Village Board

EAST TROY VILLAGE BOARD MINUTES August 20, 2018 Packet materials associated with this meeting can be located at Page 1 of 8 www.easttroywi.gov Call Meeting to Order; Pledge of Allegiance Administrator Suhm verified the meeting was posted according to law. Roll Call: President Seager called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Present: President Scott Seager, Trustees John Alexander, Alexander Alger, Alan Boyes, John J. Jacoby, Matt Johnson and Forty Renucci Excused: None Others: Chief Swendrowski, DPW Director Equitz, Administrator Suhm, Deputy Clerk Alexander Attorney Geary Citizen Participation Bernie Rivers, 2007 Emery St., wanted to correct any misconception or misunderstanding that only people that live around the pond applied to be on the Dam Committee and nobody else really care – others do care but don’t want to waste their time on a committee that is biased toward keeping the dam and appointed by a board that is biased toward keeping the dam. The Board should have facts and doesn’t feel there are facts for either decision. He urged the Board to use facts and keep an open mind when making this decision and not make it based on the opinions of lobbyists. The Administrator should be calling government agencies like the Army Corp. of Engineers, EPA, the County and the DNR to find how they feel about keeping or taking out the dam to have good information on what is best for the environment and surrounding communities. He stated that he isn’t for or against the dam but would like the decision made based on fact. He also suggested Steve Rostkowski should recuse himself from the Dam Committee and recuse himself from any Park and Rec Board activity on this subject. Steve Rostkowski, 2959 North Shore Dr., would like to separate himself from the lake and feels the lake and dam is infrastructure as it serves the stormwater needs of businesses on Beulah Ave. He also referred to a 2006 fire when the fire department used the lake for water to fight the fire. He feels that everyone in East Troy benefits from the lake whenever it rains. Businesses also benefit because they don’t need stormwater retention ponds. Val Aide, 3051 South St., urged the Board to make a decision and get it done. Geri Mayotte, 2935 North Shore Dr., stated she has served on the Park and Rec Board for 25-30 years. She feels the pond acreage is a jewel in the community and the public would use it for fishing and canoeing if it were available. She doesn’t feel dredging is desired and doesn’t understand why dredging would be considered. She feels that the cattails need to be addressed. She is also concerned with drainage because she has a spring in her back yard. She referred to a 2004 DNR study and it’s finding of fish in the impoundment. Craig Campbell, 2965 South St., concerning the dredging he has read several articles about similar situations where a shallow body of water was enhanced, and sediment build-up over the years was halted when dredged upstream, and by deepening there it allowed the water to slow and the sediment was able to settle there. Consent Agenda (One motion and second will approve all of the following items. Any item may be pulled from the list and voted on separately.) 1. Approval Minutes – 8/6/2018 2. Operator’s Licenses – Melinda R. Shaffer 3. Consider granting approval of Special Event Permit for the East Troy Chamber of Commerce Bluegrass Festival, Sept. 7-9, Friday 5 – 8 pm; Saturday and Sunday 10 am - 6:30 pm, estimated attendance 1,000-2,500, contingent upon receiving written approval from Walworth County to close Hwy ES on the north side of the Square on Saturday and Sunday. a. Consider approval of Temporary Class B license for East Troy Chamber of Commerce Bluegrass Festival, Sept. 7 – Sarah Manke and Vanessa Lenz, Operators 4. Consider approval of Temporary Class B license for St. Peter’s Fall Festival, October 7, 2018 5. Consider approval of the 2018-2020 SRO Agreement with East Troy School District 6. Consider site plan amendment on leased land at airport for hangar BA-1 (widen the approach and regrade the swale); John Schreib, applicant Motion by Trustee Renucci, second by Trustee Alexander, to approve. Motion carried. Miscellaneous Business 1. Consideration of recommendation from Plan Commission to amend conditional use approval for LD’s Barbecue with regard to the sale of alcohol located at 2511 Main Street (RA270200001); Leon Davis, applicant Motion by Trustee Alexander, second by Trustee Johnson, to approve. Motion carried 2. Consideration of recommendation from Plan Commission to amend conditional use approval for East Troy Brewery located at 2905 Main Street (ROP 00093), with regard to fencing around outdoor patio areas; TEBS, LLC (Ted Zess, agent) Motion by Trustee Jacoby, second by Trustee Boyes, to approve. Motion carried. 3. Consideration of elements in site plan for East Troy Brewery located at 2905 Main Street within the public right-of-way (proposed trees and widened sidewalk area) a. Further discussion and/or action may occur regarding street trees and streetscape improvements on the exterior perimeter of the square President Seager gave an update of a meeting last week with business owners on the Square regarding trees and other possible improvements on the Square. Most business owners wanted the opportunity to have trees in front of their establishment and agreed it would be their responsibility to maintain once the Village Forester approves the types of trees and container options. East Troy Brewery would like trees outside their building planted in the sidewalk. Trustee Jacoby felt that it may be risky without a comprehensive plan for the Square but felt it is a good idea. He felt that if this moves forward it should be with the understanding there is no plan. Final approval is recommended to come from the Village Forester. DPW Equitz explained that business owners were interested in diversity on the Square so there should be  some standards but not have everything the same. This could be achieved with a combination of some trees in containers and some planted in the sidewalks. Discussion included standardizing on the sidewalk grate style, sizing for trees planted in the sidewalks, the species of trees should be standardized, consideration of how DPW crews would need to work around these trees, looking at each situation due to the different sizes of the sidewalks, concern of the traffic pattern on the corner of Main St. onto the Square and the loss of parking spaces. Ted Zess, applicant, confirmed that the parking spaces now on the corner would be removed, they want to bump out the sidewalk 4’ because those parking spots are already dangerous. They will be adding several parallel parking spaces further down the street, where the drive-thru for the bank used to be. The plan is to angle the corner for a better traffic flow and to accommodate snow plowing. Motion by Trustee Johnson, second by Trustee Jacoby, to approve. Motion carried Motion by Trustee Johnson, second by Trustee Jacoby, to amend the motion to include staff review and approval. Motion carried. 4. Consideration of dedicated parking privilege, hold harmless and indemnification agreement for 2894, 2890/2888, and 2886 Main Street with owner Kinove, LLC, for site plans approved by Plan Commission 7/9/2018 providing parking at rear of the buildings Attorney Geary explained the agreement was negotiated by Attorney Pruitt and the attorney for the property owner and that it will be in triplicate, with one agreement for each property. Trustee Johnson asked for an update on the sewer extension bid and DPW Equitz explained that a special Village Board meeting may be needed to award the bid once they are received. Trustee Renucci asked if the storm sewer work would be done at the same time and discussion included the details of the bid, the possible costs due to the timing, the request for different project dates to evaluate the costs of the project now vs. spring and that the Village had no specific timetable for the work. The owner wants to move forward now with their project, but the Village could wait until spring. Currently the Village is paying for the sewer extension project with no cost sharing with property owners. President Seager refocused discussion to the agenda topic of approving the agreement. Motion by Trustee Johnson, second by Trustee Jacoby, to approve agreement. Motion carried. 5. Consideration of proposed Village banner designs Linda Kaplan presented the four final design choices for the winter banners. DPW Equitz stated that he is working with WE Energies to finalize the approval to mount the banners on their poles. The Board expressed that they were pleased with the designs. Linda Kaplan and the committee were thanked for their work on this project. 6. Consideration of topics related to Dam a. Decision to repair or remove dam (from 8/6/18 Village Board meeting) Motion by President Seager, second by Trustee Boyes to remove the dam. Trustee Johnson addressed some of the earlier comments and remarked that he and Steve Rostkowski have not always seen eye-to-eye, and that his opinion has gone back and forth as facts were obtained and he feels that a dam repair will be less expensive than dam removal. He discussed that dredging was determined to be a “want” and that removed those costs. He identified previously allocated funds and funds set aside in fund balance that could be used for this project. He clarified, he did not say that this would have no taxpayer impact but stated that there would be no future tax bill implication. This is a difficult decision and there will be some who are unhappy with either decision. Based on his experience any project with unknowns will have change orders. There will be the need to look at storm sewer drainage, springs, how long to dewater and we do not know what bank restoration would look like. When he added up what is known, the projects are within $50,000-$75,000. There will also be unknowns with a repair, but that list seems shorter. He stated, we have tried to gather as many facts as possible to decide. He is not in favor of removal, but in favor of repair especially since we have received the grant. President Seager stated he feels the Board has done their due diligence in researching information on the dam. These discussions have been happening since the DNR required repairs in 1999, continued into 2004 where the exact same scenario was brought to the board and studied extensively, 2011 it was done again with more studies and more identification of what should be done. Now in 2018 it is before the Board again and a decision needs to be made. This issue has cost the taxpayers a lot of money thus far. The original purpose of the dam was for a grist mill 150 years ago and there is no longer a grist mill needed in that location. Currently the sole intent of the dam is for retention for water called an impoundment. It is non-navigable area even with water and going down it with a canoe one would have to follow the old trail of Honey Creek. A large factor is what we would get for our repair dollars as of the 2018 assessment by the DNR and that would be exactly what you already see there. The spillway is a large chunk of unsightly concrete and we’d like to think that for $712,000 we would get a brand- new spillway but that is not the case. Also, as part of the repair requirements the trees between the Mill Pond and the impoundment would be required to be eliminated per the DNR. This would be a large decimation of trees in this park area to save the impoundment. He stressed that every time he makes a decision on this Board he must consider what is the best thing for the Village as a whole and he believes the removal of the dam at this point is the best thing for the Village as a whole. Trustee Boyes stated his opinion has gone back and forth for a while. For 10 years he has sat and listened to the Board discuss this and has heard the pros and cons. He explained that he doesn’t see the benefit to the Village to have a dam. Residents that he has heard from and talked to that do not live on the waterway have not expressed a desire to keep it. He doesn’t feel the concrete spillway is an appropriate gateway to the community and there is no plan to improve the appearance. If the appearance there will be the same for $700,000, imagine what the cost would be to improve the area. He hasn’t seen a concept for the future of what this area and is concerned that if the dam is repaired that is all that will be done. The $700,000 would be spent to repair the dam and there would be nothing going forward. He doesn’t see any other way to do anything with this area but to dredge and get the silt out. There has been a 2 or 3 of times that people have gotten stuck because of the silt and without dredging safety will remain a concern. He discussed issues such as some individuals discussing the animals in the area and during the past 10-11 years others have complained about the animals and requested the Police Department to remove them. While the impoundment is pretty for those that live there he can’t ask the rest of the Village to pay for that with no benefit to them. The loss of the trees is also a concern. He cannot support repairing the dam at this time. DPW Equitz stated that the costs for repair and remove will be very similar but there will be unknowns either way. With the $700,000 repair project there will not be much work done to the concrete spillway other than operation gates added to the spillway to control the level of water, but the structure remains the same and will need repairs in the future. Trustee Boyes stated that the DNR is in favor of removing dams and questioned if the Village will be pressured in the future again to remove the dam and if another board will need to consider this same situation years down the road. Trustee Jacoby stated that he has also gone back and forth. He has heard the comments and the facts and has dreamed of what the area could be. He is concerned that we would spend a great deal of money repairing something that would not have support going forward and that doesn’t seem fair to future Boards, citizens and taxpayers for ongoing maintenance for something we would continue to have versus something we have the opportunity to remove now. He stated he is now in favor of removal of the dam. Trustee Alexander originally felt removal was the best option and has gone back and forth during the discussions on the best action to take. He expressed his concern with the storm water issue and not knowing how long it will take to dewater the area, but he keeps coming back to what will happen in the future. We now have the opportunity to make the area nicer, return it to a stream and get it back to the way it was so he is now back to favoring removal of the dam. Trustee Renucci has given this topic a lot of thought. He was under the impression that if we kept the spillway and the dam that it was going to look nicer, but he has found out that is not the case. He had thought the cost to remove the dam would be more than repairing the dam because of some of the requirements. He had a basic plan to repair the dam, not dredge, cut the cattails, set up a fund for dam and spillway maintenance that would include assessment of both the Village and all benefiting properties on their tax bills. The cost to remove the dam will not be that much higher that the repair. The removal was estimated at $400,000 and the repair estimate was $700,000 with the grant funds bringing the costs closer. There are still some unknowns for both options. Trustee Johnson stated that by the comments by the Village Board members it shows that they are trying to do the best for everybody in community and he thanked the Board for this always being a respectful conversation. He agreed with comments about needing a plan for the area, for the stream banks, the storm water drainage, the dewatering and springs. He feels although the costs are similar to start, once those issues are added into the project it will be more money, take longer and will be an equal amount of maintenance. He expressed his opinion that  the best option for the taxpayers is to repair the dam. He feels there are so many unknows with either decision but feels there are more unknowns on the removal side. Trustee Renucci expressed that he had thought we would get a new spillway but that is not the case except for the new operational gates, but the structure will remain the same. He also expressed concern that the spillway will need additional repairs in the future. The last repair was about $18,000 and it proved itself in the flood but sometime in the future it will require additional repairs/replacement. This involves the initial and historical costs, as this has been brought to the Village multiple times by the DNR for repairs needed or required. The Village has not been able to afford all the suggestions from the DNR but has done what it could or had to. How much more will this cost down the line over the years? President Seager stated that he has heard from residents via emails, letters and personal conversations that don’t live on the impoundment that this isn’t necessarily what they want the Village to spend their tax dollars on. He stated he needs to make his decisions based on the needs of the entire Village, not just a few residents. Motion carried on a roll-call vote of 5 to 2. President Seager Y Trustee Alexander Y Trustee Alger N Trustee Boyes Y Trustee Jacoby Y Trustee Johnson N Trustee Renucci Y b. Decision regarding committee members (from 8/6/18 Village Board meeting) Motion by President Seager, second by Trustee Johnson to table until those who have expressed interest can be re-contacted to confirm their continued interest. Motion carried. 7. Consideration of the level of development standards applying to Village-owned property in TIF 4 through a zoning overlay district Administrator Suhm explained the memo and reasons for considering standards. The discussion considered protective covenants with an association that would enforce them as the Village doesn’t have the ability to enforcement covenants. The other options would be within the zoning code. These would be to set standards for all developments of this type or to use an overlay district for TID 4 developments. Discussion included the specific questions on signage, sidewalks. The intent was to remain flexible in the standards and weigh conformity vs monotony in the design standards. She is looking for direction from the board if they want the Plan Commission to develop the standards and if they should be part of the zoning code. Motion by Trustee Johnson, second by Trustee Jacoby, to direct the Plan Commission to review development standards and provide recommendations to the Village Board. Motion carried. 8. Consideration of commission agreement for brokers bringing buyers for village-owned property Administrator Suhm explained the proposed agreement and her research. Discussion included using brokers, the experience of other municipalities, explanation of commission split amounts, land values versus purchase price basis. The agreement allows for the Board to negotiate up to 5% on a case by case basis. If the Board would decide to use a broker in the future, they would use an RFP to select representation. Motion by Trustee Johnson, second by Trustee Alexander, to approve and authorize Administrator Suhm to negotiate up to 5% of purchase price. Motion carried. 9. Consideration and possible action on Park Signs DPW Equitz stated that the Welcome signs are installed, and he has received very positive feedback on them. He would like to use the remaining funds and purchase more signs for the parks. Reviewed remaining fund amount and the estimate that those funds would purchase five additional park signs. Should additional funds be made available all eight of the park signs could be replaced. Trustee Jacoby noted that the Airport had not been included in the proposed sign locations. The discussion included funds in the 2018 budget and fund balance totals. DPW Equitz also noted that the Municipal Building sign also wasn’t included to be updated and would like to update the building sign in 2019. He also noted that he is receiving quoted to add landscaping for some of the sign locations. Motion by Trustee Johnson, second by Trustee Jacoby, to proceed to purchase all the signs and that DPW Equitz should get pricing for an airport sign in 2018. Motion carried – 6 to 1 with Trustee Renucci voting no. 10. Consideration of Village President’s recommendations for appointments to CDA ad-hoc committee President Seager reviewed his suggested list for the committee members and confirmed that he has contacted, some still need to be contacted. Discussion included that the committee should have about 5 members and there may be potential financial affects coming out of this committee. Trustee Jacoby agreed to be an alternate for the committee. Motion by Trustee Johnson, seconded by Trustee Alexander, to approve list. After further discussion Trustees Johnson and Alexander withdrew their motion and second. Motion by Trustee Johnson, second by Trustee Alexander, to approve the contacted individuals be on the ad hoc committee, with Trustee Jacoby as an alternate committee member. Motion carried 11. 2019 Capital Budget Review Session a. Police Chief reviewed his memo and the Board had no changes. Board members will provide a list of software questions regarding the proposed Pro Phoenix system to Chief Swendrowski for review. b. Airport  DPW Equitz explained $37,500 was from 2018 funds. In speaking with the BOA on the lighting project he was informed it will be pushed to 2019. The Board made no changes c. Administration Administrator Suhm reviewed her memo and the Board made no changes Reports 1. Municipal Court – July 2018 2. Financial Report – July 2018 – Trustee Renucci asked for additional information on the capital projects revenue vs. expenditures and Trustee Johnson asked if additional information on spending against fund balance. 3. Plan Commission Minutes – 8/13/2018 Adjourn Motion by President Seager, second by Trustee Jacoby, to adjourn at 8:49 p.m. Motion carried. Respectfully Submitted, Lorri Alexander Deputy Clerk