Links: 

FEBRUARY 7, 2007                     SPECIAL BOARD MEETING                                   7:00 p.m.

Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with Board members Mark Tamblyn; Bill Weidert; Dean Stapleton; James Henning; Russ Kumbier; Dave Pattengale; and Chris Denman present.  

Betty Novy, Clerk-Treasurer, was also present.

Discussion on Boundary Agreement-Consolidation Options

Denman began by stating the options for consolidating the Town and Village of Rochester that were presented by George Hall at the January 25^th Joint Board meeting.  Options were stated as follows:  1)  to continue with Wis. Stats. 66.0230 and pursuit of boundary agreements with all municipal neighbors; or 2) to pursue consolidation utilizing Wis. Stats. 66.0307, a boundary agreement between the Town and Village of Rochester.

Some benefits to utilizing Wis. Stats. 66.0307 were identified as follows:

• Rochester sets its own timeline.

• Rochester will not have to pay legal costs to negotiate agreements with surrounding municipalities.

• Effort and costs will be reduced as boundaries and mutual concerns only need be addressed with neighbors that object to consolidation.

• Rochester is not dependent on other municipalities to participate and reach agreement in order to achieve its goal of consolidation.

• Adequate time will be given to define and resolve joint issues, such as finances, ordinances, services, fees, contracts and zoning, over a minimum ten-year period.

• George Hall agreed to act as an “intermediary” in order to resolve issues that may arise with neighboring municipalities.

Some drawbacks were also identified:

• Consolidation cannot be finalized any sooner than 10 years.

• Switching gears and withdrawing the legal funding offer extended to neighboring municipalities may leave a negative impression with municipalities who have already agreed to discuss boundary agreements.

• The Department of Administration still needs to approve the Rochester agreement.  

The status of agreements with abutting municipalities was also reviewed.  The question arose as to how much pursuing multiple agreements could ultimately cost.  It was noted there are no guarantees that other municipalities would see the agreements through to conclusion. 

Disappointment was expressed that the Town and Village of Rochester were not made aware of their ability to use an exclusive boundary agreement to achieve consolidation earlier.  It was also noted the ten year time frame was not as attractive as a potentially shorter time frame under the current process.  However, if this route is chosen, the responsibility now falls to those municipalities who wish to annex Town of Rochester parcels to justify their reasoning.  Decisions will be based on which municipality is best able to serve an area instead of agreeing to any terms just to meet the consolidation statute requirements.

Denman noted a five year annexation requirement in which the Village would have to compensate the Town for the Town’s portion of the tax bill of transferred properties may apply to this agreement.  This will have to be part of financial considerations.  He also noted another concern that this process does not require a referendum election.  However, it was noted that the referendum held on this topic in April of 2005 passed by an overwhelming majority in both municipalities.

Kumbier moved, 2^nd by Weidert to pursue consolidation utilizing 66.0307, the cooperative boundary agreement statute.  Motion carried.

Stapleton moved, 2^nd by Tamblyn to adjourn at 7:46 p.m.  Motion carried.

Respectfully submitted,

Betty J. Novy, CMC

Clerk-Treasurer

February 7, 2007                             SPECIAL JOINT TOWN AND VILLAGE                         7:54 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.

Betty Novy, Clerk-Treasurer, Sandra Swan, Deputy Clerk-Treasurer, and Atty. John Hotvedt were also present.

Discussion on Boundary Agreement Options for Consolidation

Beck reported on the Town Board’s independent action to pursue consolidation utilizing Wis. Stats. 66.0307. He stated their primary reason for choosing this option is George Hall’s statement that the Department of Administration could attempt to mediate any disputes with neighboring municipalities if this process was taken. 

Denman reported that the Village Board also took independent action to pursue consolidation utilizing Wis. Stats. 66.0307.  He stated their primary reason also being that the State will offer some help with this effort.

Weinkauf stated another benefit.  The boundary agreement option between the Town and Village will allow a ten year period to phase into consolidation.  This will allow those who oppose the concept to stay in the Town longer and see the advantages and/or disadvantages.  The other plus is that Rochester does not have to incur the legal expenses that would be required if boundary agreements with all neighboring municipalities had to be achieved.  

Beere stated he did not feel the Town and Village were losing anything by settling for a ten year time frame.  There are no guarantees that agreements with neighboring municipalities would not take that long.  Changes in the makeup of municipal boards may cause delays or even stop the process.  In the mean time, Rochester is able to secure its borders under this proposal and address development according to its own priorities. 

Weidert expressed his interest in the history behind how other municipalities have used this process.  John Hotvedt stated his understanding that the boundary agreement process has only been used once to achieve consolidation and that particular agreement was just finalized in 2006.  It was assumed this is why the Department of Administration did not recognize it as a viable option for Rochester until now.

Denman indicated the ten year time frame will allow adequate time for the Rochester community to work out the issues of consolidation.

Hotvedt was directed to draft resolutions for the February meetings of Town and Village Boards to indicate their willingness to participate in the cooperative boundary agreement process with each other.

It was stated that Town and Village Boards have worked well together and that the contract between the two entities to achieve consolidation should be easier than the consolidation petition previously created for the same purpose.

Weinkauf stated his understanding that Racine County received additional funding with their Smart Growth grant that was allocated to help Rochester with this process.  He will check with Julie Anderson for the details.

Dave Richmond and Rebecca Ewald of the Village of Waterford were present in the audience.  Dave stated their recognition of reasons Rochester is choosing this option.  Dave and Rebecca’s indication was that they look forward to future communications between Waterford and Rochester as the process unfolds.  Dave and Rebecca were thanked for attending the meeting.

Beck moved, 2^nd by Henning to adjourn at 8:13 p.m.  Motion carried.

Respectfully submitted,

Betty J. Novy, CMC

Clerk-Treasurer

FEBRUARY 21, 2007                     REGULAR BOARD MEETING                                   7:30 p.m.

Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. with Board members Mark Tamblyn; Bill Weidert; Dean Stapleton; James Henning; Russ Kumbier; Dave Pattengale; and Chris Denman present.  

Betty Novy, Clerk-Treasurer, was also present.

Pledge of Allegiance.

Stapleton moved, 2^nd by Henning to forego verbal reading of January 17 & 25, 2007 meeting minutes.  Motion carried.

Kumbier moved, 2^nd by Weidert to approve minutes of the January 17 & 25, 2007 meetings as printed.  Motion carried.

Period for Public Comment:   There was none.

Department Reports:

Sheriff’s Department report.  A written report was submitted showing the following statistics for January:  five accidents; twelve speeding citations, eight traffic citations, eleven parking citations and fifteen warnings were issued.  Complaint statistics were as  follows:  twenty-five complaints originated through calls directly to the Sheriff’s Department; Deputy Prochaska assisted with six additional complaints, originated twenty-five on his own, and performed follow up on six.  He reported twenty work days, 177.7 hours and 1,805 miles driven.  Two foot patrols were conducted. 

Deputy Prochaska reported on total hours worked under the 2006 contract.  Further analysis showed an additional 13 hours were worked over required contract hours for 2006.  There will be no hours carried over to 2007.  Deputy Prochaska also reported on requested staging areas for the Loyalty Day Parade.  There were questions as to the parade time and what parking restrictions will be necessary in advance.  Consensus of the Board was to schedule a street committee meeting with parade organizers to discuss the parade route and necessary accommodations.

Maintenance.   Brian Krueger reported no concerns.  Denman directed Brian to check the drainage outlet area serving the Weber Subdivision for obstructions before the Spring thaw.  There was also discussion on possible installation of gutter guards on the Library and Municipal Buildings.  Brian will check into this.  Brian was also directed to remove the “Deaf Child” signs from Weber Estates Subdivision.  The family of that child has moved from the area. 

Engineering.  John Tierney reported the following activities:

John reported that the inquiry by Rawson Construction on “The Settlement” means they are most likely going to pursue Phase II of the development soon.  No permits will be issued for that phase until infrastructure is completed.  It was also noted the work crew for the WRCSD force main project did not have traffic flaggers present on site that day.  John will inform the contractor that this is necessary.  John also inquired whether the Board wanted some preliminary figures on extending the sidewalk from Spring Street to meet with the sidewalk that will be installed with the bridge.  This item was referred to the Street Committee for consideration.

Building Inspection (Lee Greivell).    Lee’s written report was reviewed as follows:  one interior remodeling permit at 403 Oak Hill Circle; one re-inspect permit for 381-383 Oak Hill Circle; one HVAC permit for 200 S. Rochester Street; and one re-inspect permit for 401 Oak Hill Circle.    

Lee reported on a minor site plan revision requested by ProHealth Care, 231 S. Millgate Drive.  They wish to change the area of the parking lot that will be paved for Phase 1.  The pavement change falls within the original parking areas submitted for Phase 1 and 2 and maintains the same number of parking lots.  Stapleton moved, 2^nd by Henning to approve the modification to the paved surface of the parking lot for Phase 1.  Motion carried.

Animal Complaint:  Anthony & Pamela Hegemann

A letter submitted by the Hegemanns’ was reviewed.  Their daughter was bitten by a German Shepherd residing at 207 E. Main Street.  Their previous neighbor, Terrance Schooley, was also bit twice by this dog and is submitting a sworn statement for the Hegemann’s court hearing.  The Hegemanns’ requested that the Village take action against the dog before another person is bitten or injured.  Weidert moved, 2^nd by Kumbier to direct the Village Prosecutor and Sheriff’s Department to take all actions allowable under local ordinance and State Statutes to get rid of the German Shepherd residing at 207 E. Main Street and abate this nuisance.  Motion carried.

Resolution #2-2007 “Resolution as to Cooperative Boundary Agreement”

(with Town of Rochester)

Board members discussed the boundary agreement procedure recommended by the Department of Administration to achieve consolidation of the Village with the Town of Rochester.  Bill Weidert indicated the only drawback he identified in this process was the ten year minimum term of the agreement.  A suggestion was made that a representative from each municipality serve in an advisory role on the other’s Plan Commission to keep communication flowing between Town and Village during the term of the agreement.  These items will be worked out as the agreement is negotiated. Stapleton moved, 2nd by Tamblyn to adopt Resolution #2-2007 to enter into a cooperative boundary agreement with the Town of Rochester.  Motion carried.

Resolution #3-2007 “A Resolution to submit a referendum question to the electorate at the Spring 2007 General Election regarding Mute Swans”

Denman explained several issues surrounding the DNR’s planned killing of mute swans in the area.  The Village and Town of Waterford; the Town of Rochester; and the Town of Norway have passed similar resolutions.  Stapleton moved, 2^nd by Tamblyn to adopt Resolution #3-2007.  Motion carried.

Resolution #4-2007 “A Resolution authorizing the Village Clerk to submit Applications and Reports for Department of Natural Resources Recycling Grants”

Kumbier moved, 2^nd by Pattengale to approve Resolution #4-2007.  Motion carried.

Request for carrier delivery service out of the Rochester Post Office

Novy reported a number of inquiries as to carrier service out of the Rochester Post Office lately.  The last time the Town and Village of Rochester requested carrier service was in 1999.  It was turned down at the time, but postal officials notified the Village that they were able to petition again after a number of years had gone by.  The Town Board approved sending a request on their behalf at their February 12^th meeting.  Weidert moved, 2nd by Pattengale to send a request on behalf of the Village.  Motion carried.

Set Board of Review Date:  May 29 – May 31

Consensus of the Board was to schedule the first session of Board of Review for Tuesday, May 29^th from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Spring Newsletter presented for review or correction

Pattengale moved, 2^nd by Kumbier to approve the Spring newsletter as presented.  Motion carried.

Correspondence was read from Robin Vos thanking the Board for inviting him to attend their January 25^th meeting; State of Wisconsin Groundwater Advisory Committee regarding groundwater management areas; and Ronald Chimka stating concerns over rising taxes.

Committee Reports:  Street:  A meeting was set for Tuesday, March 6, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. to discuss the Loyalty Day parade route and sidewalk extension on N. Rochester Street.  Consolidation:  Atty. Hotvedt should be consulted as to the next steps for the Town and Village boundary agreement.  Parks and Beautification:  A meeting was set for Wednesday, March 28, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. to work on a park plan and receive an update from Corey Kumbier on the sign project.  Finance:  Weidert read the report.    Tamblyn moved, 2^nd by Pattengale to approve.  Motion carried.  Racine County Comprehensive Plan Multi-Jurisdictional Advisory Committee:  Pattengale reported that the third chapter of the County Land Use Plan has been approved.

Tamblyn moved, 2^nd by Kumbier to adjourn at 9:26 p.m.  Motion carried.

Respectfully submitted,

Betty J. Novy, CMC

Clerk-Treasurer