Pewaukee council tables public hearing on Westwood Drive, Corporate Court road rehabilitation after business objections

The Pewaukee Common Council on March 17 tabled a public hearing on proposed rehabilitation work and property assessments for Westwood Drive and Corporate Court after several nearby property owners and businesses raised objections about short notice and the size of potential assessments.

The project, as presented by Maggie, a city staff member, covers spot curb repairs on Westwood Drive and full curb-and-asphalt replacement on Corporate Court. "Westwood Drive has a PASER rating of 3, and Corporate Court has a PASER rating of 5," Maggie said, describing the city’s pavement-condition scoring. She told the council the Westwood work would remove existing asphalt to the stone base, perform stone base repairs, and add new asphalt; it would also include repairs to water-main valves, sanitary sewer manholes and additional storm drainage inlets. Corporate Court would receive full curb-and-gutter replacement and full asphalt replacement. Maggie said the project would add two additional inlets and about 50 feet of storm sewer to improve drainage and reduce roadway flooding during heavy rain events.

The city explained culverts at the north end of the Westwood project are failing and, because of permitting requirements for the navigable waterway there, the city now must replace the culverts with a structure that functions like a bridge; the cost of that structure will be paid from the stormwater utility rather than as a parcel assessment. Maggie also explained how assessments would be calculated under the city’s policy: road costs and 50% of curb costs would be assessed to parcels; the other 50% of curb costs, inlet repairs and storm-sewer work would be charged to the stormwater utility; and repairs to water and sewer infrastructure would be billed to the respective utilities.

Bids for the combined project came in from three qualified bidders ranging from $1,818,886.25 to $2,524,564.77, with All Ways identified as the low qualified bidder. Maggie said the stormwater portion and the road portion were modestly over the city’s estimate — the road by roughly $41,000 — and that both utilities were expected to be financed through borrowing in 2025. She recommended increasing the authorized borrowing to cover the costs.

Multiple property owners and businesses spoke against proceeding as proposed. Mike Johnson, a Westwood property owner, said, "I object to this project as proposed," and questioned whether bridge construction was needed instead of increased maintenance. Jim Glynn of Sunset Investment Company said the assessments for his properties would total roughly $330,000 and asked that the council seek more fiscally responsible alternatives or delay action. John Schlitter, who manages the American TV Building, said he had received the notice only a week before the meeting and objected to the timing and the per-acre cost compared with another project. Alex Kason of Cam and Enterprises and Scott Lindner, owner of Lindner Logistics, both objected to the short notice and the immediate financial burden; Lindner said he "object[ed] to this assessment, primarily based on the premise of the short notice and the cost that everybody in this room is trying to bear." Several speakers asked why a mill-and-overlay (repave) option had not been pursued; Maggie answered that the pavement had deteriorated to the point that a mill-and-overlay would likely reflect failures back quickly and be a poor use of taxpayer funds.

Staff said notice letters were mailed to property owners, invitations and a business meeting had been held earlier in the project process and that the road had been included in the city’s paving program and budget discussions since 2023. Maggie said bids were opened Feb. 27 and that bids must be held for a minimum of 60 days, which constrains the time to award the contract after bids are received.

On procedural questions about the timing and when assessments would be billed, Maggie said a project award tonight would be followed by completion, close-out and then a final assessment. "You'll probably not receive your assessment bill until toward the end of 2026 at the earliest," she said; assessments would be due by Oct. 31 of the billing year or automatically placed on a 10-year payment plan on the tax bill at an interest rate 1% above the city’s borrowing rate, with no prepayment penalty.

Council members offered to give property owners more time to review the bids and the engineer's report. A council member moved to table the hearing for a period consistent with bid-hold requirements so staff could complete follow-up work; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The council announced the public hearing will be continued at the council’s April meeting.

The tabled item will return to the council for a continuation of the public hearing and possible action after staff and affected property owners have had additional time to review the engineer’s report and financing options.