I'm going to make a motion to
approve.
I 22nd, 2026 meeting of the
city of Port Washington,
Board of Public Works.
Board member Camp Holly is
absent today, but otherwise we
do have a quorum.
So we'll first go to item two
approve the minutes of the
previous meeting.
Motion to approve.
Motion to approve by Alderman
City.
Any questions or comments on
the motion?
Seeing none, all those in favor
say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries.
That will take us to item three
public comments and
appearances.
If you have a public comment
or appearance, please limit
your comments to three minutes.
We will give 30 minutes for
public comments and appearances.
Please state your name and
address and make sure to sign
in and try to keep your
comments relevant to the items
on tonight's agenda.
Do we have any public comments
or appearances?
My name is Dean Wiegert, my
address is 3708 East Northport
Drive in the town of Port
Washington.
And I'm here talking about the
decision or the discussion and
possible decisions on well use
at the data center site.
I have a copy of the letter
that they received from the
DNR regarding the use of the
wells.
What bothers me is that it
seems that we were told that
there would be no water taken
directly from the lake and there
would be no ground water so the
city was running up water and
sewer to the data center site and
I don't even know if they still
if they yet have that water is
that why they're asking to use
the wells.
So I think that the public should
know whether they actually have
water and sewer running up to
the data center and whether
they're using city water.
The wells that are approved by
this letter say that they are
under 70 gallons per minute,
which is below the required
the required amount from
metering per the DNR letter.
So how are we going to know how
much water they use if it isn't
metered or are you going to
require it to be metered?
Well, it's a very independent
inspection of these wells and
their usage.
And what is the water used for?
Will there be chemicals in the
wastewater?
How will the wastewater be
disposed of?
How long will they be able to
use the wells indefinitely?
The letter from the DNR
mentions that two of the wells
are going to be filled and sealed
but the other two wells they don't
mention anything about.
So does that mean they're going
to be able to use the wells to
use the wells?
Well, the water is going to be
able to use the wells since it is
city property.
Has the city hired a hydrologist
to confirm any of the details of
this?
As a town of Port homeowner with
a well about a mile from the
data center, I am begging you to
be able to answer these questions
before you allow the data center
to use the wells.
Please do your deal.
Your due diligence and figure
out what the water is being used
and how it will be monitored and
reported.
The Beaver dam residents have
already had their wells go dry
from the data center that's being
built there.
Please don't be responsible for
this happening here.
All of the residents in the town
of Port are depending on this.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Tracy Finch of Port Washington.
I am asking.
You know where I live.
I need your address.
1142 West Portview Drive.
And make sure you sign in also.
I'm asking the public worse to
deny any permit that would allow
Vantage to use the wells on their
property.
I'm asking the public worse to
deny any permit that would allow
small water user.
Vantage has shown has not shown
how much water their closed-loop
system actually needs and without
that information, any withdrawal
from the local wells puts nearby
residents at risk.
Heavy pumping lowers the water
table, slows recharge and cause
well interference.
Meaning homes and farms can lose
pressure, lose access entirely,
and have their own expense,
which shouldn't happen.
This isn't theoretical.
It has already happened in other
Wisconsin communities, including
Beaver Dam.
We also have a serious
concern about water quality.
We don't know what chemicals
Vantage plants use their closed-loop
system.
A system that has never been tested
anywhere else, cooling water
collects dissolved solids and
treatment chemicals, if any of
that leaks or is discharged, it
can move straight into the aquifer
our residents rely on.
Private wells don't have that same
protection as municipal's
system.
And once an aquifer is contaminated,
it's almost impossible to fix.
And there's a basic question no one
has answered.
Why isn't Vantage using the
municipal water line that was
already built from the water plant
to their sites?
That line exists.
It was designed for industrial
users.
If that system is safe, why avoid
regulated water source and
instead turn to private wells?
The option with the highest risk
to residents.
Choosing wells is choosing less
oversight.
Port Washington wells were built
for community use, not industrial
extraction.
Allowing Vantage to tap them
creates a long risk that
residents, not the company, will
carry for decades.
This is completely preventable.
The responsible choice is simple.
Don't grant the permits for the
well use.
We can support development without
sacrificing our water security, but
we cannot replace an aquifer once
it's damaged.
Thank you.
Any other public comments or
appearances?
We have a few more.
Okay.
Chris Ackman, one would say
South Garfield Avenue,
or Washington.
This is also addressed to the
rest of the Common Council who's
not here to me, including mayor.
Well, I'm back.
The fight is not over.
Since I've been here last, a
plethora of new developments and
lawsuits are right.
We're showcasing what a debacle
this entire thing is.
From Oracle trying to shape down
and sue the PSC because Oracle
refuses to honor their end of the
agreement, all while seeing their
business readings drop showing us
what a bad deal it is to be doing
business with them.
And the Sierra Club suing the
DNR for failing their duties of
holding Vantage accountable and
doing a thorough impact
investigation before giving the
green light.
It's just bad, bad, bad.
Don't get me started on these
comments from Cloverleaf.
You did this.
Everything you promised is a lie.
And it's now blowing up in our
faces.
And we told you for all your
comments that are relevant to
this work.
Thank you.
Don't interrupt me.
Ted?
Okay.
Should I start over?
Can I have my time back?
You can give your relevant
comments or you can sit down.
Those are your choices.
It's in the speech.
Thank you.
Then jump to the relevant
portion for this board.
It leads into that.
Please continue.
Get to your relevant comments.
Ooh, sucking me up on my time,
I guess.
All right.
Now tonight you talk about
granting these white collar
criminals permits for well
water.
I am sick.
Vantage, if you are here tonight
in this crowd, turn around and
get out of our town.
Go ahead and look at what's
happening to several towns in
the state after data centers
powered on streams, rivers and
creeks run dry.
Wells run dry.
When the water comes back,
it's poisoned.
We don't want you here.
The common council here is a
disgrace.
All of you who approved this are
no better than any of this.
In fact, you may be even worse
for bending over for such
destruction.
Now I have to hear about
this.
This is happening in states
all across the country and you
think it's going to be
different here, sickening.
I would like to take a moment
and give a nod of appreciation
to Michael Beaster for being the
only man sitting at the table
with a backbone and truly
earning his position with the
people's seat.
The rest of you failed.
Oh, and to add, yes, I'm aware
this is for the construction
phase.
But let's face the facts.
When it is built and they are
ready to power on, where do you
think they're going to get this
water from?
City water?
Guess where that comes from?
Exactly.
Allowing this allows that
doom day to come.
Now is our time to obstruct.
Our aquifers and lake is more
important than your
sheisty business deals.
Go poison someone else.
Thank you for robbing me of my
time.
All right.
Thank you.
Everybody.
All right.
Thank you.
Hi.
My name is Sebastian Elicher.
I live in 137 East Cleveland
Road, just up the hill.
I'm asking the common council
members today to deny the
wells permit requested by
Vantage data center.
I don't ask you to deny them
forever or for good, but I would
ask you to pause any further
permits.
The current lawsuit against the
DNR has already revealed
deeply concerning details about
the possible implications of
this project.
And these details were never
disclosed to the public and
they call into question, at least
temporarily.
The safety and the
sustainability of the proposed
project.
I want to remind the council also
of something very simple and
Aldermann Gasper thankfully
shared those public in social
media today.
And that is that the city was
told or the citizens were told
that Vantage would not use
wells.
And that commitment matters.
It was part of public trust
and that should not be discarded
now.
And therefore I would ask the
voting members today to deny
that request by Vantage.
Thank you.
Are there any other public
comments or appearances?
Good afternoon.
Thank you.
I'm just going to reinforce a
lot of what some of these other
people said.
We were told no well water.
I spent six months having to
drive on gravel and on crappy
roads because you guys were
putting a pipe in to give them
the water that they claim they
need.
So why now do they also need the
water from the aquifer?
Just more BS.
They have lied about everything
from the get go.
Okay.
I'm going to put you all on
notice too.
That if and when there's a
problem with my well, I will be
holding the city libel.
So be prepared for more lawsuits
because all these other neighbors
feel the exact same way.
So this is public notice that we
are aware of what you're doing
and we're going to hold you
libel.
Vantage isn't here because they're
too busy schmoozing with
Jody Habersch-Cineken today.
So they're not here as usual to
listen to how the people actually
feel.
Our good neighbors are never
here to listen to how we feel
because they don't care.
The city has proven time and time
again that none of you care either.
As a couple of people have
mentioned, people in Beaver Dam
have had water problems.
I've seen people in Georgia, people
in Oregon, people in Virginia.
All of a sudden it's the same thing.
The developer says that
they're going to use whatever
water and then next thing you know,
during construction they're using
the well water.
And then the citizens who have
been here and will be here after
Vantage leaves in the 15 years
that they committed to
are the ones that are screwed.
And I have to pay tens of thousands
of dollars for new wells.
Make this make sense.
Make it make sense
for anyone.
Who's monitoring the water?
What enforcement teeth
come with that?
So far there's been nothing.
They've not been punished for anything
that they have lied about in the past.
We're tired of it.
We are the citizens.
We are the citizens who elect
these clowns that are serving us.
What happened to the promise
that Vantage made that they would
only be using the city water
and in limited numbers?
You know, I keep reading
about a supposed truck wash.
Is that what this water's going
for to wash their trucks?
Come on.
And you know,
if they claim they only need 12,000
gallons per day,
why can't they drive their tanker
truck over to the hydrant like they've
been doing ever since construction started?
What has changed?
Is it that they don't want to pay for
the city water now that it's gotten so expensive?
Where's the accountability?
Thank you.
You should all be ashamed.
Do we have any other public comments
or appearances?
Carry one stole 1036
shady lane in Grafton.
I am going to not reiterate
everything that's been said here,
though I share a lot of the feelings
that have been shared here.
And I really want to ask you to look at
the folks that are over here and look them in the
eye. These are your neighbors.
These are the people that live in your
city who have trusted
port to act in the best interest of their
citizens.
And there is no going back.
There is no going back once an aquaphor
has been contaminated
or drained dry.
And I really would like you to pause
and take a look at the movement
that has happened in Cedarburg
called Save Cedar Creek
where the gothiers wanted to put in
high-capacity wells
to fill a ski lake.
And the outrage at that.
And that isn't even talking about
possible contamination.
So I'm asking you to really
pause, do not vote
for a yes on this today
and take a look.
Ask for environmental studies to be done
like they did in Cedarburg.
Ask for the accountability.
Time and time again what we have seen
happening in Port Washington
and that is being discussed throughout
the summer is how sad it is
that vantage is getting
everything that they want.
They have walked back
everything they said they were going to
do and doubled down
and at every step they have gotten
a positive vote to support
them and gone back
on the promises that they have made.
And so guys,
Port Washington needs some positive PR.
Let's be real here.
So how about today we take a
pause and we support the citizens
and the community not
vantage and just
take the time to make sure the
studies are being done to hold
vantage accountable to one
thing which is that they were not
going to be using any well water.
Thank you.
If you spoke please make sure you sign
in on the sign sheet.
Hi, I'm Heidi Janis
44-46 Wylers way
in the town of Port
neighbor of the data center.
I just want you to know
I'm not going to repeat what
they said either you know what's going on.
We really don't want to
come see you all the time.
We're so tired of everything
and you just sit there and stare at us
and you don't say anything.
We don't have anything in return
we never get a response.
You're not living there
with the god awful dust
that's in our house all the time
the crap on the roads
the broken windshield just name it
right?
I mean we're so sick of it
I've had to see a cardiologist
because I'm so upset about everything
and I'm a healthy person.
Have you had to?
Thank God.
We have Michael Bista.
So that's all I have to say is
for God's sake listen to us
we're the ones living with it
not you.
All right.
Thank you.
Any other comments or questions?
All right. There are no more
than we will move on to item four
which is consideration
and possible action
for collection of garbage
and recyclables.
All right.
So five years ago the city
switched.
It's a collector for garbage
and recycling from waste
management to harders
and they've done an excellent job
over the last five years.
In fact, they couldn't find any
records of any complaints.
So they have submitted
a amendment to renew
their contract per the original
contract.
We also received a proposal
from GFL green for life
that was similar in price
but just a little bit
more expensive than the
harders renewal.
Mike Thune is here from
harders.
If there are any questions but the
recommendation from the Board
rather to the Board of Public
Works is to renew the
agreement with harders.
And I should point out that
this will result in
because we are seeing a
reduction in cost.
So result in some cost savings
already yet this year
and then next year.
All right.
Do we have any questions
comments?
All right. I just had one small
one and we had spoke about it
and we had a lot of questions
and in lieu of the
doctor's excuse which I think
is an overreach on their behalf.
I understand it for the
backdoor pickup but I think
as a resident if we want a
smaller trash can because many
of us live in smaller houses
that that should be an option
and I don't know what the price
of the can is but.
So I talked to Mike and they
already have so if somebody
wants to switch out their can
because it's their cart
because it's dirty or whatever
reason if it's broken
harders replaces it at no charge
but if you just want to replace
your cart because it's looking
dingy they charge $100.
So this would be the same thing
if you want to change out your
cart to a different cart
it would be a $100 fee.
I would be good with that.
All right. Any other comments
otherwise I will be entertaining
a motion on this item.
I'll make a motion to approve
harder renewal of contract.
All right staff recommended.
We have a motion by Alderman
Miller is there a second?
Second. Second by Alderman
Beaster. Any questions
on the motion? Seeing none
all those in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed? Motion carries
All right.
Thank you. All right that
goes to item five.
Consideration and possible
action on a state municipal
agreement with WISTOT for
constructing a bump out to the
crosswalk at Portview and
State Trunk Highway 32 and
painting high visibility
crosswalks at all locations
on State Trunk Highway 32.
Okay. So this is an item that
we discussed. I think I put
in the memo in our January
meeting and there was
a motion from the Board of
Public Works at the time once
we reviewed the plans that
WISTOT has for updating
all the handicapped
rams to the new ADA
requirements that are in
place.
The consensus of the
committee was to add high
visibility crosswalks to the
crossings and that was
consistent with the
recommendation that we received
that was just completed
and approved in June.
Okay. So we've added
so we've added high visibility
crosswalks to all
crosswalks on the
State Highway and then
in consultation with
our traffic safety
committee as well as the
Board of Public Works.
Again, there was consensus that
there was a desire to
have a bump out at
Portview Drive to protect
bicyclists and pedestrians
from cars going around
cars that are stopped
for, again, for people
crossing in the northbound
direction. So if they're in the
northbound direction, sometimes
people get confused. They think
the cars is stopped just to
make a left turn and then
people go around and could
possibly have an accident
or something like that.
Okay. So we are
recommending that as part of
this crosswalk improvement
program that we add a bump
out to add additional safety
for people crossing at the
Interurban Trail at Portview
and South Spring Street.
And so if approved, this
would go into the we would
have this this would go to
the Council for approval
of the State Municipal Agreement
and then be put in the
budget for 2029.
All right. Do any questions
comments on this item?
If not, I will entertain
a motion on this item.
I'll move to accept the staff
recommendation to
move this forward.
All right. We have a motion by
Alderman Beaster. Is there a
second?
What? Miller? Miller?
Oh, sorry. All around Miller.
Sorry.
Is there a second? Mr.
Sundorf? Sorry. I was
writing the note.
Yeah.
Any questions on the motion?
Seeing none. All those in favor?
Say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion
carries. All right.
That brings us to item six
consideration and possible action
on well permits for the
data center. Roger.
All right. So
as everyone's noted here at
public comments, we have
well permits here for the data
center. What our ordinance is
and the intention of this really
is to make sure that we're not
getting cross connections
from the water supply line.
That's the purpose of our ordinance.
So in that regard,
as it's been noted,
water to water, our water
means are not
brought up to Lake Drive at this time
yet. So there's no
concern about a cross connection.
So we do
have
I guess we
do have some other existing wells
in the city.
We don't have those permits at this time.
The water superintendents working
on bringing
those in, but we don't want to hold
hold these up any longer
because this community knows
they're using water using
the wells.
So originally they had four
wells in their application.
One well has been abandoned
approximately a month ago.
The
three wells,
one of the remaining three
wells is used for a rental property
they have, which is rented to the
same
my understanding as the seed company
that's been there previously.
So it's
same capacity, same use at that
well.
So there are the two remaining
wells
they're
combining to provide 12,000 gallons
of water a day to their
trailer city.
Our
ordinances don't regulate
capacity.
DNR has issued a high capacity
well permit to them
that does regulate their capacity.
The two address some of the
comments what what we could add
to our permit would be
the wells are metered.
That's one of the DNR
requirements.
We could ask for monthly reporting
of the water usage.
The other
the easy thing to ask
would be if there's any
modifications to the wells
most specifically if the pumps are
lowered, that we be notified
of.
And the reason I say that
the only reason you'd be lowering
the pumps is because
the aquifer level is coming down
and they would be the first people
impacted.
I think those could be two
reasonable things to add to
the permit.
And other than that
doesn't entertain any questions.
Roger.
So is there anyone from
the public?
I'm just asking.
Trying to answer some of your
questions.
So the public water
and sewer that was on track
to be installed is not yet
at a point where they can use
that water.
Correct?
Yes or no?
What does that mean?
The water is at the south end
but they are using
from the hydrants down there
they are getting water in
or water tankers for dust
control
other uses that they have on
site.
It's not all the way up the lake
drive.
So from island drive to lake
drive that runs through
vanishes property that's
a private water main
they are in the process of
installing it.
What is the ETA on that?
I don't know.
I have to get back to you on
that question.
So we have
two projects that will go out
to bed this fall to bring
water up to lake drive
for by next summer.
So lake drive shouldn't be
completed for another year
at the most.
I would say that's a good
assumption.
So the
well water that is being used
what I just heard you say is
that one is in a seed
company's rental property
that they are currently
working out of still
and then the two remaining
wells water their
trailer city which are adjacent
to the existing homes that
were there are still there.
But are
they're using it not only in
that building but to also
with their trailer city.
It's the
provide domestic plumbing to
trailer city.
And you said that those wells are
metered or are they
metered?
They are metered.
And so have we seen any
of these wells that are
using?
I should back up.
We have not seen any
results.
They are required to be
metered.
They don't get meters from us
to my knowledge.
Okay.
So no meters from us.
So we have no knowledge or
they don't report to us what they
have been using as their
well water.
So we have no
knowledge or belief that they are
going to use that
well water for the closed loop
system because they're not that
far.
There's nothing there's nowhere to
go.
Correct.
And as of today
you have no knowledge or
belief that they are going to use
that well water for the closed
loop system.
So they're looking at
first quarter of next year to
start to fill their closed new
system.
January through March.
So they're intent to get the
water into the closed loop system
has up and shared with us.
Could you repeat that?
Their intention because
that I'm sorry.
Lake Drive will not be open
as of yet.
So they have not shared or
they have shared with them.
They have.
Their intent is that will be
coming from our water main
because they've been sharing
roughly how much water
they'll be using to fill that
time frame so we can make sure
that works with our water plan
condition.
And that's in writing or is that
just that's what we want or
that's what we know?
What?
That's what we want to do.
Work with me.
I'll work with you.
Right.
To my knowledge.
There's an agreement but there's
emails that they provided us
and we've talked to them.
Okay.
Do we have any if they don't
tell the truth do we have any
ability to walk this back?
Yes.
They use more water than we can
do.
If we're talking about
the wild so that that's where
my two recommendations come
if we get their
because they report to the DNR
annually.
They're useless.
So we can ask for monthly.
We could ask for weekly and
whatever we want but it just
becomes a matter of handling all
the data.
Okay.
So the gray water out of the
wells.
What is their plan for that?
That is going to a holding tank
and they
pump that holding tank when it's
full and they pump that
holding tank where?
They either haul it to our
remote dump site or to another
facility.
And that is metered?
That would not be metered.
That you just rely on the
way we rely on people
sewer and water bills.
At home.
If they come to us with the
waste we can tell by how many
take-your-trucks come.
And we accept waste from other
companies and process
that at our waste facility
correct?
Yes.
And that we test
if there's any reason that we're
suspicious about it but
generally we don't test.
Correct.
Okay.
If that's the case would we
just test to be on the safe
side?
I mean there is a cost.
Right.
And what about how much would that
cost be to do testing?
You don't have to give me a number
now but a ballpark.
Like thousands of dollars?
Yes.
We're doing standard
BOD nutrient testing.
BOD tell me what that means.
Biological oxygen man.
Thank you.
That's a typical measurement at the
wastewater plant.
Okay.
A couple hundred bucks.
If we start getting heavy
metals.
Volatiles.
I would have no reason to suspect
we're getting any of that.
I would have to expect the DNR
to do to safeguard what's going
on.
Is it reasonable for us to
expect that?
I
DNR is only going to hear
results once a year.
So I mean they have a lot
heavier hammer than we are but
I would not anticipate that
they're doing literally
inspections or anything like that.
Okay.
Thank you for your time.
All right.
Any other questions comments?
Yeah.
So do we know if the applicant has
begun drawing water from the wells?
Is this a formality that like
or if this gets approved tonight?
Do they begin being able to do it
tomorrow or?
I
I don't know if they're using it
currently.
My suspicion is because these are
wells that they probably are being
used.
Certainly to some extent because
we went out and did back
T which is bacteria testing
on them to make sure they make sure
they're not equal like contaminated
so that in their
negative that would tell me that
there's been some they're being
used.
Okay.
I'll just add a high level.
I'll say I don't necessarily like
the
information that I've brought about
as others spoke about
transparency in community
updates.
We have you know if you go to
Vanna to D.C.
Lighthouse campus.com.
It's a partnership built on trust.
And the construction updates
pages like one page hasn't been
updated since April.
It's got one picture of the
detour for late drive so and
I'm sure I've seen grocery stores
and banks that do a better job of
communicating their construction status
to the local community.
And this would be a good example of
something that should have been
a little bit more proactive.
But you know even if I said all
the aside I guess if I were
evaluating this for like a local
business who was trying to make
money but also concerned about
protecting natural resources my
question would be do we have
maybe this is already available
but do we have like a third
party certified list of all the
chemical solvents diesel fuel
all those kind of things that
could potentially enter into the
aquifer and then like what would
be the emergency plan if
you know like a
notification and containment
plan if there were a spill if
there were a thousand gallon diesel
spill or something you know
is that something that the city
is aware of?
I am not I mean I would
I would anticipate that they would
have
SDS sheets for all
their chemicals are using
OSHA requirement
spill containment
they would
likely have a spill containment
SPCC plan some sort
but that wouldn't be shared with us
the fire department might know
something about that it probably was
filed with the county emergency
management office because they have
the hazmat team and deal with
that sort of thing
okay I guess my other comment would be
and I
I'd like to see
some sort of sunset date put on
this as well
I know this gets renewed every
five years but
you know I think right now it says
until city water is connected or
construction is complete or something
you know if I keep
if I keep a 10 by 10 concrete pad
on my property and I add a brick to it
every day am I still under
construction
so I'd like to see
like whatever the anticipated
construction completion date is
plus six months or something like that
put on like at this point
public works
or the public works
committee members could come in and
provide that the wells have been
capped well and I would
I would recommend on that
and we're planning on having
water up there
by August next year so if you
want to say end of September
or you could go into the year
if you're fuel gracious but
that'd be something for the board
to consider
yeah I guess those are my comments
as it's currently structured I
wouldn't be in support
of any of the questions being answered
Roger would you just maybe
you mentioned it but you just clarify
how they're planning to fill the closed
loop system if
city water isn't going to be there until
August and you said they were looking to
start doing that first quarter
well the city water is coming up
from a self-end
they're building that that through their
site currently so that's
on them to get that
lateral done yeah
yeah but if they want to
if they want to have their closed
loop system on schedule
it's on them to get the water up there
okay
if we
if we deny the request
how does that affect the business the seed
business that has
continued to use that one well for their
normal operations
I guess I'd have to throw that
legal question but
I think certainly if we
deny use of the wells
in a requirement cap
that's
they'd be out of water
what is the
urgency to
have this approved
really
really it's
for compliance with DNR regulations that
any
municipal or any groundwater wells
in a city because we're on a municipal
system that's required to be permitted
every five years okay
so
all right
yeah
I just would point out if they were
going to use the wells for filling their
closed loop system they would have to build
a significant amount of infrastructure to get
these wells connected to their
closed loop system too and it
is nowhere near the capacity of what the city
or water would be
so I'm not sure that makes
a lot of sense to expect they would realistically
do that it also would
most likely be pretty hard
water and have a bunch of extra minerals in it
they would have to remove that they don't
have to deal with with city water so
I don't find it a compelling
argument that they would
use it for their closed loop system
there's too many disadvantages for them
to do that
so my understanding
too the sites for this are all
north of lake drive the three remaining
wells yes yes
so everything is being built south of lake
drive so it's
further construction for if they were to do that
plus they'd have to cross
lake drive and get our permission
to put a pipe
connect crossing lake drive
so they couldn't just do that
unless they were going to load them on the trucks
and tanker it over which
would seem pretty an efficient way to go about it
so I don't find it a compelling
concern that that's what they're going to use the water for
so
yeah
and they're using this for
their homes and their
and their offices use basic
primarily so now
silence please
please silence
or I will ask to have you
removed
do you want to try it
no then
be quiet silence
all right
so I guess I will entertain
a motion on this item
please
I've asked
for you to remain silent
if you want to talk you can go outside into the hall
you can talk as much as you want out there
just to add
just to add to your question
a motion so so this board
their motion would be to recommend the city council
city council is the one that will issue the permit
all right so it would be if we want to do a motion that we're going to include
any time limits metering anything like that this would be
a good place to put that in as a recommendation
I would like to make a motion to postpone this until we can draft
a better response
hasn't happened so
I think we can because they're going to
correct me if I'm wrong that they
can and will be continuing to use the water even if we don't
issue that permit today it's not like anybody's going to go in there and stop
them correct I would not anticipate that
I didn't think so either so
all right um for a motion to postpone we need a
date certain date certain yes which I believe our next meeting is
I 30 on August 11th
it's the next scheduled meeting
yes unless you want
a special one I have a question that does the motion
include what we need to see for the next meeting
or is it just to develop a better plan she's making the motion right now
so does it include that um there hasn't been a second yet
so you she can take a friendly amendment
or we can second it and then you can move to amend the motion
I'm happy to take a friendly
all right so what explicitly do we want
to be brought to the sport then
I mean I would like to at least see
an emergency plan as a documented emergency plan as well
as a sunset date on it
I don't know how specific we need to be
what would an emergency plan be related to this well just like
the chemicals and site and how much diesel fuel we
how is that relevant to the well because
if they have diesel fuel on the site and they spill it that's completely
irrelevant to this item it could enter
into the aquifer it could happen if we don't approve this and they spill it
still enter into the aquifer it's kind of irrelevant to this
we can ask for it and say that we want that but I think it's irrelevant
so what I think I'm hearing
is distinct timelines when it will begin when it will end
any testing that is deemed appropriate by the city
and if metering is appropriate to flesh that out a little bit more
and a finite that they will not be using well water
within the closed loop system
and have metered greywatered
metered going out, metered coming back in so that it can
be matched
all right so I'd probably call it black water more than grey water but
same difference okay so the most well first off
so the motion includes that this will be postponed
until the August 11th meeting of the Board of Public Works
it is to include a
definitive time such a sunset date and a
beginning date when this will be applicable
it will include
whether or not this water will be used in a closed use system
and do we want to include the emergency plan as much
I think that's irrelevant if you want to include that we can
I'd like to see it in there what do you think?
Okay and emergency plan all right so
then I hope you've got it written
down so we're looking for
an emergency plan date certain
that whether it will be used in a closed loop system
and the motion will postpone this item
until August 11th at which time that information will be brought back to us that's correct
do I have everything? Yes sir. Okay is there a second on that item?
Second. Second by Alderman Beaster. Is there any discussion
on the motion? All right seeing none
those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
All right.
All right
that brings us to item seven consideration and possible action
on a proposed stormwater and erosion control ordinance
or both of them ordinances
Okay you can leave this and we'll go ahead
so we've been working on our erosion control and stormwater ordinances
along with our stormwater management plan which we gave an overview of last week
and I'll have Aaron Volkening from Stantek kind of
briefly go over
what's included in those ordinances
Is this sounds like a time right?
So relevant to the city's municipal stormwater management program
there are two chapters of the city ordinance
chapter 473
titled stormwater management really covers what we call post construction
stormwater management requirements you know what
land development has to permanently put in place to manage stormwater
once the construction phase is done. There's also chapter 446
erosion control which covers erosion
and sediment control related to stormwater runoff during construction
as part of the overall city stormwater
management plan we reviewed those ordinances I know you did make some changes
to them I believe a couple years ago which were good
as part of this stormwater management plan we did a comprehensive review of those ordinances
and are recommending some changes to both chapters
for chapter 473 the stormwater management ordinance
I'd say the major changes are
the ordinance would require new land
development to meet phosphorus reduction requirements that are
in the TMDL the total maximum daily load
that DNR and EPA have set forth
for the city they're actually two different TMDL's
so the TMDL requires the city
to in the long run make
phosphorus reductions to run off the city
is going to be legally hold held to those requirements through their
MS4 permit stormwater discharge permit although the timing of that is not yet
set so what the ordinance change does is that
it makes new development follow those same
hazards if the ordinance
didn't include those TMDL requirements what would happen
would be as soon as a property
developed the city would be getting further away from your long-term
compliance target so these targets
are higher than the statewide sort of general
requirements for phosphorus reduction in stormwater they're higher than the current requirements
but they're they're much required by the TMDL
you get credit as part of your
TMDL compliance for adapting
these these phosphorus requirements the DNR doesn't explicitly tell you
your ordinance has to follow the TMDL requirements
but you're going to have a problem with compliance if you don't put this
in your ordinance basically we also would
recommend that a fee in lieu system be applied
you know there might be situations where because of site constraints
it is you know simply not possible to
meet those phosphorus reduction requirements they are pretty stringent
in which case there would be potentially
the city could potentially entertain a fee in lieu of payment
the ordinance wouldn't set forth that payment schedule that would
be adopted separately another major change I guess
is establishing a
recertification program for privately owned stormwater BMPs
things like detention ponds by retention cells
stuff like that right now there's some language in the ordinance that
you know is kind of general about
some some kind of minimal level of annual reporting and stuff like that
the DNR is
basically wanting municipalities to
you know be more diligent and strict about record keeping
and the maintenance and inspection of privately owned facilities
so this is one approach a lot of municipalities have taken
they require every certain number of years that
the owner of a private facility do a formal inspection
it has to be certified either by a professional
engineer a professional landscape architect
a professional surveyor and you know basically inspect the facility
verify that it is working okay verify that it's still
you know is generally in accordance with its original design
and submit that to the city something that other
municipalities have used successfully there's also some
some of the language in the ordinance was out of date with regards
to things like current rainfall data that's used
references to current DNR standards there's some
updates that are necessary to bring that into play
with regards to chapter 446 the erosion control ordinance
we're incorporating there
for the last I don't know eight to ten years or so
state level there have been numeric requirements for sediment control
during construction
basically you have to do BMPs construction BMPs things like
silt fence sediment traps inlet filters stuff like that
to minimize sediment that's running off the site
at a state level that's already required so the ordinance
the municipal ordinance is inconsistent with the state requirements right now
it's just best practice to bring those in line with state requirements
it's not going to change what you know what developers do
or the cost to them because they already have to meet the state requirements
and they have to get a state approval called a notice of intent for construction
site so it would not change that
we need to adjust the size of the
development that the ordinance already talks about two different levels of erosion
control plan that are required right now
a more detailed plan is required for sites over five acres
a less detailed plan is required for sites under five acres
that was based on some earlier state and federal regulation
since that has happened the new breakpoint according to state and federal
regs is one acre everything over an acre needs a
detailed erosion control plan the city has
the option of requiring a less stringent plan
of some kind a more general plan for sites under an acre
you already have that you know there's a minimum size where nothing has to be
done I can't remember the exact number a certain number of
square feet but you know we would again just recommend that the ordinance
be changed be consistent with state requirements
again it's not going to require the developer to really
add cost or do anything different because to meet state standards they already have to do this
detailed erosion control for over an acre it's just bringing it
into alignment with state requirements the other
thing you know that that's sort of a notable change is
we're adding language the erosion control ordinance that
codifies that a fee must be paid there's a
some discrepancy in the existing ordinance right now there's some sections to talk about
you know the ability of the city to charge a fee but
it's honestly not super clear as far as whether the city is
actually going to charge a fee I don't think you do right now
correct me if I'm wrong you know most most means pouties do charge
a fee for erosion control plans it's usually
scaled you know single family homes there's a smaller fee for
an entire subdivision there would be a larger fee you know so the recommendation
the way the ordinance is written right now you know
or the recommended revised ordinance explicitly
says that the city is going to charge a fee for erosion control permits
being issued if you don't want to charge a fee at all then
there's probably some changes that would modify
a couple other sections the ordinance to take out the implication there is a fee
so I think those are the the substantive changes
I don't know Roger if there's anything else that you want to mention that I forgot to mention
we do we do charge an erosion control fee okay
okay so then it's it's more of a matter of just
clarifying the ordinance language on that one we charge your okay
alright any comments or questions
I have one question for you so this has a minimum area
that the erosion control ordinance
has a it's applicable applicable to a minimum area of
4,000 square feet would I be correct in assuming
that for an area smaller than that that this
still could be enforceful but it's enforceable but it's
up to the discretion of the building inspector to enforce it
or is this just not applicable at all if it's less than
4,000 square feet I'd have to check the language I think
there's language in the ordinance that sort of if if a problem is apparent
it gives the city the discretion to enforce
you know standards for
for smaller sites or if you know if there's a concern
going into construction the city I believe has that authority
okay yes I can think of one
one erosion control issue that was a bit of a problem a few years back that would have been
a border line on whether it was 4,000 square feet or not but it was on a steep slope
and it eventually got resolved but
that's why I'm asking because
my understanding is that that still should be up to the discretion of the
building inspector but I'm just not sure if this is directly applicable
or if the building inspector would just have to give a separate order relative to that
all right
I just wanted to add something Mike that
tangentially related we did we did know that these
especially the TMDL standards were coming so the vantage site
is underneath these numerical requirements so somebody
administrative is not but when when we issued the
water permit we had them beat these these higher requirements for the TMDL
okay all right any other comments
or questions otherwise I will entertain a motion on this item
do we want the ordinances
both approved separately or together or
does it not matter
well as long as it's probably best to do them separately okay
all right then I will first look for a motion
on I can find the ordinance
number actually do we have an ordinance number on this
because this is this code
446
so I guess we'll look for approval for section 446
if anyone has a motion
does it make a difference that they were presented to us in one
item
that's a good question maybe let's clarify
um
if this board approves of these changes
Matt will be drafting an ordinance on the
general government and finance so this is not us not our typical
ordinance layout okay in that case I guess we're
looking for approval on these items if the
sense is someone wants to make an emotion to approve both that is fine or if you want to do
one or the other um I don't see a problem
either way so
I'll make a move to recommend a common council approval of the stormwater and erosion control
ordinances all right we have a motion by
to approve uh the for the committee to approve
both of these ordinances I'll second and a second by
Alderman Miller any questions on the motion
seeing none all those in favor say aye
motion carries all right
that'll bring us to we're running short on time but they'll bring us
to item 8 consideration and possible action on the proposed valley creek
scheduling project cost estimates and bridge treatments
okay yep this is a project with with which
hopefully everyone is pretty familiar now so this is valley creek
and so at the June meeting the council at the June meeting
the council the council considered um applying
for grants from
excuse me from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
of um a total of three point ultimately it was
for a total of three point eight million dollars with a local match that
would come uh from
LNRP which received a advantage donation and also
from uh TID 5 which is supported by that development
in any case um with that came
some questions about uh timeline and and budgeting
and so stantec put that together and so we
made a presentation to the general government finance committee
uh meeting uh which met on July 7th so
we'd like to just quickly review that with you today and uh
and this will also go to the council on August 4th
and so I'll bring this up
all right
all right so there we go all right
and
so just kind of
this is again from GDF and so this so that's why it's dated
July 7th but just wanted to go a quick review of
how we arrived at where where we are now so the background
in the timeline so uh so any of you
who are here back in June of 1996
uh should remember um the historic flooding
event which um which uh essentially
washed away the ground that surrounds the existing
box culvert that has proven to be too small to carry
the the hundred year event and of course this was a storm event that was much
larger than that and um
similarly in uh
2008 so um
so 12 years later you know we had
another event that wound up um flooding
the underground parking for the high rise
and unfortunately it took them well okay I'll
get to that and so um so as a result
of that flooding we experienced um we applied for uh
grant from community development block grant funding source federal source
grant funds and because of the flooding we were able to
reconstruct the street which included in uh
an emergency spillway across um
the park um it also had a number of
ancillary benefits like uh safer crosswalks
and well defined parking areas improved landscaping um but this channeled
the hundred year storm over overland which uh
did not prove to be enough in 2018 um we had another
major storm event but um I think it was this uh
event that um caused the uh
to recognize that they had um
some uh shortcomings in their own stormwater
uh system and so even
so any filling of the storm sewer system in the street
would result in flooding of the garage so that has been
that has been rectified on their end that was a problem on their end during you know
their construction of the building so that's why they have not flooded since
so um fast forward just one year from
2018-2019 stand tech created a
technical memo um for the the city that
provided some different um some different alternatives
that uh could uh that the
city could employ in order to improve um
uh improve uh how the the city
and the area or that sorry the street in the area was stand flooding and so
uh the first was um reprofiling the the street
and improving the swale that that proved um
essentially um not feasible uh adding
a parallel hundred year culvert um
which uh again left the water filtration plant essentially surrounded by water
a 500 year parallel culvert still um resulted in significant
flooding uh in in the park and on the street
over daylighted stream
at the very least on the east side of lake street um
essentially pulled that water away from the water plant but you can see there's still
um ponding on the street
okay in 2020 um we had another flood on
May 17th um I remember that one well
too and you can see in this upper right hand uh photo well
just middle upper photo you can see
essentially our our uh conveyance our stormwater conveyance
through the park is uh working but not working well enough to
prevent the street from flooding okay and then this is just from August
to last year again um uh
the street was underwater and you can see that it flooded our water plant
and uh essentially um you know
jeopardize our operations but uh fortunately um
we uh were able to keep the plant running
during that storm event so um
so what's creating some of these problems we have existing stream conditions where
we have um heavy erosion and um
debris accumulation which of course gets watched uh
down downstream and that is what resulted in this most recent storm
causing the um causing the trash rack
to fail rather than to essentially protect the um
the uh head wall
and these are again photos that are are pretty representative
of what the creek looks like because of the um excessive down
cutting and incisive uh nature of the the stream
so uh
Stantec has created some some rendering so you can again see the down cutting
and and and sized um
geometry of the the the stream okay
so what this project will do is restore the natural uh
geometry that of the or the geomorphology
of the stream and restore the floodplain
and essentially um slow down the water from uh
flooding downstream and it also has of course aquatic
benefits and other benefits to the ecosystem but um
we want to have the excessive erosion and debris coming down
stream so and this is just south of hails trail
and uh so the restored channel includes like a
step pool system which um has um
uh riffles and pools
here is also south of hails trail this is where we've had
a um an armored section of the the
creek wall failed several times and then a restored
uh channel um is again what's uh
intended by this project so some
highlights we've received a number of grants both from um
from the fun for like Michigan National Fish and Wildlife Wisconsin Coastal Management
so you know we've spent no money on the city has
has not spent any uh tax dollars on this this has all been
gained from grants um we've had uh tremendous support from uh
Senator Tammy Baldwin uh and and we hope to um
we hope to have additional federal interest in
supporting this project um we've had public information
meetings uh for riparian property owners and now we're in the grant
um application phase so if you've missed any of our previous
meetings or you just missed our previous meetings you can go on
our webpage and uh check out the presentations that are all
online you can see we have many of them and and actually that's that's really not all of them
but uh just kind of a highlight of um work we've done
and then just another thing that we we hope to uh talk about
today are some of the bridge treatments um so this is not
really representative of the bridge this is not the bridge as designed this is a
representation of it but the um finish on the on the
sections uh is is what is representative so
we have um kind of a natural stone
finish or a uh
field stone finish and I guess I should say this is the more natural
the other one is more um more of a
um formal cut stone finish
so this other one is a more of a rough stone finish so we can have
different we can have different treatments at each bridge but that was something
uh we hope to talk about today I don't know if we'll get to finish this
conversation but um that is the background
and then I can pull up
and we have Sarah Majoris here who can talk a little bit
about uh the phasing and the funding so I think we just
have seven slides left
all right hi everyone I'm going to talk
a little bit about you know where we're at now we're at about 90 design
on the stream restoration portion and as Rob said we're in
the in the process of phasing construction and applying for construction
funding so our our phasing is
was structured for a number of reasons one being
to cut the budget so it's appropriate for the funds that we're asking for from
different grant agencies to there are some fish
restrictions some windows that we need to work within to protect our local
aquatic organisms and those are set by DNR
and then there are also some things that are up in the
air so traditional stream restoration phasing starts
upstream and works downstream so you can see phase one starts at Burtwood
Hills and works our way down to the south
or downstream end of Hales trail phase
two or that was phase one phase two A is
downstream of Hales trail all the way to the upstream end
of Lake Street and then phase two B would be the upstream end
of Lake Street all the way to Lake Michigan and
there is a chance down the line that two A and two B could be combined
given the right construction windows and funding
availability next slide please here's an example of
what one of what our phase one might look like this is
only well-defined for phase one because we're closer to that than
phase two phase two phases
so if ideally if we have funded
funding awarded for phase one we've been start in quarter one
of 2027 so already early next year with mobilization and clearing
construction would occur during the summer months we have a
fishing fish timeout window that we need to
where we need to stay out of the creek from March to June essentially to allow for
any resident fish spawning even though the Lake Michigan fish aren't getting
up this far we still need to protect the resident
aquatic organisms and then we would construct most of this
in-stream work from there through the winter months and wrap
up phase one in Q4 of 2028
these are the so the budget that we just
submitted with our most recent application to NIFWIF
for the National Coastal Resiliency Fund is
approximately seven and a half million dollars
do it probably makes sense not to break it down at this point Bob
for sure on time unless those questions
phase two is a very similar number
we didn't plan this but that's it worked out well
we do intend if we're successful with the NIFWIF grant
this year we intend to reapply next year for a similar amount so this would work out well
for budgeting purposes and here we'll have a more restricted
fish window because we'll have to work within a three-month
period in the section between the downstream end of Hills trailing
upstream end of Lake Street you'll see Gunther Pond is
highlighted here we have some unknowns related to this wetland restoration
only because there's a new sewer alignment
being proposed to this area so we're waiting on that final decision
and then in phase two B totals
two and a half million and this includes
full daylighting of Lake Street maintaining the bridge across
that area for vehicle and pedestrian use
and then also a bridge at the mouth of Lake Michigan to enable
emergency services when Lake Street is closed off
and also pedestrian and then
grand total of all phases includes a 20% contingency
for construction but we're at about 17
as you can see Rob I think went through some of the funding that was secured
for design we're wrapping that up
in the next couple of months here for phase one of construction we're
looking at utilizing a portion of a vantage
donation to LNP in addition to the National Coastal Resiliency Fund
which is the application I referred to earlier for
3.8 million dollars we also have a DNR
targeted runoff management grant which will be focused on our stormwater green infrastructure
improvements along the corridor and then a portion of the
TID 5 have approved the 2.1 million
and continued
we would be working toward phase one and phase two additional with the additional
donation from Vantage we have some trails funding
that's an application has been submitted to support some of the bridge work and
revitalization of the mountain bike trails through the corridor
we have some stay in our Great Lakes funding for Walter Street ravine
conditionally approved and I believe
there would be a second round of NIFWIF applications for another five million
some congressional allocations potentially
and then the TID 5 kind of
proximal to this but separate we have another project that we've assisted
with applying for grant funds for up at Upper Lake Park
to do a by a retention basin project to help restore water that is
currently discharging into the Valley Creek corridor so that you can see there's separate funds
listed here that have been awarded and applied for
that.
Are there any questions?
No.
Thank you. Are you looking for
approval on this item as a whole you're looking for just some discussion on the walls
with the culverts first?
I guess you know the more the more important thing
at this point I think is I you know I would like some direction
from the board to as an approval of whether or not
this is the direction they like to see this project going
this of course does not commit us to anything does not commit us to
accepting the grant this is not for
a formal approval of any construction or
anything but just I guess what I'm saying is if there are any
major issues major concerns with this board over the direction
of this project I would ask the
you to let me know that otherwise
if it seems like this project is on the right track
I was hoping for a vote to approve of the
again of the direction we're going with funding
grant requests and
the same line.
I'll make the motion to
I just want to say thank you that it's a really good summary for somebody who's kind of new to what's going on there so
I appreciate you putting this together. Thank you.
Excuse me I'd also like to say that I'm super excited about the project
and I think you guys are doing a great job.
All right.
Any other comments or questions? No but I'll make my motion. Ready for your motion.
I move to approve the proposed phasing cost estimates for the Valley Creek project.
All right we have a motion by Alderman Miller is there a second? I'll second.
Second by Mr. Schudendorf.
Any questions on the motion? Seeing none all those in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
All right that brings us to item nine
consideration and possible action on the draft 10 year capital improvement plan
2027 to 2036.
Okay are we going to what you want to discuss the
well we can I do we need to
I don't think we have enough you know in five minutes I don't think well it's time to go over the capital improvement
plan. Do you need a quorum? Yes we do need a quorum
so stick it on. Are you sure?
Okay well then oh okay yeah sure sure okay
if you're under a time crunch we can
if you would like a more prolonged
discussion on the CIP we could schedule that either for
if it was going to be this week it would be Friday if it was going to be next week
and it would be it would need to be Monday.
All right if
righty doesn't that work?
Okay that leaves Monday
Okay
I'm on the plug and I will double check
yeah I don't yeah you can do Monday night that's
okay with everybody
yeah let me go ahead double check
five regular 5.30 yeah let me quick double check the calendar
this room is not available Monday night oh it's
no be harbor commission meeting students got training okay
oh okay um we're we're going to be in the
city hall lower level at our next meeting is that available?
It should be
is this a meeting that
has to be recorded under and do we
have the facility downstairs? This has to be recorded by ordinance
well then we can't
meet downstairs on August 11th. Are
we allowed to use the old fashioned like tape recorder or is a TV
recording?
Okay
Okay I was told to move the meeting
downstairs to the 11th. Okay
well stay tuned we will let you
know what we determined but we know that you are available
on the 11th or I'm sorry on Monday rather so
yes
All right do we need a motion then the two postpone
items 9 10 and 11 to the next meeting?
Sure.
We need a motion to postpone items 9 through
15 until
let's keep 14 at least because
9 through 13
9 through 13 until
July 29th
can we say a time to be determined
I think so. And location to be determined but that will be the date
All right so the motion is
postponed items 9 through 12 until July 27th
or a time to be determined and a location to be determined
All right is there a second? Second. Second by
Alderman Beaster. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?
All right that brings us to item 14 public comments and appearances
Are there any public comments and appearances? Seeing none
that will bring us to that will bring you can
stand up and you can make a public comment or you can wait till the meeting is over
Please give your name and address and fill out the
form for the Amber Chain
CHE and E address 1446 West 2nd Avenue
I was just wondering since the data center
is literally consuming of 2.5 square footage and
672 acres did we let the county know
and take a vote did the people get a vote on if they were okay
with this being in their city
We can't answer any of your questions because it would have to be properly noticed
otherwise we'd be violating open meetings laws
and also
I read that the vantage data center did not
release a ESI environmental impact statement
Are we going to have them release that
and then also
like how much did you guys get to sell your souls
That's all. All right are there any additional
public comments or appearances? Seeing none
I'll move to item 15. Our next schedule meeting is August 11th
in the lower level conference room potentially
pending whatever. I will entertain
a motion to adjourn. Motion
to adjourn. Motion by older woman Miller is there a second?
Second by mr. Sundorff. All those in favor say aye.
Aye.