|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
March 1, 2005 JT. TOWN/ VILLAGE OF ROCHESTER 7:00 P.M. BOARD MEETING
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with the following Board members present:
Town of Rochester: Gary Beck and Mike Weinkauf. Paul Beere was absent. Village of Rochester: Chris Denman, Dennis Saunders, Bill Weidert, Jim Henning, Mark Tamblyn, Dean Stapleton, and Judy Karweik.
Betty Novy, Clerk-Treasurer, and Sandra Swan, Deputy Clerk-Treasurer, were also present.
Property Insurance Issues
Betty Novy reported the agreement entered into between Village and Town to fund joint municipal office and meeting room areas neglected to address how to handle property insurance on contents of the building. To date, both municipalities insured their contents separately. The issue was brought up during a recent insurance audit.
After discussion, consensus of the Board was to secure property insurance on contents from whichever municipal policy offers the cheaper premium. This should be based on a uniform set of specifications. Town or Village of Rochester, as applicable, should be listed as an “Additional Insured” on the policy of the other.
Costs of property insurance should continue to be shared, but cost sharing should be amended as follows: Municipal Building insurance: 25% Village; 25% Town; 25% Village of Rochester Sewer Utility; 25% Rochester Sewer Utility District #1; Fire Station insurance: 50% Village; 50% Town. The library building will continue to be insured separately by the Village as it is independently owned.
Dean Stapleton suggested Village and Town consider self insuring building contents by maintaining an account balance in the amount of their value. Dean did not feel values were high enough to warrant the premium. Premium costs to insure contents should be checked.
Bill Weidert was directed by both Boards to review insurance policies of Town and Village and clarify concerns, with respective insurance agents, about liability coverage for properties owned by Village and Town, but occupied and insured separately by other entities- the Fire Department and Library. There was a question about whether umbrella liability policies apply to these properties if someone were to be hurt.
Review of Informational Newsletter
An informational newsletter on the consolidation referendum issue was reviewed by Board members. The type size is to be increased for ease of reading and the article on road mileage and conditions placed on one page.
Consensus of both Town and Village Boards was to print and mail the newsletter to residents as soon as possible.
Bill Weidert moved, 2nd by Jim Henning to adjourn at 7:55 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully Submitted:
Betty J. Novy, CMC Clerk-Treasurer Town and Village of Rochester
March 14, 2005 REGULAR BOARD MEETING 7:00 p.m.
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with Gary Beck, Paul Beere and Mike Weinkauf present.
Betty Novy, Clerk-Treasurer; and Christopher Birkett, Public Works Supervisor, were also present.
Pledge of Allegiance. A moment of silence was observed in memory of resident Michael Kroll who had passed away the previous weekend.
Mike moved, 2nd by Paul to approve minutes of the February 10 & 14, 2005 meetings, as printed. Motion carried.
Mike moved, 2nd by Paul to approve March disbursements as follows. Motion carried.
Town General Fund Disbursements:
Rochester Sewer Utility District #1 Disbursements:
Treasurer’s Report. Betty read the Treasurer’s report as follows.
Sheriff’s Department. Sergeant Kacmarcik reported the following statistics for February: Zero accidents; thirteen speeding citations, nine traffic citations and thirty-five warnings were issued. Complaint statistics were as follows: thirteen complaints originated through calls directly to the Sheriff’s Department; Deputy Prochaska assisted with twenty-one additional complaints, performed follow up on one and originated twenty-four on his own. He reported 19 work days, 154.25 hours and 1,947 miles driven. A 2004 Summary Report was also presented. Sgt. Kacmarcik indicated he will provide a full break down of those statistics at the Town’s Annual meeting.
Deputy Prochaska reported one fatal accident already occurred this year and was weather related. He will continue to provide updated maps to Board members that pinpoint accident locations. Gary Beck questioned eight felony arrests reported for 2004. Deputy Prochaska indicated they were primarily drug related, however a couple resulted from accidents occurring in conjunction with OWI arrests. More information will be reported at the Annual Meeting.
Public Works Department. Chris reported a busy month. Signage on N. Honey Lake Road has been installed, however a car recently took out existing chevron signs on the curve. He will reinstall them this week. Oak Knoll Road is having ice problems in the area of the Lancour’s driveway. A 25 to 30 foot stretch of the road continually ices over due to drainage problems. Chris is manually applying salt when needed. However, ditches will need to be dug out this Spring to divert water from running over the road. Pat Lancour was present in the audience. She reported observing the drainage path and stated it was very clear where the water is coming from. Chris set an appointment with Pat to look at the problem. He will report back to the Board on what is needed. Chris thanked the Board for sending him to a highway safety workshop. He learned about signs and road hazards and felt it was very informative. In regards to installation of house number signs, he understands the supplier will charge the same price for materials regardless of whether they install- or the Town does. He estimated 180 hours of his time to perform the work. This would save approximately $2,000 over the installation contract. He also informed the Board that a soccer goal was delivered a number of years ago to the Racine County Public Works garage on behalf of the Town. It is still in the crate. Consensus of the Board was to have Chris assemble the soccer goal and transport it to Case Eagle Park this Spring. Gary questioned whether Chris had gotten complaints while installing 25 m.p.h. speed limit signs. The Town Board received one letter from a citizen who disagrees with the speed limit changes. Chris explained most residents were pleased to see them go up as the mix of young children and teenagers is growing in the subdivisions. This will give law enforcement the tools it needs to curtail any reckless driving.
Western Racine County Health Department Annual Report: Cheryl Mazmanian
Cheryl Mazmanian reported the following summary of 2004 activities. The largest problem area in 2004 was the pertussis outbreak. Out of numerous tests, 133 were positive. The health department had an adequate supply of the flu vaccine while many other departments did not. Additional security and staff time was needed at clinics due to problems other departments had with vaccine theft. They supplied 947 shots. They were also able to coordinate free health care for 52 clients with 192 appointments and 103 medication vouchers. This is a 12% increase over 2003. Community outreach work continued with WIC clinics and day care centers programs. 633 children were screened for lead poisoning, with several positive results. Eighteen teen pregnancies in the service area were seen as reason to increase adolescent pregnancy programs in Waterford, Union Grove and Burlington high schools. The health department also began a program called ACT- Adults and Children Together. The program teaches children to deal with disagreements in a non-violent way. The community fitness program proved successful with 136 organizations participating in 2004. Over 700 people are already signed up for this year’s challenge. They continue to upgrade and create necessary plans to be ready to deal with Bio-terrorism. These are paid for through grant dollars. Public beaches were closed three times in 2004. The Health Department continues to see an increase in the Spanish speaking population and is working towards improving the ability of its staff to communicate. This year brings a five-year review process mandated by the State to ensure the health department is meeting necessary standards. They will apply to maintain their Level II classification. The evaluation is scheduled for April 8. Per capita costs for the service area vary from $4.46 - $5.04 depending on which municipality. They were able to secure a 10% increase in grant dollars for 2005.
Cyndi Kohler was introduced as the public health nurse who specifically serves the Town. Cyndi reported per capita costs for the Town of Rochester at $4.68, up from $4.25 last year. Part of the increase is attributable to the pertussis outbreak. Ten cases were reported in the Town and Village of Rochester. Birth rates in 2004 dropped. Only one birth was reported in the Town, down from fourteen in 2003. Paul Beere questioned where environmental complaints usually originate. Cheryl explained they are normally received from renters, concerned neighbors, family members, etc. Mike questioned the increase in public nurse charges in this year’s contract. Cheryl explained this is a result of the nursing shortage. Salaries were raised in order to attract and maintain staff. Cheryl and Cyndi were thanked for the report.
Application for Preliminary Plat; Drainage Plan,
Road Plan and Erosion Control Plan approval:
Location: 28601 (Approx) Rowntree Road
Steve Kempken expressed concern about the Town switching engineers’ mid-stream on this project. Gary indicated the Town will have Crispell-Snyder see the project through to its conclusion. Steve indicated his lead engineer, Dave Olsen, thinks this is the best way to handle it. Paul indicated his biggest concern with this development is drainage. There must be some type of provision to address how problems that occur with the drain tile serving the development will be handled in the future.
Dick Rehberg, property owner to the east (of this development), provided some history on the drain tile. In 1949, the drainage path was an open ditch. Because of the difficulty it caused for farming, a verbal agreement was entered into between five property owners: Kipp (prior owner of the land now being developed); Rowntree; Birkett; Meyer; and Rehberg. They decided to install an 18” tile. In addition, they agreed that if any major repair or replacement was needed, each property owner would help with the costs. This development will now divide the responsibility that was the Kipp’s between thirteen or fourteen people. Dick stated something must be included in the development’s documents that will allow future expenses to be recovered.
The main concern is the tile and drainage issue. Anyone purchasing a lot in the subdivision needs to be made aware of an obligation to assist with the costs of repair to the tile through a restrictive covenant or notification as part of the deed transfer. Who has the power to initiate repair and the authority to collect money must also be clarified.
There was question on whether the Town Board would back any agreements or restrictions made by the developer. Town Board response was that they would have to back any agreement in place.
Bob Hegemann, property owner to the south, questioned whether outbuildings will be allowed. He expressed concern over how runoff from roofs will affect drainage on what is now open land. He also questioned whether ponds will be mowable, as he sees them as potential breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Steve Kempken explained they will be wet ponds. If there is not enough clay in the soils to retain water, they will line them. Pond maintenance responsibilities will be addressed in restrictive covenants.
Mike indicated the biggest issue is drainage. The ponds will help control the rate of water flow.
Steve indicated big rains will not have the same damaging affects, the water rate will be controlled.
Bob Hegemann also indicated concern over potential complaints his new neighbors may have about his kids and their animals.
Mike Weinkauf indicated he has had this experience when people move to the area and are not familiar with the smells and sounds of a farm operation. He explained Bob will just need to be as neighborly as possible.
Gary Beck indicated he wants to see protection for land owners that are contiguous to this property. Steve indicated they are working on covenants, the final plat, and deed restrictions. Gary indicated the general responsibility of tiles must be addressed in the covenants, or deed restrictions, noting it is binding on the lots.
Rehberg indicated it must be clearly stated that this future responsibility is in regards to the 18” drain tile running through the Rehberg and Birkett farms.
Gary moved, 2nd by Mike to approve the Preliminary Plat of Rock Ridge Subdivision with the condition that prior to final approval, subdivision restrictive covenants or deed restrictions address maintenance of all drainage tiles in the area, to include feeder tiles, and specifically the 18” tile running through the Birkett and Rehberg property. Votes were: Gary: Aye; Mike: Aye; Paul: Naye. Motion passed.
Resolution #1-2005 transferring jurisdiction of Buena Park Road to Racine County
Gary offered an explanation of the Village of Waterford’s request for this transfer as discussed at the February meeting. Mike moved, 2nd by Paul to approve Resolution #1-2005 transferring jurisdiction of Buena Park Road for the rerouting of CTH W. Motion carried.
Pavement coring proposals
Proposals were received from Terracon for $588 to $728, and TSC for $1528, to perform and report on pavement corings in preparation for 2005 road projects. John Tierney reported having worked with both companies and that they both perform satisfactory work. He indicated the price discrepancy is most likely due to the distance of travel from either company. Mike moved, 2nd by Paul to approve the proposal made by Terracon. Motion carried.
House numbering system installation options
Betty reported on Lange Enterprises response regarding material costs. The costs specified in their January 19th proposal are the same regardless of whether they provide installation services or the Town installs the signs. Gary moved, 2nd by Mike not to hire Lange Enterprises for sign installation. Motion carried.
Agreement to provide services and materials: Lange Enterprises
Mike moved, 2nd by Paul to approve the proposal of Lange Enterprises dated January 19, 2005 for materials only; including reflective 18” x 6” house number signs at a cost of $14.70 each; and 6 ˝’ 1.12 lb/ ft painted green latex posts at a cost of $5.57 each. Motion carried.
Sign Ordinance Example
A model house number ordinance used by the Town of Raymond was reviewed and compared to Town of Rochester municipal code Section 16.30 “Uniform Numbering System”. Consensus of the Board was to refer this example to the Town Attorney instructing him to incorporate the best features of the two ordinances into an ordinance amendment. Specific instruction should be given regarding Town of Raymond ordinance section 42-114. Board members did not like the right property owners were given in this section to change the location of the sign.
Proposal to televise sanitary sewer in Fox River Prairie Subdivision: Visu Sewer
A proposal from Visu-Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc. to televise and lightly clean approximately 1800 feet of sewer lines was presented at $1.05 per lineal foot. Consensus of the Board was they would like Visu-Sewer to collect any debris found during cleaning at the next manhole and provide documentation of materials found. Mike moved, 2nd by Paul to televise and lightly clean the sanitary sewer per the proposal. Motion carried.
Request for reduction of letter of credit: Fox River Prairie Subdivision
Mike moved, 2nd by Paul not to reduce the letter of credit until after the sanitary sewer is cleaned and televised. Motion carried.
Fire Company request for consideration of yard light, holding tank and/or pond requirements for new residential developments
Consensus of the Board was that yard lamp or house light requirements are not necessary due to installation of uniform reflective house number signs throughout the Town. It was noted that installation of a dry hydrant is not an overly costly item and can be incorporated into wet pond designs. John Tierney, engineer, was directed to check over model specifications and report back on what is feasible.
Process and requirements to expand sanitary district
Betty explained some research had been done the previous month on procedure and process to bring lands into the sewer district. Due to the engineering work that needs to be done ahead of time, it was suggested a special meeting be set up to discuss how the Town Board would like to proceed in expanding the sewer district, in conjunction with the N. River Road reconstruction project, for 2006. A special meeting of the Sewer Utility Board was scheduled for March 21st or 22nd at 6:00 p.m. Attorney Hotvedt, John Tierney, Engineer, and a representative from Western Racine County Sewerage District are to attend.
Sewer Utility Billing Program Proposal: MICA Technologies
A proposal was reviewed to offer continued support; upgrade the current sewer utility billing program; and provide hosting services for the Town website. The cost was stated as $39.95 per month, billed quarterly. Gary moved, 2nd by Paul to accept the proposal of MICA Technologies for the sewer billing system subject to at least a two-year contract term at which time costs and services can be reviewed. Motion carried.
Spring Newsletter presented for corrections, additions and approval
Consensus of the Board was to approve the newsletter subject to a correction in Mike’s election article. “I” was typed as “It” in one of the paragraphs. The correction should be made prior to printing and distribution.
90-day Performance Review: Public Works Supervisor
Betty offered a favorable review of Chris’s performance and training experiences to date. Gary moved, 2nd by Mike to approve an increase in Chris Birkett’s hourly pay rate from $16.00 to $17.00 per hour. Motion carried.
Mike moved, 2nd by Paul to adjourn at 9:20 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Novy, CMC Clerk-Treasurer
March 21, 2005 ROCHESTER SEWER UTILITY DISTRICT #1 BOARD 6:00 P.M.
Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. with Board members Gary Beck, Paul Beere and Mike Weinkauf present.
Lynn Tamblyn and Vince Klemko were present as Western Racine County Sewerage District representatives.
Atty. Bill Phenicie, John Tierney, Engineer, and Betty Novy, Clerk-Treasurer, were also present.
Discussion of Process and Policies needed to extend the Sewer District in conjunction with the N. River Road reconstruction project
Gary explained the Board is considering extending sewer service in conjunction with reconstruction of N. River Road. The and purpose of the meeting is to define the procedure of expanding the district.
Lynn Tamblyn explained the area is subject to sewer district annexation fees. The concern of WRCSD is how these fees will be committed.
Atty. Phenicie explained the statutory procedure required for the Town to expand or alter the boundaries of its utility district. The process requires that much of the engineering work be done before notification and hearings are held. After this procedure is followed, WRCSD, a metropolitan sewerage district, would need to enter into a new contract with the Town and amend their boundaries so they are consistent.
Gary indicated a Sewer Study was performed in 1999 that did some of the preliminary work.
John Tierney, engineer, indicated he had reviewed this study. Although N. River Road is included, no cost estimates are provided for the area.
Gary explained the reason for considering sewer extension is that residents in the area have had problems with existing septic systems and concern over environmental impacts of systems along the river. New mound system costs are generally in the area of $14,000 to $15,000.
Based on preliminary analysis, John indicated one lift station would be needed. Combined with an estimate of $50.00 per linear foot for gravity sewer, a rough estimate of project costs is $600,000.
Atty. Phenicie indicated projects like these are generally financed and costs can be special assessed over a number of years to make it affordable for the property owner.
John indicated a need to determine the size of the service area. A lift station can be designed so that pumps are interchangeable or so there is an ability to add a pump, but pipe sizing is important to get right the first time.
Gary questioned whether Rochester could serve Town of Burlington residents down the road. Lynn Tamblyn indicated WRCSD would not offer service outside of the area. Although there are no absolutes, Lynn indicated they would most likely not serve that area.
Atty. Phenicie indicated projects like this are generally bonded and costs can be taken out for 20 years or more. He also indicated the Board will need to make policy decisions on conditioning special assessments to pay back the debt. Some communities give property owners the option to pay the whole amount up front or make annual installments, but then make the whole assessment due upon a sale of affected property. Right now, the Town’s ordinance indicates that anyone within 300 feet has to hook up to sewer. This could be amended to give people a period of time to hook up.
Consensus of the Board was to have John Tierney prepare a rough cost estimate of the project and report the amount to Atty. Phenicie so that he can investigate what financing options are available.
Property owners could then be surveyed to determine whether the Board should proceed with the project.
Lynn Tamblyn indicated WRCSD should have no problem accepting the area due to recent upgrades to their system.
John Tierney is to include road reconstruction costs and comparisons with his information.
Paul moved, 2nd by Mike to adjourn at 6:45 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Novy, CMC Clerk-Treasurer
March 24, 2005 JT. TOWN/ VILLAGE OF ROCHESTER 7:00 P.M. BOARD MEETING
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with the following Town and Village Board members present:
Town: Gary Beck, Paul Beere and Mike Weinkauf (Mike arrived at 7:10 p.m.).
Village: Christopher Denman, Dean Stapleton, Bill Weidert, Dennis Saunders, Jim Henning, Judy Karweik and Mark Tamblyn.
Also present: Atty. John Hotvedt, Betty Novy, Clerk-Treasurer, and Sandra Swan, Deputy Clerk-Treasurer.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Presentation of general information on consolidation of Town and Village into one Village
Chris Denman presented an outline of progress on consolidation efforts to date as follows:
In November of 1999, both Town and Village of Rochester Boards appointed an eight-member committee to study the feasibility of consolidating the two municipalities.
Consolidation was identified as a viable way to address growth issues affecting the community:
§ Expansion of State Highway 36 from a two-lane to four-lane highway made the community ripe for additional growth as urban populations continue to migrate to suburban and rural environments. § While property rights guarantee large parcels owners the ability to subdivide and develop their land, studies have shown the cost of providing services to residential development far outweighs the increase in tax base. § In order to reasonably finance anticipated growth and the demand for additional services, the Village and Town are looking for ways to expand their commercial tax base(s) and/or cut costs. This will avoid placing an unfair financial burden on current property owners to finance services required by future development. § Some factors identified to help attract commercial development are: o Available land o Municipal sewer o Municipal water o The ability to create Tax Incremental Financing districts to offset infrastructure improvements
Some barriers the Village encounters when pursuing commercial development independently are:
§ A lack of available land. Village borders are land-locked by residential development to the North, West and East. Much of this development is situated in such a way that Village and Town of Rochester residents live as next-door neighbors in what appears to be, for all intents and purposes, the same subdivision. To the south, Racine County Park land and Department of Natural Resource conservation areas block the majority of expansion opportunities. § The Village never created a water utility. The motivation to create one has been insufficient among community members who have known the ability of future growth to offset the cost of such a utility is severely restricted. Some barriers the Town encounters when pursuing commercial development are:
§ Inability to create T.I.F. districts. State Statutes limit a Town’s ability to create TIF districts. § Lack of municipal water. § These inabilities have caused the Town to lose out on commercial developments to neighboring communities in the past.
It was felt that if Town and Village merged, they would be able to overcome individual limitations to commercial development and cut costs by operating only one government entity.
With this in mind, a consolidation petition was submitted to the Department of Administration for review. On July 7, 2004 a ruling was issued stating Village and Town do not meet all the applicable standards for consolidation, therefore the petition was dismissed”
While the review process was under way, Village and Town officials were aware of the possibility all standards would not be met. As a parallel track, they worked with State legislators to create an alternate procedure under State law. That law was passed and is the subject of our meeting tonight.
While most of the requirements under the alternative process are already met, Town and Village must achieve three additional requirements in order to consolidate under the new law. They are:
§ Adoption of a joint Comprehensive Plan (this requirement is mandated by 2010 for all municipalities, regardless of consolidation efforts) § Boundary Agreements must be entered into with all abutting municipalities. In our case:
Village of Waterford § A referendum must pass in each municipality approving Consolidation.
Before incurring additional expense and investing the time and efforts necessary to negotiate boundary agreements with six municipalities, Town and Village Boards thought it important to seek input from voters. Ultimately, voters will decide whether consolidation happens. A referendum question is on the April 5 ballot seeking this input. This meeting is to address any concerns and questions people have of the Board. Referendum flyers were distributed via mail; copies are also available in the back of the room.
At this time, the meeting was opened up to any questions or concerns.
Question and Answer Period
Pam Schweitzer, Washington Avenue, questioned how consolidation will affect the tax rates. Chris Denman replied consolidation will increase the “new” village’s ability to draw commercial growth to the area and offset residential taxes. Gary Beck indicated there will be some cost savings in areas where services are duplicated. The tax rate is expected to stay in a similar range of where it is now.
Bob Steidl, N. River Road, commented that to this point the Town has been a drive through community. He feels commercial growth will cause the need for more services. He stated everywhere there is commercial growth; taxes keep going up. He has never seen any benefit to commercial growth. Gary Beck indicated this would be a difficult sell to Rochester’s neighbors to the north and south who are pursuing commercial growth to help defray taxes. Chris Denman indicated it is not beneficial for Rochester to only grow residentially. The impact of other community’s growth around us will cause Rochester to need additional services whether Rochester grows or not. Consolidation will allow Rochester the ability to control growth and keep it slow. Judy Karweik indicated consolidation will allow Rochester to achieve controlled growth. She indicated when properties annex to abutting municipalities, Rochester loses its ability to control what happens there.
Gary Beck indicated State Statutes look at Town lands as holding areas for cities and villages to annex. It was noted that annexation generally takes place at the property owner’s direction. However, there are some instances where eminent domain allows cities and villages to directly annex land.
Pete Laughran, State Street, commented the first thing people need to be aware of is that a Town cannot stop annexation. However, the Village of Rochester has as much power as the Village of Waterford or City of Burlington under State Statutes. A village or city cannot annex land from another village or city.
Dennis Acker, Ridge Lane, commented he disagrees with consolidation because he feels if a property owner wants to annex his land to an abutting city or village, he should have the right to do so. He feels consolidation is basically 100% annexation. It does not support the fact that Town property owners have rights and should be able to annex their land in either direction. Growth in abutting municipalities has caused tax rates to rise. If property owners want to annex, let them pay the higher taxes. As a taxpayer, Dennis does not want to pay for this growth.
Gary Beck indicated Dennis may be misunderstanding that he would be paying for utility districts when he does not benefit from them. Gary clarified utility districts are supported by users in the way of fees. Tax money does not pay to support a utility district.
A statement was made that the Town of Waterford successfully blocked annexations and why can’t Rochester do the same. The rebuttal was that the only successful block had to do with annexation over a county line. Currently, Towns cannot block a direct annexation unless this type of situation applies.
Chris Denman indicated the major concern at this time is annexation along the Highway 36 business corridor. Based on growth in the area, property taxes will continue to rise and the loss of prime development land along Highway 36 will affect Rochester’s ability to finance services.
Dennis Acker stated others should pay for the additional services. Chris indicated Rochester will be affected by schools, traffic, etc. and will pay regardless of whether growth happens in our community or those next to us.
Paul Beere indicated consolidation of the Town and Village as one unit will allow Rochester to control its own destiny and retain the flavor of the community. Rochester can then make its own decisions regarding the density at which new development happens. As an example, he stated a big controversy in the Town at this time is whether to allow an average of one housing unit per three or five acres in some areas. If land is annexed to abutting cities and villages, the density is usually 1 housing unit per one-half or one-third acre.
Chris Denman indicated the issue of annexation will be addressed in boundary agreements and gray areas will be identified that can be annexed to abutting cities and villages. If property owners are planning on annexation, they should let Town and Village Board members know now so that they may be identified in the agreements.
Bill Weidert indicated consolidation will allow property owners to control what happens to their property and the property around them more than what they have now.
Mike Weinkauf indicated town property owners may be in a situation where they would lose value if sewer and water could be extended to their property from an abutting village or city.
Bob Steidl, N. River Road, questioned why the Town can’t just make a requirement that people build a half-million dollar house or they can’t live here. He stated disappointment that the Fox River Prairie Subdivision was initially proposed as five-acre estates and ended up as seventy-two ˝ acre lots. He is upset that taxpayers now have to pay for the subdivision’s roads and lights. He questioned what do they need lights for? He stated he has seen what full subdivisions and big box stores do to a community. As an example, he stated development along State Highway 31.
Gary Beck responded there are lights at intersections throughout the Town. This is a public safety issue.
Bill Weidert indicated that without consolidation, borders will be impinged upon and Rochester will have no control.
Chris Denman indicated the main intent of this effort is to keep control. If the desire is to keep Rochester rural, the best bet is to keep Rochester- Rochester.
Pete Laughran suggested Bob Steidl take a look at the Land Use Plan and see what plans the community has made for growth before making assumptions.
Dennis Acker indicated the Plan was made by members of current Boards, but what about future Boards. They may want to grow and grow.
It was noted that if consolidation occurs, it will be the citizens of Town and Village of Rochester that will make up the Board and government and determine the direction of growth for the future. Voters decide who serves on the Board. If there is poor performance, they can be voted off.
Dennis Acker indicated he would rather allow individuals the choice to annex to abutting municipalities and questioned why residents were not polled for input on consolidation efforts.
Gary Beck indicated there have been numerous articles in the paper and newsletters. It has also been brought up at every annual meeting and budget hearing during the past five years.
Mike Weinkauf indicated anyone with an interest has known. Nothing is binding on this referendum at this point. This is an advisory referendum seeking input.
Bill Weidert indicated Town and Village residents will have the ultimate power to decide whether consolidation will happen by voting yes or no.
Joanie Beck, Beck Drive, stated, as representative of the Historical Society, that residents should look back to plats from the 40s and 50s to see what was Town of Rochester and see what has already been taken. She is for consolidation. She just had the piece next to her annexed and doesn’t want to be next. She wants to save what we have. Rochester has been here since 1836 and should not give up.
Ron Krause, N. Browns Lake Drive, questioned how consolidation will affect zoning. His business has been run under non-conforming status since the County rezoned his property residential in the late 1970s. How would zoning be handled in this situation?
Gary Beck indicated zoning would be controlled at the local level. Classification numbers, like B-1 or B-7, may change as they are incorporated into the Village zoning code. But those properties that now operate under grandfathered rights, will not lose those rights. Some things will have to be defined as the new Village goes through its ordinances- but a gravel pit will still be a gravel pit and will operate as is. In the Town, there are a lot of businesses operated in homes. Generally these situations are not concerns unless complaints are received. In this instance, a zoning violation may be issued. Right now, Racine County handles these situations. However, if consolidated into a village, these issues would be handled on a local level. The county would no longer have jurisdiction.
Atty. Hotvedt indicated a process was outlined in the consolidation ordinance where existing ordinances would apply in each territory as they always had until such time as new ordinances were drafted to apply to the combined community. In this process, the new Board would have to refine existing ordinances, take what is best out of each, and create one unified code. It can be assumed the new Board would not want to take away any rights. Residents should not feel that there would be any drastic changes.
Wendell Earle, Washington Avenue, stated there is a big sign in Honey Creek that states “Racine County Land is Zoned- Permit Required. Consult Zoning Administrator.” He questioned who the zoning administrator is. It was clarified Racine County Planning and Development acts as the zoning administrator. He noted he does not vote for the people at Racine County. He has concerns about zoning and variances that have been granted. He would like to deal with the Town Board on these issues and not have to run to Ives Groves (location of Racine County Planning Dept.).
Ron Kraus clarified local rules would override the County system.
Pete Laughran stated people should not be afraid of ordinances. Land is land and is subject to various designations. It may be zoning or it may be use. Agricultural won’t be much different. A farm is still a farm and will be assessed as agricultural. If the area becomes a village, you still will have all the rights of agriculture unless you want to change it by developing your property.
Dennis Acker questioned the zoning issue. He stated the Town of Waterford has their own zoning.
Atty. Hotvedt indicated town property owners still have to go through Racine County for a final ruling. However, the County does not generally act until it receives input from the Towns.
Gary Beck stated consolidation is nothing to be afraid of. Consolidation says “One Community”; that Rochester still wants to be Rochester.
Dennis Acker reiterated that consolidation will take away rights for property owners to annex to other communities. This is taking away someone else’s rights.
Paul Beere indicated land is not worth more developing in one community or another. There is question on whether the density land can developed at affects it worth. He does not feel land will be worth more by annexing unless other communities are able to service it with water and sewer.
Chris Denman indicated through the process of Boundary agreements, other communities will let us know if they can better serve some areas. These areas will be identified as gray zone areas that may (potentially) be annexed in the future.
Atty. Hotvedt indicated boundary agreements will designate some areas that may be considered “holding” areas.
Mike Weinkauf indicated the Village will have just as much opportunity to expand services as any other community. However, as a consolidated Village, we can concentrate on expanding services within our own boundaries- rather than outside.
Ed Ela, Washington Avenue, questioned the term of Boundary agreements. It was stated as a minimum of 10 years. He indicated if boundary agreements can be achieved, and consolidation is achieved within that term, there will no longer be any annexation concerns. The agreements will be important to abutting Towns as well.
Agreements would be voted on before set in stone.
Tom Rowntree, Fox Knoll Drive, had a question on process. He wanted to know if Town and Village voters each had to approve consolidation separately before it was approved.
Atty. Hotvedt indicated boundary agreements must be achieved before Town and Village can proceed with the referendum process. At that time, the referendum must pass in each municipality by majority vote for consolidation to become effective.
Ed Ela thanked Board members for the efforts they have put into this process.
There were no further questions. Gary Beck and Chris Denman thanked those present for attending and raising the questions that they did.
Cost Sharing Options for the 2006 Law Enforcement Contract
Denman reported talking with Deputies Prochaska and Zimmermann regarding the proposal to share the cost of one full-time law enforcement contract between the Village and Town in 2006. After looking over both contracts, it was discovered if existing contracts were combined, the result would be 2,080 hours of service. This represents a true full time contract defined as 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. He requested Town Board consideration of this option stating the Town would still see cost savings, but with an increase of coverage.
Paul Beere stated contract costs have increased by $6,000 or $7,000 each year. His concern over sharing both contracts is that the Town will be right back up at their current level within a year or two. The proposal to share the contract has been with the purpose of being more fiscally responsible to Town taxpayers.
Mike Weinkauf indicated he would like to start by at least trying an 1800 hour contract. He feels if this does not work, the Town and Village can always come back in the future and increase hours.
Chris Denman stated with current budget cuts at the County, there may not be the opportunity to pick up additional part time contracts in the future. The Village was only able to pick up a partial contract because another community did not want to commit to full-time hours. The Village was then able to pick up remaining hours left on one full-time contract. Any future options would be dependant on what percentage of a contract is available, if any. If no percentage is available, the only option may be to pick up another full-time contract.
Gary Beck identified the following contract options (based on 2005 contract amounts):
Wendelle Earle indicated he seldom sees an officer in the Honey Creek area and noted the officer seems to spend most of his time in Honey Lake. He questioned why the Town even needs an officer.
Gary indicated the law enforcement contract enhances the Town’s ability to enforce their ordinances.
Bob Willard indicated there may be some merit to cost sharing both contracts in terms of a longer range plan even though the Town may be right back up to the original cost some time in the future. However, if contracts can be added to at any point, the single contract may be a good starting point.
Chris Denman indicated contracted service is always a more economical choice than running your own police department. It was noted that increases in contract amounts have been attributable to pension and insurance costs- not salaries. Chris stated the Village is willing to spend more money knowing it will benefit both communities. He feels as the area grows, both the Village and Town will see more needs.
Paul reported 2004 call statistics saw a large increase in OWI offenses. There are safety concerns in the community.
Judy Karweik indicated a consolidated report of 2003 and 2004 offenses might offer Boards more information on which to make a decision- hours vs. coverage; and safety vs. money.
Gary Beck indicated he is not opposed to both contracts as the Town still sees a cost saving. He recognized the Village is being asked to increase their costs and feels both communities need to look out for each other’s concerns.
Paul Beere indicated he could see cost sharing if citation revenues stayed at the same level or increased under that scenario.
Mike Weinkauf indicated Town and Village have never been in danger of not having enough service. He would like to see costs cut and then look at increasing them if and when it becomes necessary.
Mark Tamblyn stated there has been an influx of traffic due to growth in the area. He feels we will see a need for increased coverage.
Dennis Saunders stated he is personally against the Village sharing any contract scenario with the Town at this time. Either of the two options basically doubles Village costs at a time when the Village is struggling with ways to finance several projects. He questioned if the current situation is not broke, why fix it? He feels any decision on this should be delayed until after the results of the consolidation referendum are known. He does not feel the Village should give up its separate contract.
Consensus of all Board members was to delay a decision on contract options until such time as results of the referendum are known.
Judy Karweik moved, 2nd by Mark Tamblyn to adjourn at 8:55 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Novy, CMC Clerk-Treasurer
|