|
TOWN OF ROCHESTER Link to Town Board Meetings
|
|
Link to Town Board Meetings |
September 13, 2004 REGULAR BOARD MEETING 7:30 p.m.
Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. with Gary Beck, Paul Beere and Mike Weinkauf present.
Colleen Holder, Treasurer; Gary Chart, Public Works Supervisor; and Betty Novy, Clerk; were also present.
Paul moved, 2nd by Mike to approve minutes of the August 3, August 9 and August 30, 2004 meetings as printed. Motion carried.
Mike moved, 2nd by Gary to approve September disbursements as follows, with the exception that check #7312 to Crispell-Snyder be held until several issues are cleared up. Motion carried.
Town General Fund Disbursements:
Rochester Sewer Utility District #1 Disbursements
Treasurer’s Department. Gary read a letter of resignation submitted by Colleen Holder. Colleen is resigning at the end of this term; effective October 31st. The Clerk is to put her resignation on the agenda for acceptance as a formal issue at the October meeting. Colleen then presented the Treasurer’s Report as follows:
Public Works Department. Gary Chart reported having Racine County center line N. River Road, Westwood Drive and Way-Mar Lane. N. Honey Lake Road will be striped by the contractor when reconstruction is complete. He is beginning preparations for snowplowing and plans to begin installation of new 25 m.p.h. speed limit signs soon. Mike Weinkauf questioned what had caused ruts in the new surface of N. Honey Lake Road. Gary reported a delivery truck got stuck in the shoulder within hours after the new surface was installed. A tow truck was required to pull the delivery truck out and this resulted in several large gouges in the new pavement. The contractor repaired the damage. The Clerk questioned whether Evergreen Drive; Mather Lane; Oak Street and Lowland Drive should be swept after recent sealcoating. The contractor gave an estimate of $1,000 to do the work. Consensus of the Board was not to have Payne & Dolan do the work. An inquiry was also received from Leonard Arnouts regarding shouldering on the section of Fairview Street he paid the Town to install. His specifications called for a three-foot shoulder; only a one-foot shoulder was installed. He would like a proportionate amount of his money back. The Clerk is to have Crispell-Snyder provide an explanation on why the shoulder was installed at specifications less than originally called for and report back at the October meeting.
Sheriff’s Department. Sergeant Kacmarcik reported the following statistics for August: four accidents; eight speeding citations, fourteen traffic citations; zero parking citations and twenty-six warnings were issued. Complaint statistics were as follows: twenty-nine complaints originated through calls directly to the Sheriff’s Department; Deputy Prochaska was assigned twenty-four of those, he performed follow up on ten complaints and originated thirty-two on his own. Thirty-one foot patrols were conducted. Deputy Prochaska identified the Academy and Heritage Road intersection as a problem area for accidents and would like to begin working with Racine County to address these hazards. Alpine Valley events attracted less concert goers than expected resulting in a decreased need for special enforcement. There were no major problems with concert goers. However, several complaints were received from the Honey Creek area of concert goers stopping to relieve themselves along the road side. Deputy Prochaska will participate in the “Day in the Country” celebration this year by having squad and fire equipment on display for the purpose of meeting and greeting event participants. Next year, a Library Safety Day will be planned for the beginning of summer to educate area children on bicycle safety, etc. Gary Chart expressed concern over the speed limit on CTH D from the Schrader farm to Honey Creek. He feels it should be lowered because of increased traffic from gravel pits due to asphalt plant operation.
Racine County Sheriff’s Department: Contract for 2005 police services
The proposed 2005 contract was presented at an annual cost of $85,736.18; representing an increase of $5,037.90 from 2004. Mike questioned the number of complaints received by the Sheriff’s Department and would like to see a listing which breaks down complaints into categories such as dog-related, bicycle-related, etc., to see how many complaints are life threatening. Deputy Prochaska responded that calls vary in purpose. Some categories stated were: rescue; fire; human emergency; reckless drivers; barking dogs; animals in the roadway. It is very common for officers to be called in on what some might consider minor disputes or complaints. However, it seems that people are often afraid to handle things on their own and officers end up acting as mediators in these types of situations.
Reconsideration of Application for Holding Tank:
Kathleen reported additional engineering done on her lot concluded the lot could be built on, but that no COMM 83 septic systems would be allowed. The only means of allowable septic disposal is a holding tank. She requested a ruling from the Board on whether a Holding Tank would be allowed to identify limitations on the property before expending additional monies on engineering. Mike responded the main issue surrounding this holding tank is that, in the past, holding tanks have only been allowed to correct an emergency situation. Gary expanded on this concept stating it must be a situation where an existing system has failed. In this situation, nothing has failed. Approval of a holding tank would only improve the value of this property- making it buildable. It was noted the Honey Lake Protection and Rehabilitation District would like to see the lot built on to provide a presence near their park which is frequently vandalized; and that Racine County sold the lot in the price range of properties that have been buildable. Kathy offered to sell the lot at cost if that would satisfy the Board’s concern over improving its value. Consensus of the Board was that approval of this holding tank would set a precedent affecting all future considerations of holding tanks. They denied the permit. Kathy indicated she will most likely donate the land to the Honey Lake Protection and Rehabilitation District to expand their park.
Resolution #4-2004 accepting completion of Way-Mar Lane
Mike moved, 2nd by Paul to adopt Resolution #4-2004 effective upon receipt of a $1,200.00 maintenance bond from Wayne Fuller to be held for one year. Motion carried.
Fox River Prairie Lift Station adjustments: Paul Hollander, 29550 Riverview Parkway
Paul Hollander addressed the Board. When he purchased his lot on Riverview Parkway he was told his home would be built with zero exposure. When he went to sign the purchase papers he was told he had to build a home with a partially exposed basement. He was aware that the Fox River Prairie lift station was located on his lot. However, at the time, the builder did not know if the adjusted location of the lift station would require an easement or lot line adjustment from the Town. His original building blueprints show a four-foot wall for his garage; it was constructed at six foot to accommodate changed elevations. Paul feels all these changes are a result of the changed location of the lift station and that the fact that elevations were not adjusted to accommodate its new site. The lift station building was constructed exactly as engineered regardless of the changed location. He feels placement of the building should not have been adjusted without approval of the Town Board and elevation adjustments. Gary questioned whether Paul received any discount on his lot as a result of the lift station being sited there. He responded he paid full price. Paul is concerned about the drop off from his driveway and feels this problem should have been addressed months ago. He stated after he purchased his lot, the developer raised the elevation of the property over seven feet to meet the master grading plan for the subdivision. This grading plan was not adjusted to accommodate the changed location of the lift station. Paul feels this problem can be resolved with installation of a retaining wall and landscaping. He restated the lift station building is not a problem; his only problem is the elevation difference between his house and the building.
Dan Snyder, engineer, responded that the engineer who made the decision to move the lift station is no longer with Crispell-Snyder. However, what he can gather from records is that excavation showed poor soils in the area originally designated for the lift station. When this was discovered, several options were identified- to shift the location of the lift station to the north; to locate the lift station at its original location (this would incur significantly higher costs because of additional foundation requirements); or shift the lift station to the east. Shifting the building to the east was the option the developer agreed to. Dan stated the developer profited by moving the building to the east because of additional costs that would have been incurred at the original location. He stated it is the responsibility of the developer to create the master grading plan; and that Crispell-Snyder’s responsibility is to review those plans for drainage, that roads are proper, etc. He indicated the master grading plan for the subdivision shows the area where the lift station is now located to be flat with a four to five foot elevation difference in the area of the lot now between the two buildings. However, adjusted placement of the lift station building took away the property owner’s ability to grade that area out. In addition, the original grading plan calls for a partially exposed basement on this lot. The rear yard, however, is graded four to five feet higher than what is on the grading plan. Crispell-Snyder was not privy to any agreements made between the property owner and builder. However, it was agreed the situation is not desirable.
Mike indicated he did not feel the Town of Rochester should incur any expense to fix this problem since the Board was not made aware of the changed location until after the building was up and operational. The lift station is where it is and an agreeable solution to elevation differences is to install a retaining wall between the two buildings. Correspondence from Golden Fields Development, the developer, indicates their willingness to contribute $3,000.00 towards the retaining wall for a release of liability from Paul. Paul indicated the $5,998.00 cost stated on a bid enclosed with this correspondence does not reflect recent changes made to the design of the retaining wall. In addition, this bid was obtained in March. The cost may now be different. He feels costs may be closer to $8,000. Paul indicated he has been trying to resolve this problem for a year and will not be getting any more estimates or putting any more work into it. In addition, he does not intend to pick up any costs incurred over the $5,998 quote to install the wall. He expects the Town, Engineer and Developer to work this out and pay to install the retaining wall. If it is not installed soon, he intends to file a lawsuit and let the courts work it out. Paul left at this time. Consensus of the Board was that correspondence from Golden Fields Development seems to indicate a willingness on behalf of the developer to pick up one-half the costs of the retaining wall. Dan Snyder indicated Crispell-Snyder would agree to pay for the other half, however, they need to see a more detailed plan with elevations. Sarah Tomczyk will check with Mike Doble, Golden Field’s engineer, on specifications and inquire whether the developer will cover 50% if costs are more in the $7 or $8,000 range. Dan Snyder indicated Paul Hollander will have to be involved in the process to at least pick out the type of retaining wall and to allow them on his property to get the quotes. The Board directed Dan Snyder to get an updated estimate to get this wall installed within the next 45 days and to split the costs of installation with Golden Fields Development. He would like a plan put together within two weeks, complete with costs, and a meeting to be scheduled between the Town, Paul Hollander, Mike Doble, Crispell-Snyder and Golden Fields Development. Mike indicated the Town does not expect to incur any further engineering charges on this problem.
Recommended amendments to Town of Rochester Code of Ordinances, Chapter 43 ”Ponds”
Sarah Tomczyk, Engineer, reported difficulty interpreting the pond ordinance when performing the first plan review after it went into effect. Correspondence was reviewed listing recommended changes to the size of pond requiring a permit and plan submittal requirements. Dan Snyder, Engineer, indicated the feeling of their staff that there should be a difference in permit requirements for minor vs. major ponds. Plans should reflect drainage patterns and where the property owner is going with excavated dirt. Consensus of the Board was to forward listed recommendations to the attorney for review and incorporation into Town ordinances.
Cost Sharing Issues: Camelback Farms Subdivision
Buzz Hurley reported the original developer’s agreement for the subdivision required installation of 2.5 inches of asphalt. At the Town’s request, the project was modified to install 3 inches. This was done based on prior agreement by the Town Board to pick up costs of the additional ½ inch of asphalt. Buzz feels the Town should pick up 1/6 of total costs on the project, to include costs for an additional ½ inch of shouldering as well. Costs for resurfacing subdivision roads totaled $60,856. $8,200 was added representing monies the Town paid for the 1/2 inch of asphalt. This brought total project costs to $69,056. He divided this by six representing each half-inch of shouldering and asphalt to come up with a requested cost sharing amount of $11,509; this leaves a balance of $2,709.00 to be paid by the Town towards shouldering. Gary expressed concern that this was not the original agreement and that the Town has already depleted the balance of the road fund this year due to cost overruns on the N. Honey Lake Road project. Buzz indicated these subdivision roads have already had eight years of use on them before he was required to mill them up and install a new surface. He indicated the Town now has good roads that will last at least 20 years. Consensus of the Board was to consider the cost-sharing amount for inclusion in next year’s budget; to be paid out in 2005.
Certificate of Final Completion: Camelback Farms Subdivision
A certificate of final completion for the subdivision was prepared by Sarah Tomczyk, engineer, stating three items to be resolved by the developer prior to Town acceptance. Those items involved installation of a driveway culvert at Lot 35; restoration of siltation basin vegetation; and removal of silt from a culvert at Old Orchard Way and Royal Hill Road/ Hunters Glen Road. Pat Hurley stated the building inspector had told the property owner of Lot 35 they did not need culvert due to being at a high point. As to restoration of basin vegetation, owners of lot 33 and 34 did not think ditches were their responsibility so they did not restore the ditch areas after construction. She requested the building inspector address erosion control issues on these lots with the property owners. As to the culvert at Old Orchard Way and Royal Hill Road, the property owner had a culvert installed and then changed the location of driveway. She did not feel they should be responsible for cleaning out the culvert. Mike moved, 2nd by Paul to accept Final Completion of Camelback Farms Subdivision and to release their certificate of insurance upon receipt of a 5% maintenance bond to be retained for one year. Motion carried.
N. Honey Lake Road project concerns: Jackie Busch; 33753 Academy Road
Jackie Bush addressed the Board. She stated a flowering crab tree on her property is dead; one maple and one oak tree in the right of way near her house have also been damaged due to roots being exposed by the contractor on the N. Honey Lake Road project. She stated the agreement signed to modify the project in front of her home stated the Town would not disturb any of her trees adjacent to the right of way. She continued that an original agreement between the Town’s engineer and her mother (previous owner of the property) was that the project would not disturb five trees on her property. Jackie took down two spruces on her own accord because she knew construction plans would necessitate them being cut down. The Board indicated they would have someone look at the oak and maple trees. However, they are in the right of way and the Town’s property. They would like to wait until Spring to determine damage to the flowering crab tree; it was felt it may come back. Jackie continued with complaint about the depth of her culvert and ditch. Gary pointed out that the agreement with Jackie stated the engineer would raise her culvert and ditch to the maximum elevation that would not adversely affect drainage. Jackie stated her concern, as a taxpayer, is that the Town should not have to pay for engineering errors. She feels the Town is incurring additional costs to lower the ditch when it was not necessary.
Jackie presented a petition with 100 signatures with the following statement: “We the people, formally request, a full, complete and detailed disclosure of any and all of Crispell-Snyder engineering billings, to be made available for public review, for a minimum of 3 years, at the Rochester Township Municipal Building. We also formally request that any and all re-engineering that and is or has been done due to engineering errors be redone by such firm pro-bono; not at the township or the taxpayers expense.”
Jackie does not feel engineers were prepared with answers regarding the depth of her ditch. Gary indicated a difference in opinion. The Board felt the engineers answered her questions and concerns by stating and following through on raising the bottom level of her ditch up (to a maximum of) eight inches. Jackie stated she was told the culvert needed to be deep to drain water from the front yard to the back. She asserted the ditch was re-engineered several times because she saw the survey stakes moved three times. She was told the ditch design needed to compensate for water coming around the corner of her property. She feels the ditches, as constructed, require water to go up hill. She stated opinion that these engineers are incompetent. She also considers the slope of the ditch dangerous. Dan Snyder, engineer, stated they have to design ditches to the lowest point of gravel installed underneath the road in order to properly drain the road. Mike questioned why soil borings were done mainly in the middle of road when they knew they were moving the road. Dan Snyder indicated it is standard practice to stagger borings down the middle of roads in advance of a construction project. Mike noted if borings were scattered more, it would have given the Town a better estimate of costs. Jackie was instructed to check her crab apple tree in Spring and report back to the Board if it doesn’t come back.
Resolution #5-2004 “Supporting a Cooperating Planning Process among the Town of Rochester, Other Participating Local Governments, Racine County, and SEWRPC to Prepare a Multi-Jurisdictional Comprehensive Plan and Apply for a Planning Grant from the State of Wisconsin”
Cooperative Agreement Between the Town of Rochester, and Racine County, and SEWRPC for the Preparation of County and Local Comprehensive Plans
Mike moved, 2nd by Gary to adopt Resolution #5-2004 and approve entering into a cooperative agreement with Racine County and SEWRPC for the purpose of applying for a comprehensive planning grant from the State of Wisconsin. Motion carried.
N Honey Lake Rd Financing Options
The Clerk explained two options to finance construction overages of approximately $170,000.00 as follows: finance $170,000.00 through Community State Bank through a 10-year note at 5% interest with annual payments of $22,018.36 (results in total annual loan payments of $80,259); or roll two outstanding loans with principal year end balances of $121,240.18 (2001 loan for a fire truck) and $145,544.98 (2000 loan for a road construction project) into one (approximate) $430,000.00 10-year loan with the State of Wisconsin Commissioners of Public Lands Loan Program resulting in (approximate) annual loan payments of $58,655.00 beginning in March of 2006 (nine payments). Cumulative interest costs to finance these monies from 2005 forward, via either option, are within $1,000 of each other with the Commissioners of Public Lands option proving to be the most favorable. However, this extends payoff of the two outstanding loans from 2009 and 2010 to 2014. Paul moved, 2nd by Mike to apply to the Wisconsin Commissioners of Public Lands Loan Program to pay off the two outstanding loans and secure an additional (approximate) $170,000 to finance construction overages on the N. Honey Lake Road project. Motion carried.
Office/ Meeting Room Modifications
Mike moved, 2nd by Paul to approve meeting room modifications per the proposed sketch plan and cost sharing method; and for the clerk to prepare a budget amendment resolution to provide funds of approximately $5,000.00 in this year’s budget from the general fund balance. Motion carried.
Proposed Cost Sharing Method for Joint Administrative Office
Consensus of the Board was they are agreeable to the cost sharing method presented and that the municipal building agreement should be amended to reflect these items.
Fall Newsletter presented for correction or additions
Consensus was to approve the newsletter as presented.
Application for Operator’s License – Constance T Garreau
Mike moved, 2nd by Paul to approve the operator’s license. Motion carried.
Set date for Annual Meeting of the Electors and Budget Hearing
The meeting was set for Thursday, November 18th at 7:00 p.m.
Set date for Fire Department and Library Budget Proposals
The meeting was set for Tuesday September 28th at 7:00 p.m.
Set date for Trick or Treat
Trick or Treat was set for Sunday, October 31 from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Public Comment
Jackie Busch indicated she wanted it noted in the record that the petition was received. She stated she feels strongly that the Town should not paying for repeated mistakes. Mike indicated the Town is considering soliciting engineering bids on major projects in the future. Gary and Mike will attend an upcoming intergovernmental meeting on animal control; Gary questioned interest in attending an upcoming Urban Towns meeting (no one was available); and interest in attending the County meeting on Smart Growth scheduled for October 14th (he will attend). Gary also noted correspondence was received from Bill Phenicie stating he is passing representation of the Town to Atty. John Hotvedt, his associate.
The Monday, October 11th meeting was rescheduled for October 12th due to schedule conflicts.
Gary moved, 2nd by Mike to adjourn at 10:45 p.m. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Novy Clerk
|