Link to: November 8,
2011 Special Board Meeting
November 14,
2011 Regular Board Meeting
November 16, 2011 Special Board Meeting
November 21, 2011 Special Board Meeting
NOVEMBER 8, 2011
SPECIAL BOARD MEETING
7:00 P.M.
Paul Beere called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Gary Beck, Chris
Bennett, Ed Chart, Chris Johnson, Bob Lancour and Mike Weinkauf present.
Betty Novy, Clerk -Treasurer, was also present.
Bill Matthews and Steve Wagner from Anderson Ashton were also in attendance.
Continue discussions on village hall building design: Steve
Wagner, Project Architect; and Bill Matthews, Project Manager, Anderson- Ashton,
Inc.
Matthews lead the discussion in terms of what items need to be decided before
the project continues (as follows):
The two-story portion of the library building. Matthews questioned whether
it was the village’s intention to keep the old school for storage and, if so,
what improvements would be needed to continue its use- and how would it be paid
for.
The majority of board members agreed to keep the two-story portion of the
building for library and historical society storage. Improvement needs
were identified as a new roof, new windows, and removal of the chimney. It was
clarified that the historical society installed a furnace in the building a few
years ago to heat the space they occupy and that the furnace is vented out of
the side of the building. Removing the roof-top chimney is the best way to
address its deterioration. It was also noted that the historical society
offered to pay for and install new windows in the area they occupy. The
village would need to finance removal of the chimney and re-roofing the
building. Board members indicated they would like to stretch the use
of the building for eight to ten years and that the $30,000 budgeted to tear it
down could be utilized towards improvements to keep the building useable for
storage. Consensus of the Board was to have Birkett get quotes on roof
repairs and to perform some preliminary analysis as to what improvements are
needed to make the building last for the next decade or so. Matthews
noted Anderson-Ashton would be available for assistance as needed.
Soil borings and civil engineering. Matthews stated the contract dictates
that the Village is responsible for having the soil borings done. Two to
three will be required for the building area, and one will be required for the
detention area. He asked for direction on whether the Village has its own
vendor for this, or if the Village would like him to make recommendations on
whom to hire. He continued that it is Anderson-Ashton’s responsibility to
hire the storm water engineer that will create the grading and storm water
management plans. He stated it is necessary to make some decisions
regarding site amenities because these impact the drainage and grading plan.
Even if amenities aren’t built now, planned amenities should be shown.
Site amenities were discussed along with site drainage. Board members
agreed tennis courts are not wanted. Priorities were established to
keep as much open space to the west of the village hall as possible to serve as
a practice area for baseball and other sports, to place a half court basketball
court on the north end of building, to shift the walkway leading to the
community garden around it, and to keep the detention area mow able. The
play areas were generally agreeable to Board members as shown.
Zoning. The hearing for the new zoning ordinance is scheduled for
December 12th. The Plan Commission reviewed it at their November 7th
meeting and recommended approval as is. Board members did not feel there
would be any significant changes to the proposed zoning ordinance that would
impact setbacks.
Floor plan and room sizes. Wagner discussed the differences between layout
2 and layout 3- layout 2 was designed for placement on the approved site and
layout 3 was designed if the village hall was to be attached to the north side
of the existing library building.
Wagner noted the “L” shape of layout 2 offers the most efficiencies and
discussion focused on that design from that point forward. The small
meeting room is accessible to the waiting area so that it can be utilized for
committee meetings. This was a desire expressed earlier by the building
committee so that committee meetings could be held in that room without
requiring access through office areas. The benefit was that it would not
require heating or cooling the large meeting room for smaller meetings.
Wagner noted the size of the small meeting room at 13’ x 24’. This size
offers seating in the round for about 10; and classroom seating for about 22.
The room offers a controlled and semi-controlled entrance. The semi controlled
entrance is viewable from the Clerk-Treasurer’s office; and could be locked from
the office area.
The shared lobby area allows the public to come in and make a decision about
which way they are going. It serves both the administration and the
assembly area. It allows the public to move to the clerk’s interaction
counter if checking in for services; allows for greater traffic flow towards the
assembly area; and provides visual control from the clerk’s office area.
Beck questioned the location of the mechanical room, noting it was far away from
the kitchen. He also stated concerns about floods in mechanical rooms,
noting he had witnessed this on multiple occasions in his work at Waterford High
School. Wagner noted a floor drain will be placed in the mechanical room
and that the floor would be pitched to the drain. Heating will be
forced air, so the only potential flooding would be condensate for the air
conditioning. It was noted this should be minimal.
Additionally, it was noted the kitchen is a warming kitchen so there won’t be
much there. Wagner noted there is ceiling room for conditioning space over
the kitchen and that two separate HVAC systems will be installed in the building
so that heating and cooling areas can be isolated from one another. It was
also noted an on-demand water heating system will likely be sufficient for the
building’s needs. After discussion regarding the uses of the kitchen,
consensus of the Board was that the kitchen should accommodate a refrigerator, a
couple of warming trays (Nescos), a microwave, and serve the dual purpose of a
break room for staff- accommodating a table and a couple of chairs. A
stove is not necessary.
The storage area for the office area measures 10’ x 13’.
Additional storage is provided adjacent to the assembly hall for chair storage.
Assembly hall and bathroom sizes were discussed and ultimately judged adequate
as shown.
Novy commented the layout of the Clerk-Treasurer’s office is awkward in that it
requires one person to sit directly behind the other. She noted this will
likely result in one individual talking over the other’s shoulder. She
indicated a preference that both staff members face the counter, but that desks
are situated next to each other, rather than one behind the other.
Matthews indicated they could take the dimensions of that space and shift them
so that there is adequate space for both staff members to sit in this way.
Novy also noted staff should be able to see the lobby area from the work and
layout area as there are times when only one person is in the office.
Wagner indicated he situated the space so that a sight line allows staff to
monitor what is happening in the lobby by using the left ear and looking to the
left. He also noted the work/ layout area offers traditional storage
space and is located in such a way to bring in as much natural day light as
possible.
Novy stated another concern that the law enforcement office is placed the
farthest away from the Clerk-Treasurer’s office and lobby area. She stated
it is better if that office is visually accessible. Consensus of the Board
was to flip flop building inspection and law enforcement offices, and to install
a glass window between law enforcement and the clerk-treasurer’s office so that
the officer has visual and audio access to what is happening in the clerk’s
office and at the interaction counter.
There was discussion about the storage room located off the assembly room.
Dimensions of the storage room were noted as 10.5 x 15 feet. This space is
provided to accommodate chair storage. It was noted that additional
storage will be required for election materials, including voting machines and
booths. These items are bulky and require a significant amount of room.
Ideally, they would be stored in an area that is readily accessible to the
assembly area.
Discussion about accommodating additional storage lead to whether there were
other areas where square footage in the building could be cut, such as creating
only one office space for the building inspector and zoning administrator or
reducing the size of the public works office. Ultimately it was decided
that the building inspector and zoning administrator should keep devoted offices
and that some archive records could be stored in the two-story portion of the
school building to free up storage space in the new building for items that need
to be more readily accessible. It was also noted that shelving could help
a lot with storage needs.
There was discussion about the file storage needs of the public works
department. It was noted the village’s public works manager wears multiple
hats, including performance of animal control duties. Consensus of the Board
was to increase the size of the public works office by four feet, increasing its
dimensions to 12’ x 16’ by lining up its exterior wall with the adjacent storage
room.
Matthews stated it seems like the basic layout works with a couple of
adjustments and noted once those are done, he can get the civil engineering
going. It was noted that Anderson-Ashton will arrange for the soil borings
and get three quotes for the work. Novy will supply Matthews with contact
information on soil boring vendors that the Village has used for road projects.
Chart moved, 2nd by Bennett to adjourn at 8:41 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted:
Betty J. Novy, MMC CMTW WCPC
Clerk-Treasurer
November 14, 2011
VILLAGE BOARD MEETING
7:00 p.m.
Paul Beere called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Gary Beck, Ed Chart, Chris Johnson, Bob Lancour, and Mike Weinkauf present. Chris Bennett was absent.
Betty Novy, Clerk-Treasurer; Christopher Birkett, Public Works Manager; and John Tierney, Engineer, were also present.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Minutes. Weinkauf, moved, 2nd by Beck to approve minutes from the October 3, October 10, October 20, October 24 and October 27, 2011 meetings noting one correction for the October 10th meeting. The Honey Lake Protection and Rehabilitation District report is to be corrected to note that the Town of Spring Prairie only paved two roads in the Honey Lake subdivision that they had taken over to allow for policing by the Walworth County Sheriff’s Department. Motion carried.
Period of Public Comment for Pre-Registered Citizens. Beere called registered citizens as follows:
Ed Yanke, 109 N. State Street, addressed the Board. He stated objection to changing the zoning of the library property from R-1 to P-1 because he feels it will affect the value of his property. He continued that, if the zoning is changed, the village should be prepared for a lawsuit. Secondly, he stated objection to initiating a storm water utility in the Village because he feels it will be a lifelong burden on the residents of the community. Rather, he feels drainage problems should be addressed and paid for as they come up. He also stated objection to the village’s full-time law enforcement contract with Racine County. He noted the contract costs over $100,000 a year. He stated the village had excellent services from the Racine County Sheriff’s Department before the contract and that this is where another $100,000 could be picked up easily. He feels the Village should terminate the contract.
Charlie Pietrowski, 108 N. State Street, addressed the Board regarding ethics and unruliness. He commented Trustee Bennett has shown some unruliness and he does not appreciate the name calling that has been going on with him. He believes it calls for the Board to have that controlled. He questioned how Board members can call residents attending the meetings unruly when someone on the Board is unruly.
Department Reports:
Sheriff. Deputy Castillo read his written report showing the following statistics for October: zero accidents; seven speeding citations, four traffic citations, twelve parking citations, and six warnings were issued. There were five ordinance arrests. Complaint statistics were as follows: sixteen complaints originated through calls directly to the Sheriff’s Department; Deputy Castillo assisted with seven additional complaints, originated thirty-five of his own and performed follow up on twenty-seven. Castillo reported eighteen working days, 146.0 hours and 1,034 miles driven. Eleven foot patrols were also conducted.
Castillo reported Halloween activities went fine except for the rain during trick or treating. There was no vandalism reported. There have been some thefts from unlocked vehicles on Musquequack Street. Also on September 5th, some hunter’s pellets landed on the roof of a house on N. State Street. He talked to the people who had been hunting on an adjacent property. They were instructed not to shoot in that direction.
Sergeant Mattke reported that Deputy Castillo had been promoted to an investigator position within the Sheriff’s Department and that a successor to his contract position with the village will start immediately after one is chosen and becomes familiar with the area. He noted the contract position was posted on October 28th and that there has been quite a bit of interest in it within the Sheriff’s Department. He believes there will be several good candidates to choose from. Beere will assist with the selection.
Board members congratulated Castillo on his promotion and thanked him for his service to Rochester.
Public Works. Christopher Birkett’s written report was reviewed follows:
Lift Stations/ Sewer: Testing generators and maintenance of lift stations ongoing. Manhole by the Bunker has been fixed. I’ve sent footage of leaks off to contractors for quotes. Sewer system is in good shape going into winter.
Roads: Shoulder project came in under budget. Parking ordinance signs for the west side of the village are in and will be installed by end of month. I am planning on having some other sign upgrades done as well, and ordering weight limit signs also. Road project punch list has been discussed with Payne and Dolan. At this time, it is still ongoing. Fox Grove ditch work is ongoing and should be completed by the end of the month. Potholes and patches are being addressed as well.
Parks: All 3 have been mowed for the last time and are in good shape. I still have some clean up in the flower beds and around the buildings.
Animal Control: A relatively quiet month. Two stray kittens found homes thanks to Tracy at Finders Keepers. Two barking calls 1 of them was cited, the other I’m still working on. The Hellands have complied, working to get the remaining dogs licensed.
Budget: Working on sewer numbers for 2012 and will have it completed by December meeting.
Misc: Over all, the Village is in pretty good shape going into Winter. I have been attending several meetings on state road projects. HWY 20, HWY 36 and the E. Main St. bridge.
Additionally, Birkett reported on Racine County Public Work’s response to complaints regarding signage on Washington Avenue. Racine County will be enhancing signage in the area of concern and reducing the speed limit on Washington Avenue from Honey Creek east from 55 m.p.h. to 45 m.p.h. Beere reported some complaints regarding dumping of trash in the community garden. He instructed Birkett to install a “Dumping Prohibited” sign in the garden.
Engineer. Tierney read his written report as follows:
Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study: Tasks Completed: Public Information Meeting/ Open House on October 20th. Working with staff to quality control the billing database. Tasks Pending: Finalize presentation and conduct a second Public Information Meeting and Public Hearing on November 16th.
2011 Municipal Engineering Services: Assist with preparation of a new Post Construction Stormwater ordinance and with the update required to the Floodplain Ordinance.
2011 Street Improvements: Tasks Completed: General construction administration and construction observation. Project is substantially complete. Prepared punch-list and surveyed “birdbath” on Hidden Circle for corrective action. Tasks Pending: Observe punch-list work and close-out project.
Additionally, Tierney noted street project costs will be about 10% over due to the additional work that was performed. The project is substantially complete, but not finished. Tierney also updated the Board on a bank taking over ownership of Rookery Landing subdivisions. The warranty period for subdivision improvements just expired. He inspected the subdivision that day and found all improvements acceptable so there are no concerns in terms of the Village having to oversee completion of improvements or retain any financial guarantees. There was discussion regarding how drainage would be managed in the subdivision since the developer is out of the picture. Novy indicated responsibilities to maintain the drainage systems are spelled out in covenants and restrictions for the subdivisions and run with ownership of the land.
7:30 p.m.: Public Hearing: 2012 Budget
Johnson moved, 2nd by Weinkauf to adjourn the regular meeting to reconvene after a public hearing on the 2012 Budget. Motion carried.
Novy reported highlights of the budget proposal that was drafted by the Finance Committee. State levy limit calculations allow a maximum levy of $854,583. This includes a credit of $4,220 for unused levy from the previous year and an increase of $47,146 to accommodate debt payment on the road bond. State revenues are down $33,000, but are offset by a one time local road improvement grant for 2012.
Election costs are expected to double in 2012 to accommodate the presidential election. Assessment costs are also increased due to an administrative rule change by the Department of Revenue that is requiring an upgrade to electronic reporting requirements. After cost sharing calculations with the Town of Spring Prairie were performed on the fire department budget, the village’s share of costs went up about $5,000. Public Works funding requests were mainly granted with the exception that snowplowing costs were cut slightly and a request for $500 for equipment maintenance was declined. The Finance Committee noted the Steiner tractor was not used anymore and recommended that the village sell the tractor as is. As far as garbage charges go, John’s Disposal requested a .50 increase per month, per unit. A decrease in the state recycling grant which is used to offset garbage collection costs also contributes to a need for increased funding. Garbage charges don’t have a bottom line effect on the budget because these charges are put on individual tax bills as a special charge. However, per household charges will increase. Building Outlay is budgeted at $5,000 to address any major repairs that may be required for municipal, library, or fire station buildings. In regards to the village hall building project, the finance committee recommended continuing to pay initial costs out of the sewer utility until project costs are known and financing is obtained. At that time, village general funds will reimburse the utility what is owed. An anticipated balance of $631,275 in the road fund will be carried over to finance 2012 street projects.
Novy continued the result on the tax rate is a 10 cent increase from $2.31 last year to $2.41 this year (per $1,000 of assessed value). However, it was noted that if the Board decides to proceed with implementing a storm water utility this year, $18,000 of utility costs are proposed to offset general administrative costs. This would offset the general tax levy and decrease the tax rate to $2.36.
No one registered to submit comments during the hearing.
Beck moved, 2nd by Lancour to close the public hearing and reconvene the regular meeting at 7:40 p.m. Motion carried.
Request for Increase for 2012 Garbage Collection Charges: John’s Disposal
Novy reported the Finance Committee met with Brian Jongetjes of John’s Disposal in advance of the Board meeting. Jongetjes explained some of the issues and costs affecting Rochester’s contract and the finance committee recommended approving the .50 cent increase per month per household. Johnson noted John’s Disposal had not increased costs during the previous contract year despite some of the surcharges they had incurred. Beere noted the value of recycling materials collected is subtracted from the contract costs and Lancour noted a report of high tonnages collected from Rochester. Beck moved, 2nd by Chart to approve John’s increase request of .50 cents per month per household. Motion carried.
Resolution #2011-20 “Resolution by the Village of Rochester Board to amend the 2011 Budget”
Novy reported this resolution is necessary to bring actual 2011 revenues and expenditures in line with the 2011 budget. She noted the biggest value adjustments involve snow removal costs. Weinkauf moved, 2nd by Johnson to approve Resolution #2011-20. Motion carried.
Resolution #2011-21 “A Resolution to Carry Forward Unused Levy Limits into 2011 from 2010”
Novy reported a resolution is necessary to carry forward $4,220 of unused levy capacity to offset the 2012 budget, but only if the levy is not reduced due to implementation of a storm water utility. That condition was included in the resolution. Weinkauf moved, 2nd by Chart to adopt Resolution #2011-21. Motion carried.
Board Action: Adopt 2012 Budget and Corresponding Tax Levy
Weinkauf moved, 2nd by Beck to adopt the 2012 budget as proposed with a tax levy of $854,583 and a corresponding tax rate of $2.41 subject to a reduction of $18,000 in the levy if the village board votes to proceed with implementation of a storm water utility this year. Motion carried.
Request for Adoption of Resolution Promoting Civil Public Discourse: League of Wisconsin Municipalities
Novy reported on an email received from the League of Municipalities requesting that municipalities adopt a resolution similar to the one they propose (read as follows):
“Whereas, the principle of civility is the foundation of democracy and the rule of law; and
Whereas, public discourse today is all too often composed of divisive attacks rather than meaningful consideration of important public issues, which leads to ineffective public decision making, citizen frustration, and damage to our democracy; and
Whereas, municipal officials play an important role in shaping public behavior as leaders in our communities and therefore have a special opportunity to help steer public discourse back to a more civil direction;
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the governing body of _____________, Wisconsin, hereby urges all government officials and employees, political parties, media representatives, advocacy organizations, and candidates for political office and their supporters to strive toward a more civil public discourse in the conduct of political activities and in the administration of the affairs of government.”
Novy asked whether the Board would like a resolution drafted on this topic. Consensus of the Board was to have the Village Attorney draft one of similar language for consideration at the December Board meeting.
Public Works Committee Recommendation: Request for Increase for 2012 Park Mowing Contract
Birkett reported on the exemplary work Forrest George had performed during the 2011 mowing season. Birkett noted George was the lowest bidder for 2011 and that his request for an increase of $25.00 per mowing for 2012 would still rank as one of the lowest of the other bids that were submitted for 2011. The Public Works Committee recommended the increase request be approved. Beck disagreed stating he feels the contract should be re-bid so that other contractors have the same opportunity. Beck moved, 2nd by Chart to deny the request for increase and re-open the park mowing contract for bids in 2012 with a one or two year escalation clause. Votes were: Beere: Aye; Beck: Aye; Chart: Aye; Lancour: Aye; Johnson: Naye; Weinkauf: Naye. Motion passed.
Public Works Committee Recommendation: HVAC Maintenance Contract Renewal
Birkett reported this as a two year service agreement with Rosenthal Heating and Air Conditioning for preventive maintenance covering the municipal building; library; and the historical society’s heating and cooling systems. The costs remained the same as the existing contract. The Public Works Committee recommended approval. Beck moved, 2nd by Johnson to renew the two year maintenance contract with Rosenthal Heating and Air Conditioning. Motion carried.
Public Works Committee Recommendation: Award of Tree Removal Work
Birkett reported on quotes obtained to remove numerous hazard trees from road right of ways as follows: T & T Tree Service: $4,600; Michelau Tree Service: $5,000; and Complete Tree Service: $5,245. The Public Works Committee reviewed these quotes and recommended the work be awarded to T & T Tree Service. Chart moved, 2nd by Weinkauf to award the tree removal work to T & T Tree Service for $4,600. Motion carried.
Public Works Committee Recommendation: Request to Install flagpole in Case Eagle Park
Birkett reported on a request made by Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 11038; Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter 921; American Legion Riders District 1; American Legion Post 20; American Legion Post 171; American Legion Post 79; and American Legion Post 375; to install a flagpole between the ball diamonds in Case Eagle Park. The request will ultimately need to be approved by Racine County Public Works, but requires Village approval as lessees of the ball diamond area in the park and an agreement for the village to be responsible for flagpole maintenance. The Public Works Committee recommended approval of the request. Beck moved, 2nd by Johnson to forward a letter to Racine County recommending approval of the request and agreeing to ongoing flagpole maintenance. Motion carried.
Finance Committee Recommendation: Authorize Sale of 1996 Steiner Tractor
Novy reported on the Finance Committee’s recommendation to sell the Steiner tractor as it is no longer used for lawn mowing or snow removal. Birkett reported it had not been run for over 18 months. He noted he had not found it an optimal way to move snow and that it had taken a beating from salt used during snow removal operations. Consensus of the Board was to have Birkett make sure it is operational before offering it for sale.
Correspondence was reviewed as follows: a Notice of Final Flood Hazard Determinations was received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Novy noted, as a result, the Village needs to amend its floodplain ordinance to incorporate new panel numbers and updated requirements. The zoning administrator, village attorney, and engineer are working to perform ordinance updates within the stated deadline.
Committee Reports:
Public Works Committee: Johnson indicated most public work committee recommendations were covered during the Board meeting. The only other item they had worked on was the 2012 sewer utility budget.
Ordinance Committee: Beck reported the committee is continuing its work through the zoning code with Jon Schattner.
Western Racine County Health Department: Bennett was absent.
Honey Lake Protection and Rehabilitation District Board: Weinkauf reported on the October 15th meeting of the District. He reported approval of the 2011- 2012 snowplowing contract. The bid was up $4,000 from last year to a flat sum of $19,000. Only one bid was received from the same gentleman who has been performing the work for the past 20 years. They also received bids on brush removal from their roads. The work was awarded to Bienemann Tree Service for $1,700.
Finance Committee Report: Beck reported the recommendation of the committee to approve all disbursements listed on the check detail dated October 11, 2011 – November 14, 2011 and on investment rates being received on municipal funds with First Business Bank Milwaukee and First Business Bank Madison, noting they are significantly higher than rates available from other institutions. Weinkauf moved, 2nd by Chart to approve the finance committee’s report. Motion carried.
Chart moved, 2nd by Johnson to adjourn at 8:26 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Novy, MMC, CMTW, WCMC
Clerk-Treasurer
November 16, 2011
SPECIAL VILLAGE BOARD MEETING
7:00 p.m.
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with Paul Beere, Mike Weinkauf, Ed
Chart, Christopher Bennett, Christopher Johnson and Bob Lancour present. Gary
Beck was absent.
Betty Novy, Clerk-Treasurer, Sandi Swan, Deputy Clerk-Treasurer, Christopher
Birkett, Department of Public Works Supervisor and John Tierney, Engineer were
also present.
Public Information Meeting to create a Storm Water Utility for the Village of
Rochester
Tierney went through a
Powerpoint® presentation which is attached to and incorporated as part of
these minutes.
Question and Answer Period. Questions were taken as follows:
Ron Strelow, 2535 Fox Knoll Dr., questioned if this will be assessed to all
properties in the Village. John Tierney responded with “yes”.
Joanna Storm, 850 N. Browns Lake Dr., questioned if the storm water utility has
already been funded through the taxes and now will be funded by special
assessments. If so will the tax portion go away? Tierney responded with “yes”.
She then questioned what difference will be in the tax rate. Novy stated that
the tax levy that was in place for storm water wasn’t funding improvements, it
only covered administrative costs. If the Board enacts the storm water utility
it will be a $.05 reduction in the tax rate.
Stephanie Bach, 1421 N. Browns Lake Dr., questioned when the utility would
start. John responded in saying that if the Board enacts the ordinance the
utility will start the first of the year. She then questioned when the actual
work would start. John responded that work would start the summer of 2012.
Pat Gerber, 412 N. State St., questioned if this utility would take of the
drainage easement on Evergreen by Hwy 36 and Hwy. 20. Birkett stated that yes
that area would be taken care of. Tierney added that anything that is in public
property or as in the case of the Ag School tile; a quasi publicly maintained
tile, because it crosses county and Village right of ways and the Village
maintains the outlet. She also questioned why the farms greater than five acres
are only being charged one ERU. She doesn’t think that is fair. Tierney stated
that farmland or agricultural areas don’t have a lot of impervious area to
measure.
Charles Pietrowski, 108 N. State St., questioned if the ERU rate of $64.69 is
locked in for 10 years or will it change from year to year. Tierney said the
rate is based upon a statistical average and it will most likely stay the same
for the first 5 years and then reevaluated.
Dick Bosworth, 509 Fox Knoll Dr., questioned if the utility will address any of
the water problems on the canal that runs thru the Fox Knoll Subdivision.
Birkett explained that there is a cutout in the bank of the Norway Dover
Drainage Canal and it floods the low spots between the bank of the canal and the
resident’s homes on Fox Knoll Dr. Birkett stated that he spoke to Alan Jasperson
and said that they are open to working with the Village as far as putting some
sort of a structure with a flapper valve in that when the water rises up it
would close and not allow water or as much water in. Tierney added it is not one
of the planned projects. He said it is a very touchy area because there are
established wetlands back there; it’s basically a flood plain. He said if you
look at those lots along the canal in Fox Knoll there are two lots, a front lot
and a back lot, the back lots are in an environmental corridor. If lots are
being damaged then that could potentially be a project.
Bill Gerard, 29121White Oak Ln., Waterford, questioned how long has the
stormwater utility study been going on. Tierney stated it started in January of
2011. Gerard then questioned what the utility has to do with the Town of
Waterford residents being charged. Tierney stated that no one in the Town of
Waterford is being charged. Gerard said that according to the Sanitary District
they will be charged. Tierney said WRCSD will be charged because their facility
is in Rochester and they are probably passing that charge on to the four
communities that they serve, including Rochester. He said it’s the same with
Racine County, they will be charged as well because they own property in the
Village of Rochester. They will disburse that charge throughout the County, just
like Rochester is paying for utility charges on the east end of the County.
Gerard said it doesn’t seem fair that the Town of Waterford is to the North and
they have nothing to do with the water problems yet they are being charged.
Tierney said that no one in the Town of Waterford is being directly charged,
Rochester is charging the facilities in Rochester. Gerard said that he is the
President of the Waterford Sanitary District and he has 1,925 people that he has
to answer to.
Beere asked Wienkauf to explain what the Norway-Dover Drainage District wanted
to do as far as annexing Rochester properties into their district. Weinkauf said
that the Norway-Dover Drainage District, worked for years under a state statue
that they more or less charged the land owner for the drainage that goes through
and affects certain land. Weinkauf stated that the state statues have changed
because there are so many residential homes being built in the country. Now
everyone who is affected by the drainage ditches and the drainage system should
pay for it. A couple years ago there was a big uproar when the Norway-Dover
Drainage tried to assess everyone in this area. A lot of people didn’t
understand how their water ended up in their drainage canal. The County
intervened and the District had to go through a series of reports to back up
their claims. The District is getting everything in order and they are
eventually going to charge everyone whos water runs into their canal. He said by
forming a utility in Rochester you have a better chance of working with them.
The elected officials of the utility will be able to work with them on behalf of
the 1,300 parcels in Rochester that will be affected.
Dick Rehberg, 28000 Plank Rd., said it was his understanding that for the
Norway-Dover Drainage District assessment, those parcels would only be charged
if there was work being done in the area and it would only be a one year
assessment. Weinkauf said that it would be a three year charge.
Joanna Storm, 850 N. Brown Lake Dr., questioned how they came up with the ERU
charge. She doesn’t understand why someone with a smaller parcel would be
charged the same ERU as someone with a larger parcel. Tierney said that they
based the charge on 40 sample residential lots in Rochester. He said that the
higher density properties actually create more runoff. She asked who would
be charged more than one ERU. Tierney stated that non-residential properties and
farms that have a homestead on the property. Farmland would get one charge for
the homestead and one charge for the farmland.
Terry Bates, 300 E. Spring St., wanted to understand that there will be two
utilities for the Village of Rochester, one Sewer Utility for sewer treatment
and a Storm Water Utility that would handle water run-off. Tierney said
that is correct.
Don Collins, 200 English Settlement Rd, questioned why farmland wouldn’t be
cheaper because they have no impervious area. Weinkauf stated that the committee
talked about that and they thought that the farmlands actually take advantage of
the drains because it will help the farmlands if the drainage is controlled.
Weinkauf explained that everyone will be charged one ERU, but the committee felt
that the farmers should pay and extra ERU because by improving the drainage in
the whole Village it would also improve the farmers land. There is a lot of
farmland in the Village that is affected in and around the Fox River. Mr.
Collins said but you are getting less drainage from the farms because their land
is helping to absorb the water. Weinkauf stated that is true but they felt the
farmers should pay more because the other people that pay are helping the
drainage for the farmers.
Johnson added that a lot of the farmlands have a high water table. Collins asked
if they are considering work on Eagle Creek form Hwy J. to the river, because
that floods ten acres of his land every year. Johnson stated that if the utility
gets started up there are some projects that need to be taken care of right
away. As some of these projects get done it may clear up other areas. Johnson
said it is a slow process and they didn’t want to put a lot of burden on the
residents all at once. The Village knows they have some old problems that have
to be addressed but the only way to address them is to start this utility. They
are hoping that by fixing some problems, other problems will not require as much
money depending upon where they start.
Dick Rehberger stated that fixing drainage on the east side of the river is not
going to fix problems on the west side of the river. Beere stated that works
vice versa.
Tierney stated that for example if there is a street improvement on the east
side of the Village it’s not just charged to residents on the east side, it’s a
community effort, everyone contributes. It’s the same with storm water
improvements. Johnson stated that the roads in the Village are getting destroyed
from the high water levels and in turn they have to be repaired or replaced
sooner. That affects everyone’s property taxes as well.
Wayne Raisleger, 33833 Washington Ave., said that he thinks what the Village is
doing is a good idea in theory, but he does not agree with two ERU units per
farm. He said his property is all gravel and it retains a lot of water and he
feels he is being penalized. He said there is a big difference in soils in
different parts of the Village from east to west. Johnson said from a soil
standpoint, it may go down into the soil but with the high water table the water
moves horizontally and that is a drainage problem. Johnson said that gravel can
work for you and it can also work against you if you have a high water table.
Johnson said he did soil a test on Oak Knoll Rd. and it was some of the best
soil he’s ever seen but the water table was at 4.5 feet so it wouldn’t support a
septic system. He said water doesn’t go from the top down, it works from the
bottom and goes up which is how you get your water table. Birkett added that
there are a lot of springs on Oak Knoll and Springwood Ln. and a lot of the
ditches don’t freeze in the winter because of that.
Mark Magnuson, 821 Prairie View Dr., said the Village said they are operating
under a crisis situation, he questioned if the money is going to come out of the
storm water fund or the general fund to address those situations. Tierney stated
right now drainage problems are addressed when road projects are done and it has
been paid for under road repairs. In the future drainage problems will be
covered by the storm water utility fund. Magnuson said every year it seems new
problem comes up. Birkett responded that with regards to Fox River Prairie
Subdivision, a lot of the storm basins on Eagle Ridge Dr. are popping up out of
the ground. Birkett said that it is going to cost the Village $2000-$3000 each
to fix those and there are approximately four of them that need to be fixed.
Birkett said that is one of the crises that need to be addressed this next year
for a lot of reasons, one of them being so that the plows on the snowplows don’t
catch them and damage them.
Birkett agreed that new problems do come up every year; he was surprised when he
took this job, how much time he spends on drainage issues. There are always
going be issues that come up, but he will work with the committee and prioritize
which projects need to be done and when.
Jeff Bratz, WRCSD, questioned if the farmers that are in other drainage
districts and are being charged by those, will now get a charge from Rochester
in addition to those other drainage districts. Weinkauf stated that those
charges will now be charged to Rochester.
Ron Baumgart, 912 N. River Rd., stated that he owns nine acres, four of which
are in the Burlington School District, he questioned how he would be charged.
Tierney stated that school district doesn’t have anything to do with it, but
judging by what he explained he owns, he would receive two ERU charges. Baumgart
stated that when they built Fox River Prairie Subdivision, they put the drainage
onto his property and he questioned how that is legal. He added that he now gets
all their drainage plus his own drainage and it’s backing up the creek and it’s
swampier than it’s ever been.
Period of Public Comment regarding the Proposed Storm Water Utility for
Pre-Registered Citizens
Beere called on the following preregistered people for their comments:
Bruce Christensen, 2941 N. River Rd., stated that they have a serious drainage
problem on N. River Rd., the culverts do not work and the water floods over the
road. He has seen cars hydro plain in that area and there is a school bus stop
just north of his house on a curve, so you have kids getting on and off the
school bus in an area that drivers drive faster than 25 m.p.h. He stated that
this is not just a drainage issue anymore it has now become a safety issue. He
would like to encourage the Board to seriously consider this utility, because
the Village of Rochester will need to negotiate with the Village of Waterford
and how their drainage affects Rochester. He feels this utility will give the
Village a mechanism to negotiate with other entities. He said he is not happy
about paying more taxes, but those culverts have to be fixed.
Lynn Tamblyn, 5436 Scenery Rd, Waterford, read his statement. He is a
representative of the Waterford Sanitary District and he serves on WRCSD board.
He speaks with three hats on, one as a representative of the Waterford Sanitary
District, one as a representative of WRCSD and one as a private citizen of the
Town of Waterford.
His first comment is about notification, it is common courtesy to notify local
governments, businesses and residents if one of the actions the Village may take
could result in a charge that they will have to pay. He said the Village did
notify WRCSD of the proposed zoning changes, however the Village failed to
notify them of this proposed storm water utility. He feels that they have been
denied due process. It was brought to their attention by one of the residents of
Rochester that dropped the notice off at their plant. It makes them wonder how
many other non-taxpayers were not notified. They missed the first public hearing
because they did not receive notice. They are there tonight because of the
courtesy of a resident.
Second comment, the Village has WRCSD listed as a non residential property;
however in the new zoning proposal WRCSD will be zoned P-1. Why under the storm
water utility are they listed as non-residential and under zoning they are
listed as a park? Here is the affect, as non-residential they will have to pay
for all impervious area and pay multiple ERU’s. He estimates their impervious
area to be approximately 40% of their 12 acres. He estimates their charge to be
$1200. This charge will be charged to their customers. Per this proposal if they
were properly classified, then the following would apply: agricultural or APU
parcels greater than or equal to 5 acres in size that are not dedicated
conservation areas will be charged 1 ERU; APU parcel smaller than 5 acres will
not be charged. He stated that if WRCSD were to be classified as a park, which
according to the zoning proposal they will be zoned a park than they would only
pay 1 ERU. $1200 versus $65 charged to our customers. He doesn’t understand why
they are even in the utility district because if you drive in their plant, you
won’t have to go very far into the plant to realize that not a drop of water
from their plant lands will ever reach the district. Their plant should have
been exempt based on a site evaluation. They feel exemption is the way to go, if
the Village reclassifies them as a park that will lessen the cost to their
customers.
His third comment, paying for this, they are a waste treatment plant serving
three communities. Their rates are based on flows, these charges will affect
their customers. His question is why should their customers who do not live in
Rochester pay for this? They will not receive any benefit other than a higher
sewer bill. How can you charge a non-resident for a district in Rochester? Their
customers consist of sewered properties in the Town Waterford, Village of
Waterford and the Village of Rochester. The two Waterfords represent 70% of
their customer base. The Village of Rochester is only 18%. Septic tank haulers
that drop their loads at their plant represent 7% and infiltration is 5%. That
means they have to charge 77% to customers who do not live in the Village of
Rochester. It is not right that a person not living in the Village of Rochester
has to pay for a Village service. Just to be clear it is not the money it is the
principal. People who get no benefit will be paying for this.
Fourth comment, why? As a citizen of the Town of Water he wonders why this
proposal is even necessary. As he understands it the water problems are only in
a few areas, he understands that private pipes on private properties are
supposed to drain those areas. He doesn’t understand why those property owners
are not held responsible, instead of all property owners within the Village
limits. In the Norway- Dover District only the properties that are affected are
charged. Not the whole communities of Norway and Waterford. Why is the
Village not charging only the properties that are affected by the water
problems? He does not understand, as a commissioner of the WRCSD why the
plant property is being charged anything, since almost all of their water soaks
into their lands. Only when it really, really rains, perhaps several times a
decade some water will go to the river, after running across their lands. They
have a unique property that should have been exempted.
Vince Klemko, 2500 Beck Dr., said he’d like to question as to why the
presentation is vastly different then the last one. He felt the last one was
fuzzy and messed up. He’d like to have a copy of the presentation because there
is a lot of information that he’d like to go over. He thinks it going to be
quite a deal for those people who are billed $5,000 from the Norway- Dover and
the Eagle Drainage Districts to have their bill go to Rochester and only have to
pay $150 of it.
Pat Gerber, 412 N. State St., said she understands that something has to be
done. She would like to suggest that the process or implementation be slowed
down a little bit. What she means by that is the fee. She is speaking with two
hats a business owner and a resident, $65 per ERU doesn’t seem like a lot, but
considering that there will also be an increase in sewer bills and taxes because
of other entities being charged. As a commercial property owner she knows their
business will be hit hard with the ERU charge. They have a black topped surface
at their commercial business because that is what they are required to have, but
as that blacktop deteriorates, maybe they should just leave gravel because they
will have better drainage there. She feels that the Village should slowly
implement this utility to make it a little more affordable for people.
Dick Bosworth, 509 Fox Knoll Dr, does not have a problem with what the Village
is planning on charging for this utility as long as the fee stays at that amount
for a long time. He doesn’t want to see it slowly increase year after year.
Realistically something has to be done and this one way of getting it done.
Ron Strelow, 2535 Fox Knoll Dr., said as far as the Norway-Dover Drainage
district goes, he would like see how this will help them in fighting their fee.
Because he feels they are going to pay a whole lot more when they get hit with
that fee. How is this utility going to help? Weinkauf stated that the utility
will pay their fee. Johnson said that the utility will negotiate for all the
people that are in it. Johnson said the board will have a little more power than
individuals having to fight it. Birkett stated that also when dealing with the
Norway-Dover Drainage District when billing individual property owners it’s hard
for those property owners to know what they’re doing with the money. The utility
can hold them accountable. Strelow said if that’s the case, he is for this
utility, because one person going against the Norway-Dover Drainage District is
a lost cause.
Gail Vukodinovich, 33101 Oak Knoll Rd., said she is concerned about a new fee
that the Village is proposing that she feels is just another political word for
tax that will not ever go away and will never go down. She said not only are
residents paying an individual ERU for their property, but now they have to pick
of the ERU that is being charged to the government buildings, that just means an
increase in taxes. She also feels that on River Rd. there is more going on than
just drainage issues. She sees drainage problems everyday on State Highways. She
feels that River Rd. has probably never been looked at for its sub-grade, the
pitches are not sufficient, it hasn’t been maintained properly and development
has increased. She feels all these things contribute to what’s happening on
River Rd.
Mark Magnuson, 821 Prairie View Dr., said he feels the Norway-Dover Drainage
District started out in the same fashion a bunch of people trying to better
their community; however it turned into a monster. He questioned if there will
be checks and balances in place that will prevent this utility from going down
the same path. Tierney said that the Board is elected and if you don’t
like what they are doing you can vote them out. The Norway- Dover Drainage
District representatives are appointed by a judge.
Don Collins, 200 English Settlement, said he does not agree with the farms being
charged double. He doesn’t understand why the farmhouse is being separated from
the farm. He thinks it’s ridiculous that a person with a 5 acre farm and 6 acre
parcel will pay the same as someone who has 350 acres. As far as his taxes go on
the farm he pays one unit not two. Weinkauf said, he thinks that there will come
a day that he will see an advantage to having this utility.
Bill Klug, 217 Royal Ct., said he gets the feeling that this utility is going to
pass and the Village is going to raise $109,000 thru ERU fees. He would like to
know how much money was spent out of the general fund this year for storm water
management. Birkett stated that there was not a lot of work done; they did spend
money on a Stormwater Study which gave them a list of the projects that need to
be done. The study was $28,000. Birkett said that his budget for roads
this year was $20,000 most of it goes to roads; he has done some ditch cleaning.
He said it’s hard to keep up because the money is not there. Klug said that he
can see it’s hard to get $109, 000 out of the general fund so whatever savings
comes from taking the expense out of the general fund and taking it
from the utility he hopes that the Board does right by it, because the residents
really aren’t going to get that savings back.
Dick Rehberg, 28000 Plank Rd. questioned the 10 Year Capital Improvement Plan.
He sees that the Ag School Drain Tile is first on the list; he understands that
that is a privately owned tile. Beere stated that it does cross Village right of
ways. Tierney added that the outlet has been maintained by the Village for
years. Rehberg than referred to the drafted ordinance section 12-7C.2 which
reads: Special Assessment. A Special assessment may be imposed on property that
is in a specific area benefited by a particular stormwater management facility
pursuant to Wis. Stat. s. 66.0703. The special assessment will be developed to
reflect the benefits/services in a particular area that may not be appropriate
to spread to property owners throughout the Village of Rochester.
He feels if the Village is going to do work on that tile, that project should be
engineered out to see who is going to benefit from it. As he stated before, with
him living on the east side of the river, his water is not going to drain
through that tile.
Rehberg also stated on his farm and some properties to the north of him have
privately owned 18 inch tiles. In 1950, the Courts of Racine established an
agreement with those properties that if something were to go wrong with the
tiles, those properties were supposed to pay a certain percentage to fix them.
There was also an agreement reached when Rock Ridge Subdivision went in with the
property owners and three other farms adjacent to them. The agreement was that
the Rock Ridge property owners would contribute 25% of the cost to fix any tiles
because their water runs across those farmlands. The Rowntree, Birkett and
Rehberg farm would pay the balance. Rehberg questioned if the utility is
formed, will these agreement be turned over to the utility and will the utility
district take care of it when something has to be done with those tiles. Tierney
stated that would not be the case. Rehberg stated then why should he have to pay
for the Ag School tile to be fixed when no one has to pay for his tile to be
fixed. Bennett thought that might be a question for the Village Attorney.
Rehberg said that he has maintained his tile for 60 years and now he has to pay
for someone else’s tile because they refused to maintain it. He is sick of it.
He said the land on the Eastside of the Village is different from the Westside.
He said according to the ordinance the Village should place special assessments
on the properties that need work on privately owned tiles.
Joann Storm, 850 N. Browns Lake Dr., said that she doesn’t have a drainage
problem where she lives; however she understands the importance of supporting
everyone else’s problems. She thinks the Village should comeback with an
accurate amount whether it $73 or $65 per year. But she thinks that there should
be some sort of guarantee that it’s not going to go up to $400 or $500 5 years
from now. She said that will put a lot of people who are already struggling
already. She thinks the Village will get a lot more support if you can guarantee
that the fee will not go over $100 per year. Beere said he doesn’t believe it
will go any higher than $65 in 10 years. Johnson agreed that he does not want to
see it go higher than $65 per year.
Bennett said that he would love to see the day when all the issues are fixed in
Rochester and the fee is gone.
Possible Action: Ordinance #3-2011 “An Ordinance to create Chapter 12,
Storm Water Utility, of the Village of Rochester Municipal Code and Resolution
#2011-19 Establishing the Storm Water Management Charges.
Beere asked for discussion from the Board.
Bennett stated that he thinks that the ordinance should go back to the
sub-committee to get some of the issues ironed out. Chart agreed with Bennett,
he doesn’t like the $65 fee. He thinks that is too high. He’d like to see it
start out a little lower; he understands that there is a need for something to
be done. Weinkauf said that he thinks this important and he thinks drainage
affects people more than they realize. If the Village doesn’t form a utility
before Norway-Dover Drainage District comes in, he feels the residents of
Rochester are going to pay a lot more than $65/yr in the long run.
Bennett said that he agrees with Weinkauf, but he thinks that there were some
issues that came up at tonight’s meeting that need to be addressed. Johnson
stated that the Village has been working on this for almost a year now and he
feels that the fees were discussed. He said to get this program up and running
right he feels that $65/yr is not a huge burden.
Beere said that he agrees with a lot of the points made tonight. He himself has
a drain tile that he has had to maintain; however he doesn’t believe those are
reasons to not move forward with this, he feels this affects a lot of people and
these issues have been going on for 60 years. He thinks the Village needs to
start somewhere.
Bill Gerard, 29121White Oak Ln., Waterford, questioned if the Village has
looked into grants for this. Beere stated that the Village asked the DNR and
they told them there were no monies available. Gerard said the DNR are the wrong
people to ask. Tierney said that they are always looking for grants of some
sort. Tierney added that those monies are usually distributed to the larger
communities such as Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha etc. because they score higher on
the grant scoring charts.
Lancour concurred with everything that was said. He feels that there should be a
fixed rate and a fixed time limit. He doesn’t want to see an increase every
year. The Village should be satisfied with this money for awhile and do
what they can with it. He understands the Village is making up for a lot of lost
time over the last 50-60 years. The Village needs to do what they can with what
they got. As far as the two ERU’s for farmlands he agrees with it, he will have
to pay two units and he lives on the highest point in the Village. He’s not
going to benefit anything from it. He said that’s just the way it works, some
are going to benefit more than others.
Bennett moved, seconded by Chart to send the ordinance back to the sub-committee
to iron out the issues. Novy wanted to make the Board aware that if the
ordinance does go back to the committee that there will not be sufficient time
to put the charge on the tax bills. Votes were as follows: Bennett – Aye;
Chart – Aye; Beere – Nay; Johnson – Nay; Lancour – Nay; Weinkauf – Nay. Motion
failed.
Weinkauf moved, seconded by Johnson to approve ordinance #3-2011 “An Ordinance
to create Chapter 12, Storm Water Utility, of the Village of Rochester Municipal
Code and Resolution #2011-19 Establishing the Storm Water Management Charges.
Votes were as follows: Weinkauf – Aye; Beere – Aye; Johnson - Aye; Lancour
– Aye; Chart – Nay; Bennett – Nay. Motion passed.
Bennett moved, 2nd by Chart to adjourn at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Sandi Swan, Deputy Clerk-Treasurer
Return to top of page
NOVEMBER 21, 2011
SPECIAL BOARD MEETING
6:00 P.M.
Paul Beere called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with Gary Beck, Ed Chart,
Chris Johnson, Bob Lancour and Mike Weinkauf present. Chris Bennett was
absent.
Betty Novy, Clerk -Treasurer, was also present.
Bill Matthews and Steve Wagner from Anderson Ashton were also in attendance.
Continue discussions on village hall building design: Steve
Wagner, Project Architect; and Bill Matthews, Project Manager, Anderson-Ashton,
Inc.
Wagner explained the purpose of the meeting was to review modifications to the
plan discussed at the November 8th meeting to make sure the Board approves of
the proposed building footprint and site plan before they proceed with civil
engineering. Both the floor plan and site plan should be right before they
proceed with drafting the site grading plan.
Matthews noted the site plan now has a larger green space off of Wade Street.
They combined the play areas so parents can watch their kids from a central
location regardless of what area they are playing in. The “L” shape takes
away the dead space between the play areas.
Consensus of the Board was that this change was satisfactory. There was
discussion about whether the gazebo shown on the plan should be built now or in
the future. Consensus of the Board was to price construction of the gazebo
as an alternate when the project is put out to bid.
There was discussion regarding how the driveway lines up with State Street north
of Wade Street. Chart noted concerns about headlights shining into houses.
Wagner explained the slope of the driveway is such that headlamps will be
pointed down so they should not shine into the houses on Wade.
Wagner noted making the Clerk-Treasurer’s office more latitudinal than
longitudinal impacted access to the small meeting room and therefore the
location of this room was moved. But, he feels the move adds more to the
architectural appeal of the building and opens up more space for storage.
The location of the small meeting room also makes it more visual for people
coming to night meetings.
There was discussion about placement of the law enforcement office and trying to
keep visual access from that office to the counter area. Wagner indicated
there is a 3 foot window in the law enforcement office that opens to the work/
layout area. Novy questioned whether the wall creating the doorway from
the Clerk-Treasurer’s office to the Work/Layout area could be shortened to a
half wall to allow a better line of site for law enforcement to the counter
area. It was noted there was no reason it could not be designed in that
way.
Matthews noted commercial buildings have no specific guidelines for outlets or
wiring so they will require direction from the Village as to placement of these
items. Items specifically mentioned were outlets, phone lines, computer
jacks, security systems, exterior outlets, and exterior hose bibs. They
will provide assistance, but will require input from the Village as to what is
required.
Weinkauf moved, 2nd by Chart to approve Proposed Floor Plan A1.1 with a
last revision date of November 18, 2011. Motion carried.
Matthews indicated his intention to proceed with soliciting proposals for soil
borings. Consensus of the Board was to have Matthews forward a minimum of
three proposals to Novy. Upon receipt, they should be forwarded to
Board members via email. Upon no objection from Board members, Novy was
directed to award the work to firm with the lowest proposal.
Discussion turned to when the next meeting should be scheduled. Wagner
indicated a meeting could be held quickly on items such as interior and exterior
finishes. However, Matthews indicated a preference that the next meeting
be delayed until a storm water engineer is able make some assessments about the
proposed location of the building. If soil borings or site drainage
present problems, the building may have to be moved and it may require
adjustments to the plan.
Board members identified the following potential dates for the next meeting:
Wednesday, December 14th; Thursday, December 15th; Monday, December 19th; or
Tuesday, December 20th. Wagner or Matthews will contact Novy when they are
ready to schedule the meeting.
Chart moved, 2nd by Beck to adjourn at 6:40 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted:
Betty J. Novy, MMC CMTW WCMC
Clerk-Treasurer