Jump to:  March 27 2007 Meeting

MARCH 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, and John Tierney, Engineer, were also present.

Pledge of Allegiance.

Kumbier moved, 2^nd by Henning to forego verbal reading of February 7 & 21, 2007 meeting minutes.  Motion carried.

Stapleton moved, 2^nd by Henning to approve minutes of the February 7 & 21, 2007 meetings as printed.  Motion carried.

Period for Public Comment:   Kathy Thrasher, 505 Maryl Street, addressed the Board regarding flooding in the Maryl Street cul-de-sac area next to her house.  She reported water in her basement since June of last year.  She now requires six pumps running 24 hours a day in order to keep her basement dry.  She feels the value of her house has significantly dropped due to the water problem.  Mark Tamblyn reported on inspection of the drain tile outlet that serves the Weber Estates subdivision.  He indicated water is flowing, but may be restricted due to increased surface waters with the Spring thaw.  Several approaches were discussed, including contacting the property owner whose land the drain tile runs through to see if tile has been damaged.  It was noted that a fence and trail had been constructed which may have damaged the tile.  Another possibility was making the swale running alongside the Thrasher property deeper.  John Tierney was directed to take a look at the situation and make a recommendation as to possible solutions. 

Department Reports:

Sheriff’s Department report.   A written report was submitted showing the following statistics for February:  one accident; eight speeding citations, eight traffic citations, ten parking citations and twenty-one warnings were issued.  Complaint statistics were as follows:  twenty-two complaints originated through calls directly to the Sheriff’s Department; Deputy Prochaska assisted with ten additional complaints, originated seventeen on his own, and performed follow up on eight.  He reported sixteen work days, 141.25 hours and 1,608 miles driven.  Two foot patrols were conducted.

Deputy Prochaska reported the nuisance dog abatement order was served to 207 E. Main Street.  At this time, the dog is believed to be gone.  A recent fatal accident at CTH J and STH 36 was also discussed.  Crash statistics for this intersection as well as others along STH 36 were reviewed.  Crash statistics for CTH J were not found to be greater than other intersections controlled by stoplights.  It was noted that the angle of the intersection may cause a blind spot for traffic crossing west on CTH J.  Consensus of the Board was to send a letter to the Department of Transportation expressing concern about the intersection and requesting that they include it within the signage plan and/or traffic studies conducted in conjunction with the STH 36/11 by-pass project.  Deputy Prochaska will give special attention to the intersection to observe traffic patterns. It was noted that an unmarked squad would be helpful in addressing that situation.  Deputy Prochaska also reported several incidents of night time vandalism and sporadic vehicle break ins.   Tamblyn requested special attention to traffic entering and exiting the Case Eagle Park entrance before and after baseball games. 

Maintenance.   Brian Krueger reported on his check of the Weber Estates drain tile exit, concurring with Tamblyn’s observation.  Denman indicated he will meet with John Tierney to show where it is.  Brian reported that Pioneer Park flag lighting had been repaired.  It was noted that some graffiti had been spray painted in the library building alcove about one and a half months ago.  Consensus of the Board was that an attempt should be made to fence that area off this Summer.

Engineering.  John Tierney reported the following activities:

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

Building Inspection (Lee Greivell).    Lee’s written report was reviewed as follows:  one temporary electrical service for the WRCSD lift station project; and one basement finishing permit for 383 Oak Hill Circle.  He also re-inspected the Front Street Condominiums to issue an occupancy permit.  One sale of the northern unit is pending.  Lee reported the ProHealth building project is progressing as planned.

Annual Report:  Western Racine County Health Department

Andrea Yeager, Public Health Supervisor, addressed the Board.  Andrea provided an overview of 2006 public health activities including the following highlights:

·         Attendance at immunization clinics continues to decrease.   However, the number of immunizations provided to each child is increasing.  More clinics are being offered at the Health Department office.

·         Overall, communicable diseases were up 20% last year.  However, this is believed to be the result of an emphasis on better reporting 

·         Bioterrorism preparedness activities continue.  A mass clinic exercise was performed to help determine best practices in the case of distributing medicines to the population.

·         An epidemiologist has been hired part-time to compile death statistics in the area.  The leading cause is cancer, with heart disease second.  This same trend is found throughout the country.

·         In 2006, $234,000 in grant monies were acquired to offset costs incurred with home visitation, teen pregnancy prevention, lead poisoning, WIC clinic and child care provider programs. 

·         A bi-lingual home visiting nurse was paid for through a United Way grant.

Kristin Schultz, Public Health Nurse, reported on statistics specific to Rochester including the following highlights:

·         The 2006 per capita cost for health services to Village of Rochester residents was $5.72.

·         Immunization Clinic schedules have been consolidated to fewer locations due to decreased attendance.

·         In 2006, public nurse hours to the Village tripled due to an increase in communicable diseases.  One Pertussis case required a substantial amount of nursing hours. 

·         There were seven communicable diseases reported for Village of Rochester residents.

·         There were eleven births to Village residents in 2006.

·         Environmental complaints are steady and continue to take a lot of time for public health nurses.

Andrea and Kristin were thanked for the services provided by the Health Department and their presentation.

Application for Special Animal Permit: Tracy Simon,  101 N. Front Street

Tracy Simon addressed the Board with a special animal permit application to keep twenty-one parrots and two de-scented skunks as pets at 101 N. Front Street.  Tracy’s landlord, Crystal Rozanske, was also present.  Crystal requested that the permit application be denied.  When questioned on lease requirements, Crystal indicated there is no written lease limiting the number of pets.  She also indicated that Tracy was trying to operate a business selling parrots out of these residential quarters.

Novy reported on communication with the Department of Natural Resources.  It is illegal to keep a skunk as a pet in the State of Wisconsin unless you have a captive wild animal permit.  Novy will supply Tracy with the proper contact information to obtain the permit. 

Several tenant-landlord issues were heard in regards to both Tracy’s use and Crystal’s maintenance of the building, with Tracy requesting that the Building Inspector, Health Department and Fire Chief inspect the premises.  Board members discussed what a reasonable number of birds is to have as pets, with final determination that twenty-one is excessive for a normal household.

Tamblyn moved, 2^nd by Kumbier to deny the special animal permit application for two de-scented skunks until such time as a Captive Wildlife Permit is obtained and allow one-week period for Tracy to remove the skunks from the premises.  Motion carried.    Upon receipt of the proper State permit, Tracy may reapply for a special animal permit to keep two de-scented skunks as pets.

Henning moved, 2^nd by Tamblyn to deny the special animal permit application for twenty-one birds.  Motion carried.

Novy was directed to notify Tracy of permit denial via certified letter.  Tracy is to be given 15 days from receipt to remove the birds from the premises.  Consensus of the Board was that there would be no property inspections until such time as the deadline was expired and animals removed.

Financial Update:  N. Rochester Street Bridge Project

Novy reported on approval of an amended State/Municipal Agreement increasing estimated bridge construction costs to $458,407, with federal funds covering 80% or $366,725.  The cost sharing agreement with the Racine County Drainage Board was also reviewed to understand the impact of increased construction costs.  The agreement states if costs increase, the Drainage Board will pay its proportional share of the increase (22%) up to a maximum of $80,000.  Exceeding this amount requires an amendment to the agreement. Based on estimated construction costs, the current breakdown would be $70,691 (Village), $20,990 (Drainage Board) and $366,725 (Federal/State).  The net result is an estimated increase of $18,000 to the Village’s original estimate of shared costs:  $53,000.

Consensus of the Board was to update them when bid amounts are known.  At that time, correspondence with the Drainage District will be drafted regarding cost sharing and to clarify that any special requests made to expand the scope of the project will be accommodated only if the District agrees to reimburse any additional expenses.

N. Rochester Street sidewalk extension

John reported on the possibility of creating an asphalt pedestrian lane attached to the east side of N. Rochester Street, from E. Spring Street to the N. Rochester Street Bridge project limits.  The lane would be marked “Pedestrian or Bike Lane”.   He indicated there is 10 feet from the current edge of asphalt to a line of existing utility poles.  This is enough space to allow installation of the lane.  John indicated equipment trucks will most likely be parking in this area and damaging the pavement during bridge construction.  Resurfacing may then be necessary.  He recommended waiting to work on a pedestrian lane until the bridge project is done.  The culvert running under E. Spring Street in that area is also beginning to collapse and should be replaced in conjunction with the project.  Consensus of the Board was to take this plan of action.  Once the bridge project starts, John is to draw up the necessary plans.

Street Light Installations:  N. Rochester Street Bridge project

Novy reported on the last consideration of this topic.  Work orders to install two light locations immediately south and north of the bridge were tabled until other lights were installed so that lighting in the area could be viewed to determine what was necessary.  The street committee met on the bridge since the new lights were installed and comments were made regarding the need for additional lighting.  Consensus of the Board was to wait until the bridge reconstruction project was finished before installing any additional lighting.

Boundary Agreement Process

Novy reported authorizing boundary agreement resolutions have been passed and forwarded to the necessary parties.  Letters have also been sent to municipal neighbors notifying them of the change in direction for the Town and Village of Rochester’s pursuit of consolidation.  In recent communication, Atty. Hotvedt indicated it would take about one month for him to revise the boundary agreement template.  During this time, Town and Village Boards were encouraged to begin discussing terms of the agreement.  Consensus of the Board was to schedule a joint meeting with the Town of Rochester Board on Monday, March 26^th at 7:00 p.m.

Resolution #5-2007:  Adopting the SEWRPC Community Assistance Planning Report No. 267, “STH 36 North Corridor Design Plan”

Denman reported on the Plan Commission’s recommendation to endorse and use SEWRPC Planning Report No. 267 as a guide for development along the Hwy. 36 corridor.  Stapleton moved, 2nd by Kumbier to adopt Resolution #5-2007.  Motion carried. 

Appoint Board of Review members

In addition to the Village President and Village Clerk, 2007 Board of Review members were appointed as follows:  Dean Stapleton, Bill Weidert and James Henning.  Novy is to register Stapleton, Denman, Weidert and Henning for an upcoming training session in the Village of Union Grove on Tuesday, May 1st.

Correspondence was read from the Village Plan Commission regarding adoption of “A Land Use Plan for the Town and Village of Rochester: 2020; and from Racine County Emergency Management regarding a course offering.

Committee Reports.  Street:  Tamblyn reported on the March 6^th meeting of the Street committee where bridge lighting and sidewalk extension plans were discussed.  In addition, the committee met with Commander Frank Konieska to discuss the Loyalty Day parade route and accommodations.  Parks and Beautification:  A meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, March 28^th at 5:30 p.m. to discuss Rochester Commons Park improvements for the year.  Ordinance:  A meeting is to be set in May to discuss exotic animal ordinances.  Racine County Comprehensive Plan Multi-Jurisdictional Advisory Committee:  Pattengale reported on approval of a community survey that will be distributed to numerous county residents.  Finance:  Weidert read the report.  Stapleton moved, 2^nd by Kumbier to approve.  Motion carried.

Stapleton moved, 2^nd by Tamblyn to adjourn at 9:50 p.m.  Motion carried.

Respectfully submitted,

Betty J. Novy, CMC

Clerk-Treasurer

March 27, 2007                        JOINT TOWN/VILLAGE BOARD MEETING                    7:00 p.m.

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, was also present.

Optional Local Comprehensive Plan Report:  SEWRPC

Correspondence from SEWRPC (Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission) regarding costs for preparing a local comprehensive plan report was reviewed.  Local municipalities may choose to use Racine County’s Comprehensive Plan or have their own plan drafted.   Costs for preparation of a local plan range from $6,000 to $8,000.  Bill Weidert moved, 2^nd by Paul Beere not to take advantage of the local plan option, but to use the Racine County Comprehensive Plan.  Motion carried.

Drive and Parking Lot Resurfacing:  Rochester Fire Station

Novy reported a request from the Fire Chief to repave the Fire Station parking lot.  This was brought up during last year’s budget hearing.  Board members indicated they did not get the impression that the repair was needed immediately and did not budget for it this year.  Consensus of both Boards was to have whoever is awarded the Town’s 2007 road project provide a bid on paving the parking lot so that estimated costs can be considered for inclusion with the 2007 budget.   Bill Weidert moved, 2^nd by Paul Beere to table the issue at this time, but to get a bid with the road work.  Motion carried.  

It was also requested that a timetable for replacement of fire department trucks be provided. 

Discussion of Boundary Agreement Terms

The “Cooperative Boundary Agreement Checklist” provided by the Department of Administration was reviewed.  The Clerk reported that steps outlined in the “Authorizing Resolutions” section had been completed.  Work began on the steps listed under item number two “Cooperative Plan”.   A contact person to speak on behalf of both municipalities was identified as the Clerk-Treasurer.  Information on current land use and physiographic conditions of the territory can be obtained from the Land Use Plan. 

It was verified that a ten year term is the minimum for the agreement.  Discussion between Town and Village Board members identified several issues that will have to be considered and/or resolved as a sequence of jurisdictional transfers of territory, from Town to Village, is determined. 

The timetable for transfers will have to consider the following:

·         The Village’s zoning code will have to be updated to include district designations that reflect those found within any transferred territory.  Consensus of both Boards was that Racine County’s zoning language should be mirrored so that non-conforming parcels are not created by changes to such items as minimum lot sizes, road frontage, setbacks, etc.

·         As territories are brought into the Village that have private wastewater systems, zoning language must be in place to address permit and monitoring requirements.  At present, Racine County handles these issues for the Town.

·         Urban service areas will have to be revisited.  It was not seen that combining the two municipalities will change the approved sanitary sewer service area already defined by the Western Racine County Sewerage District.   However, creation of a municipal water utility to service potential commercial development along the Hwy 36 Corridor will most likely become an item for consideration. 

·         Revenue and expense sharing should also be discussed.  As territories are transferred to the Village, attention should be paid to the financial impacts in terms of both revenues lost and gained from the transferred tax base, and the maintenance and administrative costs inherited with any particular territory.   The general condition of roads in both municipalities should be rated and compared.   It will be important to watch the impacts on both municipal mill rates throughout the process. 

·         Village ordinances will have to be updated to reflect the characteristics of incoming territory.  Town and Village ordinances should be scrutinized and then updated into a Village Code of Ordinances that considers the best of both.

A question arose regarding who will benefit the most from consolidation.  Mike Weinkauf stated some residents on the west side of the Town feel the only benefit will be increased services and tax value for what is now the Village.  They do not see how they will gain from the merger.   This concern was discussed by Board members.  Most did not feel consolidation in itself will impact service levels.  Service levels will stay the same as they are now, or grow based on the needs of the community.  If a municipal water utility is formed to benefit any particular area, it will be supported by user fees- not tax money.  Only those benefiting from use of a utility will pay its fees.   The anticipation is that the tax rate will remain steady in both municipalities.  However, growth occurring in the Town or Village will help offset shared costs of the Fire Department, Library, Municipal Building and administrative staff.   Since these costs are shared based on each municipality’s valuation, increases to either municipality’s value will offset costs to the other. 

General consensus was that a consolidated community will be in a better position to finance demands for increased services into the future.   Demands for increased police, fire and rescue services will grow as area population continues to grow.   Rochester cannot stand as an isolated community.    Increased area population and traffic generated by new commercial facilities in the area will impact Rochester with increased needs for police service, fire and rescue services, road maintenance, etc.   These costs will be more manageable as a combined community.  Any efforts to increase the commercial tax base in either the Town or Village offset these impacts on residential taxes.  A concern was stated that if Rochester fails to act in this area, most of its valuable commercial areas will be lost to surrounding municipalities.

Consensus of Board members was to contact George Hall for a copy of the boundary agreement that has been used to consolidate communities in the past.  This is to be made available to all Board members to see how the agreement was outlined and how their consolidation progressed.  Several examples of revenue sharing agreements should also be requested.   

Gary Beck stated his opinion on how jurisdictional transfers should occur, with the first area identified as west of STH 36 between Village of Waterford and Village of Rochester corporate boundaries.  The second area he thought best was the “triangle area” between State Highway 36, State Highway 20 and County Highway D.  The third he saw as the rest of Section one.  He then saw the series of jurisdictional transfers continuing south and west until the entire Town was brought into the Village within the ten year period. 

A meeting date of Wednesday, April 25, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. was set for continued discussion.  The attorney is to be notified of a deadline of Monday, April 9^th to submit a revised boundary agreement template for Town and Village of Rochester.  He is also to be asked to attend the meeting on the 25th.  In the meantime, Board members are to forward any specific questions they have to the Clerk.  When appropriate, they are to be forwarded to George Hall with an invitation to attend an upcoming meeting to discuss the issues.

Mike Weinkauf moved, 2^nd by Russell Kumbier to adjourn at 8:55 p.m.  Motion carried.

Respectfully submitted,

Betty J. Novy, CMC

Clerk-Treasurer