Board of Public Works recommends 15-year, 2% plan for Silvernail Road sewer assessment after heated public hearing

The Waukesha City Board of Public Works voted to recommend that the Common Council adopt a final resolution to assess property owners for installation of sanitary sewer along Silvernail Road from Highway 318 to Sussex Lane, spreading payments over 15 years at 2% interest.

The recommendation followed a public hearing in which multiple Silvernail Road residents urged the board to reduce costs, extend terms, or postpone the sewer installation. Residents said they received short notice of the assessment, described fixed incomes and other immediate costs, and asked whether federal or philanthropic grants could lower their bills.

At the hearing, resident Christine Garlock said the assessment initially presented to homeowners had been higher and asked, “are there any grants for the 11 property owners along Silvernail Road to help break this down even lower than it already is?” Several other residents described hardship: one said the assessment had been reduced “down to about $18,000 at 5% interest” and called that unaffordable; another, Mike Plummer, said, “I oppose — I do not want the sanitary system on there,” citing retirement and inability to absorb additional costs.

City staff told residents they were not aware of any grant programs specifically for installing sanitary sewer on the street and said the city continually monitors federal and state funding. Staff also noted that the preliminary assessment and its terms had been set earlier in the process and that the Board and Common Council had already reduced the originally proposed terms. In response to resident requests for relief, a board member moved to recommend the Common Council adopt a final assessment with a 15-year repayment period at 2% interest; another member seconded. The board voted 5–0 to adopt the recommendation and forward it to council. Recorded ayes were Cassin, Kevin Riley, Piper, O'Donnell and Payne.

Board members and staff emphasized the board’s authority is recommending; the Common Council must confirm the final resolution. Staff also cautioned that longer terms can increase total interest paid over the life of an assessment; one staff member offered a rough estimate that the board’s proposed 15‑year at 2% terms would reduce monthly payments by roughly $75 compared with the then-proposed 10‑year, 5% scenario (staff characterized that as high-level math, not a formal amortization calculation).

During public comment residents also raised related technical questions: whether future water main installation was planned (staff said the water utility does not intend to extend water main for this section), whether property owners would be charged for sewer service before they physically connected (staff said they would not be billed until they tied in and used the service), and what lateral costs might be (contractor estimates discussed in the hearing suggested small-lateral starter estimates and that per-foot costs decline with length; exact homeowner lateral costs were described as “not specified” for each property).

The board’s action is recorded as a recommendation to the Common Council; the council must confirm the final assessment and terms before they become binding on property owners. The preliminary resolution and the council’s earlier action on the preliminary resolution were cited during the discussion (preliminary resolution adopted earlier in the process and referred to the council on 02/04/2025).