[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?