Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Stormwater Repair topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Pewaukee council to fix standing water and disconnected sump pumps in Valley Brook project; council directs utility to pursue remedies
Summary
Homeowners near the Valley Brook storm sewer replacement told the council the project left yards ponded and private sump pump discharges disconnected; the council directed utility staff to assemble options (at utility expense) and return with a priced recommendation.
Homeowners from the Valley Brook subdivision told the Pewaukee Common Council on Feb. 17 that a 2023–24 storm sewer replacement left parts of several yards ponded, damaged landscaping and severed private sump pump connections.
Melissa and Eric Sipe, Tom and Sue McCarron, Nate Schweitzer and others presented before the council with before‑and‑after photos. They said a sump pump discharge was disconnected without property owners’ consent and that a dry well installed as a replacement failed in March 2024, allowing water to back up into basements. Residents said repeated requests for remediation produced email exchanges but no resolution and that the contractor declined to provide direct quotes to homeowners because the contractor was under contract with the city.
City public works staff said the storm sewer replacement was necessary because the existing pipe in an easement was failing. Staff said the project is still open and that withheld funds remain for incomplete punch‑list items. The contractor has scheduled punch‑list work for spring 2025 and has been asked to regrade low spots to improve drainage and establish vegetation.
On the specific sump pump issue, staff said their records did not show authorized sump pump taps to that replaced pipe; the pipe could not be televised before construction because it was full of debris and collapsed, so the city did not know the taps existed. Staff said mid‑pipe sump pump connections are not current city policy because they are difficult to monitor and can lead to future pipe failures; staff offered residents options including rerouting the discharge to the front yard ditch or to a daylight location, with a recorded easement statement to clarify responsibilities. Staff also said adding a monitoring structure at the connection was not feasible in this location because of limited pipe cover and pipe spacing.
Council action: Councilmembers voted to direct staff to work with the utility to assemble options to alleviate the sump pump problems at the utility’s expense and to bring a specific, monetized option back to council for approval. The motion passed by voice vote.
Residents’ request and staff response: Residents asked the council to require an engineer’s reassessment of the project and set a timeline to finish work. Staff said the contractor will return in late spring to regrade and address ponding; the sump pump reconnection and related private plumbing options will be addressed separately because they are private property modifications that may require homeowner funding or recorded easement language to protect the city’s pipe from future failure.
Other technical matters: Staff noted stream bank erosion and beaver dams adjacent to the work are on private property and an outlot and may involve DNR permitting; the city does not own the stream that receives the outfall. The city has withheld final contractor payment pending completion of punch‑list items.
What happens next: Staff will pursue the contractor punch list this spring, assemble a menu of options for reconnecting or rerouting sump discharges, identify estimated costs and bring a specific recommendation to council for approval. Residents told the council they may pursue litigation if the matter is not resolved.
