Community, Life and Public Safety (CLPS) Committee

Village of Weston, Wisconsin OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE VILLAGE COMMUNITY LIFE AND PUBLIC SAFETY (CLPS) COMMITTEE MEETING held on Monday, Tuesday, October 7, 2024, at 5:00 p.m., in the Board Room, at 4747 Camp Phillips Road AGENDA ITEMS. 1. Meeting called to order by CLPS Chair and Village Trustee, Jim Pinsonneault, at approximately 5:00 p.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 3. Roll Call and Declaration of Quorum by Secretary Parker. Roll call indicated 5 CLPS members present. Member Present Pinsonneault, Jim {Chair} YES Ermeling, Barbara {Vice Chair} YES Alstad, Andrea YES Czerwonka, John YES Foss, Kim EXCUSED Lopes-Serrao, Luis EXCUSED Olson, Brent YES Village Staff in attendance, in-person: Gebert, Higgins, Wodalski, Maguire, Finke, Hunt, and Parker. Later in the meeting Trautman and Lao joined in. Village Staff in attendance, via Zoom: Crowe and Falkowski Board of Trustees Members Present, in-person: Zeyghami, Maloney, and Cronin Board of Trustees Members Present, via Zoom: Weiland Audience Members in attendance, in-person: There was 2 audience member present, in-person. Audience Members in attendance, via Zoom: There were no audience members present, via Zoom. 4. Reading of Mission Statement. Pinsonneault asked Alstad to read the Mission Statement of CLPS. PUBLIC COMMENT MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS [0:01:53 Zoom Meeting Recording] 5. Approve Minutes from September 3, 2024, CLPS Meeting. Motion by Ermeling, second by Czerwonka: to approve the September 3, 2024, CLPS meeting minutes. Mtg_BOT_241021_Consent_Minutes_CLPS Valerie Parker updated @ 10/11/2024 4:17 PM Page 1 241007CLPS_241007  Yes Vote: 5 No Votes: 0 Abstain: 0 Not Voting: 2 Result: PASS Member (PC) Voting Pinsonneault, Jim {Chair} YES Ermeling, Barbara {Vice Chair} YES Alstad, Andrea YES Czerwonka, John YES Foss, Kim ------ Lopes-Serrao, Luis ------ Olson, Brent YES WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED None. ACKNOWLEDGE REPORTS FROM DEPARTMENTS [0:02:26 Zoom Meeting Recording] 6. Code Enforcement Update Gebert referred to the report in the packet. Motion by Olson, second by Alstad: to acknowledge the Code Enforcement Update Report. Yes Vote: 5 No Votes: 0 Abstain: 0 Not Voting: 2 Result: PASS Member (PC) Voting Pinsonneault, Jim {Chair} YES Ermeling, Barbara {Vice Chair} YES Alstad, Andrea YES Czerwonka, John YES Foss, Kim ------ Lopes-Serrao, Luis ------ Olson, Brent YES UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7. Discussion and/or action on recommendation to the Board of Trustees on amendment to Unauthorized Persons on School Property, Building Access, and Security ordinance [0:03:05 Zoom Meeting Recording] Hunt commented the only changes to this ordinance had to do with the securing of the doors. He explained how they have some individuals in the school who will prop doors open, which then allow unauthorized visitors to enter the school. The School Resource Officers requested this language be changed to allow them some enforcement action capabilities if someone is caught going around propping open doors. Pinsonneault questioned if this ordinance only pertains to students, or if it pertains to anyone (including adults) propping open doors. He gave an example of if a teacher, during class, leaves their classroom door propped open, which allows students to come in and out, and questioned if the Mtg_BOT_241021_Consent_Minutes_CLPS Valerie Parker updated @ 10/11/2024 4:17 PM Page 2 241007CLPS_241007 teachers are not responsible for securing their areas. Olson pointed out the Exceptions section of this draft ordinance. There will now be some enforcement capabilities if people prop doors open. Pinsonneault questioned if this should cover anyone, not just “students”. Should refer to persons. Olson suggested using “anyone”. Olson stated he reads this that the ordinance is primarily on the students and staff as long as it was within the rules of their employment. Higgins stated from the way she reads it, and when looking at the Exceptions, the current language in the first paragraph is fine. If teachers end up propping doors, they are essentially not following the rules. Hunt suggested that this be modified to refer to “students or persons”. Olson suggested using the word “anyone”. Olson pointed out he sees this draft ordinance as covering two different citable issues: 1. You have to be authorized to be on school grounds, and 2. You can’t prop the doors open. Hunt stated again that the main reason for this is that there are students propping the doors and then letting friends from other schools come into the facility. Gebert suggested stating in Section 2 “propping of any door, allowing any person access through unauthorized doors…”. Pinsonneault stated also in that section, the last sentence could read: “…being allowed access to the school by any person through unauthorized doors is prohibited.”. Higgins added the third sentence could also be revised to instead read: “All persons must enter and exit through the main office doors…”. Wodalski commented that this will apply to all DC Everest Schools, and how some still have side entry points. Higgins stated then maybe to word that sentence “All students and visitors”. Gebert also pointed out, if we used “all persons” how that would affect people like janitors, etc. Olson suggested instead of “main office doors” to state “designated doors” or “authorized doors”. Gebert stated a motion could be made to the Board to approve this with the four amendments discussed for paragraph 2, which she pointed each one out. Clerk’s Note - the paragraph would instead read as: “All entrance and exit doors to schools within the D.C. Everest School District must be closed and locked during school hours. Propping of any door, allowing any person access through unauthorized doors, and damage to Card Access Readers is prohibited. All persons must enter and exit through the authorized main school doors during school hours. Students must follow check in and check out procedures set forth by school administration. Forcible entry, entry through propped doors, or being allowed access to the school by another person through unauthorized doors is prohibited.” Mtg_BOT_241021_Consent_Minutes_CLPS Valerie Parker updated @ 10/11/2024 4:17 PM Page 3 241007CLPS_241007 Motion by Czerwonka, second by Ermeling: to recommend approval to the Board of Trustees, the proposed amended Unauthorized Persons Ordinance with the added amendments discussed tonight (original Ordinance draft along with amendments made tonight to Section 2, as noted above). Yes Vote: 5 No Votes: 0 Abstain: 0 Not Voting: 2 Result: PASS Member (PC) Voting Pinsonneault, Jim {Chair} YES Ermeling, Barbara {Vice Chair} YES Alstad, Andrea YES Czerwonka, John YES Foss, Kim ------ Lopes-Serrao, Luis ------ Olson, Brent YES 8. Discussion and/or action on recommendation to the Board of Trustees on adoption of Sexting Prohibited Ordinance [0:14:10 Zoom Meeting Recording] Hunt passed out a letter from Detective Sergeant Dan Goff (attached). Hunt explained the previous recommendation was to talk to Child Protective Services (CPS) and get a recommendation from them, as this is a newly created ordinance, as to how they felt about writing municipal citations on some of the offenses that they deal with. Hunt pointed out how this happens daily at the schools. Olson pointed out how in Wisconsin, once you are 17, you are treated as an adult for crimes you commit. He questioned if we should amend 1. c. from “18” to “17”, or do we still want the decision to be up to the officer, to determine a potential adult felony charge versus a juvenile municipal citation. Hunt felt if it was a case involving an 18-year old and a 16-year old, then it would go to CPS, but if it were a 17-year old with a 17-year old, then he feels it would go through citation. Pinsonneault confirmed if we leave the “18” age, it would still be up to the officer which way to handle it. Gebert questioned if Rothschild already adopted one like this. Hunt stated this is brand new and going through Weston first, then Rothschild. Motion by Ermeling, second by Olson: to recommend approval of the Ordinance to the Board of Trustees, as presented. Yes Vote: 5 No Votes: 0 Abstain: 0 Not Voting: 2 Result: PASS Member (PC) Voting Pinsonneault, Jim {Chair} YES Ermeling, Barbara {Vice Chair} YES Alstad, Andrea YES Czerwonka, John YES Mtg_BOT_241021_Consent_Minutes_CLPS Valerie Parker updated @ 10/11/2024 4:17 PM Page 4 241007CLPS_241007  Foss, Kim ------ Lopes-Serrao, Luis ------ Olson, Brent YES 9. Discussion and/or Action on recommendation to the Board of Trustees on adoption of Operator’s License required ordinance. [0:20:55 Zoom Meeting Recording] Hunt passed out a document (attached) providing statistics on operator license citations that have been issued over the past year. Hunt stated that if we have this ordinance in place, the officers still have the option to write it as a criminal or municipal citation. He stated one of the reasons they write municipal citations is that it is a quicker adjudication and the monies collected comes back to the municipality, versus to the State and County. Hunt stated that Rothschild has had this ordinance for several years now (which is where most of the 2023 numbers come from). Olson stated he was previously concerned about the criminal versus municipal citation for OAR (Operating After Revocations), as the license revocation is longer when through the State versus municipal, but after seeing the low statistics on the OAR, he is not as concerned now. Motion by Czerwonka, second by Olson: to recommend approval of the Ordinance as presented. Yes Vote: 5 No Votes: 0 Abstain: 0 Not Voting: 2 Result: PASS Member (PC) Voting Pinsonneault, Jim {Chair} YES Ermeling, Barbara {Vice Chair} YES Alstad, Andrea YES Czerwonka, John YES Foss, Kim ------ Lopes-Serrao, Luis ------ Olson, Brent YES 10. Discussion and/or Action on any further updates regarding Future Exploration of Commercial Building Inspections Program. [0:24:41 Zoom Meeting Recording] Maguire met with William Hebert, of City of Wausau, last Thursday, to discuss the possibility was for supplemental inspections. Hebert told Maguire that he would have more flexibility to do this outside of Wausau, under his own inspection agency, versus running it through the City of Wausau. Maguire stated last week he also had the opportunity to meet with John Cunningham, Director of Operations, with E-Plan Exam. Maguire stated that Cunningham is looking forward to working with Weston. Mtg_BOT_241021_Consent_Minutes_CLPS Valerie Parker updated @ 10/11/2024 4:17 PM Page 5 241007CLPS_241007 Maguire stated he will be preparing some larger homework in December or January, to present with an official plan. Maguire explained that Wausau currently charges $100/hour for commercial electrical inspections. He stated that Hebert (on his own) would be comparable to that. Pinsonneault confirmed that we have to be a “delegated municipality” with the State. Maguire stated as long as we have a contract with an inspection agency, whether our own staff, with Wausau, or with Hebert, then E- Plan Exam would be able to accept us as a partner. Also, then, the State would accept our letter for delegation request. Pinsonneault confirmed that we could initially enter into a contract with Hebert (until Maguire is certified/licensed), and contact the State to get our delegation status, and then also work with E-Plan Exam. Maguire confirmed the inspection fees would be covered under our permit fees. To have Hebert doing the inspections, we would need to modify our Fee Schedule for commercial inspections. Maguire stated, when talking to Hebert, not only does the plan review process take care of building plans and HVAC plans, but it also takes care of the fire alarm system plans, fire suppression plans, which means 4 revenue streams to tap into there. With this, we would modify the Fee Schedule to add in inspection fees for fire suppression, fire alarm system, and increasing the HVAC inspection fees. NEW BUSINESS 11. Discussion and/or Action on proposed amendments to Chapter 10 Animals [0:31:30 Zoom Meeting Recording] Gebert stated Chapter 10 in the packet is being provided to start a discussion on if there is anything CLPS would like to see changed. Olson brought up Sec. 10.108, on transportation of animals, and how he disagrees with the use of “…left in or upon a vehicle for more than twenty minutes,…”. He pointed out if someone has their dog in their vehicle on a 60-degree day, with the windows open, for 45 minutes, that should not be considered cruelty to a dog. He feels we may be overstepping a bit with the “twenty minutes” cut off. He pointed out now if it was 80 degrees outside and someone’s dog was left in a vehicle for 20 minutes, by the time the 20 minutes hits, the dog may already be dead. He feels we should just leave this section with just the first sentence, and remove the rest. Hunt stated he agrees with that comment, and how the timeframe really has nothing to do with it, that it is really about how the animal is being cared for. They agreed to strike the second sentence and re-write the first sentence as: “No person may transport any animal in or upon any vehicle in a cruel manner or in unreasonable conditions.” Czerwinski questioned Sec. 10,112, on shooting at caged or staked animals, and asked what if you trap a skunk in your back yard. Olson commented that the Village already has an ordinance that prohibits the discharge of firearms at animals. A question came up if a bow and arrow is considered a deadly weapon. Hunt stated in 28 years he has never seen a citation issued for someone who was shooting a caged varmint or destructive animal. He feels if it was someone’s pet, that would be different, and treated as a criminal issue. It was agreed to leave this section as is. Alstad questioned chickens not being in this section. Higgins stated that chickens are covered in the Zoning Ordinance. Gebert stated that chickens are allowed, but the number allowed are based on lot size and zoning Mtg_BOT_241021_Consent_Minutes_CLPS Valerie Parker updated @ 10/11/2024 4:17 PM Page 6 241007CLPS_241007 district. Pinsonneault commented that there are a few references to chickens in Chapter 10 that need to be revised. There should be a reference to the Zoning Code for chickens, in this chapter. Olson brought up Sec. 10.123, Animal Fanciers, under b. iv. and b. v, where it references the Humane Officer. Gebert stated we do have 2 police officers humane officers. Hunt stated two of his new officers recently went down to Madison and received that required training/certifications, so we have two designated officers for humane officers. Pinsonneault questioned the intent to the definition of “Dog, service”, in Sec. 10.103. Gebert stated a service animal would not include an emotional support animal. She stated a service animal would carry a certification that they were provided training to do one of the tasks listed in, or similar to what is listed in, this definition, and would not include emotional support. Pinsonneault stated that ADA does not just have dogs called out, as they just list service animals, and it doesn’t require them to have a vest or certain training through a certified program. If our intent is to use this in an ADA scenario, then we should change this to say that. Hunt suggested stating “service animal as defined by the ADA”. Olson stated they have to be able to be trained to do something related to their disability. Hunt further suggested to state “service dog or animal, as defined by ADA”. Pinsonneault stated the definition name should be changed from service dog to service animal. Pinsonneault brought up Sec. 10.100, Purpose and Intent, should include chickens since they require licensing. Pinsonneault brought up Sec. 10.106, Taking Without Owner’s Consent, and stated we need to add a provision for chickens. Higgins stated residents have to have their chickens. Higgins stated this ordinance was created in 2008, and is a standard ordinance that other communities have. Hunt stated if someone stole another person’s chicken, they would issue a theft citation. It was stated we could just use “anybody’s animal” versus calling it out by type. Pinsonneault brought up Sec. 10.113, Sale of Baby Rabbits, Chicks, and Other Fowl. He questioned if people have chickens to sell, how that works. Gebert stated that the Village does not allow roosters, so there should not be any baby chickens to sell. Pinsonneault commented that we now allow chickens, and people have to get them somehow. Higgins pointed out this ordinance is from many years ago. Maguire commented that the chicken license only applies in the smaller zoning districts. Gebert stated we will have to research to see how other municipalities are handling this and circle back on this. Hunt stated he believes the reason the sale has to come from a proper facility was to make sure someone was not giving away or selling infected chicks that can spread (like bird flu). Hunt commented on Sec. 10.115, Number of Dogs and Cats Limited, that he does not see where it lists a combination of number of dogs and cats. Higgins pointed out ours only limits on the number of each, not combined number of both. Gebert pointed out there are people out there who have a maximum of both species. Hunt stated in those cases we would just grandfather those in. Higgins stated most people are not going to report the cats that they have. Olson stated in Wausau how they have an exception for when puppies are born, and allows a certain amount of time to re-home the puppies. Ermeling agreed if we changed this, and people have more than what is allowed, we would grandfather. Higgins stated it would only be allowed for those who already have all their pets licensed. Higgins explained the animal fancier license. Ermeling feels it may be easier to have Weston and Rothschild’s allowable number the same. Hunt stated Rothschild only Mtg_BOT_241021_Consent_Minutes_CLPS Valerie Parker updated @ 10/11/2024 4:17 PM Page 7 241007CLPS_241007 allows no more than 4 combined adult animals. Olson stated to leave the current language and then add a section that says the grand total of adult animals is 4. Pinsonneault brought up Sec. 10.116, Restrictions on Animals Other Than Dogs and Cats. He stated we need to add information about chickens. Gebert stated we could refer to the Zoning code. Pinsonneault brought up #4 under Sec. 10.116, Disposal of Manure, and how it affects livestock. Higgins stated it provides an exception for commercial, rural residential, and agricultural uses. It was agreed the exception in #1 also needs to be in #4. Pinsonneault brought up Sec. 10.118, Providing Property Shelter, under 2.b. and 3.b. When we have chickens there are not outdoor standards, as he believes they are not permitted indoors. Higgins will look at this. Pinsonneault brought up Sec. 10.120, Vaccination. He stated in 2. It refers to “Every pet obtained...shall be vaccinated…”, and how chickens can’t get rabies. He stated this section should just consistently list “dogs and cats” and not “every pet”. Higgins pointed out in 1. it does specify that “…dog or cat (hereinafter “pet”)…”. Pinsonneault then pointed out the in the Definitions section, Pet is defined as an animal kept for pleasure rather than utility, which may/may not be susceptible to rabies. One of these needs to be fixed, most likely removing the “hereinafter “pet””, and specify Dog and Cat in this section. Pinsonneault brought up Sec. 10.121, Licenses Required, and that we need to add license for chickens. Pinsonneault brought up Sec. 10.128, Required Removal of Animal Excreta. He stated we should change the word “Excreta” to “Feces”. He also brought up that the last paragraph appears as if someone else’s dog goes into his yard, and defecates, and if he then does not pick the mess up that he would be liable for that someone else’s dog’s feces in his yard (sounding like anyone can be responsible). Pinsonneault brought up Sec. 10.132, Female Animal In Season, and how it needs a definition. Pinsonneault brought up Sec. 10.132.01, Community Cats, under #8 & 9, where “Animal Control Authority” is not defined. Gebert thinks the reason it was left broad was because any person can take the community cats to a Humane Society, Police Department, or Veterinarian Clinic. Pinsonneault brought up Sec. 10.137, Certain Creatures Forbidden. He stated we should be more specific on what type of animals. Hunt stated they have something in the Rothschild ordinance. Pinsonneault brought up Sec. 10.301, Permitted Activity Zones. He stated our code does not coordinate with our map. Gebert stated we will look into this. Pinsonneault stated we will see this back next month. ANNOUNCEMENTS [1:15:56 Zoom Meeting Recording] Gebert commented with the election being the day after our regularly scheduled November meeting, how we moved that one to October 28th, at 5pm. However, she realized that conflicts with the Parks and Recreation Meeting that night at 5:00 p.m. She suggested we either hold the October 28th meeting after the Parks meeting is over (which could last until 6:00 p.m.) or just cancel that meeting all together, and hold off until our regular December 2nd meeting. Mtg_BOT_241021_Consent_Minutes_CLPS Valerie Parker updated @ 10/11/2024 4:17 PM Page 8 241007CLPS_241007 The members were fine with holding the next meeting, on October 28th, after the Parks & Recreation meeting. REMARKS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS None. ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA [1:17:55 Zoom Meeting Recording] a. Next Regular Meeting Date – Monday, October 28, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. – following Parks Commercial building inspections will come back along with more discussion on the Chapter 10 Animals. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Ermeling, second by Czerwonka: to adjourn at 6:19 p.m. Jim Pinsonneault, Village Trustee and CLPS Chair Jami Gebert, Village Administrator Valerie Parker, Recording Secretary Mtg_BOT_241021_Consent_Minutes_CLPS Valerie Parker updated @ 10/11/2024 4:17 PM Page 9 241007CLPS_241007