Links:
October 10, 2011 Meeting Minutes
October 20, 2011 Meeting Minutes
October 24, 2011 Meeting Minutes
October 27, 2011 Meeting Minutes
October 10, 2011
VILLAGE 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; John Tierney, Engineer; and Jon Schattner, Zoning
Administrator; were also present. Christopher Birkett, Public Works
Manager, was absent.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Minutes. Bennett moved, 2nd by Weinkauf to approve
minutes of the September 12 and September 27, 2011 meetings as printed.
Motion carried.
Period for Public Comment. Mary Stapleton, Library
Director, announced new winter library hours of 9:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. They will
also have hours on Sundays too.
Department Reports:
Sheriff. Deputy Castillo read a written
report showing the following statistics for September: one accident; eight
speeding citations; six traffic citations; six parking citations; and eighteen
warnings were issued. There were five arrests- three ordinance, one
operating while intoxicated, and one misdemeanor. Complaint statistics
were as follows: seventeen complaints originated through calls directly to
the Sheriff’s Department; Deputy Castillo assisted with twelve additional
complaints, originated forty-seven on his own and performed follow up on
twenty-eight. He reported twenty-five working days, 210.0 hours and
1,785 miles driven. Twenty foot patrols were also conducted.
Additionally, Castillo reported a relatively smooth event for the “Day in the
Country”. There have been several recent incidents of vandalism in the
area where windows have been broken. Three kids are suspected. There
was also damage to the kiosk in Wadewitz Nature Park, however it was unknown
when that occurred. Castillo reported he will be on duty for trick or
treat. Board members instructed Castillo to keep an eye out for
individuals burning leaves on or near the roadway as village ordinances prohibit
burning in these areas and it damages the pavement.
Public Works. Christopher Birkett was not
present. Consideration of his written report was delayed until such time
as he arrived.
Engineer. Tierney read his written report as follows:
Settlement of Rochester Condominiums- Project Completion: No activity this
period.
Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study: Coordinated with Village Attorney
regarding changes to the draft ordinance. Preparing presentation for the
Public Information Meeting/ Open House on October 20th.
2011 Street Improvements: General construction administration and
construction observation. Project is substantially complete.
Prepared preliminary list of incomplete items for Payne & Dolan. Tasks
pending: Conduct final inspection walk through and prepare punch-list.
Pond Permit Franciscan Missions: Reviewed permit documents, visited site,
and provided recommendation memo.
Weinkauf asked if there were any complaints regarding this year’s road repair
project. Tierney noted the need to monitor a couple of spots in the
pavement. He is asking for a 3 year warranty on those areas. Beere
inquired about Gauger’s driveway. Tierney reported the driveway and ditch
repairs have been completed. Chart questioned why the new culvert
installed at Fernwood and River had failed. Tierney indicated Payne &
Dolan failed to protect the culvert from gravel and paving trucks driving over
it. This caused it to collapse. Tierney noted Payne & Dolan exceeded
the contract completion date by a week and a half. He is negotiating that
against culvert replacement.
Discussion and Possible Selection: Architectural Site Plan Options
regarding construction of the Village Hall in Rochester Commons Park
Novy reported four site plans had been introduced to the Board at a special
meeting October 3rd. The Project Architect, Steve Wagner, was present and
available for questions.
Chart reported on his consideration of the four site options. He reported
painting the proposed building corners for Option Three on the ground. He
feels site constraints make it difficult to preserve the ball diamond and
construct the Village Hall at this site. He prefers Option One because of
the building’s future expandability, the parking lot configuration, and that it
provides through traffic for elections, etc.
Bennett also reported a preference for Option One commenting that he was not too
concerned with tennis courts or gazebos because he prefers open green space.
He is not concerned with preserving the ball diamond. He feels Option One
offers the best viability and the best option for preserving green space.
Weinkauf stated he still feels the ball diamond should be preserved. He
considers the ball diamond a safe haven- a place where young kids start out and
a place where kids go when they visit the library. He would like to turn
the ball diamond around, put the backstop in the northwest corner of the park,
and build the village hall into the hill behind the library somehow.
He is not interested in tennis courts, basketball courts, and is not in favor of
hooking the village hall onto the library. He would like the building to
be constructed in an “L” shape and to see a driveway go through from Spring to
Wade Street, but he would like that driveway blocked most of the time and just
opened up for elections. He would like the village hall to be built
in its own style as free standing architecture.
Beere stated he liked an idea he had discussed with Gary Beck- to build the
village hall as an “L” – utilizing some of the property to the east of the
library building rather than utilizing the ball diamond area. He
likes the idea of leaving the two-story portion of the library building standing
and letting the library and historical society continue to use it- preserving
the $30,000 budgeted for demolition to fix it up. He would see other
amenities added to the site as needed and does not feel the need to construct
tennis courts or gazebos right now. He feels amenities could be left for
later.
Beck continued to explain his idea that the village hall could be built as a
free standing building to the east of the library, leaving the two-story portion
of the library building standing. He commented that portion of the
building was probably built better than the one they were in that night.
He indicated it needs a new roof, chimney, and a little TLC. He prefers
building the new building to the north and east. He feels the Board needs
to look at more than one option that preserves the ball diamond.
Johnson indicated one of his biggest concerns is parking. He would like to
see a through driveway- especially during election times. He likes
Beck’s idea, but if it’s going to cost a lot more because of building into the
hill, then he would go with one of the other site plans. In regards to the
ball diamond, he indicated he would like to save it, but only if the building
and ball diamond could be placed on the site plan reasonably. He feels
Option Three presents a problem because it prevents the driveway from going
through.
Lancour agreed a through driveway was important and agreed with the possibility
of moving the building, but only if it was not going to cost more because of
building into the hill.
Steve Wagner, Architect, indicated it is less about what everyone wants than it
is about feasibility. The setbacks on the site are very limiting- it is 50
feet on that side of the property and there are four offsets in the property
line.
Chart pointed out the setback line on the site plan display noting there is a
lot of grass, but not a lot of building pad.
Beck questioned the applicability of the setbacks.
Jon Schattner, Zoning Administrator, pointed out the village hall has to comply
with what the setbacks are in the district it is located in. If the
Board passes the park and institutional zoning ordinance that is currently under
consideration and more than one building is placed on the property, setbacks
will be up to the plan commission and village board. If only one
building is constructed, the 50 foot setback applies.
Johnson indicated his preference that the village hall entrance be at ground
level to improve handicap accessibility-specifically stating no steps. He
sees that as a challenge if building on the hill because of the degree of slope.
Lancour stated his biggest concern is cost and he questioned whether there was
any idea of cost comparisons for the site options.
Wagner replied there are challenges for each of the options. He does not
know if there is a benefit to one or the other as far as cost is concerned.
When the board discusses saving the cost of demolishing the two-story portion of
the library, they have to be aware that they then incur other costs as far as
investing money in repair of the building. In regards to drainage,
Option Three presents some challenges because of the “t” off the back of the
existing library building. He noted the concern of connecting the driveways.
In Option Three, the majority of the water flows into a dry basin. That is
where all the quality control of water will happen- to the west and north of the
proposed building. This controls the water quality for the parking lot.
This becomes a tricky proposal when you talk about saving the diamond as well
because you are trying to move water and traffic in the same spot.
Beck stated, if the building was moved to the east, you could continue a
driveway to Wade Street. Wagner replied you would have an interior
court condition under that scenario, and you have to be careful of the well
location, and there are overhead lines that run in that area. The sewer
line also moves along the east side of the existing building. Wagner
indicated there are a lot more infrastructure challenges along the east side of
the existing building.
Johnson questioned providing drainage underneath the parking lot.
Wagner indicated surface drainage is the most economical approach noting it is
not just the material, but the sub-surface that you need to grade down to- an
additional 18 to 20 inches- to provide drainage underneath a parking lot.
Johnson stated any leaching back into the ground water is better. He
considers the detention area a huge loss of space.
Wagner indicated the dry basin is not meant to control anything, it is an
overflow. You want the water to leach its way through the flow line into
the soil. The dry basin is basically there for 100 year flood events.
Beck summarized several of the concerns- to keep the building on one level, have
the driveway go through to Wade Street and keep the two-story building in place
for storage, noting it is not new and pretty, but it is workable and with a
little TLC it could last a long time.
Wagner indicated the two-story building is not an accessible structure and its
use will be limited to storage only.
Beck recognized that as how the building is used now- so that would not change
anything. He requested a site design that keeps the two-story portion of
the library in place and wraps the village hall around it, moving it towards the
east as a free standing building.
Chart questioned whether Beck had looked at the setbacks because, if the
two-story building is kept, we will moving another 40 feet towards Wade Street
with a 30 to 40 foot building.
Beck indicated it will make things much easier if we save the ball diamond
because he feels that is an issue. The other issue is not everybody wants
the building right now. The Village needs to do something that makes it
work for everyone. The Village needs a building, but needs to do something
that works for everybody.
Chart stated his opinion that wrapping the village hall around the two-story
portion of the library building is the worst spot for it because the topography
makes it hard to do. Chart questioned Wagner “how would you do that”?
Wagner indicated you would have footings twice as deep as they need to be
because of the grades and the result will be a basement. The question then
becomes- do you really want or need a basement? He indicated he
could draw anything the village wants him to, but the setbacks are going to
limit the building’s location. If a lower level is proposed as storage or
mechanical space- with no provisions for occupied workspace- than that is what
that space will be devoted for- only for that and that is an additional cost.
Occupied workspace would require an elevator and all previous discussions were
such that the Village did not want to incur that expense.
Lancour questioned whether a basement would shrink the upper level’s footprint.
Wagner indicated the proposed village hall plan has minimal storage, so having
storage downstairs would not reduce the footprint in a meaningful way.
You’ll have a place for the furnace, but you’ll have to create a huge area of
square footage for storage that you can’t afford anyway.
Lancour stated you are saving green space with this design, but you have very
limited space around the building.
Chart indicated whatever site option is chosen, the Village Board has to get
comfortable with it- and if it isn’t the right spot, the village will have to
move on. But, there has been a lot of time and money invested in this
location.
There was discussion about topography and the trouble caused by the hill.
The Village may not want to invest money building in that location. It is
a six foot drop from the top of the hill to the proposed level of pavement for
the parking lot. It is a tight fit and it was questioned where the
parking would be- would people have to walk around from the back area to get to
the Village Hall?
There was discussion about building into the hill, that the hill could be cut by
six feet. Beck noted half of Waterford High School is underground
and you wouldn’t know the difference when you are inside. Wagner indicated
parking continues to be the question- if you are parking on top of the
hill, where are you getting into the building that is below grade? Also,
if access is from above and water moves toward the building, it is going to be a
challenge to keep water out of it. Remember, you are pushing the new
building another 40 feet to the north if you are saving the two-story building.
Jay Rumpf, 210 W. Wade Street, asked for an opportunity to speak. Beere
granted permission. Rumpf indicated he has been in real estate development
since 1982. He noted the Village should look for a site that has the least
amount of challenges rather than greatest. He stated this (the library
site) is a challenging site no matter what is done- one or two story
construction. The question he had was regarding the fire station site.
He noted it seems to be somewhat level and highly accessible. He
questioned why the Village isn’t looking at that site.
Beere replied that the library site was chosen because the library is short on
meeting room space. By locating the village hall close to the library
building, the Village can prevent having to build two buildings.
Rumpf stated his opinion that constructing a 2,000 square foot extension on the
library building makes more sense. Building a separate village hall
building by the fire department might be more reasonable. Then the village
would have a facility that can be expanded. He indicated the library site
seems like beating a dead horse and questioned a second time why the village
doesn’t use the fire department site.
Johnson replied the fire station site is sometimes used as a landing site for
flight for life and youth football is played there too- these are other
considerations. Also, if the fire department goes to a fire district, the
Rochester Fire Station is in a central location there and the facility might
need to be expanded.
Mary Jo Mather, 35305 Ravine Drive, questioned why the village doesn’t build on
county land.
Johnson noted concerns stated at previous hearings on this topic that the
village hall being kept within walking distance from the downtown area.
County sites don’t offer that option and would require the purchase of land.
A comment was made that there is still room for an addition to the fire station
and to build a village hall at the fire station site. This was
followed by light discussion regarding sewer and septic accommodations at that
site.
Novy reminded Board members that when initial discussions took place regarding
fire station vs. library building sites, several members of the fire company
were working hard to dig up restrictions on their property that would prohibit
the village hall from being located there. She also noted neighbors at
that location are likely not going to support constructing the village hall
there either.
There were comments from the audience that those neighbors shouldn’t matter
because they are not at the meeting.
Novy indicated they are not at the meeting because construction of the village
hall is currently being considered at the library site. If the location
changed, neighbors at whatever location is chosen would likely object- just like
a different group of people objected to locating the village hall in the former
ProHealth Care building.
Mary Stapleton, Rochester Public Library Director, commented the library is more
than a library in Rochester, it is a community center. She
continued, going back to when the library site was chosen for constructing the
village hall, it seemed like a reasonable idea because the library and village
hall could have shared space and shared facilities. She feels the Board is
moving backwards if they start looking at different sites again. She
stated she has been working at the library for 13 years and her observation of
things being used in the park is primarily the basketball court and playground
equipment. Outside of league play, she has not seen this generation
of kids just decide to play a game of baseball. If she were to pick park
amenities in terms of priorities, she would rank the playground first for the
young moms and little kids; the basketball court second for teenagers;
and the ball diamond third for league play. She asked that the Board move
forward and make a decision regarding locating the village hall, but asked that
they don’t change the location because of a baseball diamond that, in her
opinion, is not used that much- kids are not doing that any more. Kids are
not throwing together a game of baseball- not anymore. She hasn’t seen it.
Jeremy Hamilton, 404 W. Wade Street, stated she sees fathers and kids on the
ball diamond all the time, that families are reunited with their kids’ on the
ball diamond and that this is a big thing. She continued that games may
not be organized, but they practice there.
Stapleton responded there would still be open space to throw balls and pitch to
each other.
Beck asked that the design that preserves the ball diamond be displayed.
Joanie Beck, Rochester Historical Society President, questioned whether the ball
diamond couldn’t be relocated to the west. She commented that area is
pretty flat. She questioned why you couldn’t put a ball diamond back there
if it is needed. She indicated she is at the park a lot. She sees
use of the ball diamond more by the youth baseball program, but occasionally
sees a mother throwing a ball to a child. She has also witnessed vandalism
by kids there. But, she agrees that the basketball court and
playground equipment are the most used.
Weinkauf asked that the building be moved to the east, the baseball diamond be
repositioned so that the backstop is at the west end the parcel, and the
driveway go through between the two roads with a space to be shut off.
Terri Bates, 300 E. Spring Street, said she didn’t understand why the village
needs parking. She said, from working in downtown Milwaukee, that people
just park where they can and walk two to three blocks- that this is not
considered unreasonable.
Wagner clarified zoning dictates parking lot sizes. Based on business and
government uses, the proposed building requires a minimum of twenty-eight
parking stalls.
Jay Rumpf stated opposition to losing the green space. Board
members reiterated there will be opposition wherever they go.
Several individuals in the audience asked that the building location be put to a
referendum election. Board members indicated they have been working on
this project for a long time and that a referendum was already held in April of
2010.
Mike Pankonin, 206 Wade Street, asked that a feasibility study be performed on
the fire station site.
Beere questioned the Village Engineer on analysis of the fire station site.
Tierney reported preliminary analysis identified wetland issues- both setbacks
and the soils to the east are not good for locating a building. Required
setbacks from established wetland areas can be up to 75 feet.
Board members agreed they were past the fire station site and into shared space
at the library site. They indicated they are going to move forward and
that this is the best option for the village right now.
Comments were made that keeping the two-story portion of the library building
would serve the same purpose as the shared space of the village hall.
Board members indicated no, 50% of that building is stairwell.
Mary Jo Mathers commented she doesn’t understand why the Board isn’t listening
to the people and commented that the referendum held in 2010 did not ask her
whether she even wanted to build or not.
Beck moved, 2nd by Bennett to direct Wagner to draw up another plan that moves
the building as far to the east as possible, moves the ball diamond backstop to
west end of the green space, and moves the play area for kids to the east side
of the building. Votes were as follows: Beck: Aye;
Beere: Aye; Bennett: Aye: Johnson: Aye;
Lancour: Aye; Weinkauf: Aye; Chart: Nay.
Motion passed.
Site Plan Review to construct a pond and statute garden on the south
side of Hunters Trail
Applicant: General Secretariat of the Franciscan Missions/Agent: Tim
Lynch, Project Engineer
Parcel #176031915004020
Tim Lynch presented the proposed plan. Weinkauf reported on Plan
Commission review of this item. They recommended approval of the site plan
subject to the conditions of the zoning administrator. Schattner
reported the conditions include compliance with DNR regulations and several
other items listed in his memorandum dated September 29, 2011. Weinkauf
moved, 2nd by Johnson to approve the site plan review to construct a pond and
statute garden on the south side of Hunters Trail subject to the conditions of
the zoning administrator. Motion carried.
First Reading: Ordinance #3-2011 “An Ordinance to create Chapter
12, Stormwater Utility, of the Village of Rochester Municipal Code and
Resolution #2011-19 A Resolution Establishing a Charge Structure for the
Village of Rochester Stormwater Utility.
Tierney reported on the draft ordinance and storm water utility feasibility
report that will be presented at the public information meeting and hearing on
October 20th. The ordinance defines customer classes, how customers will
be charged, and a means of credit and appeals for customers. It is a
fairly standard ordinance that has been reviewed by staff and legal to
incorporate billing practices for residential, non-residential, and agricultural
properties. There are automatic credits based on population density
and green space percentages. Weinkauf stated he feels creating this
utility is important because anyone who wants to develop an area will have to
come to the utility and tell them where the water is going to go. This
review will prevent breaking drainage tiles, etc., and the utility will also
handle any assessments imposed by the Racine County Drainage District.
Bennett commented it will allow elected officials to negotiate these
assessments. Novy stated this is the first reading of the ordinance. The
public information meeting and public hearing is scheduled for October 20th.
Second Reading/ Progress Update: Ordinance #2-2011 “An
Ordinance to Repeal Chapter 15, Sections 3.09, 5.04, 5.05 and 5.08 of the
Village of Rochester Municipal Code, to recreate Chapter 15 Section 3.09, Public
Facilities Districts, which apply to the entire corporate limits of the
Consolidated Village of Rochester, to repeal conflicting provisions in the
existing (former) Town of Rochester Code of Ordinances and the Village of
Rochester Municipal Code, and to rezone Parcels to P-1 and P-2 Districts
Novy provided an update on the progress of the ordinance. This ordinance
was initially introduced at the September board meeting, but further review of
notification requirements required mailing over 300 notices to affected
properties, and those within 200 feet of affected properties, of the Plan
Commission’s initial consideration of the ordinance. Novy
continued the Board needs to conduct the public hearing so it is up to them when
they would like to schedule that. Several residents attended the Plan
Commission meeting to discuss the ordinance and much input was received, however
most of the input had to do with locating the village hall on the library
property rather than technical aspects or concerns about the ordinance.
Schattner reported some issues were raised on allowable and conditional uses at
the Plan Commission meeting. The Plan Commission laid over consideration
of the ordinance and will come back with any additional comments at their
November meeting. The ordinance has gone through legal and ordinance
committee review. Schattner indicated it is close to completion. The
ordinance looks at what exists on the parcels proposed for re-zoning and brings
those uses into conformance with the ordinance. Any existing uses prior to
adoption of the ordinance will be grandfathered. Weinkauf
indicated the Plan Commission needs to complete its review. Consensus of the
Board was to schedule the hearing for the regular meeting in December.
Resolution #2011-17 “Resolution Designating Public Depository and
Authorizing Withdrawal of Village Moneys”: First Business Bank
Novy reported the Finance Committee strayed from the certificate of deposit
reinvestment strategy recommended at the September meeting when they became
aware of money market rates being offered by First Business Bank of Milwaukee on
municipal deposits. Proceeds from the Fox River State Bank certificate of
deposit that came due last month were used to open an account bearing 1.5%
interest. The highest certificate of deposit rate quoted by local banks
was .6% for a six month investment. This money market account is fluid
and, if rates exceed what the village can get at other institutions, funds can
be withdrawn at any time. The resolution serves as the
signature card for the account. Bennett moved, 2nd by Johnson to adopt
Resolution #2011-17. Motion carried.
Resolution #2011-18 “Resolution To Impose a Special Tax for Razing and
Removal of Structures and Site Restoration on a Property in the Village of
Rochester”
Novy reported this resolution authorizes putting the costs of razing the Ouwens
house and garage on the tax roll as a special tax. Bennett moved, 2nd by
Johnson to adopt Resolution #2011-18. Motion carried.
Selection of Project for 2012-2013 LRIP Funding Application
Novy reported Weinkauf’s attendance at the municipal street improvement program
committee meeting held September 28th helped qualify Rochester for $17,840 in
the 2012-2013 LRIP funding cycle. Birkett and Tierney recommended
submitting an application for resurfacing Upland Road. Bennett moved, 2nd
by Weinkauf to accept the recommendation and submit an application for
resurfacing Upland Road for the 2012-2013 funding cycle. Motion carried.
Most Valuable Member Award issued to Kathy Romanak- WI Association of
Assessing Officers
Novy reported on Romanak’s receipt of this one-time award as a WAAO member who
has made significant contributions to the association through participation in
its activities and who has made an outstanding contribution to the realization
of the association’s goals. Weinkauf moved, 2nd by Lancour to send Kathy
Romanak a letter of congratulations on achieving the award. Motion
carried.
Application for Operator’s License Renewal: Jeffrey G Buelow
Novy reported the applicant has held a license within the past two years and has
a clean background check. She recommended approval. Bennett moved,
2nd by Beck to approve an operator’s license for Jeffrey Buelow. Motion
carried.
Correspondence was read from the Alliance for Regulatory Coordination supporting
the Village’s efforts “to promote public safety in the constructed environment”;
the Town of Waterford and Western Racine County Health Department regarding
public health costs; and from Kathy Romanak, Village Assessor, including an
article from the Wisconsin Town’s Association regarding changes to state law
that affect assessment practices as notification that costs will be incurred to
comply with these changes.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Public Works Committee: Johnson noted the committee had
not met this past month. Since Birkett had not made it to the meeting,
Johnson took this opportunity to read Birkett’s written report (as follows):
Lift Stations/ Sewer: Testing generators and maintenance of lift stations
ongoing.
Roads: Shoulder project has been completed, should be under budget.
Parking ordinance signs for west side of village have been ordered and next
group of stop signs have as well. We have 18 trees to be removed in the
village. I’m calling for quotes and will have them for the next meeting.
Road project is almost done- working with John on a punch list. Fox Grove
ditch work will be going on this month. Pot holes and larger patches will
be getting attended to this month.
Parks: All 3 are in good shape. Spraying of infields will be done on an as
needed basis. I am working on tree planting/replacement plan at this time.
Animal Control: A few barking calls, 2 dogs at large. 2 dog bite incidents
as well. I also have a possible viscous dog complaint. Drafted a
letter and sent it to the Hellands’ with time frame to comply.
Budget: Working on numbers will have it completed this week.
Weeds: Lot that was not mowed- sent Forrest George in to mow.
Ordinance Committee: Beck deferred to the zoning
administrator for the report. Schattner indicated the committee met last
month to discuss M-1 industrial zoning districts; and will continue with
discussions on M-2 and M-3 industrial zoning districts this month.
Village Hall Building Committee: Chart
reported all recent issues discussed by the committee were covered during the
meeting.
Western Racine County Health Department: Bennett
indicated nothing new to report.
Honey Lake Protection and Rehabilitation District Board: Weinkauf
reported on the September 20th meeting of the district. The district hired
the engineering firm of R.A. Smith to perform their dam inspection report.
They also approved having their attorney send a letter to a property owner that
has landscaped part of their road right of way. It was also reported that
Bob McIndoe, former Town of Spring Prairie Supervisor which served on the
district board, had been appointed to the Walworth County Land Conservation
Board and is now back on the Honey Lake District Board as their representative.
It was also noted that the $1.4m Spring Prairie road bond that was used to pave
one or two roads in the Honey Lake Subdivision has been paid off.
Finance Committee Report: Beck reported the
recommendations of the committee to approve all disbursements listed on the
check detail dated September 13, 2011 – October 10, 2011, to open a money market
account with First Business Bank with general fund certificate of deposit
proceeds due this month, to deposit sewer utility certificate of deposit
proceeds due this month into a second First Business Bank money market account
up to the insured amount, and to reinvest remaining sewer utility certificate of
deposit proceeds in a certificate of deposit at the best rate available at a
term not to exceed seven months. Weinkauf moved, 2nd by Bennett to approve
the finance committee’s recommendations. Motion carried.
Weinkauf moved, 2nd by Johnson to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Novy, MMC, CMTW, WCMC
Clerk-Treasurer
October 20, 2011
SPECIAL VILLAGE BOARD MEETING
6:00 p.m.
Paul Beere called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. with Gary Beck, Chris
Bennett, Ed Chart, Chris Johnson, Bob Lancour and Mike Weinkauf present.
Betty Novy, Clerk-Treasurer, Christopher Birkett, Public Works Manager, and John
Tierney, Village Engineer, were also present.
Public Information Meeting to create a Stormwater Utility for the
Village of Rochester
Tierney went through a Powerpoint® presentation which is attached to and
incorporated as part of these minutes. Link:
../Rochester Storm Water Utility Feasibility Study.pdf
Questions were then taken from the audience as follows:
Nancy Klemko, 2500 Beck Drive, questioned whether creation of the utility could
be put to a referendum. She commented she did not think that a lot of
people knew about this and that many people do not read their newsletters.
She thought it would have been nice if everyone got a letter on this because it
will just end up on everyone’s tax bill. She doesn’t think a lot of people
know about this because, if they did, she thinks there would be a lot more
people there tonight. She also noted the list of eleven projects and
questioned why the village didn’t do this work before?
Henry Voelkering Jr., 32022 Washington Avenue, approached John Tierney asking
who he worked for. Tierney responded Baxter-Woodman Engineers.
Voelkering complained that the Village hired him stating “that’s more money”.
He questioned “I live out in the country- what has my land or any other one in
the country have to do with the storm sewers- you know how many catch basins are
in this town?” (Mr. Voelkering was asked to take his seat as he was
aggressively approaching the engineer with these questions. He responded
he talks better when he’s close to somebody.)
Voelkering then addressed Ed Chart “What does the runoff from my property have
to do with your storm sewers here?”
Chart replied the Village has to manage the water regardless of where it flows.
Voelkering stated, before you annexed, we didn’t have to worry about it.
Beere replied consolidation (of the village and town) had nothing to do with it.
There are areas on County Highway FF where people’s sump pumps are running two
or three at a time and burning out every year.
Voelkering questioned were they part of the village? It was clarified
these properties were part of the original town.
Johnson explained there is a 1908 drain tile that is failing that cuts around
the back of the library, crosses Highways D and FF in what was the original town
and flows around until it exits into the Fox River. All the cattails
are backing up water. Johnson continued we (Rochester) are getting a lot
of water from Waterford. That is one of the projects we are trying to fix
and this is the cause of people getting flooded out of their basements.
Voelkering questioned why the village hasn’t called the Army Corps of Engineers
or the DNR.
Johnson replied the DNR was contacted and won’t help with these problems.
Failure of the tile caused County Highway D to flood by a foot. The DNR
just wants to raise the road another foot so it backs up the flow and creates
more of a wetland.
Voelkering indicated the DNR will take care of the problem or the Army Corps. Of
Engineers will take care of it. He commented “don’t make all of us pay for
this because of Mother Nature”. He then accused the Village of not calling the
DNR or Army Corps of Engineers because “they will find a lot of sneaky stuff
going on around here”.
Bennett directed the conversation back to Ms. Klemko’s question. She
repeated her concern of why the village didn’t send a letter to everyone since
it will involve money being put on their tax bills. She stated she would
like to have gotten a letter if all of a sudden she found $72 or $73 on her tax
bill, and, as a taxpayer, she noted she wouldn’t have any input on it. It
could just keep going up and up. She indicated she was not saying the
village didn’t have a problem, she just thinks everyone needs to know what it is
and work at it gradually, rather than just being dumped with it like this.
She understands something needs to be done.
Tierney explained monies currently in the taxes that relate to storm water
management would be taken out and be funded by the utility. As an example,
he stated, when Chris gets a call that beavers are damming up a drainage way and
has to clear that blockage, the money for his time and materials would come out
of the utility.
Nancy Klemko again questioned “you listed a lot of things, why haven’t you been
working on this?”
Tierney responded they have been working on the Ag School drain tile project
since 2003. The original village has a collection basin that is
collapsing. The infrastructure needs maintenance.
Birkett responded a big problem has been that whenever the village had a wet
year and things would flood, the village or town would contact an engineer and
say let’s look at it. Then it wouldn’t rain a lot for a couple of years
and a lot of money was spent on studies and engineering that never went
anywhere. The storm water utility is the best option to address these
issues that are ongoing. If it doesn’t rain for a year so badly, then
everyone forgets it. What we’ve been doing is dealing with something of an
urgent nature- then as soon as it goes away for a while we back off and don’t
follow through. We get all excited about it, try to fix it, and then
forget it. It’s like trying to prevent a fire instead of putting it out.
An unidentified person pointed out several houses on Academy Road that have had
flooding problems ever since the road was reconstructed, noting one individual
has a lake on his property every spring.
Johnson indicated the utility will try to address some of these problems.
He also commented on the 48” culvert that goes under Academy Road just west of
Honey Lake Road. He noted beavers dam that drainage way periodically.
Recently, the water came over Hwy. FF and people were hydroplaning through
there.
Voelkering stated the Village can’t do anything about the beavers because the
DNR manages them.
Birkett replied that he checked with the DNR and the Village can remove the
dams.
Voelkering questioned “so this money is just for ripping out beaver dams?’
Birkett clarified it has to do with drainage throughout the entire village-
storm sewer structures, basins, culverts, easements for drainage, ditching on
roads like River Road, Fox Grove, Washington, and Maryl Street. Birkett
indicted the better drainage we have, the longer the roads will last- and
pavement is not cheap. Oil is a commodity and asphalt is made of oil.
Johnson stated another advantage of the utility. He reported that the
Norway-Dover Drainage District is planning to annex 1300 homes into their
district and they will charge these homes whatever they want. What the
Village can do as a utility is collect utility fees and negotiate what the
drainage district gets so people don’t get hammered so hard for using the canal
and other things.
Vince Klemko, 2500 Beck Drive, stated this is good information, but the
community needs to know it.
Johnson stated that’s why people elected the Board- to look at this stuff and
look at it importantly. The Board doesn’t want to raise taxes, but we
don’t want to leave these problems for the future. We don’t want them to
be one big fire at the end of the tunnel and then have to throw a big tax on
property owners because we have a major problem- like Waterford had when they
blew off the manhole sewer covers because they never did anything with their
drainage- they always thought the drain tiles that they relied on for drainage
were going to hold up. They don’t hold up. They are 100 years old.
The statement was made “Why don’t they update it, why didn’t they do anything
with it? That’s why they have sewer and water contractors.”
Board members indicated that’s what the Village is trying to do. Weinkauf
indicated Waterford did not have a storm water utility and depended on a farm
drainage district for years. They built a commercial area by McDonalds and
the water at the dam is 10 feet higher than the parking lot at the Baymont
Hotel. They are pumping water to the river.
Another person questioned “Did you look ahead to the future when you allowed
subdivisions to go in?”
Bennett indicated the people on the Board now aren’t the ones that were on when
most subdivisions were built.
Charlie Pietrowski, 108 N. State Street, questioned whether this was going to be
a regulated small MS-4 utility district then?
Tierney replied “not yet”. The village is trying to head this off at the
pass with this utility and have a funding mechanism in place if that happens.
The village has been told in the past by the DNR or SEWRPC (Southeastern
Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission) that the census tracks that run along
state Highway 36 could result in the village being classified as an urbanized
area. The utility is another mechanism for funding mandatory storm
water requirements. One of those requirements is a storm water system map,
which the village just put together this year, but the village will also be
required to fund public information elements and also good housekeeping stuff
may be required, such as the need to construct detention or retention ponds.
Sometimes you need to acquire property for that too, and that gets expensive.
Pietrowski asked is there a permit required for this? Tierney responded
not for a storm water utility. For a MS-4 utility, the DNR will
issue a permit for a separate storm sewer system, but the village is not yet
regulated.
Tierney was asked to explain detention and retention ponds.
Tierney explained the purest definition of retention is that water goes into it
and never goes out- it soaks in and evaporates off. Some people think
retention has a wet bottom and detention has a grass bottom. But both are
probably detention ponds in that water comes in at a higher rate of speed, gets
held back a while, and releases at a slower rate of speed. It works well
for controlling flow rate- the rate of water coming through.
Tierney continued, if you develop a piece of property, water will run off faster
because of rooftops and other impervious surfaces. If you put in a pond,
it will slow the water down. But, it doesn’t address the amount of water
being created. You are actually creating more water by volume- it just
comes out at a slower rate. That why small streams become bigger. He
stated his understanding that the Des Plaines River was a swamp 200 years ago,
but development kept adding more and more water and it became a river. You
can build detention ponds to slow water down, but you are still creating more
water.
Ed Yanke, 109 N. State Street, stated he thinks this is a good plan but that
people should have known about it earlier- at least that we have a problem here
in the village that we are going to have to address. He knows for a fact
where some of these dire problems are in Weber Estates. His daughter and
son in law have problems over there. He questioned “Can’t the village just
fix the dire problems at this time, instead of trying to fix for the future
right away?”
Tierney indicated the first repair of the Ag School tile is at the outlet by
Highway W. The outlet structure is on private property just past Highway
W. The pipe at the river is cut off so the water has to come out of an
outlet structure and bubble up to get to the river. What the village plans
to do is put a new pipe in, hopefully getting an easement from the owner of the
old Coral Reef property. Construction of the second part of the project is
from the Wegge property to Maryl Street. The plans are to work from the
outlet back up- from the low spot working our way upstream. If it clears
up at the first project, we’ll stop. We don’t know if we have to go all
the way around to try to cure it all. The approach would be to do only
what is needed to cure immediate problems.
Dick Rehberg stated he owns a farm at 28000 Plank Road. Rehberg stated he
agrees with Klemko, he does not believe this utility is ready to be acted on.
He indicated, when he got his newsletter, he called three board members and got
three different answers from the people answering his questions. The other
issue he has is that 40 acres of his farm is in the Eagle Creek drainage
district. He takes a lot of water from the north and from the east, he
questioned is that going to be taken care of by this district?
Tierney responded “if the water comes from public right of way, public pipe, or
a public drain”.
Rehberg indicated it is surface water and again questioned whether it is going
to be taken care of with this utility.
Tierney responded not all surface water will be taken care of. For
instance, if it is a dispute between neighbors, the village can’t help that.
And properties that are low will still have to take water from properties that
are high- that is just Mother Nature. You aren’t allowed to hold water
back or push more water on your neighbor downstream. What nature gave you
is how much water you should be dumping downstream.
Rehberg stated, because we sit at the bottom, we take the water and once you hit
Eagle Creek it drains to the river. Rehberg questioned whether Eagle Creek is
included in the utility.
Tierney and Birkett responded the utility includes the whole village, including
Eagle Creek from Highway J to the Fox River. Tierney noted the culvert
where Eagle Creek crosses N. River Road is eroding away- it is rusting out.
Replacing the culvert is part of the project list.
Rehberg indicated that culvert was replaced not too many years ago.
Tierney stated it is rusting out and corroding.
Rehberg continued, getting back to the Ag School tile, that’s nothing that has
happened the last few years. (It was agreed- it is 100 years old).
Rehberg indicated a few years ago we got all the property owners together and
nobody wanted to do anything. He questioned does the village own the tile
now?
Tierney stated it owns the part of it that runs through road right of ways.
It crosses county road right of way too- so the county has portions that they
own.
Johnson stated they had a meeting with all the homeowners where the tile exits
to get permission to work on that part of the system. They also talked
with the DNR and the village can repair it. The homeowners’ response was
that the village could go on their property and repair it.
Rehberg questioned why they (the property owners) don’t do it. The
response was they don’t want to - they like the ducks, the geese, etc.
Rehberg indicated he has an 18” tile that empties into their property from the
north. Is the village going to fix that tile too?
The answer to the question was no, the Village doesn’t have any property that
they know of that is affected by that tile so they are not going to fix it.
Rehberg indicated the line here is owned by private people. He doesn’t
understand why the village is getting involved.
Birkett stated a big concern here is the public safety aspect. When
Highway D was flooded, gravel trucks were traveling over the center line to
avoid ponding water and heading straight into a blind curve. It was
putting drivers at risk and the county didn’t do too much about it.
It was stated that the difference between private tile and this tile is that it
affects Village owned roads.
Rehberg was questioned on whether he wants the Village to fix these problems.
He responded “no- not unless the village is going to fix tiles on his property’.
It was again stated that private tiles do not affect public roads.
Rehberg stated why fix theirs- and not mine- why should I pay for their tiles?
The response was why do you pay for roads that don’t affect you? We all
have to pay for the roads; we have to take care of everyone.
Rehberg stated drainage is different from roads, to which Bennett responded no,
it is not.
Board members indicated drainage is all part of it- it is all considered
infrastructure.
Rehberg stated he knows what drainage is and so does my neighbor up there (on
the Board) because I take all of his water. Rehberg stated his opinion
that the Board is moving too fast because when he calls three different people
he gets three different answers on his questions- and there is no guarantee that
the $73 is going to be forever. It will be this year- then next year it
might go up and the next year it might go up. He stated when the Norway
Dover District assesses, it is for one year. We pay an assessment of X
dollars but then it might be 10 – 15 years before they do anything with it and
we won’t have to worry about it.
Tierney noted the storm water utility will pay that assessment. Johnson
stated we can negotiate as a village and have more power.
Rehberg stated his opinion that all the Board is doing is setting up another
bureaucracy – if you got rid of the Racine County Drainage Board and each
municipality took it over- then it would be a different story. But if you
got to go through them- “good luck”.
Tierney indicated “it’s already been done with Raymond”. Rehberg stated
Raymond is different from the Village of Rochester.
Bennett indicated Alan Jasperson of the Racine County Drainage District
encouraged Rochester to form this utility, to which Rehberg responded “If you
had land in the drainage district and dealt with Al Jasperson, you’d have a
different story”. Sure he wants you to do this, because then he
doesn’t have to.
Bennett indicated there is nothing here that sets up another bureaucracy.
The budget was then discussed. Tierney reported overall operations at
about $50,000 for legal consulting, audit and engineering costs- plus a portion
of the budget that covers staff at the village hall, just as the sanitary
district does.
It was questioned, “Who will oversee the utility district?” The
answer was the Village Board- and it was clarified that this is not a district,
but a utility.”
Johnson questioned Rehberg on how much of an assessment he pays on his farm
right now. Rehberg replied it was $1,700 for five years, but then he might
not get another one for 10 or 15 years.
Beere confirmed it is just as they need to do repair work.
Rehberg stated, if the utility is formed, the first thing on the agenda should
be to clean Eagle Creek from county Highway J to the Fox River because the creek
takes all the water from the subdivisions to the east of us.
Johnson stated to Rehberg, if you go with the utility, you will pay only 2 ERUs
at about $73 each- and then you won’t have to pay the drainage district.
Rehberg asked “are you going to freeze that”? Johnson stated we are hoping
the cure for some of these drainage problems is easier than what we are
thinking. If solutions cost less, then the annual charge will be lowered.
Rehberg stated Bennett is telling me that I have to fix my tile, but I also have
to help other owners pay for their private tile. And it is not helping
village roads because they are county roads.
A question was asked on whether equipment was going to be purchased by the
utility. The answer was no- work will be contracted out.
Mary Jo Mathers, 35305 Ravine Drive, asked whether Honey Lake properties were
included. She said Honey Lake taxpayers pay for their own infrastructure
so they should get a hefty break on this.
Tierney responded Honey Lake is not being charged because they have their own
private roads and a private drainage system.
Novy interrupted noting the meeting has been question and answer up to this
point, but should move into the public hearing portion as the notice was
published that a hearing would be conducted at 7:00 p.m. She suggested
that the hearing be conducted by having those present stand up one at a time
stating their name, position (for or against), any supporting information, and
that each person be given a time period to do that.
Weinkauf moved, 2nd by Bennett to conduct a public hearing on Ordinance #3-2011
and Resolution #2011-19 to create a Storm Water Utility in the Village of
Rochester. Motion carried.
Charlie Pietrowski, 108 N. State Street, stated he feels creating the utility
should go to the people, and that the people should make a decision on this.
He understands there are issues, but feels the Board is rushing into it.
Richard Rehberg, 232 Bridge Street, Burlington, feels people were not given
enough notification. He also feels the ordinance is not ready to be
adopted as his conversations with different board members offered different
answers to the questions he had. He also stated that he had checked with
the Department of Revenue. He continued that it seems to him the village
is trying to get around the state budget bill that was passed by creating
another district. The information he got is that if you put a special
assessment or user fee on the tax roll it has to be for a project that’s going
to benefit that property directly. That’s what the Department of Revenue
told him and what he understands. He thinks it has to be slowed down a bit
and more information has to be given.
Nancy Klemko, 2500 Beck Drive, stated what scares her is that the taxpayers have
no say in the money. Once the utility is set up, the fee is determined.
She believes Board members are frugal, but if a new board is elected and they
like to spend money, the fees may go up and we (the taxpayers) have no say.
The other thing in the newsletter is that it says the fee includes equipment-
the Board just said no equipment. That’s not what the residents
understand.
Tierney responded Birkett is staff and the Village has a truck which is
considered equipment.
Vince Klemko, 2500 Beck Drive, stated village residents don’t know that there
isn’t going to be additional staff or equipment.
Johnson clarified the monies would only be used for drainage. If the
village gets to the point where it gets straightened out, then utility fees can
be cut back. The rest of the monies will go to the Drainage District.
Half of the citizens are just going to be told this is what you are going to be
assessed. The village can negotiate commercial properties and many
households out that do not contribute to farm drainage districts.
Johnson noted one of the drainage districts had won a lawsuit from the Village
of Waterford, but that now those monies are gone and assessments are coming.
He continued you see signs of the drainage problems when water is coming over
Highways FF and D. He indicated some people may not care about that until
it is them trying to sneak around the water and then find a gravel truck coming
at them.
Raoul Newkirk, 208 N. Front Street, stated he believes this should be voted on
in a referendum vote or that a newsletter should be put out where the village
gets more input.
Judith Newkirk, 208 N. Front Street, stated she has no run off that affects
anybody and doesn’t know why she should have to pay for someone that does.
Her property sets on a gravel pit and her water just seeps into the ground.
Johnson indicated he has no children, but he’s still paying school district
taxes. You (Newkirk) drive the roads, you might be affected- you might be
hit by that gravel truck.
Judith Newkirk continued “I tried fighting against subdivisions and against the
village hall, but it did me no good”. She continued this is not going to
do her any good either but at least you (the Village Board) heard her voice on
this and she feels a little better.
Jeremy Hamilton, 404 W. Wade Street, stated she feels this is something that
needs to be looked into and it is something that needs to be done because people
are getting flooded. She thinks we should all pay for it. But, she
thinks the Village’s hope of doing the minimum is just that- a hope- and she
noted it might be more expensive. And, so, she questioned “Do we need to
do a village hall right now? This seems much more crucial and we do have a
village hall- it’s not the greatest, but we do have one.”
Beere noted the Village has had people coming in to meetings steadily- maybe one
or two at a time, but that drainage problems just keep cropping up.
Rehberg stated he would have had the same problem on his farm if he hadn’t
maintained his own tile.
Beere stated it’s been 50 years of nothing getting done.
Rehberg stated if he didn’t do anything, his farm would be a pond and he does
not see why the village should fix private tiles.
Johnson replied you may be affected but not know it. That other main tile
– maybe we can slow it down a bit. People have to look at the broad
issues. Everything is being affected- its affected roads and that affects
our taxes. Frost cycles tear up the roads.
Rehberg stated they tried to get people to fix that tile 50 years ago and
couldn’t. He said the village can’t fix private tile for somebody and not
do it for somebody else.
Don North, 27610 Washington Avenue, stated he owns land in the Village. He
reported that a subdivision was constructed next to his land and they (the
village) made them state in the subdivision restrictions that the tile would be
taken care of. He feels that the Village is prudent in doing that, but the
reality of its continued maintenance remains to be seen. He stated the
village has to take measures to protect private tile. It should be made
sure that others that come (future property owners) have to take care of the
tiles. When people don’t take care of the tiles, that is when the
neighbors are flooded out.
Mary Krall, 28717 Washington Avenue, thinks the number of people at the meeting
indicate a lack of information and suggested a mailing to all property owners.
She feels more people should hear the comments.
Mary Jo Mathers, 35305 Ravine Drive, stated taxes in the Burlington School
District are going up 3% and she thinks this storm water utility may be an
important thing- she is not making light of it. She feels it is something
that should be looked at, but the timing for building a village hall- she thinks
it’s more than the people can handle. There are a lot of people in her
neighborhood that are not going to be able to afford a school tax hike, a new
village hall, or fixing the roads. She feels the village should just do
the priorities.
Ed Yanke, 109 N. State Street, stated he knows the village has problems and
agrees that we should fix it. He continued when you have a problem at
home, you fix it, you pay for it, and you take one problem at a time- you take
care of the more impending problems. He feels the Board should tell the
people we have a problem and we are going to fix it and then not worry about the
next problem until it comes up. He said when you have a leak under the
kitchen sink, you don’t remodel the entire house. The future has a way of
taking care of itself.
Chart stated the article about this meeting had been put in the newsletter.
He questioned, without giving everyone a special letter, how else can we make
this more noticeable. Bennett responded articles had been put in the
Standard Press and Journal Times.
Novy responded it is difficult to get the word out to everyone in Rochester
because people are diverse in how they get their information. Rochester
isn’t the big newsmaker so the newspapers with the highest circulation are not
interested in us. The Waterford Post covers most things that go on in
Rochester. Although the newsletters are sent out quarterly, some people
read them and others don’t. Novy noted, if the Board directs, her office
is more than happy to mail out a letter. But, it is also the
responsibility of citizens to take time to read it.
Bob Hansen, 29317 Riverview Parkway, stated the newsletter is six pages and you
(the Village Board) are expecting residents to concentrate on one page.
One letter on one page will have a much better impact on people.
Novy indicated it is hard to catch the attention of residents until something
actually impacts them. She feels additional notice would be beneficial.
She would not object in any way to sending a letter.
Chart questioned whether six months would make a difference- if the village
waited until the next election.
Bennett responded his feeling that the public works and storm water utility
committees have worked on this for a long time. He estimated about 20
meetings held on the subject- once a month public works and storm water utility
meetings. All of these meetings were publicly noticed. As far as setting
implementation of the utility back until after the election, it was noted the
village would miss another construction season. Bennett indicated he felt
they did the job they were elected to do. He stated he can’t help it if
citizens chose not to be informed.
Weinkauf stated a majority of people are affected somehow or someway by
drainage. He stated the heavy rains of 2008 really brought that out where we
had thousands and thousands of dollars of damage and people’s sump pumps were
running. Weinkauf indicated he became interested in this because the Town
of Raymond started a storm water utility and by doing so was able to negotiate
assessments with the farm drainage districts. Things went much smoother
than each individual property owner negotiating for their own parcel.
He continued that Waterford never set up a storm water utility until development
by Highway 36 caused huge drainage problems. It is costing them millions
of dollars today. He feels, if the village doesn’t do something, it will
happen here too. He stated intentions to start by the river and, if the outlet
to the river gets functional and water is running, the village would stop there.
He does not feel it is the intention of the village to rip up private people’s
tiles and fix them. The village is trying to eliminate hazards, such as
the washouts on Highway D, in equal shares throughout the whole village when
drainage is concerned. He stated he believes, in the long run, this
utility will save the village money.
Beere pointed out neighbors to the north are sending all the water from the top
of the hill where the high school is behind the bus company into the village.
Beere stated he lives on Highway J and Rowntree Road. The Norway Dover
Drainage District wants to annex his farm and he is over a mile from the canal.
They feel his water goes towards the canal. He stated he knows where the
drainage on his farm goes, but the drainage district wouldn’t listen to that.
He stated that is what happens when one person tries to deal with the district.
A united group can deal with them much better than an individual person can deal
with their engineers and lawyers.
Rehberg stated the problem is 50 years ago you had the same problem and the
private owners didn’t fix it. We fixed and maintained our tiles. I
shouldn’t have to pay for theirs. You should tell those people they have to fix
it.
Klemko stated she agrees it needs to be done, it just came too fast and people
don’t know about it.
Beck stated he believes in the project and believes it is needed to benefit the
village. He asked if the Board would postpone the decision for two weeks
to do a general mailing because people are saying they didn’t get enough
information.
Novy indicated the need to consider mailing time and time to input the charges
on the tax roll if the Board decides to proceed with the utility. She
indicated a mailing could go out the following week, but stated her preference
that a special meeting be held for this purpose as she did not feel there would
be adequate time to address this issue during their regular meeting on November
14th.
Consensus of the Board was to do a mailing to all residents who would be
affected by the utility and to hold a special meeting either November 15th or
16th to conduct a second public information meeting and public comment period.
Bennett moved, 2nd by Johnson to adjourn at 7:44 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Novy, MMC, CMTW, WCMC
Clerk-Treasurer
October 24, 2011
SPECIAL VILLAGE 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.
Beere read the notice of closed session.
Beck moved, 2nd by Bennett to adjourn into closed session as allowed by Wis.
Stats. s. 19.85(1)(c) “Considering employment, promotion, compensation or
performance evaluation data of any public employee over which the governmental
body has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility.” Motion carried.
The Board discussed issues related to the continued employment of a village
employee.
Bennett moved, 2nd by Beck to reconvene in open session. Motion carried.
Weinkauf moved, 2nd by Beck to investigate a system for people to speak at the
meetings. Motion carried.
Beck moved, 2nd by Bennett to adjourn at 7:48 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Novy, MMC, CMTW, WCMC
Clerk-Treasurer
October 27, 2011
SPECIAL VILLAGE 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 and Sandi Swan Deputy Clerk – Treasurer were also
present.
Bill Matthews and Steve Wagner from Anderson Ashton were also in attendance.
Adoption of Meeting Procedures for Public Comments
Novy explained that the Village has come up with a policy to address the
procedure of accepting public comments during Village meetings. This is in
response to some past Board meetings getting out of control. Residents will now
have to pre-register if they wish to make a comment to the Board. The
Village President will now call their name during public comment and then they
will be able to speak. Novy also indicated that there are rules that have been
put in place with regards to the comments and the conduct of attending citizens
and or guests. A copy of the procedure was made available to all in attendance
at the meeting.
Bennett moved, 2nd by Chart to adopt the following procedure regarding public
comments:
All were in favor. Motion carried.
VILLAGE OF ROCHESTER MEETING PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS
Introduced: October 27, 2011
Adopted by the Village Board (Date):
The Village of Rochester Board of Trustees does hereby adopt and affirm the
below civil and orderly set of rules and procedures for the handling of Public
Comments. These procedures are adopted to facilitate an open,
courteous, orderly and professional public meeting while handling the affairs of
the Village of Rochester. The purpose of board meetings is to handle the
business of the Village in a professional orderly manner. Citizens are welcome
and encouraged to witness village board meetings and to address the village
board in a professional and courteous manner when, and if, recognized by the
Village President.
In order to insure all Rochester Village Board meetings are conducted in an
orderly and businesslike manner, all attendees and participants will adhere to
the following adopted procedures related to the acceptance of public comments.
Unless called upon by the Village President, citizens and/or guests are
permitted to address the board only during the agenda item appropriately titled
“Public Comments from Pre-Registered Citizens”.
Rules pertaining to the acceptance of Public Comments:
· Citizen Comment Registration forms
will be made available to attendees in advance of board meetings.
· If attendees wish to address the
Board during the Public Comment period, they must complete a registration form
and turn it in to the Village Clerk-Treasurer before the meeting is called to
order.
· Persons who fail to register will
not be allowed to comment during the formal meeting of the board.
· During the Public Comment period,
the Village President will announce registered citizens by name.
· Upon hearing a pre-registered
citizen’s name, they are asked to stand and make their comments in a
professional and businesslike manner. Each registered citizen will be allowed
to address the Board once and will be limited to three minutes unless an
extension is granted by consent of all board members.
· Comments must address the board as a
governing body. Questions specifically to a particular board member or directed
to a specific employee of the village are not permitted during the board
meeting.
· While questions may be asked for
clarification purposes, Board members will not engage in debate with citizens at
any time during the meeting. The purpose of the public comment period is
to accept comments for board members to take into consideration when
deliberations of the elected body begin. During Board meetings, the
privilege of debate is limited to and between elected representatives only.
· As an alternative to speaking during
the public comment period, citizens and/or guests may utilize the Citizen
Comment Registration form to submit a support or opposition statement that is
related to a specific item on the agenda with the Village Clerk-Treasurer.
These forms must be completely filled out prior to the beginning of the formal
board meeting. The Village Clerk-Treasurer will report the quantity of
statements filed- in support and in opposition- and comments received on these
forms immediately after the Village President announces the agenda item.
Rules pertaining to the conduct of attending citizens and/or guests:
1. Citizens and/or guests must remain silent from
individual conversation and/or meeting distractions/disruptions in the audience.
Distractions and disruptions include, but are not limited to, clapping of the
hands, hissing, or booing.
2. Cellular phones or other electronic devices that by design or
use make noise are prohibited from use during the board meeting. The
exception to this rule is if the device is being used during an authorized
presentation to the board during the meeting.
Violations of established procedures will be addressed with a courteous warning
from the Village President. A second violation will result in removal
from the meeting and other legal actions based on the seriousness of the
violation and disruption of the public meeting. If citizens and/or guests
do not comply with the warnings issued by the Village President, enforcement of
these rules will be assisted by the Racine County Sheriff’s Department.
Public Comment Period
Beere called on Jeremy Hamilton to speak due to the fact that she filled out the
“Attending Citizens Comments” registration form.
Jeremy Hamilton, 404 W. Wade St, said that she now declines to comment due to
the fact that she does not know what the Board is going to decide for the
building location.
Discussion and Possible Selection: Architectural Site Plan Options
regarding construction of the Village Hall in Rochester Commons Park.
Novy stated that there were a couple more options drawn up from a request at the
October 7th, 2011 Board meeting. Everyone was provided a copy of all six
options.
Beere asked Wagner and Matthews if they would like to make a comment. Matthews
stated that they did not have anything to add. They were mainly there to answer
any questions that the Board might have about the six options and the pros and
cons for each.
Beere asked for comments from the Board.
Weinkauf stated that he feels that the Board should move forward. He said the
Board should make a decision on one of the six options and try to save as much
green space. He feels it’s time to move forward.
Bennett stated he likes option C1.1 he does not like any of the other options.
For him it is a personal preference of the six options that were given.
Chart stated at the last meeting he said he liked option C1.1 also because it
has expansion possibilities in two areas. He feels that they have been working
on this for 2 years now and some people have said the Board isn’t listening. He
feels that the Board has weighed all the pros and cons. He feels the Board made
a mistake by not buying the Pro-Health Care building and he’d hate for the Board
to make another mistake and not get it right. That’s why he feels C1.1 is the
better option.
Johnson stated that he likes C1.1 also, however, he’d like to hold off on the
tennis courts and leave that area open for kids who might want to play ball. He
likes the play areas that are shown on option C1.1, the basketball court could
stay or go in his opinion. He said he likes how the road goes through, he feels
that will be beneficial to the library for parking when they have their events
up there. He also thinks they should hold off on demolition of the tower and
keep it for storage for the Library and Historical Society and deal with that
later. He also feels that they need to move forward, he thinks they have cost
the Village a lot of money by not making a decision.
Lancour stated he concurs with Johnson. He feels they should keep the tower for
storage. He doesn’t feel they need a tennis court right now. He’d like to see
the area to the north/west kept open. He’s not sure about the basket ball court.
He’d like to
keep the cost down and concentrate on getting a building that the Village can
use. He likes the drive-thru parking lot for traffic flow. He said that C1.1
would be his choice.
Beck stated that of the plans he sees C1.1 is the best. However, he said he
locked his position in quite awhile ago when he said he wanted to save the
baseball field. He said he will not take himself out of that position at this
time. He said C1.1 is a good plan, it makes the most sense. However, if the
Board does vote for C1.1 he will vote nay.
Chart said the amenities that are listed on the plans are not necessarily must
haves. They are on there to show the potential of the grounds. He said the
amenities are not as important to him right now as much as getting the placement
of the building decided.
Bennett added that he values Beck’s opinion.
Bennett moved, 2nd by Lancour to accept Option C1.1 as the plans for placement
of the new Village Hall for the Village Rochester.
Beere said he feels he should let people know what he is thinking. He also likes
C1.1. He said there is expansion for the Village Hall and the Library. He feels
that they can grow into the other amenities. He doesn’t think they are
necessary right away. They do help to visualize what is possible on the
property. He is also fine with leaving the existing tower there for storage.
Votes were: Beere – Aye; Bennett – Aye; Chart – Aye; Johnson – Aye; Lancour –
Aye; Weinkauf – Aye; Beck – Nay.
Motion passed.
Johnson moved, 2nd by Chart to adjourn at 7:12 p.m. all were in favor. Motion
carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandi Swan
Deputy Clerk-Treasurer