Shorewood council weighs keeping outside engineering consultant or hiring staff engineer

Shorewood city leaders debated whether to continue relying on an outside engineering consultant or to hire an in-house engineer as the current consultant contract approaches renewal in 2026. The discussion centered on oversight, perceived conflicts of interest when consultants are affiliated with firms performing city work, and the relative costs and benefits of different service models.

The issue matters because engineering decisions shape major capital projects — including water infrastructure, stormwater management and road work — that affect construction costs, schedules and long-term city maintenance. City Administrator Nevinski presented a staff report comparing service models, what the current contract covers, and the history of engineering services in Shorewood, and reminded council members the item was for discussion and not a vote.

“...the switch of engineering firms in 2019 was a positive change,” Mayor Labadie said, framing the conversation as a routine policy review rather than immediate action. Councilmember DiGruttolo said residents had raised accountability concerns and questioned whether a consultant tied to firms doing much of the city’s construction work had incentives aligned with residents. “There did not appear to be a huge amount of incentive for accountability from the engineering consultant over the projects,” DiGruttolo said, and she expressed a preference for a staff engineer who would have direct oversight of contracts.

Other councilmembers weighed practical tradeoffs. Councilmember Sanschagrin and DiGruttolo favored a staff engineer, arguing that a dedicated staff position could provide continuous oversight and avoid a billable-hours incentive to expand project scope. Councilmember Gorham, who described his background as a project engineer, cautioned against letting public perception alone drive the decision, saying the problem may be a misunderstanding of consultant roles rather than an inherent conflict. “I did not agree that consultant engineers were somehow lining their own pockets with gilded designs,” Gorham said, urging the council to seek facts before changing the model.

Questions from Councilmember Maddy and others focused on costs and billing: staff said engineering project work is typically billed hourly and estimated that roughly 25% of some project budgets went to engineering-related fees, though precise tallies were not immediately available. City Administrator Nevinski asked the council to provide direction promptly if they want staff to prepare an RFP process, and Mayor Labadie asked staff to return with detailed cost comparisons — including the total costs for the city’s four major recent projects and how much of each project went to engineering — so residents could see the numbers that inform any decision.

Councilmembers also discussed hybrid approaches, including stronger city oversight of consultants (for example, moving oversight duties to existing staff), a joint powers agreement (JPA) with neighboring municipalities, or a captive staff engineer who could be shared or bill for services to other cities. Public Works Director Morreim emphasized that consultants typically provide site presence, surveys, punch lists and construction oversight that would still be needed even with a staff engineer. The council did not take a formal vote on the engineering model; instead, they directed staff to return with project-level accounting and a clearer list of options and tradeoffs.

The council recessed the work session to continue the agenda after the regular meeting and plans to revisit the engineering-services discussion at a future work session with the requested data.