Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Votes at a glance: Oak Creek council approves easement quitclaim, designates official newspaper and closes out roofing contract
Summary
At its May 19 meeting the Oak Creek Common Council approved a quitclaim deed for storm-drainage easements at 2201 W. South Branch Blvd, designated Now Media Group as the official city newspaper, authorized final payment for the Fire Station 3 roof contract and approved vendor payments; one licensing item was held for safety follow-up.
The Oak Creek Common Council on May 19 approved multiple administrative and property actions summarized below.
Quitclaim deed (2201 West South Branch Boulevard): Council approved a resolution authorizing a quitclaim deed to reconvey four 1972 storm-drainage and utility easements to the property owner (resolution recorded in the transcript as "12688Dash051926"). Staff member Melissa explained the easements were no longer needed and the deed follows the owner's request and counsel review.
Official newspaper designation: The council moved to designate Now Media Group (South NOW edition) as the city's official newspaper for legal postings for the next 12 months; the motion passed by roll call.
Fire Station 3 roof, project 25010: Matt Sullivan, assistant city administrator and city engineer, reported that Garland Company inspected the roofing work and warranties are in place. Council adopted the resolution accepting the workmanship of Roberts Restoration Inc. and authorized the final contract payment; the contract amount stated in the meeting was $124,823.
Licensing committee: The council approved the licensing committee report for items 1'through 4 from the May 19, 2026 meeting but moved to hold item 5 pending additional safety information; the hold was set over to the June 2, 2026 council meeting.
Vendor payments: Council approved the vendor summary listed for 05/13/2026. The packet lists $549,004.90 while the motion as recorded in the meeting minutes appears as $549,004.97; the council approved the payments by roll call. The record contains this discrepancy between packet and motion which the clerk should clarify in the official minutes.
All listed motions passed by roll call with recorded 'aye' votes and no recorded dissents at the meeting.
