Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
West Allis outlines multi‑street reconstruction program, residents question special‑assessment costs and tree removal plans
Summary
City engineers described planned 2026 reconstruction on multiple streets, funding sources (city taxes, stormwater and water utilities, sanitary utility, a Safe Drinking Water loan and special assessments totaling about $689,939), replacement of lead laterals and options for installment payments; residents raised equity concerns, tree‑removal and sewer capacity questions.
City engineer Melinda Dieski and assistant city engineer Rob Hutter presented the scope and funding for the 2026 street reconstruction program that covers multiple corridors in West Allis, including West Mitchell, sections of South 78th and South 88th Streets and South 72nd Street.
Dieski said projects include full pavement reconstruction where base failure exists, replacement or lining of sanitary laterals to the property line, installation or replacement of storm laterals, and replacement of lead water service laterals when present. She told the council that underground utility work is funded from the relevant utilities, not the road special assessments, and that the city will replace lead laterals when identified.
The presentation included a funding breakdown the city displayed: larger shares will come from city property taxes, the stormwater and water utilities, and sanitary sewer utility funds; a Safe Drinking Water Fund loan will help pay for private side lead‑service replacements, and special assessments were estimated at roughly $689,939 — about 10 percent of the combined project cost across the listed streets, the city said.
Dieski walked through per‑street examples and explained the special‑assessment methodology: a residential assessment example used a per‑lineal‑foot rate (the city cited $71.76 per front foot in the example) and an optional charge for driveway approaches per square foot; homeowners may pay in full when they receive a final bill (expected after March 2027) or choose a five‑ or ten‑year installment plan that carries a roughly 4 percent interest charge tied to the city's borrowing costs.
Residents at the hearing pressed the city on several issues. Chaz Rooney said the street carries heavy public and commercial traffic and objected to the distribution of cost to adjacent owners; he also blamed city‑planted trees for sidewalk upheaval and asked whether trees would be removed or roots cut. Dieski said trees on the south side of Mitchell will be removed to reconstruct an undersized storm sewer and that the city would attempt to preserve north‑side trees where possible; she said crews would remove as much of the root structure as practicable and replant suitable species when replacements are needed.
Others asked whether the city would upsize storm sewers to address repeated backups. Staff said they generally increase capacity when the right-of-way and cover allow it but encouraged homeowners with individual basement backups to request a property‑specific inspection. Several speakers described the special assessment sums as a hardship and noted bills will be mailed after the projects are bid; staff recommended property owners contact engineering for site‑specific questions.
The council closed the public hearing and referred the project for discussion and recommendation to the public works committee per the published public‑hearing procedure.
