be developed and that is the plan. That is all the plan can be.

[3:01] And I know you've come in many times and ask us about a plan. There is no

[3:03] alternative plan. There is nothing else. >> to be because that is

[3:07] » It's green space. >> a floodway. No, and you know that

[3:11] because another administrator of another city told you that the numbers that

[3:17] Glendale has are fraudulent. There is no floodway there. There is not even Well,

[3:23] maybe there's No, there's no flood fringe. The river is so much lower. The

[3:28] fact that we had a flood, a one in a thousand year flood last year, has no

[3:34] bearing on that at all. And if you are proceeding to do that, I think all the

[3:39] residents need to know. We need to know.

[3:43] » So, the the the plan is exactly what I told you. The homes get purchased at

[3:47] market value. >> illegal plan.

[3:49] » It's not. It's a federal program. >> It's a illegal plan. Well, thank you.

[3:53] » There needs to be investigation. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate

[3:56] your comment. Is there anyone else wishing to speak in public comment?

[4:03] All right. We will move on then to the items on our agenda.

[4:08] Uh item three is the consent agenda, which includes the minutes of our uh

[4:12] sorry, the 2026 monthly report, the minutes for our July 27th Council

[4:15] meeting, and then the fall 2026 newsletter. Can I get a motion to adopt

[4:19] the consent agenda, please? >> So moved.

[4:21] » Moved by Doherty. Is there a second? Second by Vukovich.

[4:26] Uh any discussion? Uh yes, Alderman Mishaw.

[4:30] » I did send a comment. I was just curious that it's been Okay, never mind. Then

[4:34] we're good. >> Okay. Correction to the newsletter.

[4:36] » Yeah, there was two separate comments. One about the spectacular event

[4:39] confirming the location and the events and activities, and then another one by

[4:42] Alderman Schmelzing um regarding the wording of the after-hours drop-off and

[4:48] pick-up. So, we clarified um some information regarding that. So,

[4:51] hopefully it's more clear. And just to clarify, there's a $20 fee for the

[4:56] after-hours drop-off. It's annually. It expires Every card expires unless it's

[5:01] renewed on December 31st of every year. And then in order to get that renewed,

[5:05] you have to come into City Hall and then pay the $20 and get it renewed for

[5:09] after-hours pick-up and drop-off. >> Okay. Thank you. Alderman Schmelzing.

[5:14] » I was going to mention that I'll have to abstain from the minutes since I wasn't

[5:18] at the last meeting. But, that was it. Everything else was already addressed.

[5:21] Thank you. >> Okay.

[5:23] Well, um we'll consider the consent agenda adopted without objection.

[5:28] All right. Hearing no objection, we'll move on. Uh we have a public hearing

[5:31] tonight uh that's been noticed for the repealing and replacing of 13.1.210

[5:37] pertaining to drive-through hours of operation. I'll turn it over to Mr.

[5:41] Warwick first before I open the public hearing.

[5:43] » Thank you, Mayor Kennedy. So, this ordinance amendment is the result of uh

[5:47] staff locating conflicting language in the city code. Um there was two

[5:51] different sections regarding the operational hours allowed for

[5:54] drive-through facilities. Um in section 7, which regulates or

[5:59] chapter 7, which regulates businesses um throughout the city including

[6:03] drive-throughs and hours of operation, um it allows drive-throughs and

[6:07] businesses to be open until 2:00 a.m. Uh businesses open till 2:00 a.m. are

[6:11] allowed to pick up and drop off food like Uber and DoorDash. Um I I it

[6:17] escapes me the time they have to close um for people into the the restaurant,

[6:21] but drive-throughs anyway are allowed to be open until 2:00 a.m. We noticed that

[6:26] section 13, which is the zoning code, had a phrase in there that said

[6:30] drive-throughs had to be closed at 10:00 p.m. We have a numerous ones that have

[6:34] been operating till 1:00, 2:00 in the morning for years under the assumption

[6:39] that it was um permitted. So, we're just trying to

[6:41] eliminate that conflict in the zoning code to remove that one um phrase.

[6:46] » All right. Any questions from any members of the council? This was already

[6:49] heard at the plan commission, correct? And referred back to the council.

[6:53] » Alderman Franklin. >> So, this um would keep a 2:00 a.m.

[6:59] requirement uh well, not requirement, but 2:00 a.m. allotment uh of hours for

[7:04] all businesses whether or not they're restaurants or whatnot that have a

[7:07] drive-through. Or is it businesses only? Or let me rephrase this. Is it

[7:12] drive-through restaurants or business only or is it all businesses can be open

[7:16] till 2:00 a.m.? >> So, there's there's two different

[7:18] regulations is um your your allowed your business is allowed to be open I'm just

[7:22] going to say till midnight. It's either midnight or 11:00 for people and

[7:25] customers to come in to them. So, if you're operating Wingstop business or

[7:31] patrons can come in till midnight. If there's an Uber driver that wants to

[7:35] come in and pick up food, they can do that until 2:00 a.m. and then deliver

[7:38] it. Or if a person wants to pick up food, they can't come into the

[7:41] restaurant after midnight. This also says that um drive-thru restaurants or

[7:46] businesses where they're allowed can be open until 2:00 a.m. The city code

[7:50] already allows them till 2:00 a.m. It's just there was a conflicting language in

[7:54] the zoning code that we are just removing that section.

[7:56] » So, all we're doing is clearing up an inconsistency. We're not changing hours.

[8:00] » That is correct. >> Okay. But, we need to And I'm sorry, but

[8:03] we need to have public hearing because it relates to the zoning.

[8:06] » It was in the zoning code, so that requires a public hearing, yes.

[8:09] » Thank you. >> All right, any other questions? Alderman

[8:11] Vukovich. >> Um clarify with the

[8:16] um restaurants, they can it's not just Uber or DoorDash

[8:22] or whatever it is, a person can order online, go in and pick it up. So, it's

[8:27] » That is correct. >> I just want to make sure that people

[8:29] didn't understand that they they can order as long as they order online and

[8:33] go and get it. >> Correct.

[8:35] » And restaurants that are also bars can stay open till 2:00 a.m. anyway, so.

[8:39] » Yeah, that's under Illinois State Statute.

[8:40] » Right, right. All right, any other questions before

[8:43] you open the public hearing? All right, so this has been to the

[8:46] Planning and Architecture Review Commission, was referred back favorably

[8:49] to the council with the recommendation that we approve, but we do have to hold

[8:52] a public hearing. So, I'm now opening a public hearing for anyone wishing to

[8:55] speak about um ordinance 13.1.210 pertaining to drive-thru hours of

[9:01] operation.

[9:06] I don't see anyone in the council chambers wishing to be recognized. If

[9:09] you're joining us online and you want to speak in the public hearing about hours

[9:12] of operation for drive-thrus, you may unmute and state your name.

[9:22] All right, second call. Anyone wishing to speak in the public hearing?

[9:28] You have to You have to wait till I

[9:33] And third and final call. Anyone wishing to speak in the public hearing.

[9:39] All right, I now entertain a motion from a member of the council to close the

[9:42] public hearing. So moved. Moved by Gelhard, seconded by

[9:46] Shaw. All those in favor of closing the public hearing, please say I.

[9:50] » I. >> Any approve Any opposed? No.

[9:53] Motion carries. The public hearing is closed. Alderman Gelhard, do you want to

[9:56] speak? >> I I did. I So I I looked around at some

[9:58] other uh restaurants on the Northshore to see what they do on the drive-thrus.

[10:02] And this is what I came up with. Culver's of Shorewood, uh their

[10:05] drive-thru closes at 11:00. Uh the Corner Bakery in Shorewood, the

[10:09] drive-thru closes at 10:00 p.m. Uh Culver's of Mequon, the drive-thru

[10:14] closes at 10:00 p.m. Uh a McDonald's in Grafton, and their

[10:18] drive-thru closes at uh 11:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and midnight uh

[10:22] Saturday and Sunday. And I I think that Glendale should be more

[10:25] consistent with these uh communities in terms of the the hours of operation for

[10:31] drive-thru. I don't see any need to have it open until 2:00 a.m. So

[10:37] uh I know that that's I I've said this before, and I just wanted to to see if

[10:41] other communities um

[10:43] it on on the Northshore have, you know, similar uh hours of operation for their

[10:48] drive-thru. >> All right, thank you. Alderman Vukovich.

[10:54] » Mike. I think our where our drive-thrus are different than

[10:59] any of those communities cuz a lot of them has residential around their area.

[11:05] Um our drive-thrus don't really have residential or that the drive-thrus will

[11:11] bother the people that live around the area.

[11:15] Also, um it is um a money maker for

[11:21] the businesses. I've talked to McDonald's, Chick-fil-A I mean, not

[11:25] Chick-fil-A. Um Wingstop. Uh what else is there over

[11:29] there? Um >> Taco Bell.

[11:32] » Taco Bell. these I didn't talk to Taco Bell though. But these places do make

[11:37] money and they don't bother um the residents that are around there.

[11:42] Um so I don't see a issue with it. >> Um

[11:46] thank you. Alderman Michelle. >> This is a question for the chief. Have

[11:51] there been any incidences where people going through drive-thrus after certain

[11:56] hours?

[11:58] » Nothing that I've been made aware of, no.

[12:00] » Thank you. >> All right. What we do have now um an

[12:05] ordinance or a repealing and replacing 13.1.210.

[12:10] It has been sent over from the planning and architecture review commission with

[12:13] a recommendation for um that the council adopted. Uh we had a public hearing

[12:18] tonight. No one appeared to testify. So I would entertain a motion now to

[12:22] approve the new ordinance.

[12:26] Moved by Vukovich. Is there a second? >> I'll second.

[12:28] » Second by Franklin. Any further discussion?

[12:32] » Good. Alderman Franklin. I just want to clarify. Um I do have concerns general

[12:36] about there being too many uh drive-thrus and the expansion of

[12:40] drive-thrus that have happened. Um but I don't think that that is the

[12:45] debate for today. I think that it's the inconsistency

[12:48] uh that we're having that needs to be cleared up. Um

[12:52] but I would point out chief's comments are really important uh and instructive

[12:56] that we aren't having any additional issues.

[12:59] Uh and I would love to have uh a further discussion just in terms of uh any kind

[13:04] of consistency issues that there may be. But I don't see that as being on point

[13:09] for today. >> Thank you. Any other comments?

[13:13] All right. All those in favor of approving the new ordinance, please say

[13:16] aye. >> Aye.

[13:17] » Aye. >> Any opposed, no?

[13:18] » No. >> Okay, motion carries. The new ordinance

[13:21] is approved. We'll now move on to our new business

[13:25] items. Item 5 A is uh approval of a 2026

[13:31] rewarding responder grant through We Energies Foundation to

[13:35] purchase drone equipment, Chief. >> Yes, so in May We Energies posted this

[13:41] grant up to $2,000. It's called the rewarding responders

[13:45] grant. We talked to within the supervisors

[13:48] about ideas that we could do this or use that those funds for

[13:52] and we have a few older drones that fly indoors that needed to

[13:58] be replaced so that became our topic that we wrote the grant for and we

[14:02] received approval for that grant to purchase two of those drones which

[14:08] include a set of goggles and that's how they fly them and

[14:12] we recently obtained our own the city had the has their own license now

[14:17] program. We've been approved by the FAA so we can train our own pilots so we'd

[14:21] start using those immediately as well to train our pilots. The total for our cost

[14:25] would including some batteries is just under $1,900 and just looking for

[14:30] approval to move forward with that. If it does get approved We Energies will be

[14:34] pushing out some publicity in September to announce that.

[14:38] » Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for the Chief?

[14:41] Franklin >> I I just want to understand with the

[14:45] drones do we or have we ever used these for non-emergency

[14:51] warrantless surveillance?

[14:54] » Nothing we've done it when we're on calls where there's a you know I can

[14:58] recall using a drone on a house that we had set up a perimeter on but that was

[15:03] an enforcement action so nothing where we're

[15:06] just we don't just fly up the drones just to watch. You know it's it's a

[15:10] specific request because someone fled from us or there's a missing person.

[15:15] Those are primarily I can't think of anything in your situation where you're

[15:18] saying we're using it to surveil. >> I mean we wouldn't use them to, you

[15:24] know, fly around, let's say, uh

[15:30] uh and uh what do you call it? Um an Airbnb

[15:35] uh that might be having a party to see what's going on, you know, on the lawn.

[15:39] » No. >> Okay. All right.

[15:41] » I mean, so there's policies and procedures in place uh regarding when

[15:45] it's appropriate and not. >> Everyone knows, yes, when when these are

[15:48] when these are used and uh I can tell you the amount of times we have to

[15:51] switch the batteries. These aren't taken lightly because when you do bring them

[15:55] out, you are they have to come back to home base within 20 minutes, 30 minutes,

[15:59] and recharge the batteries and flip them out. So, it's not a toy, per se. Now, we

[16:03] will fly them in training, you know, around, but these small ones will be

[16:07] flying inside our garage. >> Thank you.

[16:11] Any other questions? >> Alderman Aguilar Heredia.

[16:13] » Just an observation. I uh so, We Energies gave us this grant

[16:18] despite the fact that we sued them. Perhaps they forgot about that. I I

[16:22] don't know. >> Well, we didn't sue their foundation.

[16:25] » Yes, that is correct. We We We still got it.

[16:27] » Okay. >> Yeah, I looked a little bit. It looks

[16:29] like it's not funded by uh people who are paying their energy

[16:33] bills. It's It's money donated from the uh stockholders. And um so, apparent

[16:40] Yeah, for the foundation. So, um I do find that kind of an ironic twist as

[16:43] well, but um >> And it wasn't a bribe for their next

[16:47] item or one of the last items on there for the We Energies uh

[16:50] » Do you remind me of anything either, obviously?

[16:53] » All right. Um can we get a motion then to accept the grant from the We Energies

[16:57] Foundation in the amount of $1,868 for the purchase of drone equipment?

[17:01] Moved by Shaw. >> Second.

[17:02] » Seconded by Doherty. Any further discussion?

[17:05] All those in favor of approving say aye. >> Aye.

[17:07] » Opposed, nay. Motion carries.

[17:11] Thanks, Chief. Uh next item is approval of the 2027 budget schedule, Mr.

[17:15] Warwick. >> Uh so, in the memo is the um, budget

[17:17] schedule. Um, obviously the deadline for determining the property tax levy is

[17:22] December 15th of every year. Um, we try to beat that significantly ahead of time

[17:26] because people for some reason want to pay their property taxes as soon as

[17:29] possible. Um, so that's the deadline that we're always fighting. Um, with

[17:33] that being said, November 23rd is the date that we target for the adoption of

[17:37] the city budget with the public hearing occurring on the same day.

[17:41] » Any questions for the city administrator?

[17:45] Okay, can we get a motion then to approve the 2027 budget schedule as

[17:48] outlined in the memo in our packet? >> So moved.

[17:50] » Moved by Schmelling, is there a second? >> Second.

[17:53] » Seconded by Gelhard, any further discussion?

[17:55] All in favor of approving say aye. >> Aye.

[17:58] » Opposed, no. Motion carries, the budget schedule is

[18:01] approved. >> Next item.

[18:04] » Next item is uh, an authorization to execute an agreement with Nicolet High

[18:07] School for a 2026-2027 school resource officer, and I'll turn it back over to

[18:11] the chief. >> So this is the updated numbers for 2026

[18:15] and 2027. When Nicolet covers 66% of the school resource officer's wages and

[18:20] benefits. Um, like I do every summer, I contacted

[18:24] the principal and I talked about the program

[18:26] and where things stand, and uh, it was a very good conversation. We

[18:31] this year would have a new SRO starting. Um, Officer Myers is uh, moving uh, away

[18:36] from that position and we assigned uh, Officer Held Young would be in that

[18:40] position, but uh, he had nothing but positive

[18:42] uh, comments to say about the program and looks forward to building that

[18:45] relationship with the new officer. Attached is also the uh, MOU that we

[18:49] have with the school and uh, the police department of the different guidelines

[18:54] that we will make sure we continue to follow.

[18:58] » Thank you. Are there any questions for the chief?

[19:02] All right, can we get a motion then to approve the school resource officer

[19:04] shared services agreement? >> So moved.

[19:07] » Moved by Gelhard, is there a second? Seconded by Shaw.

[19:10] Any further discussion? All Yeah. Alderman Franklin?

[19:15] » I appreciate it. As I serve concurrently on the Nikiski School Board, we had an

[19:19] occasion to approve this earlier in the week, although uh the laws of recusal

[19:25] and conflict do not require that I decline from voting here before the

[19:29] council. In the interest of you know, just prudence, I'm not going to take

[19:34] part in any action on the vote from this point, but I would like to note that I

[19:38] supported it earlier.

[19:40] » But you'd like to be listed as abstaining in the minutes.

[19:43] » I'm sorry? >> You'd like to be listed as abstaining

[19:44] from the vote. >> And I would Yeah, well, I will be

[19:46] abstaining, yes. >> Okay. All right, thank you. Any further

[19:49] discussion? All right, all those in favor say I.

[19:54] » I. >> I.

[19:54] » Opposed, no. Okay, that was a vote of four to one

[19:59] with Did you want to be listed as abstaining?

[20:02] » Uh just point of order, should it be a recusal or an abstain? Does it matter?

[20:05] » Just abstain. >> Okay, then yeah, we can call it an

[20:08] abstain. >> Okay, by vote of four to one with one

[20:10] abstention, uh the motion carries and the school resource officer position is

[20:15] um continuing for another year.

[20:18] Next item is an authorization authorization to execute a multi-year

[20:22] sanitary sewer televising contract with Aqualish and I will turn it back over to

[20:27] Mr. Warwick. >> Uh thank you, Mayor Kennedy. So, um last

[20:30] year the city bid the sanitary sewer um closed circuit television monitoring and

[20:34] cleaning. Aqualish was the low bidder. The contract allows for a renewal um

[20:39] based on the consumer price index increase over the past 12 months. The

[20:43] renewal will be 2.4% um which is

[20:47] um makes the total amount for 2026

[20:50] $120,577.

[20:54] So, just looking for the council to authorize an execution of the agreement

[20:58] for the renewal of the project that was bid last year and allowed in the

[21:01] contract. >> Any questions for the city

[21:04] administrator? All right, can we get a motion then to

[21:07] approve the Well, let me me motions first and all. A motion to approve.

[21:12] » So moved. >> Moved by Gelhard.

[21:14] » Second. >> Seconded by Daugherty. Alderman

[21:15] Schmeling, go ahead. >> Yeah, just real quick. I noticed in the

[21:19] the prep materials that we've completed all of the the sewer televising. Are we

[21:24] going to continue this in the future? Is this something that we we just kind of

[21:27] go through again with the next round of of of years? Just kind of came to mind.

[21:32] I I just wanted to know how that kind of works out from uh you know, ongoing

[21:36] maintenance perspective.

[21:41] » Okay. >> Justin, the city's required to televise

[21:45] I believe at 10-year cycle. Um so it's it's good to continually

[21:48] televise determine there's any issues. Um from this point forward we'll we'll

[21:52] take the data that we have from the past 3 years

[21:55] um and uh look at that uh and identify any capital projects, repairs, lining,

[22:01] and manhole rehabilitation. >> Okay, so we should expect this to kind

[22:04] of continue. >> It will continue, yes.

[22:06] » And it'll just be, you know, spread it out over the the time frame.

[22:09] » We're going to take a break for several years, but um

[22:11] yes, it will it will be picked up again in the future.

[22:14] » Okay, thank you. >> Any other questions? Yep, Alderman

[22:17] Gelhard. >> I I've got a question for uh Ben. I so I

[22:20] see part of this involves light cleaning or heavy sewer cleaning.

[22:27] Um do they have particular areas already in

[22:30] mind or is it just going to go through and whatever they find they'll they'll

[22:34] clean? >> So, there is an area of the city's been

[22:37] broken up into five basins. Um this year we're doing If you

[22:42] uh there is a map in the packet, we're doing the purple area which is

[22:45] essentially Bender Road south and then Milwaukee River Parkway east.

[22:51] Um it's kind of the southeast quadrant of the city. That is going to be done.

[22:55] Um the light cleaning is standard, heavy cleaning is as it's encountered. Um

[22:59] there's a there's an approval process for that as well as some other

[23:02] on demand tasks. Generally speaking, there's very limited

[23:06] heavy cleaning. However, since we're approaching the uh

[23:09] uh more commercial corridor, we may see

[23:13] some more grease and some more heavy cleaning.

[23:17] Okay. >> Alderman Vukovich.

[23:20] » Um how does it when you hit up like that most of this

[23:23] is my district, but how do you do that when it's hit up with Whitefish Bay or

[23:29] hitting Milwaukee uh do we do we go and try to share the

[23:33] cost or is it

[23:37] just depending on who owns the line? >> It's who owns the line. So, the city

[23:42] will notice the city will only clean their lines and then they will provide

[23:47] notice to any any customer that's on the line. They'll have a door hanger or some

[23:52] other written form of notification placed on the property so that people,

[23:55] residents, customers are aware of the work that's happening.

[24:00] » I guess just to piggyback on her question. Like for example, Lydell,

[24:02] Glendale is one side of the street, Whitefish Bay is the other side of the

[24:05] street. How do we televise this that particular

[24:09] line? >> Correct. I don't off the top of my head,

[24:11] I don't have that precise answer. I can get it for you. It does not appear that

[24:15] we are televising sewer on Lydell. >> I I believe Lydell sewer line is part of

[24:19] the MMSD sewer line. So, I I think

[24:22] everything feeds into there and that's part of what MMSD is responsible for. I

[24:26] believe that's why Lydell isn't on the schedule.

[24:28] » Okay.

[24:31] » Any other question? Alderman Vukovich, go ahead.

[24:33] » But um what about the like Hampton area? Cuz that is really tricky. Um

[24:40] even going down to if we're doing south of Bender, that would go all the way

[24:45] almost to Capital and some of that is Milwaukee, some of it is

[24:50] you know, one handful of people areas is Milwaukee, another area is Glendale. So,

[24:56] they are marked as Glendale property for the sewer line and it's already

[25:01] established that they take care of we take care of Glendale sewer and

[25:06] they'll take care of Milwaukee or whoever it is sewer.

[25:10] » Yeah, there's several locations in the city where there's Milwaukee County or

[25:14] Milwaukee MMSD interceptors um and even further south when you get to borders

[25:18] with Milwaukee and Fish Bay as you pointed out. Um generally the the cities

[25:23] or villages know which is theirs um and what's mapped and what's shown on this

[25:27] represents and in the represents only the city sewers.

[25:31] Um there are resources that the city has to be able to confirm, you know, other

[25:35] sewers in the area. And in terms of a notification process, we generally over

[25:40] notify rather than under notify um if there's concern about not notifying

[25:45] anybody that's adjacent to. >> Okay.

[25:47] » I wasn't worried about the notification. I was just worried about the when you

[25:51] actually do the work and it's should be on somebody else's or ours. That's our

[25:56] concern. >> We're we're only doing what the city is

[25:58] responsible for. >> Okay.

[26:01] » Alderman Doerfler. >> So, there's really no shared lines. It

[26:03] everything comes down to somebody actually owns that one.

[26:07] » That's correct. >> Even if somebody dumps into yours, it's

[26:09] on yours, it's still your problem, right?

[26:11] » That is correct. >> It's where it's where the problem would

[26:15] sit literally. >> Yeah, we have an end of where our

[26:17] sanitary, where our water is, where our storm sewer is and we clean and televise

[26:21] for all three of those up to where they stop and where they end. And we know

[26:25] precisely where they are. Everything's GIS'd, so it's pretty accurate nowadays.

[26:29] » Thank you. >> Any other questions?

[26:33] Okay, can we get a motion then to extend the multi-year sanitary sewer televising

[26:37] contract with Aqualys? >> So moved.

[26:40] » Moved. >> Moved by uh Doerfler, seconded by

[26:43] Franklin. Any further discussion?

[26:47] » Oh, I did. Okay. >> Okay.

[26:49] » Thank you. >> approving it now?

[26:50] » It was a while ago, so. All right, so it's already been moved

[26:54] and seconded. All those in favor of approving say I.

[26:56] » I. >> Any opposed? No.

[26:58] Motion carries. Thank you very much, Ms. Granger.

[27:01] Appreciate that. Uh next item uh 5E is an authorization to execute a multi-year

[27:07] storm sewer cleaning and inspection contract with Globe Contractors.

[27:11] And am I turning this back over to Mr. Warwick or

[27:13] » I'll take this one just as an introduction. So, this is pretty much

[27:15] the exact same item um except it's for storm rather than sanitary. So, it's

[27:20] televising and cleaning the storm sewer system. Uh we bid this in 2025. Globe

[27:24] Contractors was the low bidder. Um looking for um the authorization to

[27:28] execute the new contract um with a price increase of 2.4% over the amount that

[27:33] was awarded in 2025.

[27:37] » Thank Ben, did you want anything to that as the city engineer?

[27:42] Okay. Uh

[27:44] any discussion or questions from members of the council?

[27:47] Okay, can we get a motion then to approve the extension of the contract uh

[27:51] with Globe Contractors? >> So moved.

[27:55] » Moved by Schmelling, seconded by Franklin.

[27:57] All right. Any discussion? All in favor of approving, please say I.

[28:01] » I. >> Opposed, say no.

[28:04] Motion carries. Next item is item 5F, an authorization

[28:08] to execute an award of a flood plain home demolition contract.

[28:12] Um and I'll turn it back over to Mr. Warwick.

[28:15] » Uh so, as you know, the city has purchased three properties. They were

[28:18] listed in the memo um as part of our flood plain floodway acquisition um with

[28:22] MMSD and the state of Wisconsin. Um the the project was bid and U Junk LLC um

[28:30] uh was the low bid at 42,560. Um they were more than 100% lower than

[28:35] the next highest bidder. Um I think 42,560 is a really good price to

[28:40] demolish three homes. Um fortunately, there's a zero cost to

[28:43] the city as these costs will be reimbursed and they will be reimbursed

[28:46] once these homes are demolished. So, just looking for an authorization to

[28:51] execute the contract to demolish these three

[28:53] homes as listed in the memo. >> All right. Any questions for the city

[28:58] administrator? >> Alderman Valade.

[29:01] » That does include in the sense land, you know, not just tearing out

[29:05] what's there, it's putting it uh landscaping it over and

[29:10] » So, we're starting it to the grass. >> Yeah.

[29:12] » Yep. And which will be left that way. Yep.

[29:14] » Is it grass or is it native >> plantings?

[29:16] » I believe it's grass, correct? >> Grass.

[29:18] » Okay. All right.

[29:20] I'm going to get a motion then to execute the agreement with

[29:24] um uh U Junkie LLC.

[29:27] » So moved. >> Moved by Gerhardt. Is there a second?

[29:31] » Second. >> Seconded by Vukovich. Any further

[29:33] discussion? All those in favor of approving, please

[29:36] say aye. >> Aye.

[29:37] » Aye. >> Opposed, no.

[29:39] Motion carries. The next item is authorization to

[29:44] execute an agreement with Convergent for a new audio video recording system for

[29:49] the police station, city hall, public works, Aryan Park, including cloud

[29:53] storage. And is this Mr. Warwick or is this Ms.

[29:57] Balweg? >> Uh Mr. Fugmann will both tackle this

[30:00] one. >> I'll start.

[30:03] » All right, Chief. Go ahead. >> So, part of the PD remodel included

[30:07] replacing our current system we had at the PD.

[30:10] One thing that became evident as that started is we still have the rest of the

[30:14] PD with a an old system that we were not in favor of, wasn't working well, and

[30:20] city hall has that same system as well. We started the discussions with with

[30:25] Carl and Jessica and decided well, also we know that DPW has their a separate

[30:30] system as well, and the park has a separate system as well.

[30:34] We know as from the PD we we have those monitored at our station at all times.

[30:40] That did not happen very often because the servers were down quite often and

[30:45] we'd have to go have send IT up there. So we became a concept that we ended up

[30:49] going to see if we can get this all done once the bidder of our project won that,

[30:55] we decided to go to them directly. We did have conversations with the uh

[30:59] our our construction team beforehand and that's what's referenced the initial

[31:04] design change include that in the project. Came up to close to $100,000 to

[31:08] add that. So we decided to hold off and wait till the bids went through and then

[31:12] once we knew who the contract was awarded to, we talked to

[31:15] them on our own to try to save a little money on that end.

[31:19] So we ended up having them come in and give us quotes for all the cameras

[31:24] again. We found out that the majority of cameras we have at the police department

[31:27] are analog cameras. They weren't even digital yet. Um so

[31:32] we've had issues again and Jessica could speak to this of the quality of the

[31:36] video, the issues we've had in our own jail, of videos going down. So we ended

[31:40] up contacting this

[31:43] person who won the bid, Convergint, and they gave us a

[31:48] contracts or proposals for each location.

[31:52] We went back and forth as a staff looking at what what was needed, what

[31:56] wasn't needed. Basically for city hall and public

[31:59] works. City Hall we literally walked around and said here are the cameras

[32:03] that we currently have, we want these replaced. Now we weren't adding a bunch.

[32:07] The DPW I think added one camera for the new salt yard that's going in so they

[32:12] can have a better view of what's going on there. And then we actually

[32:17] through our conversations we ended up cutting back four cameras at Rem Park at

[32:21] the Richard E. Maslowski Park that they

[32:25] wanted to put in there. So the the biggest thing

[32:29] comes down to the subscription costs. These like a lot of technology nowadays

[32:34] everything is based on licensing now and the cloud based concept is where the

[32:39] money is. The discussion became here is do we do servers like we have here at

[32:44] the PD currently with city hall and and DPW and and the

[32:48] park which we've had a lot of issues with or do we go through the cloud based

[32:54] as stated in the memo I RIT is in trying to move everything to cloud based

[32:59] and um I think the ease of which that can be

[33:03] serviced as well offsite was another big selling point but obviously there there

[33:07] is a long term cost. They offer one year they offer three year packages they

[33:11] offer five year. Five year was the best value for our

[33:15] for the city while it's a long term cost that also covers the five years warranty

[33:20] of these cameras are covered under as well so they match up. Um we were also

[33:24] advised that the cameras should last longer than five years. So this is not a

[33:28] five year we're redoing it over again it's just it

[33:31] it would just become a cloud based concept from there.

[33:35] Um I don't know if I'm missing anything Jessica if there's any other any

[33:37] questions on on the proposal we have listed on the memo.

[33:41] » Um no just covering the fact that um

[33:46] it has a five years worth of the cloud storage which estimating if we would go

[33:51] for a five year cloud storage plan it could save us around about $30,000

[33:56] extending it out over five years versus like a one year or three years so it

[33:59] gave us the most bang for our buck to look at it that way.

[34:02] Um >> You want to know about the

[34:05] » retention? >> Oh the record retention so currently it

[34:08] would the cloud storage would last for 30 days for the contract.

[34:13] Any incidents that we would know that would

[34:16] happen we would be able to rip and pull that data from and then we'd save it

[34:20] ourselves on our own servers. Um per we double checked with Nathan to

[34:24] make sure what record retention was if we needed longer than 30 days and it's

[34:28] only three days. So we do longer in the jail chief was it

[34:33] 90 days in the jail? >> We'll have 90 days.

[34:35] » 90 days. So, we do 90 days uh jail retention on the cloud per our um

[34:40] current Current policies. So,

[34:43] yep. >> All right. Any questions for the Chief

[34:46] from Ms. Balweg? Alderman Shelton, go ahead.

[34:50] » Yeah, it just came to mind now. If um we do this for 5 years and we decide to

[34:55] continue it, is there anything like baked in for pricing increases or if we

[34:59] decide to go to a different like cloud storage provider, do does the hardware

[35:03] support that? I'm just kind of curious how this would play out long-term.

[35:06] » The hardware would support it because um most the current hardware that we have

[35:10] now, which is Genetec, that's the current system that we have.

[35:13] That's what we're going with with the new system, too. So, we're updating the

[35:16] actual cameras that don't work very well and like the analog, but the hardware

[35:21] that we have is existing. We were told that's still the best hardware at the

[35:24] time. I don't know what happens to come at the subscription time if they make us

[35:29] some sort of offer or something before we go in kind of like an existing

[35:33] subscription. We can ask Max to see uh unless did he mention that? I don't

[35:37] remember. >> No, just there's cost certainty for the

[35:39] 5-year contract. I would say in 5 years it's going to be higher, but that's kind

[35:43] of the the bonus. When we looked at the different proposals for years for the

[35:47] cloud, that's where we get the about that $30,000 in savings for the city.

[35:51] » Yeah, we're trying to bake in the certainty for as long as we can once we

[35:53] hit after 5 years. I guess it's open season for what happens to the contract.

[35:58] » Okay, thanks. Yeah, I just was hoping to make sure that we get some feedback on a

[36:02] um better. Thank you. Um I was just hoping

[36:04] to make sure that we did have flexibility and weren't like locked into

[36:06] the same company in 5 years. So, it sounds like we do.

[36:09] » Yep. >> All right. Other questions? Alderman

[36:13] Franklin. >> I just have maybe slightly obscure

[36:16] question, but who's records custodian then for the data? Because if we were

[36:20] got a subscription, do we own it? Uh and also if someone

[36:25] does a an open records request, I mean, is it ours to give uh whatever, you

[36:29] know, the footage is for and it may not be by the way subject to

[36:33] open records. I understand that, but I'm just trying to get a sense of that.

[36:40] » The short answer is yes, it's ours. Um the you know, when you just have

[36:46] a camera that's a surveillance camera like, you know, in in Village Hall or

[36:51] whatever and um you know, you're you're generating hours

[36:55] and hours of that stuff by the day. Um that's why under the state records

[37:02] um schedule that they said, you know, it's

[37:05] 3 days, but the caveat there is if you know you have an incident, somebody

[37:11] slips and falls, um you know, there's there's a altercation in the lobby or

[37:16] there's a car accident out front, then you keep it for a minimum of 120 days to

[37:22] see if there's a notice of claim that comes in and then you get rid of it, but

[37:25] it's ours. I mean, it's we it's it's our data that we have access to if we get an

[37:30] open records request that we have to respond to or if we keep it longer

[37:34] because we know there's an incident. Um they can't There's nothing that a

[37:39] private contract can usurp the open records law um in Wisconsin and and

[37:45] we'll we'll always have access to it. >> Thanks. And then just to can I ask the

[37:49] last question cuz I was thinking you as you were answering it, which is

[37:53] retention. Um obviously 120 days for claim, but

[37:57] some will file, you know, claim federal court right within statute and patient

[38:00] for example and some might not know that something happened. So, how long must we

[38:06] keep data on the surveillance and does that kind of create a long-term problem

[38:11] or not? >> No, I don't think so, but your point is

[38:15] well taken that um

[38:19] what if something occurs and then you didn't find out it till after it was

[38:22] deleted, right? I think that I well I think then you just, you know, the

[38:27] position would be um we have a record retention schedule

[38:31] that's stamped the has a stamp of approval of

[38:34] the Wisconsin uh records uh board who sets these things. Uh we kept it for

[38:40] the appropriate number of days and discarded it in the normal course of

[38:44] business and we don't have it anymore. You know.

[38:47] » Yeah, I can't imagine municipality keeps their CCD more than what we're proposing

[38:52] here. There's There's none that would do that.

[38:55] » Okay. Thanks. Any other questions?

[38:57] » In my conversations with them, they said that 30 days is a very common uh time

[39:03] frame for municipalities. Yeah. >> Any other questions?

[39:08] All right, can we get a motion then to um authorize the agreement with

[39:12] Convergent for the new audio video recording uh system as indicated by the

[39:17] chief and Ms. Bowick. >> So moved.

[39:21] » Moved by Gelhar. Is there a second? >> Second.

[39:24] » Second by Franklin. Any further discussion?

[39:28] All those in favor of approving, please say aye.

[39:30] » Aye. >> Opposed, no.

[39:32] Motion carries. Thank you. And um our final item tonight

[39:37] uh is sent over from the Planning and Architecture Review Commission. Uh We

[39:41] Energies is proposing to change the facade of their building at 5400 North

[39:45] Green Bay Avenue. Uh what did go to the Planning and

[39:48] Architecture Review Commission which determined it to be a minor amendment to

[39:52] the planned unit development. And Mr. Warwick, is there anything more you want

[39:55] to add to that? >> Yeah, the the pictures um are shared up

[39:58] there. It's simply um the Planning and Architecture Review Commission

[40:00] determined that this would be a minor amendment just looking for confirmation

[40:03] from the council on that and um approval of the plan.

[40:07] And there are representatives from We Energies here if you have any questions.

[40:10] » Yeah. Are there any questions for

[40:14] staff? All right. So say you said this has

[40:17] already been reviewed by the PARC, sent over here with a recommendation that we

[40:21] approve uh the facade changes to We Energies

[40:25] building or service center 5400 North Green Bay Avenue and considered a minor

[40:30] amendment to the planned unit development. Can I get a motion to

[40:33] approve, please? >> So moved.

[40:34] » Moved by Daugherty. Is there a second? >> Second.

[40:36] » Second by Gelhard. Any further discussion?

[40:40] Alderwoman Vukovich, go ahead. >> They have money to fix their building,

[40:43] but don't have money to bury their lines. I just wanted to make sure

[40:48] » Uh-huh. >> got that.

[40:51] » Thank you. Any other comments or questions?

[40:54] All those in favor of approving, please say aye.

[40:56] » Aye. >> Opposed, no.

[40:58] Motion carries. All right, that concludes all of our

[41:02] business this evening. Uh we now have uh commission, committee,

[41:05] board, and staff reports, and I'll start with uh Alderwoman Vukovich. Anything to

[41:09] report? >> Um just wanted to

[41:13] do a shout-out to Abby Terrell, um Carl, for the back-to-school event.

[41:21] Um he'll talk more about what we gave out. No, no, no, no, you do cuz I don't

[41:25] know all of it. Um but just the the time and the effort that people put in. I

[41:31] know I think Mr. um Terrell said that we had roughly about

[41:38] $2200 in sales. Um so, our sales have been going up and

[41:43] up. Um hopefully if things keep going the way we are, we may have a profit.

[41:48] We're just going to pray, but we I don't think we'll have a loss um this year as

[41:53] bad as we did last year. So, the improvements that Carl has accepted, you

[41:57] know, the ideas that Carl uh you know, let Terrell put through or or

[42:03] whatever the committee said, um I just want to thank the staff, Abby, uh what's

[42:09] her name? Um

[42:11] the accounting >> Alderman Emily

[42:13] » Emily Um, Emily Terrell, they and Jessica,

[42:17] they really work hard on those things um, as a staffer and sometimes we need

[42:21] to just like give them their flowers. So,

[42:25] there's your bouquet. >> Thank you.

[42:28] Alderman Doherty nothing to report tonight.

[42:30] » Alderman Gearhart >> Nothing this evening.

[42:32] » Alderman Franklin >> Nothing.

[42:33] » Alderman Schmelsing >> Uh, echoing some of the things that um,

[42:37] Alderman Vukovic said about our staff for the park. Um, we had our uh, first

[42:43] time we got to use, I think one of the first person that used the new fire pit

[42:47] over at AM Park. Uh, the scouts came out and did a flag retirement as part of our

[42:51] um, salute to veterans that had to be

[42:53] rescheduled because of meeting from earlier in the season that was washed

[42:56] out last year. So, uh, we did pull it off and it was uh, great to be able to

[43:00] have that venue for something like this and we're going to just continue it next

[43:04] year. Um, so, uh, quick reminder if you have any flags to

[43:09] retire, I have a uh, bin in my garage. So, um, we'll continue to do that as

[43:13] with the scouts and we had a bugler it was great. So, thank you everyone for

[43:16] helping make that happen. >> Thank you. Alderman Shaw

[43:20] Okay, I as mayor also don't have a report. Um, city of or sorry, city

[43:25] attorney >> Nothing this evening, thanks.

[43:26] » City administrator >> I'll say the most obvious thing is that

[43:29] the Bender Bridge is open now to traffic in both directions. Uh, there might be

[43:33] some aesthetic repairs that will be needed. They poured concrete in the

[43:36] rain. Um, so, there's some discoloration and

[43:39] some other minor things that might need to be corrected by the contractor. We're

[43:43] going to hold them off until next summer um, when school is not in session to

[43:46] make those repairs if they're necessary. >> Thank you. Ms. Granger

[43:50] » Um, I just want to report that the election went off without a hitch with

[43:53] no power outages and we had 4,300 >> And of course We Energies has left the

[43:58] building, so >> Um, 4,362

[44:03] voters out of 9,307 registered voters.

[44:08] » About 47% was it? >> Yeah.

[44:10] » around 40-ish percent almost 50, yeah. >> Okay.

[44:14] Thank you, Chief. >> Uh demo is continuing we're over 90%

[44:18] done with that and then we'll finally get building over there. And then since

[44:22] our last meeting we had two officers start the police academy that are

[44:26] scheduled to graduate in mid-December. >> Excellent, thank you.

[44:30] Yeah. >> Is this on schedule or ahead of schedule

[44:35] or >> On schedule.

[44:36] » Okay. >> All right.

[44:39] Well, nothing else on our agenda and no other reports I would entertain a motion

[44:43] to adjourn. >> So moved.

[44:45] » Moved by Gelhard. >> Second.

[44:46] » Seconded by Doherty. All those in favor of adjourning please say I.

[44:49] » I. >> Opposed no.

[44:52] We stand adjourned at 6:44 p.m. >> Mark.

[44:55] » Did you use those drones to scout the power lines?

Common Council Meeting - August 24, 2026

Transcript