On the agenda: Elm Grove meeting — surveillance camera (May 11)

13600 Juneau Boulevard
Elm Grove, WI 53122
PUBLIC WORKS UTILITIES COMMITTEE
May 11th, 2026 * 5:30 PM * Park View Room
AGENDA

1. Call meeting to order.
Documents:
Meeting Memo May 11.pdf
2. Review and act on minutes from April 13th, 2026 meeting.
Documents:
PW04132026md.pdf
3. Update on Underwood Creek Daylighting Project
4. Review and possible action on addressing ponding water along Highland Pathway
with storm sewer installation addition to pathway project.
Documents:
KL Engineering Email RE Drainage.pdf
Highland Drive Pathway_Proposed Storm Sewer Addition.pdf
5. Update on Public Works Projects
6. Other Business
7. Adjourn

7. Adjourn

Any person who has a qualifying disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act who
requires that the meeting or materials for the meeting has to be in an accessible location or format
must contact the Village Clerk at 262-782-6700 or 13600 Juneau Boulevard by 3:00 PM Friday prior to
the meeting so that any necessary arrangements can be made to accommodate your request.

Members of the public wishing to participate in a meeting virtually must submit a Virtual Meeting
Access Request form no later than 3:00pm on the Friday preceding the scheduled meeting

NOTICE: It is possible that members of, and possibly a quorum of, other governmental bodies of the
Village may be in attendance at the above stated meeting to gather information. No action will be
taken by any governmental body at the above stated meeting other than the governmental body
specifically referred to in the above notice.

Village of Elm Grove

Memo
To:

Public Works Utilities Committee

From:

Richard Paul Jr., Director of Public Works
Thomas Harrigan, Village Manager

Date:

May 8, 2026

Re:

Public Works Agenda May Meeting

Item 3: Update on Underwood Creek Daylighting Project
Mediation has been scheduled for Wednesday, June 10th, time is still TBD. Attorney Bitar is
proceeding with depositions in advance of Mediation. The Village is looking forward to
meeting Soo Line at the table and find a reasonable resolution.
Item 4: Review and possible action on on addressing ponding water along Highland
Pathway with storm sewer installation addition to pathway project
Included in the packet is a drawing, some photos and a brief memo from Travis Brush of KL
Engineering. The ponding issue located between 1635 and 1655 Highland Dr was
uncovered when meeting with residents regarding pathway alignment. There were existing
lilies in the ditch line that masked this issue, but since the property has now been rehabbed
and cleaned up, there is a more evident collection of ponding water. Due to the workload
and need for DPW to focus on paving area stormwater work, they would not have the
opportunity to get back in this area in a timely manner as coordinated with the work of the
pathway, and therfore it would be efficient to have the contractor take care of this while on
site. The committee should review the plan and see if this is something they would like to
see handled within the project.

PUBLIC WORKS/UTILITIES (PWUC) COMMITTEE
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Monday, April 13th, 2026 5:30 pm, Parkview Room
_________________________________________________________________________
1. Call meeting to order
The Public Works Utilities Committee meeting was called to order on Monday, April 13th, 2026, at
5:38 PM by Mr. Schindler.
Present: Mr. Schindler, Mr. Koleski, Mr. Eull, Mr. Harley, Ms. Schneider, Mr. Zwirlein, Mr. Harley and
Mr. Olson
Absent: None
Also Present: Mr. Harrigan (via Phone), Mr. Paul, Mr. Travis Brush of KL Engineering and Mr. Rich
Klein of Stantec.

2. Review and act on minutes from March 9th, 2026 Meeting
Motion to approve the minutes as amended with edits was made by Mr.Koleski, seconded by Mr.
Olson, and passed unanimously.
Discussion occurred about maintaining original agenda numbering versus renumbering items that
were moved during the meeting. The committee decided to preserve the flow of discussion as it
actually occurred while incorporating background narrative about agenda amendments.

3. Review and Possible Action on Highland Dr Pathway Project Bid Results
Mr. Olson recused himself from the discussion and action on this item due to his employment with
Parking Lot Maintenance (PLM), an aspect demonstrating attention to conflict of interest adherence.
The Highland Drive Pathway Project bid results were discussed extensively, highlighting the
participation of four contractors: CW Purpero, PLM, Vinton Construction, and Poblocki Paving
Corporation. This project involved the section of Highland from Watertown Plank to Gephardt Road,
with an additional mandatory alternate for sidewalk reconfiguration near Mr. Reinder's property on
Watertown Plank.
For the base bid alone (Highland from Watertown Plank to Gephardt Road), CW Purpero was the low
bidder at $1,186,790. However, when including the mandatory alternate (sidewalk reconfiguration at
Mr. Reinder's property), PLM became the low bidder at $1,206,611.
Mr. Brush noted significant differences in mandatory alternate pricing between bidders, suggesting
some may not have included railroad coordination costs. Both apparent low bidders indicated
willingness to fulfill railroad coordination requirements despite potentially missing this in their original
bids.
Committee members expressed concerns about PLM's limited pathway experience compared to other
bidders, noting this would be at the upper end of their project portfolio. Questions arose about
reference checks and capacity to handle concurrent projects.
Discussion included the possibility of awarding only the base bid and separately bidding the railroad
work, which could potentially save money even if different contractors performed each portion.
Motion: Mr. Zwirlein recommended approval for either contractor for the Highland pathway
project, contingent on background checks and verification of capacity and references by staff.
Seconded by Mr. Eull. Motion approved unanimously.

4. Review and Possible Action on Amendment # 2 from KL Engineering
Mr. Brush from KL Engineering presented Amendment #2 during the meeting. This amendment
involves removing the entire "2026 pathways if authorized" section, leading to a reduction in the
overall contract value. The amendment, while reducing the contract by removing unnecessary
segments, adds a new cost totaling $12,100. This cost is due to the need for the creation of easement
exhibits for properties specifically involving 1255 Highland and additional work on the 60% design
submittal, which was not initially anticipated.
This 60% submittal was introduced after a request from the village to enhance the review process,
even though the original contract only outlined 30% and 90% design submittals. This additional work
included tasks such as extra homeowner meetings, detailed field reviews, and comprehensive
coordination efforts with involved parties. The committee appreciated the additional insight into the
projects and the opportunity for enhanced review that the 60% design submittals provided, although
they were inherently not part of the original contract agreement.
Committee members raised concerns during the discussion about the implications of implementing
scope changes without prior approval or providing advance cost estimates. The proactive approach
by Mr. Brush indicates an effort to ensure no delay in needed work, although this led to retrospective
approval actions. Mr. Brush acknowledged the need for better management of such issues in the
future and committed to making efforts to provide prior cost estimates for any future scope alterations.
Amendment #2 also encompasses MetroNet fiber coordination work. This segment of the work
involves coordinating with MetroNet regarding their installation of fiber along Highland. The
coordination tasks related to MetroNet will be billed back to MetroNet directly, effectively segregating
their costs from the village's costs. Additionally, the amendment involved removing previously
anticipated tasks like geotechnical and structural retaining wall work, which were initially set for
commission but eventually deemed unnecessary per the adjusted design.
A small mathematical error in the contract’s total value was identified and corrected during the
meeting, with the amended total being $277,580 rather than the $278,580 that was initially reported.
Overall, the discussion highlighted the commitment to containing costs and sticking to a more defined
project scope while ensuring necessary elements like the 60% submittal are included for better
oversight. The necessary reviews and future discussions on procedural enhancements aim to
preempt similar situations by ensuring all scope changes undergo approval processes with advance
notice.
Motion: Mr. Koleski made a motion to approve Amendment #2 as submitted with the corrected
total of $277,580. Seconded by Ms. Schneider. Motion approved unanimously.

5. Review and Possible Action on PP I/I Project Bid Results
Mr. Paul presented bid results for the private property infiltration and inflow (I/I) project. M&E
Construction was identified as the recommended low bidder for the project. Mike Blazejovsky from
Ruekert-Mielke whom is overseeing the bidding process expressed confidence in M&E Construction's
qualifications, noting that they were vetted through MMSD's rigorous qualification process. This
project involves 13 properties whose owners have signed agreements to participate, with an
opportunity to add additional properties to utilize remaining MMSD funding more effectively.
During the discussion, significant cost differences were noted between the bidders, with some line
items showing dramatic variations. Specifically, a line item involving pipe bursting revealed a
surprising $20 unit cost submitted by M&E Construction, markedly lower than competing bids at $120,
raising questions about the accuracy of their bid. Committee members expressed the importance of
confirming this pricing to ensure it reflects a realistic cost and is not a bid error that could affect the
project's budget and execution.
Additional concerns included the overall reliability of the contractors and their ability to perform within
the time constraints and expectations of the committee. While Mr. Blazejovsky vouched for M&E
Construction, their limited history with the village warranted further reference checks to be performed
at the committee's request, ensuring their previous projects met timelines and specifications.

Mr. Paul highlighted the possibility of adding three to four more properties into the project scope,
aiming to fully utilize the funding available through the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
(MMSD). These additions should not alter the current list of confirmed property participants but would
expand the project benefits and improve I/I mitigation for a larger number of residents.
The committee asked Mr. Paul to verify the questionable line-item costs and to provide a full
confirmation of M&E Construction's overall bid reliability, supported by satisfactory references before
any final board recommendations.
Motion by Mr. Eull to recommend board approval of M&E Construction's bid, pending verification
of bid amounts and confirmation of the contractor's reliability. Seconded by Mr. Olson. Motion
approved.

6. Update on the Underwood Creek Daylighting Project
Mr. Harrigan provided updates on the project status. The contract was awarded, and notice to
proceed was issued as of the previous Friday following board approval on March 24th. Mr. Harrigan
reported these details to the committee, noting that the award of contract was accompanied by an
MOU which stipulates that the contractor, CW Purpero, cannot begin significant earthwork or grading
until pending litigation is resolved. This litigation involves the railroad, whose responsiveness has
been less than satisfactory, further complicating the start of meaningful work on the project.
A significant development occurred when Ruekert & Mielke's proposal for the parking sign relocation
effort came in higher than anticipated. This led the village to consider alternative options, including
having CW Purpero handle the sign relocation as a change order to possibly reduce the project's
overall cost.
Further complexity arose as CW Purpero issued a formal notice claiming financial hardship due to
their inability to start meaningful work, referencing contract provisions allowing for delay damage
claims through a fixed cost recovery formula. The village attorney was consulted regarding response
obligations and how best to proceed with reviewing CW Purpero’s claim.
Mr. Harrigan highlighted the village’s commitment to have things in formal writing for clarity,
mentioning multiple efforts by the village attorneys to get the railroad to act on their verbal claims and
settle the litigation. However, the railroad's correspondence has been sporadic, with slow responses
and unmet promises of further documentation in support of their position.
The railroad litigation has been particularly slow, with pending cases and non-responsiveness
contributing to the delays. There have been technical and memo issues that haven't been addressed
by the railroad, leading to a comprehensive strategy update in which the village decided to streamline
communications by designating a single point of contact, namely Remzey Bitar from the Municipal
Law Group. The aim is to cut through the red tape and efficiently advance the process while ensuring
that no court orders are violated.
Overall, the project is facing a slow start due to external delays.

7. Review and Possible Action on Task Order # 8 from Stantec Engineering
Mr. Klein presented Task Order #8 which covers construction phase services, the parking sign
relocation work, and LOMR (Letter of Map Revision) services, totaling approximately $680,000. The
scope of the task order includes construction oversight, engineering services during construction such
as submittal reviews, and overall contract administration.
The task assumes 39 weeks of construction with approximately 45-50 hours per week of on-site
inspection time. It involves one of the more experienced engineers, Matt, and a younger engineer,
Griffin Miller, who recently passed his PE. Video surveillance cameras are to be deployed to reduce
travel time and inspection costs, potentially saving around $34,000 in engineering expenses while
costing approximately $22,000.
There were detailed discussions on how Stantec will observe and report but not assume responsibility
for contractor work methods, aligning with standard procedures. Concerns were expressed by

committee members regarding scope changes and the need for estimates with any future
amendments. They requested detailed breakdowns of hourly rates and billing structures to ensure
transparency.
Mr. Koleski raised concerns about time and materials contracts and sought assurance about
efficiency incentives. Mr. Klein clarified that ethical practices and workload pressures incentivize
productivity, and they do not waste time on-site unnecessarily. He also mentioned their strong QC
processes and reliance on technology, like Teams for meetings, to streamline operations.
Questions arose regarding the adequacy of the master services agreement for covering construction
supervision and liability allocation. It was noted that the agreement clarifies that consultants are
responsible for their work and subconsultants but not for construction methods and techniques.
The discussion also touched upon the need for the village's attorney to review the contract language
to ensure that it sufficiently addresses construction supervision responsibilities and standards of care,
especially given the scale and scope of the project. Mr. Klein assured the committee that regular
updates and checks would be made, including after the initial 13-week milestone, to monitor progress
against budget and timeline expectations.
Debate included the potential need for an additional task order if Stantec was to be engaged for
further support in the ongoing legal matters with the railroad, although it was noted this should be
treated as a separate issue from the current task order.
A motion was made by Mr. Koleski to approve Task Order #8 contingent on receipt and approval of
detailed cost breakdowns, with any objections to be addressed by April 22nd prior to presentation to
the board, ensuring due diligence on both budget and contractual obligations. The motion was
seconded by Ms. Schneider and approved unanimously.

8. Review and Possible Action on 2026 Paving Bid Results
Mr. Paul presented the annual street paving bid results showing three bidders with costs coming in
under the $550,000 budget with Stark Pavement including both the alternative bid and considering the
reimbursement from Brookfield for their portion of the project. The project includes coordination with
Brookfield for Cloverhill Road work worth approximately $15,000-20,000 to be reimbursed to the
Village.
Several quantity increases were built into the bid to address potential issues, including increasing
undercut material disposal from 150 to 500 cubic yards and pulverized material removal from 100 to
400 cubic yards based on recent project experiences.
A new element included topsoil application as a bid item rather than village forces performing this
work, which analysis showed to be cost-effective at $32 per cubic yard compared to village costs
including equipment rental and crew time.
Committee discussion focused on appropriate contingency amounts, with members expressing
preference for a more conservative budget authorization given recent project overruns. The base bid
of approximately $542,000 after Brookfield reimbursement was discussed.
A motion was made to approve the paving project with a budget authorization of $575,000, providing
approximately 5% contingency above the expected costs. This decision supports a proactive
approach, preparing for possible overruns without compromising on the project’s scope or quality. The
motion was seconded and approved, ensuring that the project would move forward smoothly and
within specified financial constraints.

Motion Mr. Olson to approve the paving project with a budget authorization of $575,000,
providing approximately 5% contingency above the expected costs. Seconded by Mr. Zwirlein.
Motion approved.

9. Review of 2025 MS4 Report
Mr. Paul briefly presented the 2025 MS4 report as an informational item. The report was wellprepared and meets all DNR requirements following last year's audit. No additional costs or
compliance issues were identified, with the village remaining in good standing for the foreseeable
future.
Mr. Schindler added discussion including upcoming salt-wise ordinance development, which would
require private contractors applying salt in the village to register and have employees become
certified through free salt-wise training programs. This initiative, led by Nicci Sternitzky, would include
educational components and is still in early development stages.

10. Update on Public Works Projects
Mr. Paul provided updates on various ongoing projects. Tree work for the year was wrapping up,
brush pickup had begun, and storm water work for paving areas was planned pending better weather
conditions.
Updates were provided on resident drainage concerns, including ongoing issues with
Highland/Juneau area properties where construction and grading work has created complex water
flow management challenges involving multiple properties.
Mandel construction site erosion control issues were addressed through enhanced inspection
protocols and coordination with the developer following significant deficiencies observed in silt fencing
and erosion control measures.

11. Other Business
No additional business was discussed.

12. Adjourn
Motion by Mr. Zwirlein to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Eull. Motion approved
unanimously.

From: Travis Brush <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2026 2:20 PM
To: Tom P. Harrigan <[email protected]>; Richard Paul Jr <[email protected]>
Subject: Highland Path - Proposed Storm Sewer Mod
Good afternoon Tom and Richard,
Per prior discussions, concerns have been raised regarding the topography and ponding water near the
roadway at 1635 and 1655 Highland Drive. This area of roadway appears to have several low spots,
which are also reflected in the adjacent ditch along these properties. Standing water has been
consistently observed here and was previously identified during design; however, it was determined at
that time that DPW would address the issue if necessary, in effort to save on project costs.
Given the favorable bid results, KL recommends revisiting the option of including additional storm sewer
installation as part of this project. There is concern that, as currently designed, residents may view the
pathway construction as increasing the drainage issue, potentially shifting responsibility to this project.
Attached are photos of the area, along with plans for the proposed storm sewer addition intended to
improve drainage. Based on the bid results, the estimated cost for this work is approximately $31,305.
KL has completed the design details at no additional cost to the project. If approved and the information
is provided to the contractor by early next week, we do not anticipate any additional costs associated
with special-order materials as these structures could be fabricated with their original project order.
Please let me know if this addition is approved and I will coordinate with the contractor.
Thanks,

Travis Brush, PE
[WI | MI]

Project Leader
262-345-3363 – Direct
920-366-3319 – Mobile
[email protected]

N17W24222 Riverwood Drive, Suite 190
Pewaukee, WI 53188
262-735-4856

G

80
Feet

G

OWNER: ROBERT & KRISTIE MILLER
ADDRESS: 1635 HIGHLAND DR
TAX KEY: EGV 1099007

40

0

GRADE DITCH TO DRAIN

G

G

145+00

G

55 ID

146+00

R/W

G

G

G
147+00

G

9 ID

CONNECT PIPE INTO
EXISTING
2'X3'
G
CONCRETE INLET

G

G

148+00

[A] Better Experience
5400 King James Way
Suite 200
Madison, WI. 53719
Phone: (608) 663-1218
Phone: (800)-810-4012
http://klengineering.com

STA 149+83.36, 10.77' RT
EX-24
EXISTING INLET

18 ID

Engineering

[email protected]

150+00

150+53

G

SI (TYP.)

G

PLOT BY : ARIELLE LEWIEN

29 ID
7 ID

G

4" Sump
line

12" Drain Basin & 8" PVC

GEBHARDT Rd

PLOT DATE : 3/19/2026 2:55 PM

OWNER: ROBERT G HUCK & KATHLEEN M
HUCK
ADDRESS: 1675 HIGHLAND DR
TAX KEY: EGV 1099005

OWNER: ALFONSO M MARTINEZ &
ELIZABETH A MONTAVON
ADDRESS: 1655 HIGHLAND DR
TAX KEY: EGV 1099006

149+00
G

13 ID

FO 14 ID

FO

FO

5 ID

FO

4 ID
5 ID 23 ID
FO

23
FO ID

STA 148+09.04, 11.80' RT
23
END OF PIPE 863.75

28 ID

HIGHLAND DR

FO

FO

FO
12" - 176' @ -4.03%
184' -1.94%

GRADE DITCH TO DRAIN

FO

MATCH LINE 145+00

G

9 IDFO

FO

-3.3

9%

%
3.34

0.72%

-0.80%

0.46%

8%

-1.38%

-0.52% -0.47%

STA 149+10.32
EL 864.70

STA 148+91.71
EL 865.93

STA 148+78.98
EL 865.99

STA 148+61.13
EL 866.08

STA 148+22.76
EL 866.61

STA 147+96.22
EL 865.40

STA 147+52.89
EL 864.96

STA 147+37.79
EL 864.89

STA 146+92.62
EL 864.56

STA 146+67.85
EL 864.76

STA 146+48.76
EL 864.12

STA 145+39.76
EL 866.30

STA 145+84.74
EL 865.89
STA 145+95.73
EL 865.92

4.5

0.24%

-6.
6

3%

1.02%

-5.

60%

STA 145+04.79
EL 865.23

EXISTING PROFILE

860

870

865

STA 150+00.56
EL 859.09

865

-1.44%

-0.91%

%
4.18

BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
STA 150+04.02

STA 149+49.42
EL 862.51

0.62%

-6.
6

8%

Project No:

860

Date:
Designed By:
Drafted By:

EX-24
STA: 149+83.36
RIM: 860.19
D: 4.23'
S. INV 12" 856.68

Checked By:

PROPOSED

EXISTING

145

146

147

148

149

862.44
862.47

865.39
865.38

866.45
866.24

865.98
865.57

864.94
864.94

863.68
864.62

863.78
864.16

865.90
865.78

866.15
866.21

855

25040-000
03-20-2026
AGL
AGL
TB

Revisions:

SHEET NO.

855
858.45

12" - 100' @ 1.0%

859.11
859.13

12" - 50' @ 1.0%

865.39
865.29

FILE NAME :

G:\ELM GROVE\25040-000 2026 FUTURE PATHWAYS\CIVIL 3D\SHEETSPLAN\050101-PP.DWG

STA 145+15.57
EL 865.29

870

2026 PATHWAY

G
G

PROPOSED PROFILE

PLAN & PROFILE

G

FO

FO

D
HILLSIDE R

G

UTILITIES DRAWN IN BLUE
FROM MAPS (TYP.)

VILLAGE OF ELM GROVE

FO

G

MS 1 GRATE
RIM = 864.50
INVERT = 860.25

MS 1 GRATE
RIM = 864.00
INVERT = 861.25

MS 1 GRATE
RIM = 863.75
INVERT = 861.75

150

150

PP-10
Page 45 of 122