Jump to:  Special Meeting January 25, 2007

JANUARY 17, 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.

Boy Scout Troop #324 presented the Village Board with a Scout Flag from Rochester Troop #39, which was believed to be from the 1960s.  Denman thanked the boys for the flag.  It will be given to the Rochester Historical Society, who will most likely be able to check into its background.

Stapleton moved, 2^nd by Henning to forego verbal reading of December 20, 2006 meeting minutes.  Motion carried.

Kumbier moved, 2^nd by Weidert to approve minutes of the December 20, 2006 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 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 the year started out with a car driving into a house on New Years Day.  A drug arrest also occurred on Main Street.  Marijuana and crack cocaine were found during a traffic stop.  Deputy Prochaska questioned concerns expressed at last month’s meeting regarding speeding on Academy Road.  Pattengale explained speeding traffic coming into the Village on Academy is the issue of concern, particularly when children are at the bus stops in the morning and after school.   Deputy Prochaska will request special attention for that area from day shift officers. 

He reported his focus in the past year has been on speeding throughout the Village.  He had the most success when partnering with another officer.  He would like to continue this focus, utilizing an unmarked squad car and additional staff as possible.  Deputy Prochaska indicated all Board members should have received copies of the police report generated by complaint of a dog bite last month.  The German Shepherd at 207 E. Main Street bit a girl who was walking on the sidewalk in front of the house, causing puncture wounds to her leg.   Deputy Prochaska considers this dog a nuisance dog.   A previous report was generated in August when the dog attacked another dog who was being walked by its owner on the sidewalk past the house.  Deputy Prochaska also reported observation of other residents often crossing the street to avoid walking on the sidewalk in front of this house because of the dog. 

Lee Greivell, Building Inspector, reported being threatened with the dog by the owner when attempting to perform a recent inspection on the property.

Consensus of the Board was to send a letter to the dog’s owner, with a copy of the Village’s animal ordinances, stating the Board’s intention to exercise its right to demand the dog euthanized or removed from the municipality should any further incidents occur.  It was also noted that the dog is often on the sidewalk without a leash or under the supervision of its owner.

Tamblyn reported several instances of snowmobiles being on the bike trail.  He is to report this to the Sheriff’s Department when it is happening. 

Deputy Prochaska reiterated his intention to focus on speeding this year and requested that Board members notify him of any problem areas, times or specific vehicles.

Maintenance.   Brian Krueger reported no problems with snow removal or equipment.  Novy reported there are weight and/or speed limit signs on electric poles that are being removed for the N. Rochester Street bridge project.   The signs need to be removed and reposted, either on poles that are not being removed or on independent posts.  This is to be done within a month.  Tamblyn requested that Brian call him when he has time to install the new street name signs.

Engineering.  John Tierney reported the following activities:

Information on WRCSD’s force main project review was delayed for discussion under “Light Relocation Plan for N. Rochester Street bridge project-sidewalk extension plans”, which was listed further on the agenda.

Building Inspection (Lee Greivell).    Lee’s written report was reviewed as follows:  one plumbing permit at 505 Maryl; one electrical permit at 29501 Washington Ave; and one re-inspect permit for 393 Oak Hill Circle (final).  A new construction permit was issued for Prohealth Care at 231 S Millgate Drive.  They are expecting to break ground the week of January 22^nd.   There was discussion on modifying building permit forms to specify time limits for completion of different projects.  Lee will write this in the “Conditions” section on permit forms, but wanted to note that if writing the condition is missed, the individual is still responsible for compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances.

Rochester Commons Park Sign and Landscaping Project:  Korey Kumbier

Korey Kumbier addressed the Board.  Estimated material costs for the park sign project are in the $350- $400 range.  The sign will be constructed of cedar planks and posts.  Korey questioned how landscaping around the sign should be handled.  Direction was given to follow up with Garrett Maas, a landscape architect who is working on an overall park plan.  Tamblyn noted sign location and landscaping should fit in with the overall plan, including future placement of an additional parking area and pavilion.  Weidert moved, 2^nd by Tamblyn to approve purchase of construction and landscape materials for the sign project, with the Village to provide direction on location and plantings.  Motion carried.  Novy is to follow up with a letter to Korey confirming these arrangements.

Resolution #1-2007 “Resolution as to Cooperative Boundary Agreement”

(with Town of Rochester and Village of Waterford)

Kumbier moved, 2^nd by Pattengale to approve Resolution #1-2007 authorizing participation in a Cooperative Boundary Agreement with the Town of Rochester and Village of Waterford.  Motion carried.

Second Reading:  Ordinance #9-2006 “Amending Building and Zoning Code sections regarding Plan Commission review of Building Permit applications”

Stapleton moved, 2^nd by Kumbier to adopt Ordinance #9-2006.  Motion carried.

Light Relocation Plan for N. Rochester Street bridge project- sidewalk extension plans

Novy presented the following work orders for street light- electric pole relocation and installation as follows:

Weidert moved, 2^nd by Henning to approve agreements listed under “Work to be completed before project” for a total of $1,629.27 and for a 200-watt street light to be installed on the new pole to be installed to the north of the lift station.   Motion carried.  Lighting is to be analyzed after these lights are installed to determine if additional lighting will be needed after the project.

Sidewalk Extension.  Tierney reported on a site assessment to accommodate sidewalk extension from the bridge to Spring Street.  The sidewalk can be extended in line with the existing sidewalk on the southeast side of Spring and Rochester Street.  A culvert will be needed at some point where the sidewalk tapers closer to the street in order to meet up with the sidewalk on the bridge.  There are two rows of pine trees planted in the road right of way where the sidewalk will be extended.  The row closest to the street will have to be removed in order to accommodate sidewalk extension.  Denman indicated the Village should offer the property owner replacement trees to be planted in another area.

Tamblyn reported his understanding that WE Energies is replacing the two poles north of Spring Street with taller ones.  If so, the poles should be moved to the far side of the right of way.  Novy will find out what is in the plans and give that direction if this proves true.

Tierney reported on review of WRCSD’s force main project.  Their plans show the force main being upgraded to a 20” pipe up to a point in line with where the new sidewalk would be installed.  Tierney suggested a formal request that WRCSD upgrade their pipe to the point of intersection with Spring Street.  That way the new sidewalk would not need to be ripped up again when they upgrade the rest of the pipe.  Consensus of the Board was to make that request. 

Federal Funding.  Novy reported the request for increased federal funding is still under review. 

Tree and Boulder Removal for N. Rochester Street Bridge Project

Tamblyn reported on communication with Hank Winski on conditions that were established in exchange for the Temporary Limited Easement that he signed off on to accommodate the bridge project.  He requested that a willow tree and some boulders be removed.  He would also like a split rail fence dismantled so that he can create a turn around area for his driveway.  Tamblyn is to get estimates on this in time for the February meeting.

Parking Accommodations for Loyalty Day Parade, April 28, 2007

Novy reported on communication with Commander Frank Konieska regarding use of the library grounds for parking during the Loyalty Day event.  Tamblyn will contact him in order to coordinate parking. 

Correspondence was read from Racine County Public Works granting permission to close CTH FF; CHT W and CTH D for the April 28^th Loyalty Day parade.

Committee reports:   Street:  Tamblyn reported on their December 8^th meeting regarding lighting for the N. Rochester Street Bridge;  Consolidation:  A meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 25^th at 7:00 p.m. with George Hall of the Department of Administration;  Parks and Beautification:  Mary Stapleton is to talk to Garrett Maas regarding a park plan that incorporates signage, an expanded parking lot and pavilion.  Finance:  Weidert read the cash sheet.  Kumbier moved, 2^nd by Pattengale to approve.  Motion carried.

Denman reported on his and Kumbiers’ attendance at a recent School Board meeting regarding the cost of special education services.  Some other school districts experienced even higher tax increases than the Village.  Provision of these services is mandated and federal cost reimbursements have not been adequate to cover some costs as promised.  There was talk at the meeting of another attempt at consolidating a K-12 School District, which would allow some cost savings on the administrative end.  A meeting was scheduled for January 31st to further discuss the issue.

Henning moved, 2^nd by Weidert to adjourn at 9:04 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:

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.

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, Clerk-Treasurer