Public Works Committee - Highway Department — Agenda Packet

1 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING Thursday, February 19, 2026, 8:00 AM HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT - MEETING ROOM 410 S. SPRING STREET, PORT WASHINGTON, WI The public can access the meeting by viewing the live stream on the County website, Agendas & Minutes page and select the meeting agenda date The public can submit comments here: Public Comment Form Public Comment Policy & Instructions For Submitting Public Comments Online AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PROPER NOTICE 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE, COMMUNICATIONS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 22, 2026 5. ACTION ITEMS a. Recommendation of Public Works Capital Projects to the Executive Committee 6. FACILITIES MANAGEMENT a. Management/Financial/Informational Reports 1. Facilities Financials - Feb 2026 7. TRANSIT SERVICES a. Management/Financial/Informational Reports 1. Transit Ridership - Feb 2026 2. Transit Financials - Feb 2026 8. HIGHWAYS a. Action Items 1. CTH T (Lakefield Road) Speed Limit 2. CTH W Engineering & Right-of-Way Acquisition Amendments 3. Trailer Purchase 4. Resolution: Town Road Bridge Aid for Town of Saukville's Cedar Sauk Road Bridge 5. Resolution: Ozaukee County Rural Area Functional Classification Updates 6. Resolution: Urging the Governor of Wisconsin and the State Legislature to Enact a Comprehensive, Sustainable Transportation Funding Solution b. Discussion Items Page 1 of 56 2 1. We Energies Easement at Justice Center c. Management/Financial/Informational Reports 1. Highway Financials - Feb 2026 9. NEXT MEETING DATE March 19, 2026 10. ADJOURNMENT A quorum of members of committees or the full County Board of Ozaukee County may be in attendance at this meeting for purposes related to committee or board duties. However, no formal action will be taken by these committees or the board at this meeting. Persons with disabilities requiring accommodation for attendance at this meeting should contact the County Clerk’s Office at 262-284-8110, twenty- four (24) hours in advance of the meeting. Page 2 of 56 Item: Agenda Item Information Sheet To: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE From: Lisa Henning, Chief Deputy County Clerk Meeting Date: February 19, 2026 Department/Office: County Clerk Item Name: January 22, 2026 Summary: Approve the January 22, 2026 minutes Recommended Action: Approve Attachments: 1. PW MINUTES JANUARY 22 2026 Page 3 of 56 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 22, 2026 Draft Minutes Pending Committee Approval 1. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Public Works Committee was held in the Highway office meeting room. Present Supervisor Tom Grabow, Supervisor Justin Strom, Supervisor Tom Bichler, Supervisor Daniel Vogel Absent None Excused Supervisor Marty Wolf Staff Present: County Administrator Dzwinel, Public Works Director Edgren, Patrol Superintendent Borden, Planning and Parks Director Struck and County Clerk Kretlow. Others present: Dan Benson - Ozaukee Press and Scott Fischer 2. PROPER NOTICE Vice Chairperson Grabow called the meeting to order at 8:00 AM. The clerk noticed the meeting as required. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE, COMMUNICATIONS There were none. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 20, 2025 Motion: Motion to approve the November 20, 2025 minutes as submitted. Result: Passed Moved by: Daniel Vogel Seconded by: Tom Bichler Ayes: Tom Grabow, Justin Strom, Tom Bichler, Daniel Vogel Nays: None Abstain: None 5. FACILITIES MANAGEMENT a. Management/Financial/Informational Reports 1. Facilities FInancials - Jan 2026 Page 4 of 56 Clarification on Fairgrounds Public Charges for Services line item. Facilities will be submitting a project fund request for an elevator update at the Justice Center. 6. TRANSIT SERVICES a. Management/Financial/Informational Reports 1. Transit Financials - Jan 2026 The number of shared rides exceeded 2019 for the second time in 2025. Question and clarification on Interdepartment Charges. 7. HIGHWAYS a. Action Items 1. Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission's 2026 County Surveyor's Services Agreement Motion: Motion to approve SEWRPC's 2026 County Surveyor Services Agreement. Result: Passed Moved by: Justin Strom Seconded by: Daniel Vogel Ayes: Tom Grabow, Justin Strom, Tom Bichler, Daniel Vogel Nays: None Abstain: None 2. Tow Plow Purchase Motion: Motion to approve the purchase of the Viking TP26 RH, 26' Tow Plow from Viking- Cives Midwest, Inc. for $210,000 as recommended by staff. Result: Passed Moved by: Justin Strom Seconded by: Daniel Vogel Ayes: Tom Grabow, Justin Strom, Tom Bichler, Daniel Vogel Nays: None Abstain: None 3. Skid Steer Loader Purchase Motion: Motion to approve the purchase of the Kubota SVL97-2 Skid Steer Loader from Lochen Equipment for $70,000 as recommended by staff. Result: Passed Moved by: Tom Bichler Seconded by: Justin Strom Ayes: Tom Grabow, Justin Strom, Tom Bichler, Daniel Vogel Nays: None Abstain: None 4. One-Ton Truck Purchase Motion: Motion to approve the purchase of the 2026 Ford F-350 Crew Cab from Ewald Automotive Group for $52,055 as recommended by staff. Result: Passed Moved by: Daniel Vogel Page 5 of 56 Seconded by: Tom Grabow Ayes: Tom Grabow, Justin Strom, Tom Bichler, Daniel Vogel Nays: None Abstain: None 5. Foreman Truck Purchase Motion: Motion to approve the purchase of the 2026 Silverado 2500 HD from Ewald Automotive Group for $56,000 as recommended by staff. Result: Passed Moved by: Tom Bichler Seconded by: Justin Strom Ayes: Tom Grabow, Justin Strom, Tom Bichler, Daniel Vogel Nays: None Abstain: None 6. Tire Machine Purchase Motion: Motion to approve the purchase of the Corghi HD1400E tire machine for $35,000 as recommended by staff. Result: Passed Moved by: Daniel Vogel Seconded by: Tom Grabow Ayes: Tom Grabow, Justin Strom, Tom Bichler, Daniel Vogel Nays: None Abstain: None b. Discussion Items 1. CTH W Real Estate Acquisition Mr. Struck provided an update on the County Highway W Reconstruction/Milwaukee River Oxbow Nature Preserve Restoration, including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Findings-Design Impacts; Design Alternatives; Design, Permitting and Real Estate Impacts; and Expenses and Grant Funding. c. Management/Financial/Informational Reports 1. Highway Financials - Jan 2026 Clarification on Revenues-Intergovernmental Charges line item. The Safe Streets for All grant, applied for in 2025, has been approved. The Transportation Development Association (TDA) is promoting a new public campaign for transportation funding and is asking all counties to pass a resolution supporting this new funding. A resolution will be brought to the committee at a future meeting. 8. NEXT MEETING DATE February 19, 2026 9. ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Supervisor Bichler, seconded by Supervisor Vogel to adjourn. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:04AM. Kellie R. Kretlow, County Clerk Page 6 of 56 Item: 5.a. Agenda Item Information Sheet To: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE From: Jason Wittek, Policy and Budget Analyst Meeting Date: February 19, 2026 Department/Office: County Clerk Item Name: Recommendation of Public Works Capital Projects to the Executive Committee Summary: Public Works Projects Capital Projects to the Executive Committee Recommended Action: Review/Approve Staff Recommendations Attachments: 1. 2026 Project Reserve Memo_12-12-2025 2. Project Scorecard 2026 3. Feasibility and Analysis Justice Elevator_2026 (1) 4. Elevator capital request Page 7 of 56 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S OFFICE Jason Dzwinel, County Administrator www.ozaukeecounty.gov 121 W. Main Street, P. O. Box 994, Port Washington, WI 53074 Phone: (262) 284-8198 Metro: (262) 238-8198 Fax: (262) 284-8199 Metro Fax: (262) 238-8199 TO: COUNTY DEPARTMENTS FROM: JASON DZWINEL, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT: 2026 PROJECT PROPOSAL PROCESS DATE: 12/12/2025 BACKGROUND Through the 2026 Budget Process, the Board and Staff identified funds to be reserved for projects funded through a Request for Proposal process submitted by departments. The current amount of funding available is approximately $1,750,000 in 2026. Additional funding could be available in 202 6, after the 2025 financial closeout. A county policy adopted in 2018, allows the County Board to add up to fifty percent of the year-end surplus to the project fund. In an effort to decrease the amount of annual deferral of necessary projects. One of the goals established by the Board and Staff is better capital asset and one- time project planning, and part of this involves finding a regular source of funds for these projects. There is significant pressure on using the base tax levy to fund regular operations, and this leaves little tax levy available for capital assets or one-time projects. PROCESS In 2019, the Executive Committee met and approved a concept for staff to design and implement a Project Proposal Process, which will c ontinue in 2026. With this input from the Executive Committee, Staff has finalized an evaluation process intending to prioritize projects into various quartiles. The evaluation is based on a set of criterion established by the Executive Committee and Sta ff. The evaluation places less emphasis on a hard 1 through 30 ranking of projects and more emphasis on putting projects into a quadrant that highlights the impact of the project. This allows the Board and Staff to focus less on rankings and understand the general priority of all projects. PROCESS REQUIREMENTS AND ELIGIBILITY The intention of this funding is to provide an opportunity for Departments that are typically unable to fund their projects using tax levy during the annual budget process. Funding is available to Departments within the rules and eligibility highlighted below: 1. Projects are tax levy supported. Projects could use Enterprise or Special Revenue funds to offset some of the tax levy, but overall the project would not be completed without tax levy investment. 2. Projects can be capital (example: replacement of existing as set, purchase of new asset, new building/service, etc.) or a one-time project that is not capital related (consulting services studying operations, innovation, business process improvement, etc.). Projects could include both components. 3. The number of projects requested is up to the discretion of departments. This includes any projects that a department has submitted in prior requests during a budget process. It should Page 8 of 56 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S OFFICE Jason Dzwinel, County Administrator www.ozaukeecounty.gov 121 W. Main Street, P. O. Box 994, Port Washington, WI 53074 Phone: (262) 284-8198 Metro: (262) 238-8198 Fax: (262) 284-8199 Metro Fax: (262) 238-8199 also include any projects the department has not submitted in the past because they might have assumed it would not be approved due to the constant deferral of projects in prior budget processes. 4. Projects should be in the near -term of the County’s 5 -year CIP plan. Projects shoul d be shovel ready for start and completion within the next 2 years. 5. Consult with Administration if you have any questions about projects you are considering. 6. Submit projects via email to the following: jwittek@ozaukeecounty.gov & mulch@ozaukeecounty.gov PROJECT PROPOSAL CALENDAR The dates below indicate the timeline for this process. The process relies on the County’s Committee process for input and recommendations. The Board will approve the final plan. December 12 – Materials Available to Departments January 9 – Materials Due from Departments January 12-16 – Staff Analysis of Department Projects. Departments provide clarification, if needed. January 19-23 – Staff follows up with Departments. Review results of analysis presented to Committees. February 5 – Natural Resources Committee February 17 – Public Safety Committee February 19 – Public Works Committee February 24 – Health and Human Services Committee February 26 – Finance Committee March 2 (Tentative) – Executive Committee Reviews March 18 – County Board Review at Mid-Month Meeting April 1 – County Board Approves (projects and funds approved for the 2026 Amended Budget) ATTACHMENTS 1. Business Case Analysis Form 2. Evaluation Scorecard Page 9 of 56 PROJECT SCORECARD 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Low Satisfaction CUSTOMER SATISFACTION                High Satisfactio n Desired Necessary   Urgen Negligible Marginal      Critica Low Impact ON BUSINESS PROCESS                         High Impact  Does Not Meet Need              PROPOSAL MEETS NEED                   Quality Solution Low Impact ON QUALITY OF LIFE                        High Impact Operational Cost  $50,000 - $25,000 $25,000 - $5,000               $5,000 - $0 <$0 Project purpose ‐ Project addresses a recognized  problem and/or need that is supported by data or  information. Project links back to departmental  strategy, service. Quality of Life ‐ Proposal leads to a positive impact on  customer's improving quality of life. Customer Satisfaction ‐ Proposal satisfies customer  need or request.  MODERNIZATION AND SERVICE VALUE AND EFFICIENCY Percentage of Project Budget expended ‐ Project's  percentage of available budget.  Inverse score to  project cost. Operational Budget Impact ‐ Net of project revenues  and ongoing operational expenses. Health and Safety ‐ Impacts of potential health  hazards, public  safety, and risk to citizens and  employees will be addressed by this project.  Project Urgency ‐ Project need is imminent, consider  risk of delay. Modernization ‐ Proposals include innovative  solutions and/or leverages technology or partnerships  to improve business processes.  Project maintains or  enhances existing assets. This is a measurement of input and the scarcity of resources.  Assumption is that the project fund is limited and due to scarcity projects requiring a higher percentage of the total  budget limits the ability to fund project in the current year or future funding cycles. This is a measurement of how the project will impact the operational budget.  Projects creating efficiencies, revenue streams, cost savings and with limited risk should score well on  the operational budget impact scale. This is a measurement of the project's impact on health and safety, public, environmental and risk mitigation.   This is a measurement the level of need for project completion.  Consideration should be given to the impact of project delay, legal requirements, the viability of project alternatives. This is a measurement of the project's innovation, how it was selected over other viable alternative, and how it leverages partnerships.  Consideration should be given to the needs of the service population, as well as, how the customer requests of the project or service.  Customers include both the internal and  external persons served. Consideration should be given to the departmental mission and how the project will impact specific measures of quality of life under the mission. Assess the quality of the proposal, the consideration of alternatives and the final recommendation.  Page 10 of 56 PROJECT FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS Project Name: Justice Center Public Elevator Update Project Manager: Ryan Tackes Project Budget Estimate: Source Amount Grant Info 2026 Capital Project Fund $275,000 N/A TOTAL $275,000 Project Score: Value and Efficiency (350/400) Modernization and Service (230/400) Project Purpose Summary (from department): Update the Public Elevator operating controls, hydraulic power unit and update the elevator car to meet current building code. MEI Elevator who holds the maintenance contract for the elevator informed me that the controls are obsolete and no longer available. The parts that are available are very expensive and most likely used. The elevator is currently fully operational and safe. Proposal Considerations, Risks, and Identified Issues: This project scored relatively well, due to the obsolescence of the elevator parts, and difficulty in repairing/maintain the aging elevator, and the public nature of the elevator, and the desire to bring the elevator up to code. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends consideration of funding for the Justice Center Public Elevator Update. Page 11 of 56 Project Name: Requested By: Project Owner: Project Fund Grants Dept. Reserve Other Source Amount TOTAL PROJECT COST: TOTA L Funding Source (Please Check All that Apply): List All Funding Sources Selected: Grant Information Offsetting Revenue or Savings (If Applicable): Source Amount Project Reserve Information Sheet Project Costing - Detail Project Costs Provide a narrative of project costs: Start Date: Page 12 of 56 Define the project scope and why the project is an innovative solution: Describe how the project addresses department objectives or countywide strategy: Project Narrative - Define the Current State Describe the need, urgency, or gap in service and risk of delay from a customer perspective: Describe how the project impacts the department's level of service: Project Recommendation - Define the Suggested Course of Action Page 13 of 56 Describe how the project impacts department operations using business objectives: Describe the project's impact on quality of life: Describe the project's impact on health and safety: Page 14 of 56 BUSINESS OBJECTIVE EXAMPLES – Description will define performance measures Business Goal/Objective Description Increase Revenue Describe impact on revenue and timelines Control Costs Describe impact on costs and timelines Customer Deliverables How does the project meet customer expectations Partnerships Describe how the project leverages internal and external partnerships Customer Service How does the impact improve customer service internally and externally Investment in Innovation What is innovative about the approach Reduce Errors How will the project reduce errors in work Improve Safety How will the project improve safety Impact on Energy Usage What is the impact of energy usage Streamline Business Process Define efficiencies in process Ensure Compliance How does the project ensure legal/policy compliance Improve Reporting or Transparency How will the project impact the dissemination of information Improve Community Outreach Define impacts on community partnerships Improve Staff Skills How will the project improve the analytical or technical skills of staff Build Performance Measures How will the project allow for improved reporting of performance Improve Productivity and Performance How will the project impact staff output and goal attainment Development of Leaders How will the project assist with stability and succession Page 15 of 56 Item: 6.a.1. Agenda Item Information Sheet To: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE From: Meeting Date: February 19, 2026 Department/Office: Facilities Item Name: Facilities Financials - Feb 2026 Summary: Recommended Action: Attachments: 1. Facilities Financials - Feb 2026 Page 16 of 56 Current Month Actual 2026 YTD Actual 2026 Amended Budget Budget Balance % Budget YTD Revenues Interdepartmental Charges $6,253 $6,253 $76,530 $70,277 8.17% Total Revenues $6,253 $6,253 $76,530 $70,277 8.17% Expenditures Salaries $49,247 $49,247 $810,348 $761,101 6.08% Fringe Benefits $33,019 $33,019 $261,830 $228,811 12.61% Travel/Training - - $100 $100 0.00% Supplies $7,528 $7,528 $123,132 $115,604 6.11% Purchased Services $6,968 $6,968 $440,349 $433,381 1.58% Interdepartment Charges $2,579 $2,579 $58,576 $55,997 4. 40% Other Expenses - - $2,270 $2,270 0.00% Total Operating Expenditures $99,341 $99,341 $1,696,60 5 $1,597,264 5.86% Capital Outlay Total Expenditures $99,341 $99,341 $1,696,605 $1,597,26 4 5.86% Net Increase (Decrease) ($93,088) ($93,088) ($1,620,07 5) ($1,526,987) 5.75% E q u i t y: Ozaukee County Committee Report General Fund Facilities Management For the One Month Ending Saturday, January 31, 2026 Profit and Loss Statement ACTUAL TO AMENDED BUDGET CommRpt2026 2026 Oversight Comm Recommended PnL Amen ded Bdgt 2/11/2026 Page 17 of 56 Current Month Actual 2026 YTD Actual 2026 Amended Budget Budget Balance % Budget YTD Revenues Taxes - - $114,791 $114,791 0.00% Public Charges for Services $3,025 $3,025 $244,378 $241 ,353 1.24% Interest Revenue - - $10,000 $10,000 0.00% Other Revenue - - $3,000 $3,000 0.00% Total Revenues $3,025 $3,025 $372,169 $369,144 0.81% Expenditures Salaries $7,263 $7,263 $99,909 $92,646 7.27% Fringe Benefits $6,288 $6,288 $45,202 $38,914 13.91% Travel/Training - - $501 $501 0.00% Supplies $10,219 $10,219 $24,677 $14,458 41.41% Purchased Services $5,317 $5,317 $183,804 $178,487 2.89% Interdepartment Charges $327 $327 $11,824 $11,497 2.77% Other Expenses - - $6,251 $6,251 0.00% Total Operating Expenditures $29,414 $29,414 $372,168 $ 342,754 7.90% Capital Outlay Total Expenditures $29,414 $29,414 $372,168 $342,754 7.9 0% Net Increase (Decrease) ($26,389) ($26,389) $1 $26,390 - 2638900 .00% E q u i t y: Ozaukee County Committee Report Special Revenue Fund Fair Grounds For the One Month Ending Saturday, January 31, 2026 Profit and Loss Statement ACTUAL TO AMENDED BUDGET CommRpt2026 2026 Oversight Comm Recommended PnL Amen ded Bdgt 2/11/2026 Page 18 of 56 Item: 7.a.1. Agenda Item Information Sheet To: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE From: Meeting Date: February 19, 2026 Department/Office: Transit Item Name: Transit Ridership - Feb 2026 Summary: Recommended Action: Attachments: 1. PWC - Transit Ridership - Feb 2026 Page 19 of 56 MONTH SERVICE DAYS IN MONTH TOTAL TRIPS HOURS FAREBOX INVOICE LESS FARES COST/ TRIP NET COST/ TRIP January 30 9,064 4,786 $ 33,182.30 $ 204,320.90 $ 171,13 8.60 $ 22.54 $ 18.88 February 28 March 31 April 30 May 30 June 30 July 30 August 31 September 29 October 31 November 29 December 30 ANNUAL TOTAL 359 9,064 4,786 $ 33,182.30 $ 204,320.90 $ 171 ,138.60 $ 22.54 $ 18.88 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Totals Average 2010 Monthly Ridership 5,820 5,665 6,795 6,251 5,803 5,858 5,928 5,666 6,353 6,870 6,870 6,709 74,588 6,216 2011 Monthly Ridership 6,479 5,819 7,561 6,724 6,786 6,433 5,850 6,775 6,872 6,997 6,854 6,736 79,886 6,657 2012 Monthly Ridership 7,780 7,901 7,811 7,240 7,721 6,875 6,769 7,511 7,193 8,807 7,869 7,274 90,751 7,563 2013 Monthly Ridership 8,343 7,809 8,221 8,148 8,403 7,356 7,619 7,612 7,727 8,778 8,202 8,102 96,320 8,027 2014 Monthly Ridership 8,238 9,244 10,091 10,203 10,106 9,204 8,983 8,475 9,004 9,863 8,461 8,719 110,591 9,216 2015 Monthly Ridership 8,900 8,835 9,812 9,523 9,208 9,030 8,611 8,496 9,070 9,613 8,578 8,837 108,513 9,043 2016 Monthly Ridership 9,448 9,601 9,968 9,830 9,282 9,172 8,642 9,374 9,345 9,915 9,547 9,445 113,569 9,464 2017 Monthly Ridership 10,218 9,810 10,512 9,399 9,732 9,222 8,773 9,934 9,543 10,338 9,584 9,214 116,279 9,690 2018 Monthly Ridership 10,143 9,513 10,122 9,565 9,764 8,805 8,376 9,173 8,746 10,245 9,259 8,424 112,135 9,345 2019 Monthly Ridership 8,816 9,252 9,921 10,021 9,648 8,337 8,056 8,798 8,609 9,667 8,535 8,046 107,706 8,976 2020 Monthly Ridership 9,024 8,706 6,011 2,549 2,717 4,275 5,135 5,205 5,926 6,155 5,308 5,456 66,467 5,539 2021 Monthly Ridership 5,568 6,103 6,443 6,396 5,814 6,140 5,770 6,022 5,970 6,083 5,924 6,194 72,427 6,036 2022 Monthly Ridership 6,091 6,263 5,783 6,429 6,097 6,328 5,924 7,163 7,134 7,248 6,852 6,453 77,765 6,480 2023 Monthly Ridership 7,326 6,853 7,678 6,926 7,499 6,761 6,251 7,035 6,714 7,412 6,929 6,535 83,919 6,993 2024 Monthly Ridership 7,447 7,748 7,387 8,082 7,823 7,082 7,776 7,930 7,982 8,681 7,801 7,665 93,404 7,784 2025 Monthly Ridership 8,408 8,101 8,200 8,305 7,968 7,729 7,985 8,247 8,855 9,304 7,835 8,752 99,689 8,307 2026 Monthly Ridership 9,064 9,064 9,064 Same month 2025 vs 2026 7.8% Same month 2026 vs 2019 2.8% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totals Average 2021 N/A N/A N/A 82 80 136 156 125 102 132 126 93 1,032 115 2022 149 140 191 201 201 179 159 211 198 208 165 182 2,184 182 2023 215 202 212 169 181 182 183 231 239 219 195 210 2,438 203 2024 158 156 166 145 164 124 142 131 133 148 108 103 1,678 140 2025 120 101 127 124 141 144 148 143 135 156 122 144 1,605 134 2026 140 Same month 2025 vs 2026 17% 2026 OZ CO SHARED RIDE TAXI Shared Ride Taxi (SRT) Ridership Report Shared Ride Taxi (SRT): Cross-County Trips Page 20 of 56 Item: 7.a.2. Agenda Item Information Sheet To: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE From: Meeting Date: February 19, 2026 Department/Office: Transit Item Name: Transit Financials - Feb 2026 Summary: Recommended Action: Attachments: 1. Transit Financials - Feb 2026 Page 21 of 56 Current Month Actual 2026 YTD Actual 2026 Amended Budget Budget Balance % Budget YTD Revenues Taxes - - $248,829 $248,829 0.00% Intergovernmental Revenues - - $2,086,733 $2,086,733 0.0 0% Public Charges for Services $13,092 $13,092 $562,250 $5 49,158 2.33% Interest Revenue $152 $152 - ($152) 0.00% Other Revenue - - $335,787 $335,787 0.00% Total Revenues $13,244 $13,244 $3,233,599 $3,220,355 0.4 1% Expenditures Salaries $6,092 $6,092 $150,157 $144,065 4.06% Fringe Benefits $4,396 $4,396 $48,620 $44,224 9.04% Travel/Training - - $4,503 $4,503 0.00% Supplies $18,147 $18,147 $278,814 $260,667 6.51% Purchased Services $3,797 $3,797 $2,343,050 $2,339,253 0 .16% Interdepartment Charges $2,211 $2,211 $154,602 $152,391 1.43% Other Expenses - - $40,602 $40,602 0.00% Total Operating Expenditures $34,643 $34,643 $3,020,34 8 $2,985,705 1.15% Capital Outlay Equipment & Furniture - - $213,251 $213,251 0.00% Total Capital Outlay - - $213,251 $213,251 0.00% Total Expenditures $34,643 $34,643 $3,233,599 $3,198,95 6 1.07% Net Increase (Decrease) ($21,399) ($21,399) - $21,399 0. 00% E q u i t y: Ozaukee County Committee Report Special Revenue Fund Transit Services For the One Month Ending Saturday, January 31, 2026 Profit and Loss Statement ACTUAL TO AMENDED BUDGET CommRpt2026 2026 Oversight Comm Recommended PnL Amen ded Bdgt 2/11/2026 Page 22 of 56 Item: 8.a.1. Agenda Item Information Sheet To: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE From: Jon Edgren, Public Works Director Meeting Date: February 19, 2026 Department/Office: Highway Department Item Name: CTH T (Lakefield Road) Speed Limit Summary: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Based upon a resident’s request to reduce the speed limit of CTH T (Lakefield Road) from 45 MPH to 35 MPH, a speed study was conducted along CTH T from Struck Lane to Green Bay Road, which is in the Towns of Cedarburg and Grafton and becomes Portland Road in the City of Cedarburg. A speed study consists of the Highway Department deploying their radar recorder in multiple locations in the study area in order to obtain the number of passing vehicles and their travel speed data. Upon completion, the data is presented to the Traffic Safety Commission (TSC). The speed study, presented to the TSC in July of 2025 (attached), showed good compliance with the 45 MPH speed limit as 85% of the vehicles were going 49 MPH or less. Therefore, the TSC made no changes. At October’s TSC meeting, City of Cedarburg Police Chief Michael McNerney, along with other City Officers and several residents that live along this stretch of highway, asked for reconsideration of the speed limit reduction. After discussion regarding their concerns and the original speed study, no changes were made. At January’s TSC meeting Chief McNerny, along with County Board Supervisor Jack Arnett and City Council Member Amanda Didier, asked for reconsideration of the speed limit reduction or at least to forward the item onto the Public Works Committee. After discussion and no motion to approve a speed limit change, the item was approved to be forwarded to the Public Works Committee with no recommendation. Historically, the TSC has followed the 85th Percentile Rule when reviewing speed limits. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) Traffic Engineering, Operations & Safety Manual (Chapter 13 – Traffic Regulations, Section 5 – Speed Limits) describes the philosophy as follows: It has been found that motorists are generally capable of determining the driving speed that is reasonable for prevailing road and traffic conditions unless there are some roadway conditions that they are unaware of or which are not readily apparent and that the majority will subsequently adjust their speed accordingly. The 85th percentile speed, the speed at or below which 85% of the vehicles travel a particular roadway, has been found to best represent this perceived "reasonable" speed. The MUTCD Section 2B.13 states “when a speed limit is to be posted, it should be within 5 MPH of the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic.” This practice promotes safety as research shows the lowest risk of being involved in a crash occurs at approximately the 85th percentile speed (see “Setting the Speed Limit” in the Wisconsin Statewide Speed Management Guidelines, June 2009). The practice also promotes voluntary speed limit compliance as the majority of drivers would be anticipated to observe the limit. A third benefit of posting speed limits close to the 85th percentile speed is the ability to target law enforcement efforts toward the limited number of motorists that speed. Unreasonably low speed limits, also called irrational speed limits, are not effective in changing driver behavior and have several negative effects. Research shows that drivers do not reduce their speed to the posted limit on the basis Page 23 of 56 of signage alone (ITE Journal, 2004, “The Effectiveness of Transitional Speed Zones.”). While irrational speed limits do not result in desired driver behavior, resulting negative effects include higher financial cost due to need for increased enforcement, higher potential for crashes due to larger variability in vehicle speeds, and encouragement of motorist disregard of other, rational posted speed limits. Irrationally low speed limits also promote a false sense of security among residents and pedestrians who may expect that posting lower limits will change drivers’ speed behavior. Therefore the TSC has historically recommended speed limit reductions only if speeds are aligned with the 85th Percentile Speeds. ANALYSIS: In short, I continue to stand by my recommendation for no changes due to the compliance with the existing speed limit. However, there were a couple additional items brought up that I can also address. First, given that we would be looking to lower the speed limit more than 10 MPH than the Wisconsin State Statutory 55 MPH speed limit, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) would need to review an engineering and traffic investigation to determine if the reduction is an acceptable proposed speed limit. I do not believe that WisDOT would approve the reduction given their typical adherence to the 85th Percentile Limits. Next, Chief McNerney has presented a couple different City speed studies on Portland Road, which is the extension of CTH T west of Struck Lane, that showed hundreds of vehicles at least 15 MPH over the 25 MPH speed limit. However, reviewing the data, that’s only 2% of the total vehicles travelling in the area and the latest study showed 75% of the vehicles going over 40 MPH were going eastbound, which is the transition point to our 45 MPH speed limit. Also, as the 45 MPH speed limit is currently aligned with traffic speeds, lowering the speed limit could simply create a necessary enforcement zone if vehicles continue to go 48 to 49 MPH, but the speed limit is now 35 MPH. Finally, as for safety, there have been no reported accidents in this stretch of highway except for two (2) vehicles that ran off the road and left the scene since 2017. Therefore, my concern is attempting to lower the speed limit will create a situation with more unsafe passing as some vehicles will strictly follow a lower speed limit causing faster vehicles to pass. Recommended Action: Direct Public Works Director Edgren as discussed. Attachments: 1. CTH T - Struck Ln to Green Bay Rd Comb Maps Page 24 of 56 CTH T: Struck Ln to Green Bay Rd 3/20/2020, 2:54:54 PM DISCLAIMER: This map is not a substitute for an actual field su rvey or onsite investigation. The accuracy of this map is limited to the quality of the recor ds from which it was assembled. Product of the LAND INFORMATION OFFICE · 3/20 /20 20, 2:54:54 PM 0 0.07 0.14 0.21 0.280.03 5 mi Le ge nd Ta x P a r c e l Gap Ov erlap Histori cal Parcel Li nes Ass ess ors Plat CSM Cem ete ry Plat Con dom in iu m Pl at Subd ivisio n Plat Pla t of Surve y US Highway State High way Cou nty Road Ram p Private Ro ad T o wn /Public Ro ad Railro ad Cen terline Speed Limit 45 25 45 CTH T (Lakefield Rd) Green Bay Rd Struck Ln 1991 Lakefield Rd (CTH T): June 11 to 18, 2025 (Weds-Weds) Est ADT: 3,100 EB (1): 48 MPH WB (2): 49 MPH Combined: 48 MPH Pace: 39-48 MPH (74%) Speed Study Location: Dates Estimated Average Daily Traffic (ADT) MPH: 85th Percentile Pace: Majority of Traffic within 10 MPH CTH T (Lakefield Rd) Speed Study 55 4780 Lakefield Rd (CTH T): June 18 to 25, 2025 (Weds-Weds) Est ADT: 3,000 EB (2): 49 MPH WB (1): 48 MPH Combined: 49 MPH Pace: 39-48 MPH (72%) Bluebirtd Ct Page 25 of 56 CTH T: Struck Ln to Green Bay Rd 3/20/2020, 2:54:54 PM DISCLAIMER: This map is not a substitute for an actual field su rvey or onsite investigation. The accuracy of this map is limited to the quality of the recor ds from which it was assembled. Product of the LAND INFORMATION OFFICE · 3/20 /20 20, 2:54:54 PM 0 0.07 0.14 0.21 0.280.03 5 mi Le ge nd Ta x P a r c e l Gap Ov erlap Histori cal Parcel Li nes Ass ess ors Plat CSM Cem ete ry Plat Con dom in iu m Pl at Subd ivisio n Plat Pla t of Surve y US Highway State High way Cou nty Road Ram p Private Ro ad T o wn /Public Ro ad Railro ad Cen terline Speed Limit 45 25 45 CTH T (Lakefield Rd) Green Bay Rd Struck Ln Speed Study Location: Dates Estimated Average Daily Traffic (ADT) MPH: 85th Percentile Pace: Majority of Traffic within 10 MPH CTH T (Lakefield Rd) Speed Study 55 Struck Lane: November 6 to 12, 2025 (Thurs-Weds) Est ADT: 3,100 EB (2): 35 MPH WB (1): 33 MPH Combined: 34 MPH Pace: 25-34 MPH (71%) Bluebirtd Ct Page 26 of 56 Item: 8.a.2. Agenda Item Information Sheet To: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE From: Jon Edgren, Public Works Director Meeting Date: February 19, 2026 Department/Office: Highway Department Item Name: CTH W Engineering & Right-of-Way Acquisition Amendments Summary: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Ozaukee County is entering the final design phase of the CTH W (STH 33 to Schowalter Drive) Reconstruction project, which utilizes funds through the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) Local Road Improvement – Supplementary (LRIP-S) and County Highway Improvement – Supplementary (CHI-S) programs. The project was awarded for design to raSmith in February of 2021 and right-of-way (ROW) acquisition to CORRE in June of 2023. The original construction was anticipated for 2023, but it was pushed to 2026 while seeking additional grant funding and the desire to work with Ozaukee County’s Planning & Parks Department. Recently, as part of a required Archeological Investigation, findings have required the shifting of the proposed oxbow drainage feature significantly east out of the proposed extended ROW and permanent easement. Therefore, we requested proposals for re-doing the Plat, Relocation Order and Appraisal to obtain a much larger portion of the Solomon Parcel (Parcel #12). The following proposals were submitted (attached): 1. raSmith: Updated Plat & Relocation Order - $2,200 2. CORRE: Updated Appraisal and Acquisition Process - $5,800 TOTAL: $8,000 ANALYSIS: The estimated cost for the updated Plat & Relocation Order are acceptable, and the costs for the ROW Acquisition are slightly higher than the original contract but reasonable given the nature of obtaining a single parcel. We anticipate being responsible for roughly 20% of the $8,000 amendments, which would be about $1,600. Recommended Action: Approve raSmith’s Design Amendment and CORRE’s ROW Acquisition Amendment for the CTH W Reconstruction project for $8,000. Attachments: 1. RA Smith - CTH W Oxbow Plat Amendment - 1-18-26 2. CORRE - CTH W - Parcel 18 Appraisal Re-do Proposal Page 27 of 56 AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT-CTH W Amendment No.: 3 Date: January 16, 2026 Client Name: Ozaukee County Client Address: 121 W Main Street Port Washington, WI 53074 Project No.: 2210149 Project Name: CTH W We hereby agree to amend our original Agreement executed on 4/22/24 as outlined below: A. SCOPE OF SERVICES With the lat est layout and design of the Oxbow, additional land acquisitions (through easement and/or purchase) will be required. This should just relate to one property , initially owned by Mary Ann Solomon. In order to accommodate the additional need for land, an updated relocation order and right of way plat will be necessary. We will provide a new title (if necessary), update the relocation order and prepare an updated right of way plat. We will work with the County Parks division to confirm the final amount of land needed and then update the aforementioned items. B. COMPLETION SCHEDULE We will provide an updated plat and relocation order within 3-4 weeks (pending title if needed). C. PROFESSIONAL FEES We will provide these updates for a lump sum fee of $2,200. We will create a new phase and bill this item separately. The current contract fee is $157,649 and with these fees the new estimated contract would be $159,849. D. ACCEPTANCE The above fees and specifications of this Amendment to Agreement are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. All work is to be performed under the same terms and conditions as specified in the original agreement unless otherwise stipulated. ACCEPTED BY: R.A. Smith, Inc. OZAUKEE COUNTY January 18, 2026 Troy Hartjes Date Senior Project Manager Jon Edgren, P.E. Date Public Works Director Page 28 of 56 January 29, 2026 Ozaukee County Highway Department Attn: Jon E Edgren, P.E. via email: jedgren@ozaukeecounty.gov Director of Public Works PROPOSAL FOR REAL ESTATE SERVICES CTH W – acquisition of 1 complete parcel STH 33 to E Schowalter St Ozaukee County is pleased to present this proposal to Ozaukee County to provide professional services for the above referenced project. is a leader in providing full- service real estate services for projects throughout Wisconsin. Our commitment to quality service, responsiveness, and technical excellence drives every project, regardless of size. Our real estate division offers a diverse combination of professionals and support staff. SCOPE OF SERVICES Based on receipt and review of the relocation order, plan and profile, real estate acquisition scope of services consists of:  Acquisition of 1 parcel involving a deceased owner.  This is an LPA project with no state or federal money in the real estate activities. OVERVIEW is a full-service engineering firm known throughout Wisconsin for providing all- encompassing real estate services. Based in Madison, has six offices throughout the state. Since beginning operations in 2005, the firm has grown rapidly and attracted many experienced engineers and specialists. Our extensive real estate division offers a diverse combination of professionals and support staff, our appraisers and acquisition agents routinely work seamlessly between offices. SERVICES AND EXPERTISE Appraisal & Sales Study appraisal staff includes three Wisconsin Certified General Appraisers and two trainees who are well-versed and experienced in:  Appraisals and review of appraisals  Sales Studies  Standard and unique land use valuation  Fee, Highway Easement, PLE, and TLE  Severance and proximity damages  Litigation assistance Page 29 of 56 2 January 29, 2026 │ CTH W  Wide range of appraisals from simple to complex  Yellow Book appraisal process Acquisition staff includes acquisition agents with experience and expertise in the following areas:  Eminent domain (Wisconsin Statute Chapter 32)  WisDOT Real Estate Program Manual (REPM)  WisDOT Local Public Agency Manual for Right of Way Acquisition  Uniform Relocation Act  Corridor cost estimates  Property owner negotiations  Utility coordination and relocation  Fee, TLE, PLE, and highway easements  Special property negotiations: railroads, contaminated properties, billboards, severance damages, etc.  All land uses: agricultural, commercial, residential, industrial, etc.  Residential and commercial relocations PROJECT SCOPE Real estate services associated with completing following tasks: 1. Provide Real Estate Acquisition Services for 1 parcel in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Act and Wisconsin State Statues. 2. Prepare an introduction letter that will be mailed to all of the property owners of record with the Owner’s Rights brochure and information on the project, including: a. Contact information for the project negotiator b. Contact information for the appraiser 3. Create a parcel file and the owner’s packet of documents concurrently with the Offering Price Reports being approved – Negotiation Diary, Offer Letter, Appraisal, Conveyance with legal description, Statement to the Construction Engineer, and W-9 Forms for acquisition. 4. After the appraisal has been approved by Ozaukee County, send an offer package by Certified Mail or meet with the property owner. Follow-up with calls to/from the property owner to answer questions. 5. Attend meetings, as necessary. 6. Submit payment request to Ozaukee County. Distribute the payment from Ozaukee County to the property owner or County Clerk. Use Simplifile to record conveyance with the Ozaukee County Register of Deeds. 7. Prepare negotiation diary to document coordination with the landowner. 8. Electronic Transfer Return form will be created for any fee acquisitions. 9. Complete and Submit Certificate of Right of Way documentation to WisDOT for the Federal project. 10. Any condemnation proceedings after the Award of Damages will be done by others. 11. Provide an appraisal. Page 30 of 56 3 January 29, 2026 │ CTH W a. The appraiser must be on the WisDOT certified appraiser list b. Appraisals and appraisal reviews must be in compliance with the standards established by Chapter 2 of the Real Estate Program Manual (REPM) 18. Provide a review appraiser for any parcels needing an appraisal c. The review appraiser must be on the WisDOT certified review appraiser list d. The Review Appraiser shall perform all services and prepare all reports in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), the WisDOT Real Estate Program Manual, as well as all provisions of local, state and federal applicable laws, ordinances and regulations. shall complete all acquisition/negotiation activities for the parcels in accordance with state and federal laws and following procedures outlined in the WisDOT Local Public Agency Manual. Scope of work does not include:  Any relocation services  Any litigation services  Additional detailed appraiser review of owner’s appraisal  Title Searches, Title Updates, and Legal Descriptions  Encroachment Removal Notices or Revocable Occupancy Permits  Appraisal and/or Acquisition costs associated with obtaining estimates from contractors for improvements (ex.: Landscaping, On-premise signage, Loss of parking that does not impact the function or current use of the property). These costs will either be billed to the Agency directly or reimbursed to at actual cost.  Appraisal and Acquisition/Negotiation services associated with buildings or site improvements (other than on-premise signs and landscaping or loss of parking that does not impact the function or current use of the property). If buildings and/or site improvements will be impacted, this will increase the scope of services and fees for all real estate services (appraisal, review appraisal, and acquisition/negotiation).  Fees charged by banks associated with obtaining Partial Release of Mortgages. These costs will either be billed to the County directly or reimbursed to at actual cost. Page 31 of 56 4 January 29, 2026 │ CTH W Project Cost Unit cost for completing the real estate services for this project is outlined below: Task / Item Quantity Unit Price Total Cost Acquisition 1 $1,200 $1,200 Appraisal - update 1 $2,500 $2,500 Review Appraisal 1 $800 $800 Publication fees 1 $1,300 $1,300 Total $5,800 Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the information provided below. We appreciate your consideration and look forward to the opportunity to work with you. Sincerely, Heather Dresel Director of Real Estate Services 715.900.2965 hdresel@correinc.com Accepted by: ________________________ Approved by: Signature: Signature: Name: Name: Title: Title: Date: Date: The above person is authorized to sign on behalf of Ozaukee County (client) and binds the client to the terms hereof. Page 32 of 56 Item: 8.a.3. Agenda Item Information Sheet To: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE From: Jon Edgren, Public Works Director Meeting Date: February 19, 2026 Department/Office: Highway Department Item Name: Trailer Purchase Summary: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Shop Superintendent Scott Palubiski recently brought up concerns over some Highway trailers that are in poor condition and are on the verge of being overloaded at times. Therefore, he has requested to purchase a new trailer with higher weight limitations and a tilt deck for easier loading. As part of the 2026 Highway Department Budget, the Public Works Committee approved various equipment purchases in January that ended up being roughly $190,000 under budget, so we would like to move forward with the purchase utilizing those savings. The proposed purchase would replace a 2005 Redihaul trailer that’s in poor condition with a bad deck and rusty, and is difficult to load. The Redihaul trailer would be traded in or sold. ANALYSIS: Shop Superintendent Scott Palubiski sought quotes for multiple trailers, and received the following quotes: Model Supplier Cost Felling FT-16DDPT Felling $16,650 *Diamond C Trailer HXD Brugginks $17,500 Trail King TKT16U Airing Equip $20,200 *RECOMMENDED PURCHASE Shop Superintendent Palubiski prefers the Diamond C Trailer HXD due to a higher hauling weight capacity (18,000 Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) versus 15,000 GVW for the Felling) for a slightly higher cost. Therefore, Highway Department staff recommends the Diamond C Trailer HXD from Brugginks for $17,500. Recommended Action: Approve the Diamond C Trailer HXD from Brugginks for $17,500 as recommended by staff. Attachments: None Page 33 of 56 Item: 8.a.4. Agenda Item Information Sheet To: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE From: Jon Edgren, Public Works Director Meeting Date: February 19, 2026 Department/Office: Highway Department Item Name: Resolution: Town Road Bridge Aid for Town of Saukville's Cedar Sauk Road Bridge Summary: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Wisconsin State Statute 82.08 – Town Bridges or Culverts; Construction and Repair; County Aid (attached) provides Townships with a method to assist in the reconstruction of larger culverts or bridges by obtaining reimbursement of 50% of construction related costs from their County. The County’s portion will be levied against Town parcels within the County. Section (2)(b) does allow for County’s to refuse these petitions, but only if the County Board hasn’t granted County Bridge Aid previously. However, Ozaukee County has approved County Bridge Aid at various times, so I believe that there is no ability to decline the request. In this particular case, the Town of Saukville is planning to replace the Cedar Sauk Road Bridge (P45-0907), which is 3,000-ft east of County Trunk Highway (CTH) I. The total estimated construction cost is $790,500, but the Town has received a Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) grant to cover 80% of the costs, which would leave the Town of Saukville with an estimated cost of $158,900. The Town of Saukville has requested Ozaukee County to split their share of the cost, which would have Ozaukee County cover $79,450. Attached is the Town of Saukville’s petition. ANALYSIS: Given Ozaukee County’s past Town Road Bridge Aid approvals, attached is the proposed resolution directing the set-aside of funds for the Town of Saukville’s request. Per Wisconsin Statute 82.08(2), the funds should be set aside in a separate account administered by the Highway Department for future payment. However, the Town of Saukville is planning for replacement of the Cedar Sauk Road Bridge in 2028, so the funds won’t need to be set aside until the 2028 Budget. Recommended Action: Approve the Town of Saukville’s Town Road Bridge Aid request for Cedar Sauk Road Bridge, Page 34 of 56 and forward to the Ozaukee County Board for approval. Attachments: 1. Cedar Sauk Rd Bridge Resolution 2. Wisconsin Statute 82.08 - Town Road Bridge Aid 3. T-Saukville - Cedar Sauk Bridge - Town Road Bridge Aid Resolution Page 35 of 56 RESOLUTION NO. TOWN ROAD BRIDGE AID FOR TOWN OF SAUKVILLE’S CEDAR SAUK ROAD BRIDGE WHEREAS, Wisconsin State Statutes allow for Townships to seek fifty-percent (50%) funding for bridges or culverts with a 36-inch or greater span through their respective County as prescribed in Wisconsin State Statutes Section 82.08 - Town bridges or culverts; construction and repair; county aid; and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Saukville, by resolution, passed and adopted on December 29th, 2024, a petition for aid to replace the Cedar Sauk Road Bridge (P45- 0907), 3,000-ft east of County Trunk Highway (CTH) I; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned bridge is in poor condition and needs to be replaced; and WHEREAS, the proposed bridge will meet the standards and specifications for design and construction set by Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT); and WHEREAS, the bridge replacement is estimated to have a total construction cost of $790,500, but the Town received a Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) grant to cover 80% of the costs leaving the Town to cover $158,900; and WHEREAS, the Town has requested for Ozaukee County to split the construction cost of the project, which would have the County and Town responsible for approximately $79,450 each; and WHEREAS, the county's share of this bridge replacement will be levied against the Town Parcels in Ozaukee County by the 2028 Budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Ozaukee County Board of Supervisors that the Petition is hereby granted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon the filing of written notice with the County Public Works Committee by the Town of Saukville Town Board that the work has been completed and accepted by the Town Board, the County's share of the project costs shall be disbursed to the Town upon approval by the Public Works Committee and acquisition of the levied funds by the County Clerk. Dated at Port Washington, Wisconsin, this 4th day of March, 2026. SUMMARY: Town of Saukville’s Bridge Aid Request for Cedar Sauk Road Bridge. VOTE REQUIRED: Majority PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Page 36 of 56 508/
)*()8":4 

6QEBUFE

8JT
4UBUT 6QEBUFE

8JT
4UBUT

1VCMJTIFE
BOE
DFSUJGJFE
VOEFS
T


+BOVBSZ

 /05&


8JT
"DU

XIJDI
BGGFDUFE
UIJT
TFDUJPO
DPOUBJOT
FYUFOTJWF
FY QMBOBUPSZ
OPUFT 5IF
EVUZ
UP
LFFQ
IJHIXBZT
QBTTBCMF
JT
NBEF
NBOEBUPSZ
CZ
TT
 
BOE

<OPX
UIJT
TFDUJPO
BOE
T
>
XIFO
SFBE
UPHFUIFS

4UBUF
FY
SFM
$BCPUU
*OD
W
8P KDJL

8JT
E


/8 E

  
5PXO
CSJEHFT
PS
DVMWFSUT
DPOTUSVDUJPO
BOE
SF QBJS
DPVOUZ
BJE


1&5*5*0/4

"
UPXO
UIBU
IBT
WPUFE
UP
DPOTUSVDU
PS
SFQBJS
BOZ
CSJEHF
PS
DVMWFSU
UIBU
JT
PO
PS
UIBU
BGUFS
UIF
DPOTUSVDUJPO
XJMM
CF
DPOOFDUFE
UP
BO
FYJTUJOH
IJHIXBZ
NBJO UBJOFE
CZ
UIF
UPXO
NBZ
GJMF
B
QFUJUJPO
GPS
DPVOUZ
BJE
XJUI
UIF
DPVOUZ
IJHIXBZ
DPNNJTTJPOFS

5IF
QFUJUJPO
TIBMM
EFTDSJCF
UIF
MPDBUJPO
BOE
TJ[F
PG
UIF
CSJEHF
PS
DVMWFSU
BOE
TIBMM
DPOUBJO
B
TUBUF NFOU
UIBU
UIF
UPXO
IBT
QSPWJEFE
UIF
GVOET
SFRVJSFE
CZ
TVC
  
' 6/%*/(
3&26*3&.&/54

B

&YDFQU
BT
QSPWJEFE
JO
QBS
C
VQPO
SFDFJQU
PG
B
QFUJUJPO
GPS
B
CSJEHF
PS
DVMWFSU
XJUI
B
 JODI
PS
HSFBUFS
TQBO
PS
B
TUSVDUVSF
PG
FRVJWBMFOU
DBQBDJUZ
UP
DBSSZ
XBUFS
UIF
DPVOUZ
CPBSE
TIBMM
BQQSPQSJBUF
UIF
TVN
SFRVJSFE
CZ
TVC

BOE
TIBMM
MFWZ
B
UBY
UIFSFGPS

5IF
UBY
XIFO
DPMMFDUFE
TIBMM
CF
IFME
JO
B
TFQBSBUF
BDDPVOU
BENJOJTUFSFE
CZ
UIF
DPVOUZ
IJHIXBZ
DPNNJUUFF C

*G
PO
+BOVBSZ


B
DPVOUZ
IBT
B
QPMJDZ
PG
QSPWJEJOH
GVOEJOH
POMZ
GPS
CSJEHFT
BOE
DVMWFSUT
MBSHFS
UIBO
UIF
SFRVJSFNFOU
PG
QBS
B
UIF
DPVOUZ
NBZ
SFGVTF
UP
GVOE
CSJEHFT
BOE
DVMWFSUT
UIBU
EP
OPU
NFFU
UIF
NJOJNVN
SFRVJSFNFOUT
PG
UIBU
QPMJDZ

5IF
NJOJ NVN
TJ[F
CSJEHF
PS
DVMWFSU
UIBU
B
DPVOUZ
JT
SFRVJSFE
UP
GVOE
VOEFS
UIJT
TFDUJPO
NBZ
CF
SBJTFE
CVU
OPU
MPXFSFE
CZ
UIF
BGGJSNBUJWF
WPUF
PG
B
NBKPSJUZ
PG
UIF
UPXOT
JO
UIF
DPVOUZ

5IF
DPVOUZ
CPBS E
PG
BOZ
DPVOUZ
UIBU
IBT
OFWFS
HSBOUFE
BJE
VOEFS
UIJT
TFDUJPO
NBZ
JO
JUT
EJTDSFUJPO
SFGVTF
BMM
QFUJUJPOT
VOEFS
TVC
  
4 )"3&%
$045

5IF
UPXO
BOE
DPVOUZ
TIBMM
FBDI
QBZ
POF IBMG
PG
UIF
DPTU
PG
DPOTUSVDUJPO
PS
SFQBJS

*O
EFUFSNJOJOH
UIF
DPTU
PG
DPOTUSVDUJPO
PS
SFQBJS
PG
BOZ
CSJEHF
PS
DVMWFSU
UIF
DPTU
PG
DPO TUSVDUJOH
PS
SFQBJSJOH
BOZ
BQQSPBDI
OPU
FYDFFEJOH

GFFU
JO
MFOHUI
TIBMM
CF
JODMVEFE 
& .&3(&/$:
1&5*5*0/

8IFOFWFS
UIF
DPOTUSVDUJPO
PS
SF QBJS
PG
BOZ
CSJEHF
PS
DVMWFSU
NVTU
CF
NBEF
XJUIPVU
EFMBZ
UIF
UPXO
CPBSE
NBZ
GJMF
JUT
QFUJUJPO
XJUI
UIF
DPVOUZ
DMFSL
BOE
UIF
DPVOUZ
IJHIXBZ
DPNNJUUFF
FYQMBJOJOH
UIF
OFDFTTJUZ
GPS
JNNFEJ BUF
DPOTUSVDUJPO
PS
SFQBJST

*U
TIBMM
UIFO
CF
UIF
EVUZ
PG
UIF
UPXO
CPBSE
BOE
UIF
DPVOUZ
IJHIXBZ
DPNNJUUFF
UP
DPOTUSVDU
PS
SFQBJS
UIF
CSJEHF
PS
DVMWFSU
BT
TPPO
BT
QSBDUJDBCMF

5IF
DPOTUSVDUJPO
PS
SFQBJS
PG
B
CSJEHF
PS
DVMWFSU
VOEFSUBLFO
QVSTVBOU
UP
UIJT
TVCTF D UJPO
TIBMM
FOUJUMF
UIF
UPXO
UP
UIF
TBNF
DPVOUZ
BJE
UIBU
UIF
UPX O
XPVME
IBWF
CFFO
FOUJUMFE
UP
IBE
JU
GJMFE
JUT
QFUJUJPO
XJUI
UIF
DPVOUZ
CPBSE
BT
QSPWJEFE
JO
TVC
  
4 61&37*4*0/
07&3
%&4*(/
$0/4536$5*0/
"/%
$045

B

&YDFQU
BT
QSPWJEFE
VOEFS
QBS
C
UIF
DPVOUZ
IJHIXBZ
DPN NJUUFF
BOE
UIF
UPXO
CPBSE
TIBMM
IBWF
GVMM
DIBSHF
PG
EFTJHO
TJ[JOH
MFUUJOH
JOTQFDUJOH
BOE
BDDFQUJOH
UIF
DPOTUSVDUJPO
PS
SFQBJS
CVU
UIF
UPXO
CPBSE
NBZ
MFBWF
UIF
NBUUFS
FOUJSFMZ
JO
UIF
IBOET
PG
UI F
DPVOUZ
IJHIXBZ
DPNNJUUFF

5IF
DPVOUZ
IJHIXBZ
DPNNJUUFF
BOE
UIF
UPXO
CPBSE
NVTU
BHSFF
PO
UIF
DPTU
PG
UIF
QSPKFDU
BOE
NVTU
DPOTVMU
FBDI
PUIFS
EVSJOH
DPOTUSVDUJPO C

'PS
B
QSPKFDU
SFDFJWJOH
GVOET
VOEFS
T

TVQFSWJTJPO
BOE
DPOUSPM
PG
DPOTUSVDUJPO
PG
UIF
QSPKFDU
TIBMM
CF
BT
QSPWJEFE
VO EFS
T

  
$ 0/4536$5*0/
3&26*3&.&/54

/P
DPVOUZ
PSEFS
NBZ
CF
ESBXO
VOEFS
TVC

GPS
UIF
DPOTUSVDUJPO
PG
B
CSJEHF
PS
DVMWFSU
VOMFTT
UIF
EFTJHO
BOE
DPOTUSVDUJPO
DPNQMZ
XJUI
SFRVJSFNFOUT
VO EFS
T

  
/ 0
5"9

&YDFQU
BT
QSPWJEFE
JO
TT

BOE


OPUIJOH
DPOUBJOFE
JO
UIJT
TFDUJPO
TIBMM
BVUIPSJ[F
UIF
MFWZ
PG
B
UBY
VQPO
UIF
QSPQFSUZ
JO
BOZ
DJUZ
PS
WJMMBHF
UIBU
JT
SFRVJSFE
UP
NB JO UBJO
JUT
PXO
CSJEHFT 
"%.*/*453"5*0/
$)"3(&

5IF
DPVOUZ
NBZ
DIBSHF
UIF
UPXOT
UIBU
BQQMZ
GPS
BJE
VOEFS
UIJT
TFDUJPO
BO
BENJOJTUSBUJPO
DIBSHF

5IF
BENJOJTUSBUJPO
DIBSHF
TIBMM
CF
GJYFE
BT
B
QFSDFOUBHF
PG
UIF
UPUBM
DPTUT
PG
BENJOJTUFSJOH
BJE
VOEFS
UIJT
TFDUJPO
BOE
UIF
QFSDFOUBHF
TIBMM
CF
OP
NPSF
UIBO
UIF
QFSDFOUBHF
UIBU
UIF
DPVOUZ
DIBSHFT
UIF
TUBUF
GPS
SFDPSET
BOE
SFQPSUT )JTUPSZ


D


D


B

T

 

B


B

TT

UP



4UBUT

T


B


B
 /05&


8JT
"DU

XIJDI
BGGFDUFE
UIJT
TFDUJPO
DPOUBJOT
FYUFOTJWF
FY QMBOBUPSZ
OPUFT 5IF
DPVOUZ
JT
PCMJHBUFE
UP
QBZ
JUT
IBMG
PG
UIF
DPTU
PG
DPOTUSVD UJPO
PS
SFQBJS
PG
B
CSJEHF
FWFO
JG
UIF
GJOBM
DPTU
FYDFFET
UIF
BNPVOU
UIF
UPXO
SFRVF TUFE
JO
UIF
QFUJUJPO

"O
FTUJNBUF
JT
TVGGJDJFOU
JO
B
QFUJUJPO
GPS
BJE

$PTUT
OFFE
OPU
CF
EFUFSNJOFE
FYBDUMZ

5PXO
PG
(SBOE
$IVUF
W
0VUBHBNJF
$PVOUZ

8*
"QQ


8JT
E


/8 E

 5IF
CSJEHF
BU
JTTVF
JO
UIJT
DBTF
XBT
OPU
B
iCSJEHF
PO
B
IJHIXBZ
NBJOUBJOBCMF
CZ
UIF
UPXOw
VOEFS
T

<OPX
UIJT
TFDUJPO>
CFDBVTF
UIF
CSJEHF
BJE
QFUJUJPO
EJE
OPU
SFRVFTU
GVOEJOH
UP
IFMQ
DPOOFDU
UIF
CSJEHF
UP
B
IJHIXBZ
NBJOUBJ OBCMF
CZ
UIF
UPXO
UIFSF
XBT
OP
FYJTUJOH
IJHIXBZ
FYUFOEJOH
UP
UIF
QMBOOFE
CSJEHF
TJUF
BU
UIF
UJNF
PG
UIF
QFUJUJPO
BOE
UIF
CSJEHF
XBT
OPU
DPOOFDUFE
UP
B
IJHIXBZ
NBJOUBJ OBCMF
CZ
UIF
UPXO
VQPO
DPNQMFUJPO

4FDUJPO

SFRVJSFT
GVOEJOH
GPS
POMZ
UIPTF
CSJEHFT
CVJMU
PO
IJHIXBZT
JO
FYJTUFODF
BU
UIF
UJNF
PG
B
CSJEHFT
DPOTUSVDUJPO

5PXO
PG
.BEJTPO
W
$PVOUZ
PG
%BOF

8*


8JT
E


/8 E

 "MUIPVHI
B

BDU
DIBOHFE
UIF
QISBTF
iIJHIXBZ
NBJOUBJOBCMFw
UP
iIJHIXBZ
NBJOUBJOFE w
UIJT
BNFOENFOU
EJE
OPU
DIBOHF
UIF
TVCTUBOUJWF
NFBOJOH
PG
UIF
TUBUVUF

5PXO
PG
.BEJTPO
W
$PVOUZ
PG
%BOF

8*


8JT
E


/8 E

 /05&

5IF
BCPWF
BOOPUBUJPOT
DJUF
UP
T

UIF
QSFEFDFTTPS
TUBUVUF
UP
UIJT
TFDUJPO 
$PVOUZ
BJE
GPS
EBNT
VTFE
GPS
CSJEHFT

"
UPXO
CPBSE
NBZ
GJMF
B
QFUJUJPO
XJUI
UIF
DPVOUZ
CPBSE
TUBUJOH
UIBU
UI F
UPXO
CPBSE
IBT
WPUFE
UP
BDRVJSF
UIF
SJHIU
UP
VTF
B
SPBEXBZ
PO
B
EBN

5IF
QFUJUJPO
TIBMM
DPOUBJO
B
MFHBM
EFTDSJQUJPO
BOE
TDBMF
NBQ
PG
UIF
EBN
BOE
SPBEXBZ
BOE
TIBMM
TUBUF
UIF
BNPVOU
BHSFFE
UP
CF
QBJE
UP
UIF
PXOFS
GPS
UIF
VTF
PG
UIF
SPBEXBZ

6QPO
SFDFJQU
PG
B
QFUJUJPO
UIF
DPVOUZ
CPBSE
TIBMM
BQQSPQSJBUF
B
TVN
FRVBM
UP

QFS DFOU
PG
UIF
BNPVOU
BHSFFE
UP
CF
QBJE
GPS
UIF
VTF

5IF
DPVOUZ
CPBSE
TIBMM
PO
UIF
PSEFS
PG
UIF
DIBJSQFSTPO
PG
UIF
DPVOUZ
CPBS E
BOE
DPVOUZ
DMFSL
DBVTF
TVDI
TVN
UP
CF
QBJE
UP
UIF
USFBTVSFS
PG
UIF
UPXO
XIFOFWFS
UIF
UPXO
CPBSE
OPUJGJFT
UIF
DPVOUZ
IJHIXBZ
DPN NJTTJPOFS
UIBU
B
DPOUSBDU
GPS
UIF
VTF
PG
UIF
SPBEXBZ
IBT
CFFO
FYFDVUFE )JTUPSZ


B

T
 /05&


8JT
"DU

XIJDI
BGGFDUFE
UIJT
TFDUJPO
DPOUBJOT
FYUFOTJWF
FY QMBOBUPSZ
OPUFT 46#$)"15&3
** #"4*$
130$&%63&4 
*OJUJBUJPO
PG
QSPDFEVSFT


"11-*$"5*0/
'03
)*()8":
$)"/(&4

4JY
PS
NPSF
SFTJEFOU
GSFFIPMEFST
NBZ
BQQMZ
UP
UIF
UPXO
CPBSE
UP
IBWF
B
IJHIXBZ
MBJE
PVU
BMUFSFE
PS
EJTDP O UJOVFE

5IF
BQQMJDBUJPO
TIBMM
CF
JO
XSJUJOH
BOE
TIBMM
CF
EFMJWFSFE
UP
UIF
UPXO
DMFSL

5IF
BQQMJDBUJPO
TIBMM
DPOUBJO
BMM
PG
UIF
GPMMPXJOH B

"
MFHBM
EFTDSJQUJPO
PG
UIF
IJHIXBZ
UP
CF
EJTDPOUJOVFE
PS
PG
UIF
QSPQPTFE
IJHIXBZ
UP
CF
MBJE
PVU
PS
BMUFSFE C

"
TDBMF
NBQ
PG
UIF
MBOE
UIBU
XPVME
CF
BGGFDUFE
CZ
UIF
BQQMJDBUJPO 
3 &40-65*0/

/PUXJUITUBOEJOH
TVC

UIF
UPXO
CPBSE
NBZ
JOJUJBUF
UIF
QSPDFTT
PG
MBZJOH
PVU
BMUFSJOH
PS
EJTDPOUJOVJOH
B
UPXO
IJHIXBZ
CZ
UIF
JOUSPEVDUJPO
PG
B
SFTPMVUJPO

5IF
SFTPMVUJPO
TIBMM
DPOUBJO
BMM
PG
UIF
GPMMPXJOH B

"
MFHBM
EFTDSJQUJPO
PG
UIF
IJHIXBZ
UP
CF
EJTDPOUJOVFE
PS
PG
UIF
QSPQPTFE
IJHIXBZ
UP
CF
MBJE
PVU
PS
BMUFSFE C

"
TDBMF
NBQ
PG
UIF
MBOE
UIBU
XPVME
CF
BGGFDUFE
CZ
UIF
SFTPMVUJPO 
/05*$&
3&26*3&.&/54

6QPO
SFDFJQU
PG
BO
BQQMJDBUJPO
VOEFS
TVC

PS
UIF
JOUSPEVDUJPO
PG
B
SFTPMVUJPO
VOEFS
TVC

UIF
CPBSE
TIBMM
QSPWJEF
OPUJDF
PG
UIF
UJNF
UIBU
BOE
UIF
QMBDF
XIFSF
JU
XJMM
NFFU
UP
DPOTJEFS
UIF
BQQMJDBUJPO
PS
SFTPMVUJPO

5IF
OPUJDF

8JTDPOTJO
4UBUVUFT
VQEBUFE
UISPVHI

8JT
"DU

BOE
UISPVHI
BMM
4VQSFNF
$PVSU
0SEFST
BOE
$POUSPMMFE
4VC TUBODFT
#PBSE
0SEFST
GJMFE
CFGPSF
BOE
JO
FGGFDU
PO
+BOVBSZ



1VCMJTIFE
BOE
DFSUJGJFE
VOEFS
T


$IBOHFT
FGGFDUJWF
BGUFS
+BOVBSZ


BSF
EFTJHOBUFE
CZ
/05&4
1VCMJTIFE
 Page 37 of 56 WHEREAS: TOWN OF SAUKVILLE RESOLUTION NO. 2024- 08 --- A RESOLUTION TO PETITION THE OZAUKEE COUNTY HIGHWAY COMMISSIONER FOR COUNTY AID PURSUANT TO WIS. STAT. § 82.08 RECITALS 1. Wis. Stat.§ 82.08(1) provides in part that "[a] town that has voted to ... repair any bridge or culvert that is on ... an existing highway maintained by the town may file a petition for county aid with the county highway commissioner. The petition shall describe the location and size of the bridge or culvert and shall contain a statement that the town has provided the funds required by [Wis. Stat. § 82.08(3).) 2. Wis. Stat. § 82.08(3) provides that the Town and County shall each pay one-half of the cost of construction. 3. The Town has voted to repair the following bridge on Cedar Sauk Road: ( Wis-DOT Bridge ID P45-0907 ) 4. The above-identified bridge is deficient and requires replacement. Reconstruction has been scheduled for 2028. 5. The Town anticipates that 80% of the total cost will be paid for by a Wisconsin Department of Transportation grant. The remaining 20% is the Town's responsibility. Therefore, this petition is for 50% of the Town's responsibility, i.e., 10% of the total cost. 6. The total anticipated project cost is [$790,500.) Therefore, the Town's total responsibility is [$158,900), and the County's responsibility under this Petition would be [$79,450.) THEREFORE, the Town Board of the Town of Saukville does hereby resolve and hereby petitions the Ozaukee County Highway Commissioner pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 82.08(1) for county aid in reconstructing the above-described bridge on Cedar Sauk Road in the Town of Saukville. Page 38 of 56 Passed and adopted this day of _,T:x __ UL_m ____ k ___ , 202_i_. Ayes: 3 r··L/ Noes:. {1 Kevin Kimmes, Town Chairperson Page 39 of 56 Item: 8.a.5. Agenda Item Information Sheet To: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE From: Jon Edgren, Public Works Director Meeting Date: February 19, 2026 Department/Office: Highway Department Item Name: Resolution: Ozaukee County Rural Area Functional Classification Updates Summary: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) Planning Section notified Ozaukee County that they update the classification of roadways every ten years following the release of decennial census data. Due to the new census data and recently updated urban area boundaries, it is necessary to review the functional classification of roadways within the rurally designated areas of Ozaukee County. WisDOT provided a map and spreadsheet (attached) that summarizes the changes that WisDOT is proposing for Ozaukee County. Additionally, they are requesting a resolution to show that the County is aware of and had input on the changes when the finalized information is submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as part of requesting the update. ANALYSIS: The three (3) proposed updates to the functional classification map are as follows: 1. STH 60 from Washington County Line to I-43 upgraded from Minor Arterial to Principal Arterial 2. CTH NN from Washington County Line to STH 60 upgraded from Major Collector to Minor Arterial 3. CTH I from Cedar Sauk Road to STH 33 upgraded from Major Collector to Minor Arterial Highway Department staff have no concerns with the updates and recommend approval as higher rated roadways tend to have more grant funding available. Recommended Action: Approve WisDOT’s Functional Classification updates and resolution, and forward to the Ozaukee County Board for approval. Attachments: 1. WisDOT Func Class Resolution 2. WisDOT Func Class Change Map - Ozaukee County 3. WisDOT Func Class Update - Oz Cty Rural - 2-12-26 Page 40 of 56 RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO THE RURAL FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM IN OZAUKEE COUNTY WHEREAS, functional classification is the method by which roads and streets are categorized based on the levels of mobility and access they provide; and WHEREAS, geographic areas not within a designated Urban Area (UA) are designated as Rural; and WHEREAS, rural areas, for the purposes of functional classification, are defined by county; and WHEREAS, functional classification of a road or street has a bearing on federal transportation funding eligibility, and WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) have developed guidance for functional classification of roads and streets; and WHEREAS, WisDOT periodically reviews and updates to the functional classification system of roads and streets throughout the state; and WHEREAS, these recommended functional classification changes were developed through joint review by County officials and WisDOT planning staff; and WHEREAS, these recommended changes have been reviewed by the Ozaukee County Public Works Committee; and WHEREAS, documents showing the recommended Functional Classification (FC) changes are attached; and WHEREAS, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation will, after local approval of the recommended FC changes, approve the changes and submit them to FHWA for final approval; and WHEREAS, the approved final FC map will be made available to the Ozaukee County Rural Area after FHWA final approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Ozaukee County Board of Supervisors hereby approves all recommended functional classifications to the Ozaukee County Rural Area. Dated at Port Washington, Wisconsin, this 4th day of March 2026. SUMMARY: Approve changes to the Rural Functional Classification System in Ozaukee County. VOTE REQUIRED: Majority PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Page 41 of 56 Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Local Urban Area Boundary City Boundary Village Boundary Rural Area Bayside Cedarburg Milwaukee Fox Point Menomonee Falls Newburg Fredonia River Hills Random Lake Port Washington Cedar Grove Mequon Saukville Germantown Belgium Brown Deer Thiensville Grafton !( 32 !( 32 !( 175 !( 181 !( 57 !( 144 !( 144 !( 33 !( 145 !( 167 !( 60 !( 33 !( 60 !( 33 !( 145 !( 100 !( 28 !( 100 !( 181 !( 60 !( 57 !( 57 ") A ") A ") LLL ") Y ") Q ") KK ") O ") O ") CC ") C ") C ") II ") T ") KW ") KW ") T ") Q ") V ") XX ") A ") K ") W ") CC ") Z ") RR ") H ") W ") NN ") F ") C ") K ") B ") DE ") I ") Y ") LL ") LL ") I ") D ") D ") D ") I ") I ") M ") M ") M ") E ") H ") W ") B §¨¦ 41 §¨¦ 43 §¨¦ 43 §¨¦ 43 §¨¦ 43 Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA Ozaukee County FHWA Approval Date: xx/xx/xx 0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles K Functional Classification - Recommended Changes Lake Michigan WisDOT Bureau of Planning and Economic Development 1. STH 60 MA->PA The information on these maps was created for the official use of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). Any other use, while not prohibited, is the sole responsibility of the user. WisDOT expressly disclaims all liability regarding fitness of use of the information for other than official WisDOT business. Washington County Milwaukee County Sheboygan County 2. CTH NN MAC->MA 3. CTH I MAC->MA Page 42 of 56 RECOMMENDED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION CHANGES WisDOT Region: South East (SE) County: Ozaukee County Population Density:High County: IH PA MA MAC MIC LOC TOTAL Starting Mileage: 14.78 25.48 13.06 68.95 52.79 240.04 415.1 No. Route Limits From To IH PA MA MAC MIC LOC Reason 1 STH 60 Washington County Line - rMA to rPA 2.86 -2.86 AADT is at PA levels (7500-15700), continuity with Washington County change 2 CTH NN Washington County Line - STH 60 rMAC to rMA 3.90 -3.90 3 CTH I Cedar Sauk Rd - STH 33 rMAC to rMA 1.95 -1.95 AADT is at MA levels (3300-5300), continuity improvement (removes dead end arterial) 4 to 5 to 6 to 7 to 8 to 9 to 10 to 11 to 12 to 13 to 14 to 15 to 16 to 17 to 18 to 19 to 20 21 to Change: 0 2.86 2.99 -5.85 0 0 0.00 End Mileage: 14.78 28.34 16.05 63.1 52.79 240.04 415.1 End %: 3.6% 6.8% 3.9% 15.2% 12.7% 57.8% desirable range 1% - 3% 2% - 8% 2% - 6% 8% - 19% 3% - 15% 62% - 74% OZAUKEE COUNTY AADT is at MA levels (5700), continuity with Washington County change Page 43 of 56 Item: 8.a.6. Agenda Item Information Sheet To: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE From: Meeting Date: February 19, 2026 Department/Office: Dept of Administration Item Name: Resolution: Urging the Governor of Wisconsin and the State Legislature to Enact a Comprehensive, Sustainable Transportation Funding Solution Summary: Purpose The Wisconsin Counties Association (WCA) has initiated a statewide effort encouraging counties to adopt a resolution urging state policymakers to establish a sustainable long-term funding solution for Wisconsin’s Transportation Fund. The purpose of this memo is to provide background and recommend that the Ozaukee County Board consider adopting the model resolution. Background On January 12, 2026, WCA launched the first phase of a coordinated, multi-step campaign focused on addressing the structural imbalance within the state’s Segregated Transportation Fund. Transportation funding to local governments—including counties—is derived primarily from user fees (e.g., fuel taxes, registration fees), which are deposited into the segregated fund and distributed through programs such as: • General Transportation Aids (GTA) • Local Road Improvement Program (LRIP) • Local Road Improvement Program – Supplemental (LRIP-S) • Agricultural Road Improvement Program (ARIP) • Bridge replacement and rehabilitation funding for 6–20 foot structures In recent biennia, expenditures from the Transportation Fund have exceeded revenue generated from transportation- related user fees. To address this gap—now exceeding $1 billion—state policymakers have transferred General Purpose Revenue (primarily income and sales tax dollars) into the Transportation Fund. While these transfers have allowed for continued investment in local transportation programs, they are dependent on the availability of state budget surpluses. Absent structural reform or a sustainable revenue model, continued funding at current levels is uncertain. Why This Matters to Ozaukee County Transportation infrastructure is foundational to: • Public safety • Economic development • Agricultural commerce • Daily mobility for residents • Preservation of long-term asset value Programs such as GTA, LRIP, ARIP, and bridge funding directly support the County’s ability to maintain roadways and structures without placing disproportionate pressure on local property taxpayers. Recent increases in these programs have been beneficial; however, those gains are vulnerable if the underlying Page 44 of 56 funding imbalance is not addressed. In short, we are currently benefiting from a funding model that relies on temporary fiscal conditions rather than structural stability. That is not a long-term strategy. The Proposed Resolution The WCA model resolution: • Does not prescribe a specific funding mechanism. • Does not advocate for a particular tax or fee increase. • Simply urges state lawmakers and future governors to adopt a sustainable solution to the Transportation Fund deficit in the next state budget. This approach maintains local neutrality regarding policy tools while clearly signaling that the issue requires action. Recommended Action: Staff respectfully requests that the committee approve the resolution. Attachments: 1. Transportation Resolution 1.12.2026 Page 45 of 56 RESOLUTION NO. URGING THE GOVERNOR OF WISCONSIN AND THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO ENACT A COMPREHENSIVE, SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING SOLUTION WHEREAS, local units of government in Wisconsin own and maintain approximately 90% of the public road miles in the state, including county highways, town roads, and city and village streets; and WHEREAS, Wisconsin’s economy—rooted in agriculture, manufacturing, and tourism— relies on a safe, reliable, and well-maintained transportation network; and WHEREAS, local governments greatly appreciate the one-time infusions of General Purpose Revenue, primarily sales and income taxes, and other revenue provided in recent state budgets, which have enabled the initiation and continuation of the successful and popular Local Roads Improvement Program Supplemental (LRIP-S) and Agricultural Roads Improvement Program (ARIP); and WHEREAS, despite modest increases from the state over the years, transportation aids to local governments remain insufficient to keep pace with inflation and rising construction costs, leaving many communities funded below 2000 levels in real dollars; and WHEREAS, local governments throughout Wisconsin continue to struggle to perform even routine maintenance, pavement preservation, and safety improvements, resulting in deteriorating roads and bridges; and WHEREAS, the inaugural inventory and assessment of small bridges between 6 to 20 feet found about 10% of the nearly 17,000 structures to be in poor or severe condition; and WHEREAS, levy limits and other fiscal constraints prevent local governments from independently filling the funding gap created by inadequate state transportation aids; and WHEREAS, absent sustainable state funding, many communities have been forced to address their shortfalls by significantly increasing borrowing, deferring essential projects, or imposing local vehicle registration (“wheel”) taxes; and WHEREAS, Wisconsin motorists currently pay among the lowest transportation user fees in the Midwest, while neighboring states and dozens of others nationwide have enacted long-term revenue measures to keep their transportation systems competitive; and WHEREAS, Wisconsin is increasingly relying on General Purpose Revenues to make needed investments, potentially pitting transportation against other vital services, such as education; and WHEREAS, continued lack of growing, dedicated, and predictable revenue places Wisconsin at a growing economic disadvantage by threatening the efficiency of freight movement, the safety of travelers, and the attractiveness of our state to businesses and residents; and Page 46 of 56 WHEREAS, both Wisconsin’s aging Interstate highway system—largely constructed in the 1950s and 1960s—and our extensive network of state and local roads require predictable, adequate, and sustainable funding to meet current and future needs; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Ozaukee County Board of Supervisors strongly urges the Governor of Wisconsin and the State Legislature to enact a comprehensive, sustainable transportation funding solution that: 1. Provides adequate and reliable revenue growth for the efficient long-term planning and execution of state and local transportation programs; 2. Includes responsible and prudent use of General Purpose Revenue and bonding; 3. Adjusts any new and existing transportation user fees and other revenue mechanisms to sustain purchasing power in order to maintain and improve Wisconsin’s transportation infrastructure; and 4. Ensures transportation continues to deliver for Wisconsin by adequately funding reconstruction, preservation, and safety investments on the state and local systems. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of this resolution to the Governor’s office, all members of the Wisconsin State Senate and Assembly representing districts within Ozaukee County, and the Wisconsin Counties Association. Dated, at Port Washington, Wisconsin this 4th day of March, 2026. SUMMARY: Urging the Governor of Wisconsin and the State Legislature to enact a comprehensive, sustainable transportation funding solution. VOTE REQUIRED: Majority PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE Page 47 of 56 Item: 8.b.1. Agenda Item Information Sheet To: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE From: Jon Edgren, Public Works Director Meeting Date: February 19, 2026 Department/Office: Highway Department Item Name: We Energies Easement at Justice Center Summary: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Hollander Chocolate Company, located at 1180 South Spring Street which is across from the Justice Center Soccer Fields, has requested a large electrical service upgrade from We Energies for an Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging system. The EV Charging system would require a significant electrical upgrade, so We Energies is reviewing potential options to bring 24.9Kv voltage to Hollander Chocolate, which currently only has access to the 8Kv electrical distribution system. Attached is their proposed route. We Energies is considering a couple alternatives, but this route seems best for electrical distribution planning, future usage, extensions, etc…, according to a We Energies representative. Therefore, We Energies is asking for input from Ozaukee County if we would consider an easement, outside the road right-of-way, on Ozaukee County property. ANALYSIS: Public Works Director Edgren doesn’t have any concerns with the potential easement as we don’t anticipate any long-term development of the soccer field area due to the proximity to the Justice Center, and the easement would be abutting the road right-of-way. Recommended Action: Attachments: 1. We Energies - Hollander Chocolate EV Route Page 48 of 56 Hollander Chocolate Justice Center Justice Center Soccer Fields Page 49 of 56 Item: 8.c.1. Agenda Item Information Sheet To: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE From: Meeting Date: February 19, 2026 Department/Office: Highway Department Item Name: Highway Financials - Feb 2026 Summary: Recommended Action: Attachments: 1. Highway Financials - Feb 2026 Page 50 of 56 Current Month Actual 2025 YTD Actual 2025 Amended Budget Budget Balance % Budget YTD Revenues Taxes: 205-1-01-41110-000 Property Tax $276,291 $3,315,491 $3,315,491 - 100.00% Total Taxes $276,291 $3,315,491 $3,315,491 - 100.00% Intergovernmental Revenues: 205-1-01-42330-000 St Aid - Transportation Aid - $1,762,870 $1,751,975 ($10,895) 100.62% Total Intergovernmental Revenues - $1,762,870 $1,751,975 ($10,895) 100.62% Other Revenue: 205-1-01-49200-000 Sale of County Property - $269,700 ($269,700) 0.00% Total Other Revenue - $269,700 - ($269,700) 0.00% Total Revenues $276,291 $5,348,061 $5,067,466 ($280,595) 105.54% Expenditures Interdepartment Charges: 205-1-01-55310-000 CTHS General Maintenance $71,312 $1,728,447 $2,221,814 $493,367 77.79% 205-1-01-55320-000 CTHS Winter Maintenance $277,346 $1,069,257 $1,145,669 $76,412 93.33% 205-1-01-55330-000 CTHS Construction $9,014 $500,981 $1,620,000 $1,119,019 30.92% 205-1-01-55340-000 CTHS Bridge Construction - $16,600 $18,983 $2,383 87.45% 205-1-01-55370-000 Surveying $602 $60,259 $61,000 $741 98.79% $358,274 $3,375,544 $5,06 7,466 $1,691,922 66.61% $358,274 $3,375,544 $5,067,466 $1,691,922 66.61% $358,274 $3,375,544 $5,067,466 $1,691 ,922 66.61% ($81,983) $1,972,517 - ($1,972,517) 0.00% Total Interdepartment Charges Total Operating Expenditures Capital Outlay Total Expenditures Net Increase (Decrease) Ozaukee County Committee Report Special Revenue Fund County Roads and Bridges For the Twelve Months Ending Wednesday, December 31, 2025 Profit and Loss Statement ACTUAL TO AMENDED BUDGET CommRpt2025 2025 Oversight Comm Recommended PnL Amended Bdgt 2/11/2026 Page 51 of 56 Current Month Actual 2025 YTD Actual 2025 Amended Budget Budget Balance % Budget YTD Revenues Intergovernmental Charges $240,237 $1,981,675 $1,926,4 57 ($55,218) 102.87% Total Revenues $240,237 $1,981,675 $1,926,457 ($55,218) 102.87% Expenditures Salaries $61,612 $614,565 $631,157 $16,592 97.37% Supplies $26,545 $305,912 $291,500 ($14,412) 104.94% Interdepartment Charges $150,448 $1,049,828 $1,003,800 ($46,028) 104.59% Other Expenses - $385 - ($385) 0.00% Total Operating Expenditures $238,605 $1,970,690 $1,92 6,457 ($44,233) 102.30% Capital Outlay Total Expenditures $238,605 $1,970,690 $1,926,457 ($44, 233) 102.30% Net Increase (Decrease) $1,632 $10,985 - ($10,985) 0.00% E q u i t y: Ozaukee County Committee Report HWY State Highway System For the Twelve Months Ending Wednesday, December 31, 2025 Profit and Loss Statement ACTUAL TO AMENDED BUDGET CommRpt2025 2025 Oversight Comm Recommended PnL Amen ded Bdgt 2/11/2026 Page 52 of 56 Current Month Actual 2025 YTD Actual 2025 Amended Budget Budget Balance % Budget YTD Revenues Intergovernmental Charges $154,521 $2,716,081 $1,640,7 65 ($1,075,316) 165.54% Total Revenues $154,521 $2,716,081 $1,640,765 ($1,075,3 16) 165.54% Expenditures Salaries $13,142 $423,713 $268,500 ($155,213) 157.81% Supplies $90,228 $1,549,422 $809,000 ($740,422) 191.52% Interdepartment Charges $35,676 $679,205 $563,265 ($115 ,940) 120.58% Other Expenses - $97 - ($97) 0.00% Total Operating Expenditures $139,046 $2,652,437 $1,64 0,765 ($1,011,672) 161.66% Capital Outlay Total Expenditures $139,046 $2,652,437 $1,640,765 ($1,0 11,672) 161.66% Net Increase (Decrease) $15,475 $63,644 - ($63,644) 0.00 % E q u i t y: Ozaukee County Committee Report HWY Local Roads Maintenance and Construction For the Twelve Months Ending Wednesday, December 31, 2025 Profit and Loss Statement ACTUAL TO AMENDED BUDGET CommRpt2025 2025 Oversight Comm Recommended PnL Amen ded Bdgt 2/11/2026 Page 53 of 56 Current Month Actual 2025 YTD Actual 2025 Amended Budget Budget Balance % Budget YTD Revenues Interdepartmental Charges $75,016 $1,727,221 $1,053,04 0 ($674,181) 164.02% Total Revenues $75,016 $1,727,221 $1,053,040 ($674,181) 164.02% Expenditures Salaries $7,984 $306,214 $166,000 ($140,214) 184.47% Supplies $58,152 $820,752 $617,000 ($203,752) 133.02% Purchased Services $86 $4,340 $5,500 $1,160 78.91% Interdepartment Charges $21,689 $624,069 $264,540 ($359 ,529) 235.91% Total Operating Expenditures $87,911 $1,755,375 $1,053 ,040 ($702,335) 166.70% Capital Outlay Total Expenditures $87,911 $1,755,375 $1,053,040 ($702, 335) 166.70% Net Increase (Decrease) ($12,895) ($28,154) - $28,154 0. 00% E q u i t y: Ozaukee County Committee Report HWY Local Departments Non Highway For the Twelve Months Ending Wednesday, December 31, 2025 Profit and Loss Statement ACTUAL TO AMENDED BUDGET CommRpt2025 2025 Oversight Comm Recommended PnL Amen ded Bdgt 2/11/2026 Page 54 of 56 Ozaukee County Highway Department 2025 Construction Report 2025 Levy Funded Highway Construction Projects Project Type Miles Levy Budgeted Actual Budget vs Actual Budgeted Tons Actual Tons Complete CTH I - Lilac Ln to STH 33 2.5" Overlay; Widen to 30' 5.10 $1,100,000.00 -$ 13,000 CTH I - Shady Ln to Hawthorne Dr 2.5" Overlay 1.00 $225,000.00 -$ 2,500 CTH I - Hawthorne Dr to River Park Rd 2.5" Overlay 1.00 $225,000.00 -$ 2,500 CTH I - CTH Z to Fredonia-Kohler Rd Reconstruction 0.20 $50,000.00 -$ 450 $1,600,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 18,450 0 2024 Levy Funded Highway Department Constructions Projects - Not Completed Project Type Miles Levy Budgeted Actual Budget vs Actual Budgeted Tons Actual Tons Complete CTH I - STH 33 to Shady Ln 2.5" Overlay 1.90 $450,000.00 $ - 4,800 CTH K - CTH KW to Termaat Rd 2.5" Overlay; Widen to 30' 0.25 $100,000.00 $ - 700 *CTH W - STH 33 to Schowalter Rd Spllit Funding (See below) 0.50 $250,000.00 $ - 3,370 $800,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 8,870 0 Split Funding Source Projects - Bid Work Project Type Total Project Cost/Contract Amt Prior Year(s) Cty Funds Budgeted 2025 Cty Funds Budgeted Prior Year(s) Expense 2025 Expense Grand Total Under (Over) Budget Complete CTH H - STH 57 to I43 Engineering & Safety Improvements $50,000.00 $55,000.00 $0.00 $35,488.19 $28,950.27 $64,438.46 CTH W - STH 33 to Schowalter Rd Engineering $160,000.00 $60,000.00 $0.00 $104,478.33 $42,403.43 $146,881.76 CTH W - STH 33 to Schowalter Rd ROW Acquisition $0.00 $11,212.00 $124,163.58 $135,375.58 *CTH W - STH 33 to Schowalter Rd Construction $2,800,000.00 $300,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 **CTH LL - CTH LL & CTH KK Intersection Concrete Reconsruction $400,000.00 $200,000.00 $9,084.60 $449,525.88 $458,610.48 ($58,610.48) X CTH KW - CTH H to Lake Drive Engineering & Pulverize/Repave $1,000,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CTH W - Traffic Signals CTH W & Falls Rd Traffic Signals $800,000.00 $160,000.00 $14,400.00 $74,349.22 $88,749.22 CTH W - CTH W (Port Rd) & CTH C (Pioneer Rd) Traffic Signals $200,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 $5,058.14 $5,058.14 Safe Streets for All Safety Assessment $9,979.00 $9,979.00 $0.00 $9,979.00 $1,498.00 $11,477.00 *All ongoing Projects $5,419,979.00 $474,979.00 $380,000.00 $184,642.12 $725,948.52 $910,590.64 *CTH W - STH 33 to Schowalter Rd Construction - $550,000 budgeted in 2024 ($250,000 tax levy + $300,000 fund balance) **CTH LL & KK Intersection - CHI-D Funding Reimbursement submitted - $215,489.15 - Payment Rec'd 2025 Budget 2025 Actual Budget vs Actual $1,600,000.00 0.00 $1,600,000.00 $380,000.00 $725,948.52 ($345,948.52) $1,980,000.00 $725,948.52 $1,254,051.48 Levy Funded County Projects Split Funding/Bid Work CHI Funding (50/50 Split) - Const 2025 CHI-D Funding (50/50 Split) Const 2027 Cost Share w/ Village of Grafton - 20% Oz Cty Signal Improvement Comprehensive Safety Action Plan Funding WISDOT HRRRP Grant (90%) - Const 2025 LRIP-S & CHI-S Funding (75%) LRIP-S & CHI-S Funding (75%) - Const 2024 Page 55 of 56 Ozaukee County Highway Department 2025 Equipment Purchases Fleet # Description Budget Prior Year(s) Cost 2025 Cost Total Cost Amount (Over) Under Budget Status 4 Chevy Tahoe - Patrol Supt 65,000.00 0.00 71,153.10 71,153.10 (6,153.10) Complete/In Service 96 Ford Versalift Sign Truck 375,000.00 0.00 0.00 348 Morooka Crawler Dump 65,586.00 0.00 64,247.14 64,247.14 1,338.86 Complete/In Service 349 Kobelco Excavator 225,000.00 0.00 210,068.75 210,068.75 14,931.25 Complete/In Service 929 Tiger Side Flail 30,000.00 0.00 40,081.41 40,081.41 (10,081.41) Complete/In Service 760,586.00 0.00 385,550.40 385,550.40 35.60 Page 56 of 56