I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God.

Welcome public comments.

I have your cards.

Frank Powell.

Come up to the podium.

Announce your name.

Good evening.

My name is Frank Palm.

I live at 625 Chicago Avenue.

I'm here tonight to try to persuade you to put a guardrail in front of the residence at uh 524 Madison Street.

In recent years, we've had two accidents going up the hill.

Uh one of which uh the car jumped the side jumped the curb over the sidewalk and stopped when it hit a retaining wall to home.

The second uh one, which was uh recently, uh same thing occurred.

The car jumped the curb over the sidewalk and uh ended up against the porch of the residence on I think it is 2524.

Uh both of these to me seem to be proof that there needs to be some type of guardrail at that particular spot.

Um I understand uh your reluctance to do that, um, and I know they recommended putting a chevron, indicating that there was a turn in that particular road going up the hill.

Um, but I think that would not serve the purpose at this time.

Uh in both cases, I believe uh there was excess of speed going up the hill, and also uh possibly intoxication in both accidents.

I understand that there's also uh a couple of comments that I would like to make uh in your uh cover sheet that you've got, one of which is the that the proposed guardrail would only prevent vehicles from traveling uphill from running off the road.

Um that is true, it would only prevent them from going off the road going up the hill.

You presently have a guardrail on the same side of the road to prevent cars from going off the road only only going down the hill.

And if you did a little research, you would find out that in the last probably 10 years there have been no accidents against that guardrail, but in fact the cars have made the bend and have gone off the road and ran into the Salvation Army's front stores, uh front doorsteps, which case Salvation Army has already put up two bullards to stop that problem.

So that guardrail going down the hill really has not served purpose, so the rationale about putting it only for the uphill doesn't make a lot of sense.

Um the other one would be to um the idea of putting only on uh chevrons indicating going up the hill.

Presently you have five chevrones there already.

The last accident, the car knocked that chevron down, one of them down, which proceeded to hit the front porch.

Um so I don't think adding a sixth one is going to make any difference at this point in time.

Um a guardrail and uh the other part of this passage down at the bottom here says guardrail with would reduce uh would have problems with the right-of-way, and that due to this increased risk, it is not recommended that it engineering perspective that to install additional guardrail along Madison from uh aspect of risk to the city.

My understanding is that uh that's not really the case.

Um the first accident that occurred, the gentleman actually jumped the curb and hit the uh retaining wall.

He then proceeded to back up and drive farther down to his home, farther down Madison Street.

So the idea of risk of injury to the person driving the vehicle is not does not make a lot of sense.

In the first place, the car is going to absorb any guardrail contact along with any of the airbags that will deploy.

So risk to a driver or passengers, passengers in that vehicle is not really real.

I think there needs to be a guardrail.

I wish you to consider it.

I wished you proposed that they put a guardrail there.

It is not that expensive.

And if it's going to cause a problem because it's going to take public works away from uh other jobs.

Uh I always thought that when a job came up, you put it on a shopping list of jobs to be done.

They were prioritized, and you went according to that.

Not whether it's going to take them away from leaf or branch pickup or other items.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Lisa Salb.

Good evening, Lisa Salb 434 Madison Street.

Um, I can see this uh curve out of our window, and um I uh agree with everything that Frank said.

In fact, I was um I'm the president of the Tower Hill Neighborhood Association, and um we're very active in the park.

Um we have a bulletin board.

I was changing it today.

Um we have a lot of foot traffic uh right through that area as well.

So uh that's also something to consider.

And um, I was snap uh snapping some pictures, and uh as Frank says, there are already four chevrons there, and they have not uh served the purpose of stopping uh potential uh hazardous things happening in that area.

Um another thing to mention our our neighborhood um does the planting of the planters every year, and we have had multiple uh concrete planters hit right in that area as well.

And so if they're coming up the hill and hit a 200-pound concrete full of wet soil, um, wouldn't it be better for them to bounce off of a guardrail than hitting that head on?

Um, so that would be something else to consider as well.

So please for the safety of our neighborhood, let us have a guardrail.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

Not seeing any, we're gonna move to approval minutes.

Item 4A.

4A.

We've got the minutes for February 19th before you.

Kevin Riley seconds.

We have a motion and a second.

Any questions or comments?

Seeing none we'll take a vote.

Cass's eye.

Kevin Riley, aye.

Piper eye.

Pay it aye.

Motion passes.

And six A.

Oh, sorry, five A.

Five A, uh, approval of payments.

Uh, there are two payments for this round.

If there's any questions, Brandon, I'll answer.

Piper moves for payments as presented.

And second.

We have a motion and a second.

Any comments or questions?

Seeing none, we'll take a vote.

Cass's aye.

Kevin Riley, aye.

Piper aye.

Motion carries.

So item 6A.

6A.

The uh first bid we received on February 20th uh was for the North Moreland Boulevard and Michigan Avenue Traffic Signal Improvement Project.

Um we received multiple bids.

Uh the we the department recommends moving forward with the bid from Lee Lod contractors uh for the base bid and alternate number one uh in the total amount of 433,976 and two cents.

Uh the budget for this project is a half a million dollars.

There's any questions on the bid, uh Brandon or I will try to answer.

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

Kevin Riley seconds.

It's just it's nice that it's coming in under budget.

Just any ideas to why?

I mean, it's not it's about 60 grand under budget.

Just curious if there's anything that jumped out at you guys when you looked at the bids.

Uh nothing really jumped out.

We just um you know tried to make some assumptions on where the pricing of traffic signal equipment and all the above was when we do our budgeting.

So we're happy to see that you know it was a competitive bid, and we did get you know a little bit lower pricing than we expected going into CIP budgeting season.

So okay, thanks, Brandon.

Yeah, the the two bids are really pretty close together, too.

If you've noticed that, so very competitive.

Any other questions or comments?

Seeing none will take a vote.

Cass's eye.

Kevin Riley, Piper I and I.

Motion carries.

Item six or six we jump to 70.

Uh 6B.

We have one more bid.

Oh, gotcha.

The other bid is for um concrete pavement patching.

Um we received three bids on this project.

Uh the low bid came in from state contractors who just performed this project in the past.

Uh, they're a little bit of 595,190 dollars is what uh the department would recommend moving forward with paper.

I'll make a motion to approve.

Any questions or comments?

Done defining none.

Let's take a vote.

Casson's eye.

Kevin Riley, I pipe right.

Any night.

Motion carries.

Now go to 7D is in dog.

7D, we'll move that one forward for uh the audience that's in the here tonight.

Uh so this is the item that uh was uh spoken about by multiple uh residents.

Uh this is uh was brought forward by Alderman Eric Payne as a referral to the Board of Public Works to review and look at uh installation of guardrail at 524 Madison Street.

So I'll turn it over to Brandon to provide some additional explanation, and if there's any questions, following that.

Thank you, Alex.

Yeah, so just to give a little background on some of the engineering perspective comments in the cover sheet of the you know, based on Alderman Payne's referral to add this section of guardrail.

Um, and somewhat of a response to the comments to made being made as well.

Our recommendation for this item from an engineering perspective would be to not install the guardrail and look at other alternatives, shut such as additional chevron sign, other options, and the reason for that is when we have guardrail around the city, it's used in limited capacity, usually to either protect one of two items.

The first one being like a steep slope or some hazard that the car is going to traverse over that that guardrail is protecting that is worse than you know the guardrail or the car hitting the guardrail.

So that is one item that we use guardrail for.

The other item is to protect property, you know, like a park or a very close proximity building, all the above, which is why the existing guardrail in this location is protecting the park area for cars going down the hill.

That's why that one was originally installed.

The concern with guardrail installations within the right-of-way is that gives another fixed object for vehicles to impact.

Yes, most times if a slower moving vehicle was impacting a guardrail, there isn't going to be potentially the concern for the driver's safety.

However, there are instances where you have bad crash results when vehicles hit the guardrail that can cause a higher concern for that driver than not hitting the object that they're trying to protect.

So, from an engineering perspective, protection of you know, public safety of the drivers that could hit the guardrail.

That is the backing of our recommendation regarding not installing guardrail at this location because of what it's protecting behind it and the risk to the driver, which would explain that secondary, you know, the the additional comments on the cover sheet.

So that is some background on that from the engineering perspective.

Um, just kind of a concern from the crash impact of vehicles hitting that guardrail.

The end treatments also aren't we wouldn't be able to fit a end treatment and terminal that is crash-rated at this location.

It would have to be the rolled ends, which are a risk if a driver would perfectly hit that end treatment.

Also a higher risk of driver injury.

So that is our recommendation as far as that to look at other alternatives.

There is chevron signing there already.

We could add more, could look at other options.

That's why we just put some different alternatives in the cover sheet.

So um, Alderman Payne.

I don't know if you want to touch on the background of the original referral and kind of go from there.

I I do actually.

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

Eric, use your mic.

Would you it's on?

Oh, it's on okay.

And then I am the pedestrians walking on the sidewalk.

The lady in that residence of 524, the people that live there doing yard work and getting run over by a car coming up the hill because of a drunk driver driving too fast.

All right.

The car's got airbags, it's got steel around it.

The driver's got seat belts on, hopefully.

Hopefully.

They're protected.

The people outside of that vehicle are not protected at all.

I contacted the police the other day.

I don't know if you guys ran any numbers or not.

I said go back five years.

There was three reported accidents in five years.

That stretch of land on road.

So some of it was for uh debris from somebody hitting a planter or a pole or the guard or the fence, uh the wall, the retaining wall next to this address.

Um, but 35 times in five years.

So and and I know for a fact, just because I go that way a lot, I I noticed the tire tracks up over the terrace and into the yard, and this last time the sign that was just replaced was up in the yard of that residence.

So the signs might do their job for uh a normal sober speed limit driver, but it does nothing for the impaired parsector.

They don't care about the chevron signs, right?

It doesn't stop them from plowing through.

So I I am wholeheartedly in favor uh of the guardrail, or I wouldn't have made the referral.

Um the neighborhoods, not not just the neighbors that are here tonight, but the ones that couldn't be are in favor of the guardrail.

Um besides, I would like to know, Brandon.

Besides um a chevron another sign that doesn't do anything, you said there's other options.

What what were your other options?

So one option is a is a do nothing and leave it as is.

That's always always the option, right?

Um, I think we also put on the cover sheet, you know, we could look at some kind of concrete bollard as well.

Um that is an option, it is cheaper than the guardrail.

There is crash test risks associated with that type of installation as well.

So there's a a trade-off of which may be more crash-worthy.

The bollards would be a less expensive option from an installation standpoint.

So those are some of the options that we looked at, you know, in response to the referral.

We could go back to the drawing board and look at multitude of different options potentially, but those were the fastest or the quickest ones that came to mind as possible options, additional signing or the concrete bollards.

Okay, because I I know uh either either option, um, I know the PD told me they would support me on it.

Um with that, I would uh I don't know if anybody here's got anything to say.

I I would like to know from Frank or uh whoever, um what do you think about option two?

Which is the ballards with the concrete filled pipes basically about multiple ones?

Well, it would have to be okay.

It would be multiple worth looking at, but to do nothing makes me furious inside.

And I'm sorry if a driver would get hit and hurt.

But a ballard is to me is a Chris.

Could you just step up and check it?

My name is Chris Nesting and Palm, 625 Chicago Avenue in Wakasha.

The option to do nothing is ridiculous, and I resent that that's even talked about.

Why do we do anything then?

Bollard system seems like it's possibly a valid solution.

I am sorry if a driver would get hurt.

I'd be more sorry if a person got hurt that was walking or living in that home or coming out the driveway or a child running across their own driveway.

Something should be done.

That's all.

Thanks.

Thank you.

What was your last name?

Steve.

Nesting.

Same as Frank.

Do you want me to Steve?

Go ahead.

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

I'll make a motion to uh approve the installation on the guardrail.

Um at or near five 524 to cover that span.

And this piper will second.

And I I think that when for me when it comes to traffic stuff, I I defer to the alderman of the district.

That's just been kind of the rule for me over almost 20 years of doing this because they're hearing from their residents.

Residents are coming here tonight to talk about it.

And my rule is always, or my math has always been for every one person that calls you, there's probably 10 or 15 people that are feeling the same way that don't have the time to come or don't want to call their aldermen.

And it's seven grand, which is a fair you know, is a fair investment.

However, we just came in 67,000 dollars under budget on Northmoreland and Michigan traffic traffic signal improvements, and we already borrowed the half a million dollars.

We have the seven grand.

And if we need to reallocate the money, we'll make a referral to the finance committee and reallocate the funds to cover the seven grand for the for the um for this installation if it passes.

So I'm in favor of it.

I think it's just I think concrete bolyards.

I don't know if I'm if I guess if I'm driving the car, I'd rather hit a guardrail than a concrete bollyard, but I agree with Eric and the and the residents here tonight.

I said I I'm more worried about the people that live behind the behind the uh guard rail than the folks that are driving into it.

So I'll support it.

Thanks.

I'll I would only add one thing.

Um on engineering standpoint.

I think we would support the the guardrail over the the bollards as well.

Um additional alternatives for improvements in this corner here could be looked at when the road is being reviewed for reconstruction and resurfacing.

That's that's when you can have a more substantial analysis and that sort of thing.

So uh doing something like this would be more of a temporary probably, but there's other improvements that Brandon and his team could find when this would go to being rebuilt or resurfaced.

So I'm good.

I'm good with that.

Anything else?

Okay.

I can't spell the word work.

Okay.

All right.

Um other comments from the public.

Um just plexed.

We got a motion and a second.

We have a motion and a second for 70.

Uh it's time to take a vote.

Cass's aye for the uh bollardrail.

Guardrail.

Kevin Riley is a yes to Piper Eye.

Motion passes for a guardrail.

Thanks for coming out, everyone.

Thank you guys.

And thanks to the committee.

All right, item 7A.

Can you give my cardboard?

Sorry.

Okay, I'm pretty confident you were all familiar with the drop-off center, but if anybody isn't, it's an area location for residents to bring items to dispose of, such as yard waste, landfill material, oil, etc.

Um, historically, the drop-off center is never operated as a revenue neutral site.

Um, and the current disposal contract, which was signed in 2025, is uh three percent increase annually over the the course of the five-year term, um 15 over the entire five-year term.

And then to cover the in continuously increasing cost of that contract, we would like to discuss increasing the fees for the for usage of the drop-off center.

Um so we have two different proposals for that.

Oops.

Current pricing as of January, so January 2025 was the last time that we increased pricing for the drop-off center.

Um the year end, I guess total was negative 80,000 or so.

So we are looking to get a little closer to a revenue neutral for that.

We have some general assumptions and notes for this.

Um cost of yard materials is going to stay the same as the cost for city garage composting is approximately the same as the revenue collected for that.

And then the overall driver for the increase would be that landfill collection cost.

So we pay for both the tonnage and the exchanging of the dumpsters.

Um we base the tonnage off the 25 collection amount, so that was you know a rough estimate.

And then the fee would increase uh April 1st, 2026, and we are going to take credit card.

Emma, when are we gonna start taking credit cards?

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

That would be fantastic.

I'm glad you're excited.

Yeah, I'm very excited to go live with that.

Um so the first proposed change option would be a slight increase in the overall cost of the landfill materials.

Um you can see the list here of the the different increases, so a sedan going from eight to ten dollars and so on.

That would bring the projected year-end overall cost to uh negative fifty-three thousand dollars.

So that saves us about thirty thousand dollars.

This is a slide of the general comparisons between some of the other city drop-off centers in our general area.

Um we would still be well with under the some of the other city options, but we hope we would be a little bit more competitive with them so people would not try to bring items from you know other municipalities to our drop-off center.

And then this is the yeah, go ahead.

I don't want to stop your presentation.

No, that's fine, go for it.

I I noticed that it seems most of these look like pretty reasonable adjustments for for not re recovering your costs.

It looks like the biggest jump in any one thing is that largest U-haul from $35 a load to $75 a load.

Yep.

Do we get a lot of people taking advantage of that largest U-haul?

And is that creating a large amount of cost of the city by the by the sheer mass of it?

We don't get a ton of the extra large U-Haul sizes.

I'd say we probably had 10 last year altogether, so no, that is not contributing significantly to the increase.

Um, I think we get more pickup trucks and trailers than anything.

Then what's the rationale for that one being the big jump?

Do you think it was undervalued before and just needs to be brought up to a similar value or in my personal opinion?

The people that come with the large U-Hauls are completely full of items, and it wasn't like relative to the tonnage they were bringing in.

If we look at you know what the equivalent is of one of the other municipalities, it's it's more equivalent to that $75 mark than it is the $35 it currently is.

So you kind of answer my question.

But I'm gonna assume that we've been undervaluing it more than the other thing.

Yes.

Yes.

That makes sense.

Thank you.

Uh these are the revenue neutral charges, then.

So we were wanting to jump all the way to a revenue neutral option.

Sorry.

So it's okay.

So you'd see like the prices go up a little bit more, but it's still not necessarily uh a huge jump.

We would go from eight dollars for a sedan to 15 for a sedan, and the projected year end is then in the the positives.

So we're looking at your more one part or so.

That was smaller increasing.

Steve had a question.

Go ahead.

So Emma, the the sheet that we have here, the 2026 drop-off center price adjustment summaries and table that has got, for example, a bunch of no changes at the top.

2026 proposed kind of the the example that Kevin mentioned, the kind of taking the largest U-Haul from 35 to 75.

That's the one that gets us not quite that doesn't get us to being in the positive, but that gets us that narrows the deficit down to ro roughly 53,000.

Is that correct?

That's the first proposal.

So that's that guy there.

Okay.

Um I I mean I I don't really have any questions.

And I want to are you done, were you done with your presentation?

Yeah, pretty much.

I will say so.

We were to do with the first proposed plan, there would have to be two more price increases then to get to that revenue neutral goal in 2028.

So I would recommend doing one then in 2027 and 2028 to cover to get to that.

Getting revenue neutral is gonna be up to the council and the board.

I mean, so it's it's a good goal.

Sure.

But it's at the end of the day, it's gonna be up to the council on whether or not we want to get to revenue neutral.

So um before I make a motion, I'll yield back to the board, see if anyone else has any comments or anything.

Yeah, I do.

Um is like brush, uh yard rankings, clippings, is that still gonna be free?

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

All right, and and my other question would be um when do you figure is the tipping point when we start uh getting overpricing and people not coming and and dumping stuff off on terraces throughout the city.

Where where you have you figured uh a point where we're not gonna be charging too much and people are still gonna come or you know that's that's a fine line, I know.

Yep.

And I guess I can try to answer that.

Uh don't we don't know exactly where it's gonna be.

There is always that risk, but uh where we're recommending moving forward to this level that at least the next uh for the rest of 26 and uh future years at least.

We I don't think we'd be there.

Yeah, I'm just thinking where because I I do see now from since we got John's um that I'll I'll see a chair or a or a couch sitting on the terrace here and there, you know.

I it's not to a a great extent, but it's it's there.

And uh I think bringing in a load of uh a full truckload of waste for what what was the revenue neutral number?

Can you flip to that slide?

You know, uh $25 for a truckload of stuff, that's still much cheaper than having the currently the what the contractor is uh charging for a pickup.

Um so in my mind a $25 for a whole load of stuff is fairly reasonable still.

Um and it is still comparable to Wawatosa and West Allis and Milwaukee.

So the opposite side of that is we we work extremely hard to try to keep track of stuff that's left out on the the sidewalk or the the terraces.

Uh Emma put together how many letters it was a very large increase as well as the board.

How much 448 letters that were sent out to properties about bulky items.

Yeah, so that was a what did that compare to when waste management had the contract contract?

Because waste management offered that bulky item, I don't have a great comparison, but I think it was more like a hundred.

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

Yes.

So I think to Eric's point, we need to, I think, and I know we're doing this through social media and all the other fun stuff, but I think we need to do more of that because that will probably I know that'll help because I am seeing more stuff on the terrace.

And I'm picking up more stuff on the terrace now than I have probably in the last five years.

So I think if we can improve communicate, just continue to communicate, overcommunicate the new bulky item pickup.

Um I think that's gonna go a long way with helping me not have to pick up a chair, you know, call you Emma or Brandon to go pick up a chair somewhere.

So that's picking a chair in your car.

Oh, you um be surprised.

We we've we've we've changed our practices with that in our time frames and reducing time frames so that when the letter is handed out that we're going and making that next visit a lot quicker than we had previously to make sure stuff is getting moved in a quicker time period, and then if it's not gone within that shorter time period, the city garage is going into picking up and we're sending them a bill for it.

And then when we get a routine offenders, we're giving them little to no time.

Um so we're being a lot more stringent on that.

Um additionally, Emma just recently started working with other departments on having more eyes out around Waukeshaw to make reports and actually do uh the first notice to save extra trips on her part, so people that are out and about can make that first notice, and then she follows up with the inspection.

Um, and that'll be a lot more, let's say enforcement on that realm.

So you had a follow-up.

Emma, how many so boats, hot tubs, pianos, jet skis?

How many boats, hot tubs, pianos, and jet skis do we get a year?

We got all of six large items last year.

Okay.

Because I'm thinking that if I wanted to get rid of a boat, a hundred bucks at the old city at the at the old dump is a pretty good pretty good.

That's a pretty good bargain to get rid of a boat.

Yeah, that should be higher.

So you know, I think for the next round of recommendations, I think let's let's take a peek at that because now we just jinxed ourselves, right?

Now you're gonna get six boats on Saturday.

Um but I I agree with Eric.

I think I think getting rid of a hot tub for a hundred dollars as a city resident is quite the deal.

Yeah.

Um, so I I'm gonna I'll make a motion to proceed with your recommendations this evening as presented.

But I'd also like you know, to have you track, and it you sounds like you do, but the these overheavy bulky trash items.

I think the next time you bring this recommendation before the board, I would like to see something closer to two or two hundred and fifty dollars on something like that.

Because again, getting rid of a piano for a hundred bucks, I think is a pretty good pretty good deal.

So that's my motion.

And Emma, thank you.

I get a uh question.

Um, I'm sorry, second, I'll second it.

Um when we have something out on a terrace big item, whatever it might be, dresser out.

It's not always the people that live at that residence that put it there.

So how do we how do we for the for the most part?

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

Okay.

Because if it's illegally dumped, we have we have no idea of that doesn't come up very often.

Um typically when there's illegal dumping, like what you're saying, that usually happens.

I don't want to say it out loud, but at the end of dead end streets or in the woods or or something like that, it's typically not in front of somebody's house.

And then has it do our city guys pick that up then or yeah.

We don't want to talk about it.

Thank you.

I agree with everything that's pretty much been shared.

The what and I have noticed any increase in stuff left out on the curb.

Um my personal observation, and this might be anecdotal, is these tend to be rental properties and 100%.

So is there a way that we can target that specific population of the the rental owners to educate them that if people were to leave their stuff out there that's coming out of their security deposit, or I don't know if if we could reach out to them, like reach out to the tenants directly?

No, reach out to the landlords to the landlords, because they're the ones that are ultimately gonna get the bill.

Right.

And if they were put it in their lease, that if you leave stuff on the curb, it's coming off your security deposit.

I would I would think that they would be chasing them down the first bill they got.

I mean, I'm sure you're you've heard about that.

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

I I agree.

I guess what I'm saying is uh a good way to head it off at the pass is have an outreach to the landlords so that they put it right in the lease items left on the curb, you will be charged for out of your security deposit.

And that because people do at least look at their leases and want to get their security deposits back, but anyway, that's just a suggestion, and I don't know if it would be okay.

When it are you done?

Yeah, thank you.

Just one more quick.

Um when we have like a four family or or a side-by-side or something that has a bunch of junk out.

Um and they don't pick it up or call it in, whatever, and uh it's pretty much a move out and they abandon whatever.

Does that bill go to the property owner then?

That bill would go to the property owner, yes.

The letter also goes to the property owner.

They're the ones that are told that there's an issue, and then they do call me a lot, and we have conversations about it if they can get in touch with me to explain the situation.

But yes, at the end of the day, it does go to the property owner.

Sometimes they're hard to track down who owns a property or in Florida or Texas or all right.

Thank you.

You're doing a good job.

Thank you.

I do just have one more observation or comment, and that would be this kind of goes back to our drop-off center.

The John's pickup for large items is fairly cost prohibitive.

It's it's pretty pricey as a somebody dumping something on the curb.

At least compared to what it used to be when as homeowners we could just put something out and they'd take it away for free, except for very specific items.

So I'm wondering whether anybody would if these landlords are uh these repetitive places would just find a way to uh hire their own person to take it to our drop-off center and save a few bucks by hauling it themselves.

It would almost seem like a business opportunity for somebody to take advantage of in the city.

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

I I wonder if we could uh somehow engender somebody locally to take advantage of that and make a little business out of it.

If you get all the landlords, you could come and pick it up, they'd save a little bit of money over the Johns or the uh our picking it up anyway.

That that goes then towards the the revenue.

I know the larger uh expenses at the drop-off center.

So the more tons that are disposable at the drop-off center, the more money that costs the city.

So the city's paying for getting it rid of it either way, I guess.

So thank you for your time.

I was I'm just thinking that's what it is for yeah, those who don't get direction.

Okay, thank you.

Do we still get a motion on the floor?

Yep, we have a motion on the floor.

We are talking during the motion.

I'm done.

Yeah, anybody else have any comments or anything?

Yep.

Casson's aye.

Kevin Riley, aye.

Piper aye.

Motion passes.

And we're moving to 7D.

7E.

Would you would you mind?

Gotcha.

So 7E.

This is to review an act on the stormwater management practice maintenance agreement between the City of Walks and Balinski homes for the old farm subdivision.

Um you've seen these uh quite often here.

Uh this one is uh between the city and uh Balinski here.

Um there's um the agreement is attached.

If there's any questions, Brandon would probably be the best to answer any of those questions.

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

Kevin Riley, seconds.

We have a motion and a second.

Brandon, you do want to share something before we proceed.

I know there's a representative from Balinski here.

Just continue, sir.

Thank you for your continued investment here in the city walk, Sean.

Wish you all the best with the development.

So this development, just so the board is aware.

If you haven't looked at the uh the documents here, it's the off of Madison Street, Overton Avenue.

So west side of town.

Anybody have any uh questions comments?

Seeing none, let's take a vote.

Kevin Riley, aye.

Piper I and I.

Motion passes.

Go back to 7B as improbable.

77B.

Uh so this is to review and possibly act on a contract with Compost Crusaders on to Compost Residential Food Waste in 2026.

So uh this is basically just extending uh contract that we have with Compost Crusaders.

Uh uh residents are able to drop off compost down at the drop-off center.

Um this is a contract that uh allows them to take and haul the stuff away for us.

And there are people, I mean, how is this going overall?

We have about 20 people per open day that come to do the food scraps.

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

Is it same?

I mean, I mean, anecdotally roughly the same 20 folks every weekend that come.

We have regulars.

Um every once in a while there's somebody that shows up that says, Oh, this is exciting.

This is the first time I've you know dropping these items off, so that's always an interesting discussion.

But they usually end up coming back.

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

Yeah, there's the regulars.

Yeah, I know.

They're the typically the same people too.

Um the so rough so from a cost standpoint, it looks like the cut this costs roughly three thousand dollars, but it's saving us about 10% of that about $382 on tonnage to the landfill.

So the net cost is $27, $2,800 a year.

So I guess what what do we start?

I guess when do we start charging something for this or when I mean what what's the goal?

Is the goal to get this to cost neutral?

Do we need to do more promotion of that to try to get that those 20 folks to 40 folks to kind of get this this delta down a bit?

Um I guess two feedback pieces.

So the next, like I guess thought in my mind of where this would go is to do a pilot at actually curbside locations for different properties.

So maybe targeting those 20 people that are coming and saying, would you be interested in just directly contracting with compost crusaders?

Um kind of having the city step out of it.

And I guess the second thing is that I did include the cost of the composting service as part of the expenses for the overall operating for the drop-off center.

So price increases for the landfill materials would include, I guess, these as expenses.

Okay, so that what we just approved earlier will help will help with this.

Yes, help with this.

Correct.

Is this a is this a one-year contract?

Yes.

Okay.

I I'll I'll make a motion to approve the item as presented.

And with the second, I guess what my point would be is maybe we give this one more year and see if we can promote it a little bit more, and then maybe we pursue something a little bit different.

And maybe that's I don't know what that is.

Maybe that's composting in other other parts of town.

But I just want to be sensitive to the fact that if we're, you know, if we're spending roughly 2700 for 20 folks and it's not growing, I just want to maybe we just keep a closer eye on it.

But like I said, I'll make a motion to approve the item tonight for another year.

Kevin Riley seconds.

Can I ask the board?

Um, would you consider be interested in us?

Um I mean, we have had discussions with compost creators and crusaders, they have reached out to us.

Is that something that might be of interest of offering a service to the city if it's at no cost to the city and it's directly related to the residents that use that service?

That's something you guys would be interested in us looking into further.

Say that again, so saying anyway.

Basically working with compost compost crusaders, somewhat promoting their services, right?

Or another composting company to allow them into the city to contract separately with uh residents in the city.

What would prevent them from doing that today?

Um, I think they need our approval to do that.

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

Yeah, I mean, if if that I would be open to that, and that would help cover the cost, this roughly this $2,700 that we're still incurring.

Sure.

I mean, I don't see the difference.

I understand there's probably something in the Johns Agreement, but this wouldn't be any different than having anybody else come to your house for something, whether it's a plumber or whatever.

Sure.

It's it's just be something that we would kind of manage and promote internally in the engineering division, and then it would be it would be a service to the some city residents if they're interested.

So I I will say too compost reserve, does not currently service this area.

Nobody does, so this would be kind of a an up-and-coming program.

So we would we would definitely need to advertise that as an option for city residents if they were interested in doing so.

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

I just have food to compost.

Food scraps typically and then they just wave them through.

Yep.

Okay.

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

Okay, gotcha.

Thanks.

Yeah.

Um, I have several comments that may or may not be off the specific topic.

But as an avid home composter, uh none of my leaves, none of my kitchen scraps end up leaving my house.

They all go into my own personal compost bin.

And I have heard a lot of excitement.

Uh I obviously I run in different circles than Joe, but a lot of the people I know were really excited about this program.

Probably unusually so about the ability to compost.

But on a stepping back at it and looking at it, it doesn't strike me as a great actually green initiative to have people get in their cars, drive to the compost center, dump it and drive home with small amounts of compost when the whole idea should be you should compost it as close to your own source as possible.

My suggestion would be we might want to reach out to park and rec.

This would be an excellent program for them at the local parks to do composting, although I know their plate is pretty full and they probably may or may not be in their wheelhouse.

And we're also losing the county gardens.

And so maybe we could tie that in.

Um but my my thing would be promote home composting, promote local composting as close as you can, and I would think that would be an obvious for park and rec, but we'd have to cooperate with them on the program.

That's a bad idea.

Thanks.

And it's nice to have the drop-off center for like the meat scraps and things that I cannot compost at my own property.

But that is my I guess my personal benefit for the situation.

Um suggestion.

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

Per day, yes.

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

Yeah, absolutely.

That's something we could definitely do.

Or have an end date, like, you know, please have this turned in by so they're not out there for six months and come back.

But yeah, it just gives you that way you'll know their feelings, you know whether they would have somebody come and pick up their stuff, or or would they be willing to pay uh a buck or two bucks or whatever to dump it off at uh drop-off center or whatever, just a few options, and I think that would give you some direction.

Yeah, absolutely.

All right, I'm good.

So we have a motion by Joe and a second by Kevin.

Any other comments or questions?

Hearing none, we'll move to vote.

Cassens I.

Kevin Riley, I think.

Piper I.

Any motion carries item 7C.

7C.

Um, this is a review and possibly act on an update to 13.055 uh city ordinance on residential solid waste and recyclables collection.

Um so the majority of this is uh a result of some of the changes that we've had recently, uh both with the contract change to John's, but also uh with uh the user fee moving forward.

So I'll turn it over to Emma uh to explain the changes that you see in there.

There's a I believe a final version in here and then um a red blind version attached.

So or maybe not my attention.

You didn't put the red line in, so I have the summary of changes, is what I'm gonna be referencing while I talk through this.

Um we can we can send out uh a red version.

Uh the two main things that were changed with this was we added a definition for the the term dwelling unit.

Dwelling unit was already referenced in 1305.

This is just adding context around what that means.

And then the other item was the uh in addition to the special eligibility rules.

So we have an option right now for non-eligible properties to be considered eligible.

We do not have the other way around.

Um, the two properties that makes the most sense for these situations would be um any of them owned by the housing authority.

So there's been a couple properties that they have been interested in using a private dumpster because it just better serves the property in terms of space and you know public health reasons, and right now we don't have an option for them.

Um so this would allow them to stop paying that special charge and not utilize the city carts and get their private dumpster contract, which would be cheaper for their situation.

So if somebody so I'm I mean, I'm glad to hear that because you think say if there's a cluster of four homes, right?

That might be cheaper just to have it one dumpster.

But say Joe Piper just wanted to have a dumpster instead of the city pickup.

Could would it resident be able to opt out of that?

No, there are there has to be specific criteria that we would meet.

Um so it's like the the street parking, the properties being better served by a dumpster overall, the reasons related to public health safety, and then just general department discretion.

Okay.

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

Gotcha.

So it's okay, good.

It's for very specific situations that we basically it it these situations arose when we were implementing the fee, and we're like, well, it doesn't really make sense for these buildings or these parcels to have uh a city service, basically.

Yeah, it's on East Avenue.

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

Yeah.

So it's to clean that up.

Yeah.

So is this gone through O and L or is it us or are we the first step?

So with the change, yeah.

No, the first step is Board of Public Works, so this will be the first reading, and then it would go to council for the second and third reading.

So is it gonna go through O and L?

It typically no, didn't I think?

Um I guess we did last time, but from what Brian Running has said in the past or recently now is when things are specific to board, you know, coverage that uh the first reading can be done at the Board of Public Works and then the second and third at at council.

If you want to send it to ONL, that's perfectly fine, but it doesn't need to be.

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

But I'll make a motion to make a motion to approve the item as presented.

Kevin Riley seconds without ONL.

Yeah, without ONL.

Yep.

We we'll we'll reach out to them, and if if if uh they want us to run it through One L two, that's fine.

We have no problem with that.

So we have a motion for approval and readings here and uh council with a review of ONL.

Any other questions or comments?

If none would take a vote, Cass's eye.

Kevin Riley, aye.

Piper eye.

Any eye.

Item 7C passes.

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

Sorry.

Thank you for reminding me where I'm at.

Uh eight and nine.

Uh matter of report.

Um, I don't have much to report.

The communications and referrals, uh, we've got communications for official notices for the alley reconstruction project, and then the 2026 asphalt street resurfacing.

No, asphalt street utility repair project, sorry, resurfacing.

Not resurfacing.

That's where we're at.

Anything else?

No.

Anything else?

Good.

Oh, good.

Thank you.

We are adjourned.

Thanks, everyone.

Have a nice job.

Thank you.