Meetings for January 8, 2007 and January 25, 2007

JANUARY 8, 2007                            REGULAR BOARD MEETING                                        7:00 p.m.

Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with Gary Beck, Paul Beere and Mike Weinkauf present.

Betty Novy, Clerk-Treasurer; Christopher Birkett, Public Works Supervisor; and John Tierney, Engineer, were also present.

Pledge of Allegiance. 

Mike moved, 2^nd by Paul to approve minutes of the December 5 & 13, 2006 meetings as printed.  Motion carried.

Gary moved, 2^nd by Mike to approve January disbursements as follows.   Motion carried.

Town General Fund Disbursements:

JANUARY 8, 2007                            REGULAR BOARD MEETING                                        7:00 p.m.

Rochester Sewer Utility District #1 Disbursements:

JANUARY 8, 2007                            REGULAR BOARD MEETING                                        7:00 p.m.

Treasurer’s Report.   Betty read the report as follows: 

Betty reported 2.2 million dollars in property tax collections through December 31^st, with a total of 1.9 million being paid out to the different tax districts with this month’s payables.

Sheriff’s Department.  A written report was submitted showing the following statistics for December:  three accidents; seventeen speeding citations, eleven traffic citations, eight parking citations and seventeen warnings were issued.  Complaint statistics were as follows:  thirty-one complaints originated through calls directly to the Sheriff’s Department; Deputy Prochaska assisted with ten additional complaints, originated twenty-two on his own, and performed follow up on one.  He reported sixteen work days, 131.5 hours and 1,514 miles driven.  Seven foot patrols were conducted. 

Deputy Prochaska reported on communication with Chris Birkett and Pat Nolan regarding problem areas during the last snow storm.  The issues were resolved.  Most accidents occurred the day after the snow because of ice.  Deputy Prochaska distributed a map showing traffic accident data to the Boards.   There were two fatal accidents in 2006.  This is down from five in 2005.  Intersections along STH 36 are where most accidents occur.  However, there are quite a few occurring along CTH D, mainly in the curves.    Speed and impairment are the top causes.   There was an accident on January 1^st where an individual drove his car into a house.  Impairment and a medical condition were the causes.  There is also a gentleman currently boycotting Burger King.  He is displaying a sign in public right of way areas near the restaurant.  Deputy Prochaska is working with the establishment to make sure he stays within certain boundaries with his display.

Mike questioned whether Racine County Public Works has been notified of the number of accidents occurring on CTH D.  Sergeant Kacmarcik stated they are not routinely notified.  Consensus of the Board was to send a copy of the map showing traffic statistics for CTH D and other roads in the Town to Racine County Public Works.  Concerns regarding the condition of CTH D should be expressed.  An update on future plans for CTH D resurfacing should also be requested.

Public Works Department.   Christopher Birkett’s written report was reviewed as follows:   

JANUARY 8, 2007                            REGULAR BOARD MEETING                                        7:00 p.m.

Engineering Report.  John Tierney read his project report as follows:

A proposal from Payne and Dolan was reviewed showing costs of material and labor to install used guardrail at the base of the existing guardrail posts at the N. River Road/ Eagle Creek crossing in order to retain the gravel shoulder.  Costs were $950.00 to supply the used guardrail; or $1,800.00 to supply and install the used guardrail.    Chris Birkett indicated he would be willing to install the guardrail and feels this would save the Town some money.  Paul moved, 2^nd by Mike to purchase the guardrail from Payne and Dolan and to have Chris Birkett perform the installation.  Motion carried.

Gary questioned whether any communication had been received from Village of Waterford concerning possible extension of Evergreen Drive.  John indicated this had not occurred yet, but Waterford will be contacted when Evergreen Drive is scheduled for resurfacing. 

John also reported on response from Lynch Truck Center in regards to metering their water use.  He is working with the building inspector to create uniform meter specifications.

Application for Kennel License:  John Barnes, 32257 Academy Road (Renewal)

Deputy Prochaska reported on inspection of the premises and had no concerns.  Additionally, there have been no complaints.  Mike moved, 2^nd by Gary to approve the Kennel License for John Barnes at 32257 Academy Road.  Motion carried.

Pavement Core Proposals:  2007 Road Improvement Project

Three pavement core proposals were reviewed:  GeoTest Construction Materials Testing for $1,082;  Professional Service Industries for $1,520; and Giles Engineering for $2,995.  John Tierney reported all vendors are qualified to do the work.  Gary moved, 2^nd by Paul to approve the proposal submitted by GeoTest Construction Materials Testing.  Motion carried.

Mike moved, 2^nd by Paul to approve an engineering services agreement with Baxter-Woodman Engineering for 2007 Town Road Improvements to supply design and construction related services.  Motion carried.

Request for Reduction of Letter of Credit:  Rookery Landing Estates

John Tierney presented his recommendation on Letter of Credit reductions showing an estimated $151,040 in remaining work to cover installation of final road surfaces, additional shouldering, installation of two street lights and 20% of initial erosion control costs.  Mike expressed concern on whether the tile system is working properly and noted there were some areas with standing

JANUARY 8, 2007                            REGULAR BOARD MEETING                                        7:00 p.m.

water in the development.  John reported a drain tile was broken by one of the utility companies in an area of the development.  He believes the developer has taken measures to repair it.  Mike indicated he would like to retain a percentage of the letter of credit for the storm sewer system.  He would like assurances that the system is working as intended.  He would also like to know if any additional plans have been made for ponds in the development.

Gary moved, 2^nd by Paul to table the request for a Reduction in the Letter of Credit for Rookery Landing Estates until the February meeting.  Motion carried.  The developer is to be invited to the meeting to address concerns. 

Discussion on Land Use Plan approval by Plan Commission

Mike stated concern over the confusion that took place when the Town Attorney counseled the Board that the Plan Commission has control over the Master Plan.  Atty. Hotvedt researched master plan statutes and indicated it is the Plan Commission’s responsibility to approve any changes to the Plan.  Mike’s conversations with Carol Nowicki and Rick Stadelman, Wisconsin Town’s Association, indicated the Plan is advisory.  State Statutes do not give all the control to appointed individuals.  Mike’s understanding, based on his conversation with Rick Stadelmen, is that the Town Board has the ability to accept, reject or amend the plan by resolution. 

Paul and Gary concurred they would need to see a written legal opinion from the Town’s Association before taking any action in that direction.   

Mike stated he did not feel the recommendation of the Land Use Plan Committee was made clear at the Plan Commission meeting.  The 50% open space requirement states the land has to be contiguous.  This is a substantial amount of area.  He perceives the 50% requirement as mandated cluster subdivision design.  When he and Paul were elected, the main focus of their campaign was against mandated cluster subdivision design.  He believes the majority of residents voted for them because they too were against mandating this design.  Mike feels the open space requirement gives any developer a reason to discount the purchase amount because 50% of the land can’t be used.  He does not feel this is a good way to develop the Town and feels that there will be pressure to lift deeded open space restrictions in the future.

Mike read his recommendations on open space made at the August 2005 meeting of the Land Use Plan:

•  The Rochester Land Use Plan, for its non-sewered area, is a three-acre density with 50% open space.

• The plan specifies that any development should work with the Plan Commission to place residential building envelopes so that 50% of the parcel remains in open space.

• Open space will be defined as an area where no additional houses can be built.  The area can contain agricultural buildings or historical sites but for the most part remains in open space.  This area must be designated on the CSM or subdivision plat.

• Lot sizes may vary as long as density and open space requirements are met.  This allows flexibility to adjust to the geographical features of each different parcel.

• This open space will not be developed again unless all parties agree and it is necessary and important.  All parties include, present owners of the original parcel, the Rochester Planning Commission and the Town Board.

• The open space can be owned by one individual or by many through an association.

• Effort will be made to make the open space contiguous and lot sizes will be proportional in depth and width.

• The Rochester Town Board, with recommendation of the Plan Commission, retains the right to restrict any parcel to a five-acre average density with 50% open space.  This will pertain to highly sensitive environmental areas or parcels where the developers will not cooperate with the recommendations of the Land Division Ordinance or Planning Commission. 

Mike indicated the Land Use Plan Committee took and changed this recommendation, he feels to the detriment of taxpayers.  People that paid the taxes on the land are getting the short end of the stick.  Mike is in favor of open space but not to point of mandated cluster design. 

JANUARY 8, 2007                            REGULAR BOARD MEETING                                        7:00 p.m.

Gary indicated before the Board goes against the wishes of the Plan Commission, they need to make sure this is within their power and that it is something they can do.  Commissioners worked hard on the Plan and he does not wish to step where it is inappropriate to do so.

Paul indicated his concern is regarding the voter’s wishes.  He feels the decision on Plan amendments should lie with elected individuals- vs. appointed.  That way the people have the opportunity to vote Board members out when they disagree with their actions.

Consensus of the Board was to send a letter to the Town’s Association inviting a representative to a meeting to discuss this issue.  The Town Attorney should be part of this process so that he has the opportunity for communication before the meeting.  Plan Commissioners should also be advised of the date and time when this discussion will take place.

Period for Public Comment.  Kathy North addressed the Board stating confusion over final approval of changes to the Land Use Plan.  She did not know the Plan Commission had the final say and was upset that she did not have the opportunity to be at that meeting.  Theresa Bates addressed the Board.  She thought more discussion was needed and questioned whether Board members are diverse enough to reflect the general population.  She feels the Plan Commission should represent a broader spectrum.  She too never got the impression that the Land Use Plan update process would only require Plan Commission approval.  She thought it would continue for Board approval.   Paul Beere stated this is a matter of implementation- deciding who should have green space.  Will it be 1.5 acre lots and open land set aside, or 3 acre lots with green space on every lot?

Mike moved, 2^nd by Paul to adjourn at 8:16 p.m.  Motion carried.

Respectfully submitted,

Betty J. Novy, CMC

Clerk-Treasurer

January 25, 2007                   SPECIAL JOINT TOWN AND VILLAGE                                 7:00 p.m.

BOARD MEETING

Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with Gary Beck, Mike Weinkauf and Paul Beere present from the Town Board; and Chris Denman, Jim Henning, Russ Kumbier, Dean Stapleton, Bill Weidert, Dave Pattengale and Mark Tamblyn present from the Village Board.

State Representative Robin Vos, George Hall from the State Department of Administration, Betty Novy, Clerk-Treasurer, and Atty. John Hotvedt were also present.

Discussion on Boundary Agreement Options for Consolidation: George Hall, State Department of Administration

George Hall began with an explanation of how the City of Madison, City of Fitchburg and Town of Madison agreed, using cooperative boundary statutes, to consolidate the Town of Madison with those two cities over the coming decades.  The statues were also used to consolidate the City of Madison and the Town of Blooming Grove over a period of 21 years. 

George distributed a handout titled “Comparison of Alternative Routes to Consolidation”.  In the handout, three statutory options were outlined:  Section 66.0229; Section 66.0230; and Section 66.0307 (cooperative boundary agreement).  A table displayed information on each option as follows:

January 25, 2007                   SPECIAL JOINT TOWN AND VILLAGE                                 7:00 p.m.

BOARD MEETING

1.                   2003 Act 93, that created s. 66.0230 Wis. Stats., also clarified that towns consolidating with towns using s. 66.0229 are able to do so following passage of local ordinances subsequently ratified through referenda held separately in each town.  Although unstated in s. 66.0229, Wis. Stats., a close reading suggests that a city or village may consolidate with a neighboring city or village merely by following statutory procedures, without submitting to state review.

2.                   Parties interested in participating in the consolidation process must seek standing from the circuit court and be admitted to the case.

3.                   ‘Bordering’ another municipality includes municipalities that intersect only at one point.

January 25, 2007                   SPECIAL JOINT TOWN AND VILLAGE                                 7:00 p.m.

BOARD MEETING

George reviewed the criteria that must be met for each option.  He considers consolidation under s.  66.0229 the most difficult because both municipalities must be urban in character.   There must also be defendable proof that statutory requirements of incorporation, applied under this section, have been met.  This proof must be able to stand up to the scrutiny of the courts.  

Consolidation under s. 66.0230 is also difficult.  This is because boundary agreements must be created with each bordering municipality, including those that intersect at only one point.  This can be a costly, complicated process that leaves any municipalities wishing to consolidate at the mercy of their neighbors in order to meet the statutory requirement. 

George stated consolidation under s. 66.0307, the Cooperative Boundary Agreement statute, appears to be the least complicated way to achieve both Town and Village of Rochester objectives of consolidating into one village.  The drawback is that consolidation cannot be completed until at least ten years have passed.  Statutory requirements specify the agreement will be in force a minimum of ten years.  Terms of the agreement must be progressive so that all conditions are not met earlier than the ten year period.  There must be a reason for the agreement to last ten years.

A concern raised in other instances where the Cooperative Boundary Agreement statute was used to consolidate two municipalities was keeping the Town fiscally solvent over the time period where jurisdictional transfers were taking place.   It is important to note that joint revenue sharing and joint TIF districts are feasible to include in the agreement, both between the Town and Village of Rochester and any other parties to the agreement.

Boundary agreements are self-extinguishing and terminate once all conditions specified in the agreement are met.  A question rose as to what the typical term is for a boundary agreement.  George reported terms ranging from 10 years into perpetuity. 

Boundaries established via the agreement must be logical and compatible with land uses across the boundary lines.  Straight lines are not the desirable way to define boundaries.  Physical characteristics, municipal service areas and transportation routes are to be considered.   If another community objects to the agreement because they can provide better services to an area, the Department of Administration still has the option to approve the agreement- or to send it back for changes.  The objecting municipality must state their reasoning as to why a specific area should be attached to their municipality.   Municipalities are encouraged to send drafts of the agreement to the DOA as they work through the process.   The DOA will work with all involved parties until an acceptable conclusion is reached. 

Jurisdictional transfers can be accomplished by option of the residents.  There can be “triggers” written into the agreement that specify what conditions must be met for a parcel to be attached to another municipality.  Some examples given were: when the property is developed; when the current owner sells; when a transfer of ownership occurs to someone who is not a family member, etc.  Attachments can be non-contiguous as long as the territory is seamless at some point. 

If the cooperative boundary agreement process is used, all abutting municipalities are notified of what is being proposed and have an opportunity to provide input at the public hearing.   The public hearing requires a Class III Notice.  Each abutting municipality should be mailed notice of the hearing along with a copy of the proposed agreement.  Opponents have an opportunity to provide comments for an additional 20-day period after the hearing.  Any comments become part of the record that is sent to the Department of Administration for review and consideration.   The municipalities that are parties to the agreement have to wait 60 days after the hearing to approve the agreement.  The 60 days are to be used for amending the agreement as necessary after public comments are received.

George was thanked for his presentation.   Board members agreed to take the information into consideration.

Paul moved, 2^nd by Mike to adjourn at 8:45 p.m.  Motion carried.

Respectfully submitted,

Betty J. Novy, CMC

Clerk-Treasurer