The URL can be used to link to this page

Full Agenda Packet CITY OF JANESVILLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, February 22, 2010 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Roll Call. 3. Regular meeting minutes of February 8, 2010 City Council meeting. “C” 4. Licenses; and Recommendations of the Alcohol License Advisory Committee. (Refer to separate agenda.) “C” 5. Authorization for the Administration to deny a liability claim from Brian Wolnick in the amount of $30,000. “C” 6. Financial statement for the month of December, 2009. “C” OLD BUSINESS 1. Requests and comments from the public regarding items on the Agenda not requiring a public hearing. 2. Second reading, public hearing and action on a proposed ordinance amending the regulations of prohibiting chickens within City limits. (File Ord. No. 2010-450) 3. Second reading, public hearing and action on a proposed ordinance establishing Fire Department emergency response fees. (File Revised Ord. No. 2010-448) ----------------------- “C” – This designation indicates an item that the City Council will take up under a Consent Agenda. City Council Agenda – February 22, 2010 Page 2 OLD BUSINESS (CONTINUED) 4. Second reading, public hearing and action on a proposed ordinance amending the city’s wastewater facility and sewer use ordinance (Chapter 13.16) in order to reduce the discharge of mercury into the sanitary sewers. (File Ord. No. 2010-449) 5. Continued public hearing and action on a proposed charter ordinance amending the meeting time of regular Common Council meetings from 7:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. (File Charter Ord. No. 2009-008) NEW BUSINESS 1. Presentation by Census Complete Count Committee. 2. Action on a proposed resolution authorizing the acceptance of an Assistance to Firefighters Grant for the purchase of Fire Department communications equipment. (File Res. No. 2010-676) 3. Action on a proposed resolution requesting the return of the historic Parker Pen Archive to Janesville. (File Res. No. 2010-675) 4. Discussion of proposal to construct new Ice Skating Center including authorization for the City Manager to retain a consultant to evaluate current facility and feasibility of a new facility; and possible action on a request to extend the March 1, 2010 deadline for fundraising. 5. Refer to Plan Commission and schedule a public hearing on a proposed resolution vacating undeveloped portions of Riverside Street, Mill Street, South Pine Street and South Walnut Street.(File Res. No. 2010-677) 6. Requests and comments from the public on matters which can be affected by Council action. 7. Matters not on the Agenda. 8. Motion to Adjourn. The use of audible cell phone ringers and active use and response to cellular phone technology by the governing body, staff and members of the public is discouraged in the Council Chambers while the Council is in session. PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 2010 VOL. 60 NO. 31 Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Janesville held in the Municipal Building on February 8, 2010. The meeting was called to order by Council President Truman at 7:00 PM. Council President Truman led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. Present: Council President Truman, Councilmembers Brunner, McDonald, Perrotto, Rashkin, and Voskuil. Absent: Steeber. CONSENT AGENDA Minutes of the regular meeting of January 25, 2010. Licenses and Recommendations of the Alcohol License Advisory Committee. Action on a motion to approve final Certified Survey Map 10002-C Donald & Leo Marklein, 2 lots along Autumn Lane and Lucy Street. Authorization for the Administration to deny a liability claim brought on behalf of Donyil Anderson, Jr. and Skylar Hosey in the amount of $2,000,000 ($1,000,000 each). Authorization for the Administration to deny a liability claim from Kevin Oleston in the amount of $50,000. Council President Truman stated that all items on the consent agenda would be approved if there were no objections. There were none. Presentation of Patriot Award to the City of Janesville. Retired Col. Mike Williams, representing the Department of Defense, presented the Police Department with a Patriot Award for their continued support of employees serving in the National Guard and Reserve. In addition, he recognized Police Officer Ratzlaff for handling a police officer’s personal business while that officer was stationed overseas. OLD BUSINESS 1. Requests and comments from the public regarding items on the agenda not requiring a public hearing. Burdette Erickson, 115 S. High St. and Kurt Linck, 118 S. High St., support the acquisition and rehabilitation of 159 S. Cherry Street (New Business #2). NEW BUSINESS 1. Action on a proposed resolution authorizing a 2009 General Fund Supplemental Appropriation in the amount of $345,000 for Snow Removal budget. Councilmember McDonald moved to adopt said resolution, seconded by Councilmember Voskuil and passed unanimously. (File Res. No. 2010-674) 2. Action on a proposed resolution authorizing the acquisition and rehabilitation of 159 South Cherry Street. Councilmember Rashkin moved to adopt said resolution with a purchase price not to exceed $47,500, seconded by Councilmember Voskuil and passed unanimously. (File Res. No. 2010-668) 3. Authorization for the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the Active Network, Inc. for advertising on City-owned property. Councilmember Voskuil moved to authorize the City Manager to enter into the agreement between the City of Janesville and Active Network, Inc., in which Active Network, Inc. will advise the City on advertising opportunities on City-owned property to generate revenue, seconded by Councilmember Perrotto and passed unanimously. 4. Action on a motion to grant a blasting permit from SX Blasting for the construction of the Janesville Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion. Councilmember McDonald moved to grant a blasting permit to SX Blasting for the construction of the Janesville Wastewater Treatment Plant, seconded by Councilmember Voskuil and passed unanimously. 5. A proposed ordinance amending the City’s wastewater facility and sewer use ordinance (Chapter 13.16) in order to reduce the discharge of mercury into the sanitary sewers was introduced, referred to Plan Commission, and scheduled for public hearing on February 22, 2010. (File Ord. No. 2010-449) 6. A proposed ordinance rezoning property located at 1102 Pliny Avenue from R2 to M2 was introduced, referred to Plan Commission, and scheduled for public hearing on March 22, 2010. (File Ord. No. 2010-451) 7. Requests and comments from the public on matters which can be affected by Council action. Kay Deupree, 419 S. Franklin St., representing the League of Women Voters, requested that the th Council join them in celebrating their 90 Anniversary and women obtaining the right to vote. Councilmember Brunner thanked the League for their community service. 8. Matters not on the agenda. Council President Truman and Councilmember McDonald requested the ordinance addressing the City Council meeting time be placed on a future agenda as soon as possible. City Manager Levitt stated that the Administration is working on recognizing our local Olympian, Tucker Fredricks. Councilmember Rashkin stated over 100,000 people in Wisconsin will be losing their unemployment benefits at the end of the month and suggested residents help one another during these difficult times. Council President Truman reminded citizens that trash pick up for Tuesday, February 9, 2010 will be postponed one week and to move cars off the street for the snow emergency. 9. Councilmember McDonald moved to convene into closed session pursuant to Wisconsin Statute Section 19.85(1)(e) for the purpose of deliberating and setting the negotiation and bargaining strategies, terms and conditions for a potential TIF 14 development agreement since competitive and/or bargaining reasons require a closed session, seconded by Councilmember Voskuil and passed unanimously. There being no further business, Council convened into closed session at 8:17 PM. These minutes are not official until approved by the City Council. Jean Ann Wulf City Clerk-Treasurer JANESVILLE CITY COUNCIL LICENSE AGENDA 2/22/2010 RECOMMENDED A. ELECTRICIANS – ORIGINAL Eric M. Kadlec 6654 W. Woodridge Dr. Daniel A. Kavemeier 814 Buena Vista Ave., Waukesha, WI B. AMUSEMENT DEVICE AND CENTER LICENSE-ORIGINAL MO-TAASBAG, LLC d/b/a TAASBAG Mathew O. Sikich 2339 N. Milton Ave. CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE MEMORANDUM February 16, 2010 TO: City Council FROM: Tim Wellnitz, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Authorization for the Administration to Deny a Liability Claim from Brian Wolnick in the Amount of $30,000. On July 29, 2009, Brian Wolnick was involved in a slip and fall accident at Rockport Pool in Janesville, Wisconsin. He alleges that the City failed to maintain the Pool, particularly the diving board, causing personal injuries to him. On November 20, 2009, a claim was received from Attorney Steven T. Caya on behalf of Brian Wolnick for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of society and companionship in the amount of $30,000. After investigating this incident, and with the concurrence of the City’s Insurance Claims Representative at Cities & Villages Mutual Insurance Company (CVMIC), it has been determined that the City should deny this claim. Resolution 89-1175, establishing our claims administration procedure, states in section 4.3a: The City Claims Administrator shall review, investigate, verify and within ninety (90) days of receiving such claim, prepare and forward a written recommendation to the Common Council for its review, consideration, and action each and every claim in face amount greater than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000). I recommend that the City Council deny by consent and authorize the Administration to deny the claim received from Brian Wolnick in the amount of $30,000. cc: Eric Levitt, City Manager Jacob J. Winzenz, Director of Administrative Services/Assistant City Manager J:\Finance & Administration\Finance Administration\Risk\Claims-Word\City Council Memos\Brian Wolnick.doc ACCOUNTING DIVISION MEMORANDUM February 17, 2010 TO: City Council FROM: Patty Lynch, Comptroller SUBJECT: Financial Statement for the Month of December 2009 The City prepares its Financial Statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals using the modified accrual method of accounting and is audited annually by Baker Tilly Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP. As the auditors will begin their fieldwork at the end of February, the information presented in the December report will be subject to auditor adjusting entries. Key operating funds include the General Fund, Water and Wastewater Utilities, and Sanitation. A summary of their performance to budget, as compared a three-year average, is presented in the following graphs. EXPENDITURE SUMMARY The graph below indicates expenditures are being made according to budget. Sanitation fund exceeded budget due to a transfer of funds to the DNR long-term care escrow account. Year-To-Date December ExpendituresCompared to Three-Year Average Current YTD3 Yr. Avg. 120% Percent of Total Budget 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% General FundWater -Wastewater - OperatingOperatingSanitation December 2009 Financial Statement February 17, 2010 Page 2 REVENUE SUMMARY The graph below indicates General Fund revenue has been earned as anticipated. Water Utility sales were 8.8% less than budgeted in 2009, and the Wastewater Utility sales were 6.5% less than budgeted metered consumption. The Sanitary Lanfill tonnage collected was 10% below the 2009 budget, the prior year trend shows tonnage 30% above budget amounts. Year-To-Date December RevenuesCompared to Three-Year Average Current YTD3 Yr. Avg. 140% 120% Percent of Total Budget 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% General FundWaterWastewaterSanitation Other items of interest in the Financial Statement are as follows: Proprietary Funds (pages 4) ? Water Utility—The Utility was able to generate net operating income of $304,380, compared to $556,449 from the year before. The Utility implemented a 15% rate increase on 10/13/2009, which was intended to generate a 5.35% rate of return on investment based on a 1/1/2009 implementation date. The Utility’s actual 2009 rate of return on investment was 2.60%. The lower rate of return is due to the delayed rate increase implementation and a water sales shortfall. ? Wastewater Utility—In 2009, the Utility had net operating income of $1,145,868 compared to $595,514 in 2008. An 8.84% rate increase was implemented on 1/1/2009 in order to maintain the financial integrity of the utility. ? Stormwater Utility—The Stormwater Utility was able to generate net operating income of $279,193 compared to a net operating loss of $223,831 in 2008. The net operating income is used to pay debt service requirements. The unrestricted cash has a deficit of $371,483 at 12/31/09. This deficit is due primarily because revenue is billed on a quarterly basis after expenditures have been made. December 2009 Financial Statement February 17, 2010 Page 3 ? Transit System— Transit required an operating subsidy from the General Fund of $679,397 which is $25,823 less than the 2009 budget. The Transit operation budget of $2,817,220 was under expended by $87,653 (3.1%). This is primarily due to diesel fuel below the budget amount $168,841 offset by overages in Contractual Maintenance Service ($17,751), Regular Service ($30,397), Paratransit ($24,977), and Night Service ($6,283). Transit fare box revenue was under realized causing a $63,511 (15.16%) operating revenue shortfall. Transit reports a negative cash balance of $158,142 due to the timing of grant reimbursements. State and Federal Grants Receivable are $228,495 at 12/31/09. ? The Vehicle Operations and Maintenance Fund operating budget is under expended by $112,815 primarily due to gas and diesel cost less than budget ($308,351) offset by vehicle maintenance parts ($120,943) and contracted repairs ($83,063) exceeding the budgeted amounts. A transfer was made to the Capital Projects fund in the amount of $1,162,000 for the purchase of VOM capital assets. ? The Insurance Fund has net operating income, before the incurred but not reported claims liability (IBNR) adjustment, of $483,012. The City incurred favorable health claims experience, offset by higher than expected workers compensation claims in 2009. Special Revenue Fund Balance (page 5) ? The Hedberg Public Library reports unrealized revenue of $7,695, or 0.2%, less than the 2009 budget. The actual expenditures were $108,039, or 2.8%, less than the 2009 budget. The Library’s 2009 budget included the usage of $100,000 of applied funds. The actual fund balance returned was $344 because of favorable budget variances. Hedberg Public Library has an ending fund balance at 12/31/09 of $436,529. ? JATV 12 under realized the operating revenue budget by $7,236 in 2009. Operating expenditures were $29,504 under the 2009 budget level. At year-end JATV has an ending equity of $260,117, of which $214,663 is designated for the purchase of capital items. ? The Sanitation Fund under realized their revenue budget by $111,225, or 1.92%, due to a 10% decrease in tonnage received at the landfill, offset by higher fees imposed by the Department of Natural Resources which are passed through to the State of Wisconsin. Operating expenses were under budget by $37,974. Transfers were made from surcharge reserve to the Landfill –RFIS/RDRA ($61,268), to the Long-term Care of Site 3023 ($226,000), to pay Sanitation debt service ($64,268), and to the General Fund ($400,000). The fund balance decreased by $736,858, for an ending undesignated balance of $2,032,200. ? At December 31, 2009, the TIF districts have a combined deficit fund balance of $1,768,793, compared to the combined deficit fund balance of $2,025,520 at 12/31/2008. However, TIF projections indicate the districts will reach a positive fund balance before they expire. December 2009 Financial Statement February 17, 2010 Page 4 ? Landfill long-term care of site #3023 ($110,151) will be reimbursed by an insurance policy we have in place for post closure care. ? Funds are on deposit for the long-term care of the new landfill with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The balance is $1,436,154 at December 31, 2009. Capital Projects Fund (page 6) ? The Riverfront Property Acquisition account received $241,000 via a Janesville Foundation Riverfront Reclamation Grant in December. ? The Reuther Way Project has a deficit balance of $57,510 at 12/31/09. It is anticipated funding will be provided with 2010 General Obligation note issue. ? The City incurred expenditures in conjunction with road projects on Highway 11 from Wright Road to Highway 14 ($186,799). These costs will be funded with future special assessments or General Obligation note issue. General Fund Unreserved Balance (pages 7-10) The Statement of General Fund Budget Receipts (page 7) indicates that the City received $230,737, or 0.9%, more than the amount budgeted for 2009. This net over-realization of revenue was primarily generated from the following revenue accounts: Water Utility Taxes $107,000 Hotel / Motel Taxes -$88,756 Community Development Permits -$175,581 Interest on General Investments -$120,332 Fire Department Service Charges $248,676 Miscellaneous $216,998 Operating Transfer In $156,857 The Water Utility Tax exceeded the budget by $107,000, or 11.9%, due to an increase in the net effective tax rate where none was projected. Hotel/ Motel Room tax revenue took a 14% decline from 2008. The revenue collected was $88,756 less than the 2009 budget. Community Development Permits under realized the budget by $183,726, or 13.6%. In 2009, 63 permits were issued for new construction of single and two family residences, this is a 31% decrease from 2008, and a 75% decrease from an annual average number of 259. In addition, there was a 30% decrease in the number of commercial permits. We experienced a positive variance of total Fire Department Service Charges in the amount of $248,676, or 19.3%. The average net bill was 9% higher than 2008, and the ambulance runs were 16% over the budget estimate. December 2009 Financial Statement February 17, 2010 Page 5 December 2009 Financial Statement February 17, 2010 Page 6 Miscellaneous revenue exceeded our budget projection by $216,998. This positive budget variance resulted from the City’s share of dissolved TIF district #15 of $92,675, and an easement from ANR Pipeline Company of $111,552. Transfers In is comprised of TIF #3’s repayment of funds previously advanced by the General Fund ($285,955), a budgeted transfer from the Sanitation Fund ($400,000) and transfers from closed debt service TIF funds ($20,902). The TIF #3 transfer is the sixth in a series of eight annual payments. The remaining transfer anticipated from TIF #3 is approximately $470,000. Council Policy Statement #68—Investment of City Funds requires that the Administration submit an annual investment report. Please find attached the report that recaps our investment program results for 2009 (Exhibit 1). Council Policy Statement #73—Accounts Receivable requires that the Administration submit an annual report on the progress of delinquent account collections. Please find attached the 2009 annual report for accounts receivable write-offs (Exhibit 2). After applying a Supplemental Appropriation of $345,000 as approved in Resolution #2010-674, the Statement of 2009 Budget Appropriation Expenditures indicates that actual expenditures were $802,549, or 1.93%, less than the amount appropriated. After the supplemental appropriation to fund December snow removal, the resulting program budgets are in accordance with the General Fund’s appropriation resolution. The table below shows the unexpended balances at December 31, 2009. Amount Percentage Unexpended Unexpended General Government $157,889 4.65% Public Safety (including Police and Fire) 309,107 1.39% Public Works (including Public Works Administration, Engineering, Street Maintenance 120,415 2.28% & Repairs, Public Buildings and Parking Facilities, Traffic Management, Transit Operating Subsidy and Sanitation Fund Subsidy) Leisure Services (including Leisure Services Administration, Senior Citizens Center, Aquatics, 73,761 2.50% Youth and Adult Recreation, Parks and Ice Skating Center) Community Development (including Economic 140,719 8.83% Development, Community Development and Property Maintenance) Other (including Economic Adjustments, Employee Fringe Benefits and Insurance, 658 0.07% Contingency Account and Special Assessments Transfer) General City Debt Service 0 0.00% December 2009 Financial Statement February 17, 2010 Page 7 TOTAL $802,549 1.93% Please find attached a General Fund Equity Analysis, which provides information concerning the status of our Fund Balance for the years 2005-2009 (Exhibit 3). The General Fund Balance has decreased by $542,714 for a total fund balance of $7,231,529 at December 31, 2009, of which $6,540,962 is Unreserved Fund Balance. A representative of the Administrative Services Department will be available at the Council th Meeting on February 22 to respond to any questions Council may have relative to these reports. Once Council is satisfied, acceptance of the Financial Statement by consent and placing them on file would be in order. /Attachments cc: Jacob J, Winzenz, Director of Administrative Services/Assistant City Manager Eric J. Levitt, City Manager CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE MEMORANDUM February 16, 2010 TO: City Council FROM:Thomas E. Malone, Management Analyst SUBJECT: Second Reading, Public Hearing and Action on a Proposed Ordinance Amending the Regulations Prohibiting Chickens Within City Limits (File Ordinance No. 2010-450) Request Commissioners McDonald and Rashkin have requested this item be placed on the agenda. Plan Commission Recommendation: At the February 15, 2010 Plan Commission meeting, the committee held a public hearing and voted 6-0-1 to forward on a negative recommendation regarding the proposed ordinance. Attached is the Staff Report, Plan Commission minutes and handouts from citizens that were distributed at the meeting. Staff Recommendation: The City Manager defers to the Plan Commission’s recommendation. Suggested Motion If the City Council wishes to consider reducing the restrictions regarding chickens in the city, following the public hearing, the proposed Ordinance should be approved. Background The current ordinance regulating wildlife allows chickens to be raised only in the outlying areas of the city. The ordinance reads that no chickens or chicken coops are allowed in the city, except for outlying areas where no tenement or other building resides that is occupied by someone other than the owner. Additionally, poultry houses must be located at least 150 feet from any structure, except for the residence of the owner, thereby prohibiting chickens in most areas since they are required to be kept in a coop. The number of chickens cannot exceed twenty-five. Recently the issue of whether to reduce the restrictions and allow individuals not living in the outlying areas of the city to keep chickens has been discussed at public meetings. As a result City staff has been instructed to review our current ordinance and compare them with other communities. Staff researched other communities that allow chickens, including Madison to determine what if any challenges were faced from allowing chickens within city limits. Based on information from other communities that allow chickens, the number of chickens to be kept appears to be limited to 4. Also staff assigned to enforcing chicken regulations reported that there have been a limited number of incidents over the years. Zoning administrators report that any enforcement issues concerning chickens are handled on a complaint basis. Madison receives an average of 10 complaints per calendar year and states enforcement efforts are minimal, in most cases any violations are corrected without incident. Analysis Below is a list of potential pros and cons to amending the ordinance to allow chickens to be raised in areas other than the outlying areas of the city. Pros ? Allowing chickens to be raised in other areas of the city would allow those citizens living in other sections of the city the opportunity to raise chickens which can provide eggs. ? Chickens are seen as neighbor friendly due to the low amount of noise they cause. Cons ? Staff feels that if an exception is granted to raising chickens, then exceptions may be granted to other types of animals as well. ? If chickens are kept in poor conditions then it has the potential to attract vermin and predators. ? Allowing chickens in additional parts of the city may create an administrative burden to city staff including enforcement of complaints. ? It creates the potential to be an inconvenience to neighbors of individuals who raise chickens due to the smell that is caused from chickens raised in unsatisfactory conditions. Additionally staff has been asked to look into the matter of whether raising chickens within city limits would impact property values. There has been no empirical evidence to suggest a positive or negative impact on home values and staff is unable to quantify the potential effect keeping chickens would have on adjacent properties. CC: Eric Levitt, City Manager Jacob J. Winzenz, Assistant City Manager/Director of Administrative Services ORDINANCE NO. 2010-450 An ordinance amending the keeping of animals so as to allow the keeping of chickens everywhere within the city limits while decreasing the maximum number of kept chickens allowed to four, with penalties for violations thereof as set forth in JGO 6.12.200. THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JANESVILLE DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 6.12.010 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Janesville is hereby amended to read as follows: 6.12.010 Livestock and poultry—Areas not allowed-- Exceptions--Nuisances prohibited--Number limitations .A. No horse, mule, donkey, pony, cow, pig, goat, sheep, or animal raised for fur-bearing purposes, and no chicken coop, dove cote, rabbit warren, or other yard or establishment where small animals or fowl such as chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, pheasants, rabbits, or guinea pigs are kept shall be allowed within the city limits, except in outlying building areas where no house, building, tenement, apartment house, hotel, restaurant, boardinghouse, retail food store, building used for school, religious or hospital purposes, or residence other than that occupied by the owner or occupant of the premises upon which such animals or fowl are kept is less than one hundred fifty feet from the outer edge of any barn, coop, or enclosure in which said creatures are housed or permitted to run All said creatures may be kept only when no nuisance is created thereby, and their numbers shall be kept within the limitations set out in Sections 6.12.020 through 6.12.060 B. Excepted from the prohibitions set forth in this section are chickens and chicken coops. Chicken coops and chickens must be located at least twenty-five feet from all structures including houses, buildings, tenements, apartment houses, hotels, restaurants, boardinghouses, retail food stores, buildings used for schools, religious or hospital purposes, or residences other than that occupied by the owner or occupant of the premises upon which chickens and chicken coops are kept, and cannot be kept upon any public property. In no event shall more than four (4) chickens be allowed per lot. SECTION II. Section 6.12.020 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Janesville is hereby amended to read as follows: 6.12.020 Poultry houses, and yards, and chicken coops--Number of birds, or fowl, or chickens permitted .Where poultry houses and yards are located at least one hundred fifty feet from the structure set out in Section 6.12.010, the keeping of not to exceed twenty-five birds or fowl, but no crowing roosters, shall be permitted. Excepted from this requirement are chicken coops and chickens, which must be located at least twenty-five feet from the structures set out in Section 6.12.010 but in no event shall more than four (4) chickens be permitted per lot. SECTION III. Section 6.12.025 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Janesville is hereby created to read as follows: 6.12.025 Chickens—Defined. A “chicken” is defined as a domestic fowl bred for flesh or eggs. ADOPTED: Motion by: Second by: APPROVED: Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent Brunner McDonald Perrotto Eric Levitt, City Manager Rashkin Steeber ATTEST: Truman Voskuil Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer APPROVED AS TO FORM: Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney Proposed by: Council Members McDonald & Rashkin Prepared by: Management Analyst & City Attorney Community Development Department Memorandum Date: February 2, 2010 MEMO TO: Janesville Plan Commission FROM: Thomas E. Malone, Management Analyst SUBJECT: Public Hearing and action on a Proposed Ordinance Amending the Regulations of Prohibiting Chickens within City Limits ________________________________________________________________ I. RECOMENDATION Following the public hearing, the Community Development Department recommends that the Plan Commission forward a negative recommendation on Revised-Ordinance 2010-450 amending the General Code of Ordinances to expand the area where chickens are allowed to be kept in the City. II. REQUEST Councilmembers Rashkin and McDonald have requested that the ordinance currently prohibiting the keeping of chickens in outlying areas of the city be reviewed to determine if an amendment is necessary to grant citizens the ability to raise chickens in other areas of the city. The City Attorney’s Office has drafted an amendment to the ordinance with changes that would allow for chickens to be kept in all areas of the community provided that certain separation requirements are maintained on the premises where chickens are kept. The City Council has referred this item to the Plan Commission for their consideration. As part of the review, the Plan Commission also has the opportunity to discuss and suggest additional changes to the proposed ordinance amendment. III. ANALYSIS A. The Current Ordinance The current ordinance allows for chickens to be kept in outlying areas of the City. Chickens must be kept 150 feet from any habitable structure or building other than the residence occupied by the owner of the premises where the chickens are kept. Up to 25 chickens are allowed to be kept by the owner, but no crowing roosters are permitted. It is clear the intent of the current ordinance is designed to limit the keeping of animals in the city. Livestock are prohibited altogether and chickens and poultry are restricted to “outlying areas” with 150 foot setback requirements. This is intended to allow for limited placement of animals on properties along the city’s edge that are typically larger in size where urban densities of development has not yet occurred. In essence, the sparse building density in these areas provides for separation between an animal confinement structure and the nearest occupied building. Often times, farmstead properties are annexed to the city to accommodate development and may still include an animal rearing component. The current ordinance provides a mechanism for types of activities to continue until they are phased out over the course of time and circumstance. B. The Proposed Amendment to the Ordinance The proposed amendment would make the following changes to the ordinance. ? Chickens and chicken coops must be kept 25 feet from any other building not including the structure occupied by the owner of the chickens. This includes uninhabitable structures such as a detached garage. ? The number of chickens allowed to be kept will change from 25 to 4, including no crowing roosters. The proposed amendment if adopted would significantly expand the area within the City where chickens may be kept and raised. The reduction in the setback requirement to 25 feet would make it possible for the majority of properties throughout the city to meet this standard and therefore, be eligible to raise up to 4 chickens per property. C. Slaughtering of Chickens The current ordinance does not address the slaughtering of chickens. The proposed amendment does not address the issue either. Neighborhood Services reported that the slaughtering of chickens has not been an issue in the past. Staff feels that while the amendment would allow additional areas for chickens to be kept, that they would not be raised for slaughter. However, if the Commission feels the issue should be specifically addressed, a “no slaughtering” provision can be added to the amendment. D. Ordinance Enforcement Currently any ordinance violations are handled on a complaint basis. Few complaints are received, and they are resolved with relatively little staff time dedicated to the issue. Properties that fall under the criteria to raise chickens are not required to fill out a license or undergo a permit process. The proposed amendment does not add the requirement for citizens to fill out an application in order to keep chickens. Ordinance violations would still be handled on a complaint basis. Staff is unable to accurately estimate the amount of time that would be dedicated to enforcement issues. Enforcement issues could potentially include a variety of complaints regarding noise, smell, wandering chickens, other “neighboring” animal conflicts with chickens (i.e. cats, dogs), number of chickens kept, whether the chickens or coop are 25 feet from a neighboring structure and health related issues. E. Health Related Issues The Rock County Health Department feels that if chickens are allowed to be kept in additional areas of the City that code enforcement related to the sanitary conditions that chickens are kept in will be important. There are no specific health problems identified; however, if chicken coops and areas where chickens are housed are inadequately maintained than potential problems could arise, such as creating a foul odor and attracting unwanted pests such as mosquitoes and vermin. The current ordinance (located in chapter 6.12.6) addresses the issue of proper sanitation and cleanliness of chicken coops and yards. All structures and pens where chickens are kept must be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition, which includes a dry and well ventilated area, devoid of rodents and has a ceiling. The health officer will enforce sanitation issues on a complaint basis. Rock County also enforces an ordinance which states that domestic animal waste must be cleaned on a daily or routine basis. The ordinance applies to chickens. If the areas where chickens are kept are well maintained than the risk for vermin and predators of chickens will be greatly reduced. Rock County Health Department staff stated that enforcement issues related to unsanitary conditions of pets do not occur frequently and are usually resolved without much incident. F. Land Use Applicability Currently a greater number of municipalities around the United States have moved towards allowing citizens to keep chickens. Based on communities surveyed, only Madison and Racine (through a special permit process) currently allow chickens. The reasons vary and include trends toward more green practices which include raising your own eggs, and a movement by citizen’s of the community to allow them to be kept as pets. From a land use perspective staff does not support the proposed ordinance amendment. That recommendation is rooted in the belief that the keeping of animals – livestock and poultry – creates legitimate concerns for ensuring land use compatibility and avoidance of conflict in an urban environment. The ordinance amendment would allow up to 4 chickens to be housed on nearly all properties city-wide. Considering that there are more than 20,000 residential properties in the City alone, the propensity for conflict and subsequent enforcement of the code could be very intense and problematic. Staff feels that the keeping of livestock is generally recognized as an activity that occurs in either a rural or semi-rural location where adequate separation between uses is provided. That is consistent with what the current ordinance specifies for the City of Janesville. It is staff’s belief that if keeping of livestock occurs, it should be minimized in scale, location and intensity to avoid conflict and ensure compatibility wherever possible. For these reasons staff does not support this proposal, and believes the current ordinance is appropriate. cc: Duane Cherek PLAN COMMISSION MINUTES - February 15, 2010 Tom Malone, Management Analyst, presented the written staff report. The public hearing was opened and the following persons appeared to speak. ? Allison Rollette, 976 Industrial Court – Stated that she hoped the City would have a positive recommendation on this request due to unemployment, sustainability issues, food safety issues, methane odor issue and landfill contracts expiring. She talked about key points included in a report that she had given to commission members and stated that if 10% of Janesville households kept chickens to bio-recycle yard and food waste for composting that there would be a tax payer savings. She discussed courses that could be offered to inform residents and develop customized materials for chicken keeping and composting with hens. Commissioner Perrotto asked Ms. Rollette if she felt the majority of Janesville citizens would want their neighbors to raise chickens. She stated the majority of residents have a lot of misinformation regarding this proposal and would likely need to be further educated to know exactly what it entails. Commissioner Werner asked what Ms. Rollette’s motivation was behind this ordinance change and she responded that the keeping of chickens in her yard would improve the quality of food in her vegetable garden since the hens would eat Japanese beetles and that children would enjoy the experience. ? Tom Chilson, 618 South Locust, stated that he was in favor of the ordinance change. He stated that he is the Rock County 4-H poultry leader, is a flock tester and currently raises chickens on a friend’s farm. He believes the ordinance change would provide a great educational opportunity for children especially since there are less and less farms around to raise chickens on. Commissioner Voskuil questioned Chilson’s comments about fewer farms in the area and he stated that each year more farms are disappearing for various reasons. Mr. Chilson indicated that right now his child is the only one showing poultry in 4-H but there are others who would be interested if they could have them in their back yard. There was further discussion regarding disease that affects chickens and how most occurs through mismanagement, poor cleaning habits and not taking care of the animals. ? David Innis, 320 Park Avenue, stated he was in favor of the ordinance change. He discussed life quality of chickens, how they facilitate health & wellness and contribute to energy self-sufficiency. He feels the City needs to lead the Green movement and that leadership will in turn bring businesses to the City. He handed out a copy of Madison’s chicken ordinance and indicated that the City’s proposed ordinance overlooks certain requirements and should be revised. ? Kim McKay, 472 N Palm Street, stated she was a scientist in favor of the ordinance, who had experience with keeping a small flock of chickens in college. She stated that the neighbors were not even aware of the chickens as they didn’t cause any sort of disturbance. She felt it would be a good experience for her children to be able to raise poultry for 4-H and had concerns about losing biodiversity which is necessary for cross- breeding. ? Diane VanHorn, 1212 Bennett Street, stated that she currently grows her own vegetables, bakes her own bread and buy meats from farmers and would like to be able to have chickens for eggs, for fertilizer, to control garden pests and feed kitchen scraps to. She believes that since Madison, Jefferson and Fort Atkinson currently allow chickens that Janesville should as well. ? Dale Hicks, 2221 East Milwaukee Street, is a rental property owner in the city and felt the ordinance should only allow homeowners to have chickens. He questioned how tenants with chickens would be controlled, how many chickens would be allowed for a multi-unit building, if chickens could run loose and whether the Humane Society would take the chickens if they were left behind by a tenant. Commissioner Hanewold asked if chickens could be regulated within the rental agreement as dogs & cats are. Mr. Hicks stated that they could be but feels that only homeowners should be allowed to have chickens. ? Billy Bob Grahn, 152 South Locust, stated he was in favor of the ordinance. He stated that if the commission or council were to adopt the ordinance, he suggests it be modified so that a limited number of permits be issued, that a landlord’s permission be obtained and that there be a trial period of up 2 years. ? Judith Detert-Moriarity, 23 South Atwood, stated she was in favor of the ordinance change as it would allow citizens affordable nutritious food and the right to grow it themselves. She stated it would allow citizens to reconnect to their historic roots and gain a healthier life style working with nature. She indicated noise would not be a concern and believes that the pros for this ordinance amendment, with proper restrictions, outweigh the cons. ? Paul Williams, 2426 North Lexington Drive, stated that he had concerns with the amendment since it does not contain specifications for the coops, require inspections, or contain anything about licensing, testing or shots (which are required for dogs and cats). He indicated that the 25-foot rule could allow his surrounding neighbors to have 3 coops that he’d be able to see from his backyard. ? Robb VanHorn, 1212 Bennett Street , stated that he lived all over the world when he was in the military and is very surprised that chickens are not allowed within the City. He didn’t believe that chicken noise would be a problem and he would like to grow his own food in his backyard. ? Greg Winkler, 1724 Mayfair Drive, stated he was in support of the ordinance change. He stated he would like to have chickens for eggs that his family would have fun with it and he doesn’t believes there would be any nuisance caused. ? Al Lembrich, 541 Miller Avenue, stated that he grew up on a farm raising chickens and believes chickens should be kept in outlying areas. He said that due to complaints of citizens in early 1960’s, the Council passed the current ordinance and that it should not be changed without wide support. He stated that the majority of cities do not allow chickens. He stated that the ordinance did not address permitting, fencing, if chickens would run loose, how many chicken coops and their size and if chickens would be allowed in the house. He stated that the Gazette poll shows that the wide majority would not support this ordinance change. He also had concerns about cleanliness and disease, people starting up businesses in residential areas with their chickens and what other farm animals might end up being allowed in the future because of this ordinance change. The public hearing was closed. There was discussion regarding the affect the ordinance may have on property values and Tom Malone indicated that staff has not conducted research on that particular aspect of the proposal. There was a motion by Commissioner Perrotto with a second by Commissioner Voskuil to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Hanewold questioned if this ordinance change had gone before the Sustainability Committee and Cherek indicated that it had not. The motion carried on a 6-0-1 vote with Commissioner Hanewold abstaining. Chairperson Helgerson stated that a public hearing would be held on this item at the next City Council Meeting to be held on February 22, 2010. JANESVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM February 9, 2010 TO: City Council FROM: Gerry Luiting – Deputy Fire Chief SUBJECT: Second Reading, Public Hearing and Action on a Proposed Ordinance Establishing Fire Department Emergency Response Fees (File Revised Ord. 2010-448) Summary: The total emergency services response activity to incidents continues to increase each year. The costs associated with providing those services also continue to grow while revenues continue to fall. New approaches for revenue enhancement have been encouraged. As discussed by the Council during the Fire Department budget review study session, the Fire Department researched the potential to collect user fees for motor vehicle accidents and motor vehicle fires. The Fire Department is proposing to invoice $400 for motor vehicle accidents and $500 for motor vehicle fires for city residents, and $500 for motor vehicle accidents and $600 for motor vehicle fires for non- city residents. These fees are based on the current usual and customary charges as billed by Fire Recovery USA, LLC (a specialty billing company). Revised File Ordinance 2010-448 provides a mechanism to recover some costs of providing emergency services from the users instead of increasing property taxes. The adoption of an ordinance is necessary to charge for these fees. Recommendation: The Fire Department supports Revised File Ordinance 2010-448 which will allow the Fire Department to bill new user fees to residents and non-residents for specific emergency responses. The specific emergency response billings are for motor vehicle accidents and vehicle fires. City Manager Recommendation: While the City Manager and Fire Chief would ideally prefer not to implement this type of charge, due to continuing budget pressures, I believe the costs of our services will either continue to drive up property tax support at a higher rate or the City needs to have the users of the service provide a portion of the funding. This proposed fee intends to provide that balance. Suggested Motion: Move to adopt Revised File Ordinance 2010-448, an ordinance establishing a program to charge user fees for the rendering of emergency services by the Janesville Fire Department. 1 Background: The total emergency services response activity to incidents continues to increase each year. The costs associated with providing those services have, and continue to grow, at a rate exceeding that of the growth of revenues to provide these services involving equipment and training. This creates additional demands on all operational aspects of the fire department services. The fire department has explored different methods to maintain a high level of quality in emergency service capability throughout times of constantly increasing service demands. Raising property taxes to meet the increase in service demands is not necessarily fair to the property owners, when many motor vehicle incidents and other emergency services involve individuals not owning property or paying taxes in the fire department’s service area. An option is to bill the user of the emergency service and their respective insurance company. The ability of the fire department to effectively respond decreases the liability of insurance companies by saving lives and minimizing property and environmental damage. Analysis: Using 2008 response data, potentially $60,000 could be collected for motor vehicle accidents and motor vehicle fires. A specialized billing company, such as Fire Recovery USA LLC, would be utilized for billing and collections. Other area Fire Departments are currently billing for a variety of emergency responses including Milton, Edgerton, Town of Beloit, Orfordville, Footville, and City of Beloit. Deputy Chief Gerry Luiting will be in attendance at the Council meeting to answer any questions on this proposal that the Council may have. cc: Eric J. Levitt, City Manager Jay Winzenz, Director of Administrative Services Chief Grorud, Fire Chief 2 REVISED ORDINANCE NO. 2010- 448 An Ordinance establishing a program to charge user fees for the rendering of certain Emergency Services by the City of Janesville Fire Department. THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JANESVILLE DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Chapter 8.28 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Janesville is hereby created to read as follows: CHAPTER 8.28 FIRE DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY SERVICES RESPONSE FEES 8.28.010 Purpose. 8.28.020 Emergency Services Response – Fee. 8.28.010Purpose. In order to continue to provide quality emergency services responses while minimizing the cost to the property taxpayer by recovering certain fees from the users of those rendered emergency services, and cognizant that Janesville residents already pay for these services through property taxes, the Janesville Common Council hereby desire and create a fair and equitable procedure to collect user fees for emergency services responses provided by the Janesville Fire Department. 8.28.020 Emergency services response – Fee. A. “Emergency services response” is any event in which the Janesville Fire Department is required to and/or does respond and take action. Emergency services include, but are not limited to, Fire Service and Emergency Medical Service. B. Every person, firm, corporation, and/or other entity who requires, receives, and/or is provided an emergency services response by the Janesville Fire Department shall be responsible for payment to the City for the following emergency services response fees: Service Resident Non-Resident 1. Motor Vehicle Accidents: $400.00 $500.00 2. Motor Vehicle Fires: $500.00 $600.00 ADOPTED: Motion by: Second by: Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent APPROVED: Brunner Loasching McDonald Eric J. Levitt, City Manager Rashkin Steeber Truman ATTEST: Voskuil Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer APPROVED AS TO FORM: __+____ Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney Proposed by: Fire Department Prepared by: Assistant City Attorney & City Attorney DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM February 12, 2010 TO: City Council FROM: Brian Skaife, Chemist/Biologist Dan Lynch, Utility Director SUBJECT: Second Reading, Public Hearing and Action on a Proposed Ordinance Amending the City’s Wastewater Facility and Sewer Use Ordinance (Chapter 13.16) in order to reduce the Discharge of Mercury into the Sanitary Sewers (File Ordinance No. 2010-449) Summary Mercury is a pollutant of concern because it is extremely toxic and bio-accumulates in animals and humans. The proposed ordinance will regulate the discharge of this pollutant into the City’s wastewater treatment and collection facilities. Its adoption is necessary to protect the environment and for compliance with program requirements of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). Department Recommendation Utility staff recommends that following the second reading and public hearing of Ordinance No. 2010-449, it is adopted by the City Council. Suggested Motion Move to adopt Ordinance No. 2010-449, amending the City’s Wastewater Facility and Sewer Use Ordinance in order to reduce the discharge of mercury into the City’s sanitary sewers. City Manager Recommendation The City Manager recommends approval. Analysis Routine sampling the City’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) for elemental mercury has been underway for many years with very small quantities routinely detected in the plant’s influent, effluent and sludge. The City will shortly have a wastewater discharge limit for mercury which could be as low as 2.8 parts per billion. Treatment of wastewater to this low level is not feasible at most municipal treatment plants so instead of treatment, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the WDNR require local regulatory efforts to prevent mercury from entering the sewer system. In 2008, the City partnered with the WDNR and a number of other communities to create the WDNR Green Tier Charter for Environmental Performance. The goal of this program is to reduce the amount of mercury entering municipal treatment and collection facilities. Adoption of this ordinance will require most dental facilities to install and 1 maintain mercury amalgam separators and require other mercury using facilities to implement improved tracking, reporting and disposal requirements. The proposed ordinance will not result in additional cost to the Wastewater Utility. The cost of meeting these requirements for dental offices is estimated to be $1300 for initial purchase and installation of the amalgam separator, and $100-$200 in annual maintenance. Approximately ½ of the dental offices in Janesville have already met these requirements. cc: Eric Levitt, City Manager Jay Winzenz, Director of Administrative Services 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2010-449 An ordinance amending the City’s Wastewater Facility and Sewer Use Ordinance in Order to Reduce the Discharge of Mercury into the City’s Sanitary Sewer System as Established in Chapter 13.16 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Janesville, With Penalties for Violations Thereof As set forth in JGO 13.16.350. THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JANESVILLE DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 13.16.095 (Mercury Minimization Program) of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Janesville is hereby created in the manner set forth in the attachment hereto. st SECTION II. This ordinance shall take effect on the 1 day of April, 2010. ADOPTED: Motion by: Second by: Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent APPROVED: Eric J. Levitt, City Manager Brunner McDonald ATTEST: ______ Perrotto Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer Rashkin Steeber APPROVED AS TO FORM: Truman Voskuil Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney Brian Skaife, Chemist/Biologist Proposed by: Dan Lynch, Utility Director Prepared by: 13.16.095 Mercury Minimization Program A. Dental offices. This section applies to any dental office that places or removes amalgam. If work in a dental office is limited to work that does not involve placing or removing amalgam, such as orthodontics, periodontics, oral and maxillo- facial surgery, endodontics, or prosthodontics, then this section does not apply. Dental offices that meet the requirements of this section after the effective date of this section will be subject to a schedule under (2) through (5) below as established by the City. 1. All dental offices shall implement best management practices for amalgam as established by the Wisconsin Dental Association. 2. Within the shortest reasonable time, but not later than December 31, 2010, every vacuum system where amalgam is placed or removed shall include an amalgam separator that meets the criteria of the International Standards Organization (ISO 11143). Dental offices shall install, operate, and maintain the amalgam separator according to the instructions provided by the manufacturer. The amalgam separator shall have a design and capacity appropriate for the size and type of vacuum system. The only Dental Offices that will be exempt from installing an amalgam separator shall be those that meet a de minimis requirement for placing or removing amalgam fillings. This requirement will be established by the City of Janesville. 3. On or before June 30, 2010 each dental office shall submit a schedule for the installation of the amalgam separator required by (2) above. 4. On or before September 30, 2010 each dental office shall submit a report to the City wastewater treatment plant that certifies the implementation of the management practices required by (1) above and identifies the contractors used to remove amalgam waste within the last 12 months. 5. On or before September 30, 2010 each dental office shall submit a report providing the following information: a. If installation of the amalgam separator is complete, then the report shall indentify the installation date, the manufacturer, and the model name. b. If installation of the amalgam separator is incomplete, then the report shall briefly explain the delay, provide an installation schedule, and identify the manufacturer and the model name of the amalgam separator that will be installed. c. If a dental office has provided a report according to subsection (5) b. above, then the dental office shall notify the City of the completion of the installation within five days after completion. 6. From the contractor(s) used to remove amalgam waste, dental offices shall obtain records for each shipment showing: the volume or mass of amalgam waste shipped; the name and address of the destination; and the name and address of the contractor. Dental offices shall maintain these records for a minimum of five years. Dental offices shall make these records available to City personnel for inspection and copying upon request. 7. Annually on or before June 30th of each year, each dental office shall submit a report to the Utility Director that lists the volume or mass of amalgam waste shipped, the name and address of the destination, and the name and address of the contractor(s) used to remove and transport amalgam waste within the previous calendar year. The report shall also indicate all maintenance performed on the amalgam separator within the previous calendar year, including inspections, cleaning, repairs and other maintenance. All maintenance and repair activities with the exception of routine activities authorized by the manufacturer shall be performed by a technician trained and authorized by the manufacturer to perform those activities. 8. In addition to the above, the report shall certify that: a. During the past year, all regularly scheduled maintenance and other repairs required or recommended by the manufacturer and the manufacturer’s representative have been completed. b. The amalgam separator, as of the date of the report, is in good overall operating condition 9. Dental offices shall permit City personnel to inspect the vacuum system, amalgam separator, and amalgam waste storage areas according to Section 13.16.210 A. 10. If a dental office is implementing the management practices required by (1) above and is operating and maintaining the amalgam separator required by (2) above, then with regard to mercury it will not be subject to the regulatory procedures and requirements as set forth elsewhere in this chapter. 11. The City shall provide forms for reporting the information under the Mercury Minimization Program. B. Other facilities. This subsection applies to all other facilities having the potential to discharge mercury or mercury-containing material to the City sanitary sewer system. The City strongly advocates the proper handling and, if possible, recycling of all mercury containing products. 1. Facilities include: a. Medical facilities, including all hospitals, clinics and veterinary facilities that have laboratories. b. School facilities, including all public and private schools with science laboratories, including middle schools, high schools, technical schools, colleges and universities, but not elementary schools. c. Industrial facilities, including all industrial plants that historically or consistently discharge mercury into the wastewater treatment plant and industrial plants with the potential for mercury in their wastewater. 2. The City shall identify and notify the facilities to be regulated under this subsection (B) within 30 days after the effective date of this section. All facilities identified after the effective date of this section shall be notified individually by the City that they are subject to regulation under this subsection (B). 3. All facilities regulated under this subsection (B) shall implement best management practices as established by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Green Tier Charter and the City. On or before June 30, 2010 each facility regulated under this section shall submit a report to the City that identifies the management practices already implemented, and lists the anticipated dates for implementing the other management practices listed on the report. New facilities identified under (2) above shall submit this report within three months of notification. 4. By December 31, 2010 all facilities regulated under this subsection (B) shall submit a report to the City that certifies the implementation of the management practices described in (3) above. New facilities identified under (2) above shall implement best management practices and submit a certification report within six months of submittal of the report required under (3) above. 5. The City shall provide forms for reporting the information required by (3) and (4) above. 6. If the facility regulated under this section is implementing the management practices required by (3) and (4) above, then with regard to mercury it will not be subject to the regulatory procedures and requirements as set forth elsewhere in this chapter. CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE MEMORANDUM February 11, 2010 TO: City Council FROM:Thomas E. Malone, Management Analyst SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing and Action on a Proposed Charter Ordinance Amending the Meeting Time of Regular Common Council Meetings from 7:00 P.M. to 6:30 P.M. on the Second and Fourth Monday’s of the Month (File Charter Ordinance 2009-008) Request The Janesville Gazette sent a request to the Council President consider changing the regularly scheduled start time for City Council meetings to 6:30 pm rather than the current start time of 7:00 pm. City Manager Recommendation: This item is being brought back to the City Council due to a co-sponsoring request from Councilman McDonald and Council President Truman to agendize the tabled item. The City Manager has no further recommendation on this issue. Suggested Motion If the City Council wishes to consider a change in the time for Council meetings then, following the public hearing, the proposed Charter Ordinance should be approved. Background Every city has a charter that establishes the form and substance of the City’s structure and operation. To make changes to the charter, the Council must pass a charter ordinance. Janesville’s charter details when the common council meets. Charter ordinances are more involved than typical “general ordinances”. ? Amending a Charter Ordinance requires a two-thirds vote, or 5 affirmative votes, of the Common Council, instead of a simple majority (4 votes). ? A Charter Ordinance does not take effect until 60 days after its passage and publication. If citizens oppose the Charter Ordinance, they may use this 60 day time period to gather the appropriate signatures to require a referendum on the Charter Ordinance. The Charter Ordinance amending the meeting time from 7:00 pm to 6:30 pm appeared on the October 12, 2009 City Council agenda. During the Council’s discussion an amendment was made to the Charter Ordinance to change the start time to 6:00 pm. The amendment failed on a 2-4 vote, and the Charter Ordinance failed to pass on a 3-3 vote. The Charter Ordinance also appeared on the December 14, 2009 agenda. After public comment and discussion the City Council ultimately voted to postpone action on the Charter Ordinance. The purpose of postponing action on the item was to allow for the final vote on the Charter Ordinance to take place when all Council members are present. Attached is a peer survey that was conducted of the start time for City Council meetings in other communities. Analysis Below is a list of potential pros and cons to changing the start time of City Council Meetings to 6:30 pm. Pros ? Starting meetings at 6:30 would potentially provide the media with extended time to meet deadlines and include a more complete description of council meetings. ? There is the potential that meetings would not be in session as late into the evening because of the earlier start time. This would be an advantage to residents who are in attendance for later agenda items. Cons ? Starting meetings at an earlier time has the potential of being inconvenient for citizens who are unable to make a 6:30 pm meeting due to work or personal reasons. ? The City Council currently holds a listening session from 6:00 until 7:00 prior to the first Council meeting of the month. If this request is approved that listening session will either need to be shortened by ½ hour, or the start time will need to be moved to 5:30. ? Under the current start time additional meetings are sometimes scheduled prior to the Council meetings, this could impact the ability to schedule those other meetings. CC: Eric Levitt, City Manager Jacob J. Winzenz, Assistant City Manager/Director of Administrative Services É?£««kªÃ?Y£kªÃ±Ü?ÃªÐÂ???¼Ã« £««kªÃ?YÂ???¼Ã«Y Ô¿ Ý®±»éæíðî²¼ Ì¸«®¼¿§ Þ»´±·¬éæððï¬ ú í®¼ Ó±²¼¿§ É¿«©¿¬±¿éæíðï¬ ú í®¼ Ì«»¼¿§ Î¿½·²»éæððï¬ ¿ú í®¼ Ì«»¼¿§ øï÷ Þ®±±µº·»´¼éæìë ï¬ ú í®¼ Ì«»¼¿§ ß°°´»¬±²èæððÛ¿½¸ Ó±²¼¿§ É»¬ß´´·éæððï¬ ú í®¼ Ì«»¼¿§ Õ»²±¸¿éæððï¬ ú í®¼ Ó±²¼¿§ Ö¿²»ª·´´»éæððî²¼ ú ì¬¸ Ó±²¼¿§ Ú±²¼ ¼« Ô¿½éæððî²¼ ú ì¬¸ É»¼²»¼¿§ É¿«¿«éæððî²¼ ú ì¬¸ Ì«»¼¿§ É¿«µ»¸¿éæíðï¬ ú í®¼ Ì«»¼¿§ Û¿« Ý´¿·®»ìæððî²¼ ú ì¬¸ Ì«»¼¿§ Ñ¸µ±¸êæððî²¼ ú ì¬¸ Ì«»¼¿§ Ù®»»² Þ¿§éæððî²¼ ú ì¬¸ Ì«»¼¿§ Ó¿¼·±²êæíðï¬ ú í®¼ Ì«»¼¿§ øï÷ ï¬ ïë ³·² · º±® °«¾´·½ ½±³³»²¬ CHARTER ORDINANCE NO. 2009 – 008 CITY OF JANESVILLE Amendment To Certain Current Charter Ordinance Section 2.04.030 of the City of Janesville An ordinance amending the meeting time of regular common council meetings. THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JANESVILLE DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Charter Ordinance Section 2.04.030 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Janesville is hereby amended to read as follows: “2.04.030 Time--Place . Regular meetings of the council shall be held in the council chambers at six thirty o’clock p.m. the city hall at seven o'clock p.m. Special meetings shall be held at the place and at the time designated in the notice thereof.” SECTION II. All other provisions and sections of the Charter Ordinance(s) of the City of Janesville not expressly and specifically amended in the manner set forth above are hereby reaffirmed and ratified, shall remain unchanged, and shall remain in full force and effect. Motion by: ADOPTED: Second by: Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent APPROVED: Brunner McDonald Perrotto Eric Levitt, City Manager Rashkin Steeber ATTEST: Truman Voskuil Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Proposed by: Council President Truman Prepared by: Management Assistant COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT February 15, 2010 TO: City Council FROM: Terry Nolan, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Presentation by Census Complete Count Committee This memo is to provide background information to the City Council in preparation for a February 22, 2010 presentation to be made by Neil Dupree, Chair of the Rock County Census Complete Count Committee. The Rock County Census Complete Count Committee is an officially approved Ad Hoc committee sanctioned by the Rock County Board of Supervisors. It is a limited term committee working to achieve a complete count of Rock County residents during the 2010 Census. Members of the Rock County Complete Count Committee include elected officials from Rock County; professional staff from Rock County, Milton, Janesville, and Beloit; community advocates and educators. The Census determines the distribution of $300 billion annually of government funding for critical community services. These funds are used for many community programs, facilities and services that include education, housing, healthcare, job training, road repairs and childcare centers. The Census Bureau estimates that every person “under counted” can cost up to $800 per year in lost funding. The U.S. Census Bureau encourages the formation of local Complete Count Committees and provides resources and technical assistance to members who perform outreach. The Census Bureau acknowledges the important role played by local governments and organizations in distributing information to the public. cc: Eric Levitt Jacob J. Winzenz 1 FIRE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM February 3, 2010 TO: City Council FROM: Jim Jensen, Deputy Fire Chief SUBJECT: Action on a Proposed Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of an Assistance to Firefighters Grant for the Purchase of Fire Department Communications Equipment (File Res. 2010-676) Summary The Janesville Fire Department has applied for and received an Assistance to Firefighters Operations and Safety Grant from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The purpose of the grant is to purchase communications equipment. The grant award requires local matching funds of 20 percent. Proposed Resolution 2010-676 authorizes the acceptance of the grant for federal funding in an amount of $49,460, and authorizes the borrowing of up to $12,364 to provide funding for the required local match. Background This grant project would purchase and install vehicle intercom systems with headsets for all personnel on 14 emergency response vehicles. The total project cost is $61,824. Federal grant funding would provide $49,460, with a required local match of $12,364. We believe this equipment would provide multiple benefits. However, current budget funding has not allowed for this capital purchase. With this new equipment the Fire Department hopes to alleviate several problems which are compromising both our delivery of service and the safety of our firefighters: 1. Firefighters are encountering excessive noise levels on a regular basis. Vehicle sirens, pumping operations, and radio transmissions during emergency operations are several situations that have been identified as potentially damaging to the hearing of our employees. While basic hearing protection equipment is supplied, in some emergency situations this basic equipment cannot be used. We recognize that in these situations we may be non-compliant with safety standards relating to excessive noise levels. 2. Our officers and firefighters are missing important radio communications and information from dispatch due to high noise levels and background noise. Personnel often try to correct this problem by increasing the volume of radios to maximum levels. This causes further distortion to radio transmissions and places the employee in further danger of hearing damage. Fire Grant Resolution p. 2 3. Officers and firefighters are unable to communicate with each other in high background noise situations, causing delays and leading to confusion. This grant project would purchase vehicle intercom systems with headsets for all personnel on 14 emergency response vehicles. This equipment would provide hearing protection for all personnel on the vehicles, would enable private communication between crew members, and would allow for greatly enhanced radio communications. This project would provide three major benefits by improving firefighter safety, improving communications, and improving crew operational effectiveness. The total project cost is $61,824, for an average cost per vehicle of $4,416, including installation. Recommendation The Fire Department recommends adoption of Resolution 2010-676, authorizing the acceptance of the grant for federal funding in an amount of $49,460, and authorizing the borrowing of up to $12,364 to provide funding for the required local match. We believe that the addition of this equipment would be an effective method of addressing community and department needs, and would allow for improvements in emergency service delivery at minimal cost to the City of Janesville. City Manager Recommendation The City Manager concurs with the Fire Department recommendation. cc: Eric J. Levitt, City Manager Jay Winzenz, Director of Administrative Services/Assistant City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 2010-676 A resolution authorizing the acceptance of an “Assistance to Firefighters Grant” for the purchase of Fire Department communications equipment. WHEREAS, the Fire Department previously submitted an Assistance to Firefighters Grant request to the Department of Homeland Security; and WHEREAS, the Fire Department has received notice that Forty-Nine Thousand Four Hundred Sixty and 00/100 Dollars ($49,460.00) (“Grant”) has been reserved and awarded for this grant purpose to the City of Janesville by the Department of Homeland Security; and WHEREAS, Twelve Thousand Three-Hundred Sixty-Four and 00/100 Dollars ($12,364.00) is the required Twenty Percent (20%) local match necessary from the City of Janesville to secure the Grant; and WHEREAS, the GRANT will be used to acquire communications equipment for the Fire Department; and WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Janesville, pursuant to Section 67.12(12) Wis. Stats., may and hereby fo express their intent to include the Twelve Thousand Three-Hundred Sixty-Four Dollars ($12,364) required local match in a future municipal promissory note borrowing to finance this and related public projects and purposes; and WHEREAS, the Common Council hereby find the acceptance and use of this Assistance to Firefighters Grant by the City in the manner proposed by the Janesville Fire Department to be in the best interest of the public, of benefit to the City, and in furtherance of the health, welfare, safety, good order, peace and tranquility of the City’s inhabitants and businesses. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Janesville that: 1. Each of the above recitals is hereby reiterated herein by reference as if fully set forth verbatim. 2. The Common Council hereby authorizes acceptance of an Assistance to Firefighters Grant in an amount of Forty-Nine Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Dollars ($49,460) for the proposed purposes. The City’s local matching share shall be included in a future City borrowing. No funds from sources other than the Notes or the Available Funds identified above are, or are expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside by the City for the project, except as permitted by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. This declaration of official intent is consistent with the budgetary and financial circumstances of the City. The purpose of this Resolution is to satisfy the “official intent requirement” of Treasury Regulation Section 1.150-2. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager and his designee(s), on behalf of the City of Janesville, is/are hereby jointly and severally authorized and empowered to negotiate, draft, review, revise, modify, amend, execute, enter into, file and/or record additional agreements, amendments, documents and letters of understanding concerning this matter, and to take whatever additional other actions that the City Manager may determine in his sole discretion, from time to time and at any time, necessary and/or desirable in the public interest to effectuate the intent of this Resolution. ADOPTED: Motion by: Second by: APPROVED: Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent Brunner McDonald Eric J. Levitt, City Manager Perrotto Rashkin ATTEST: Steeber Truman Voskuil Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Proposed by: Fire Department Prepared by: Fire Department CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE MEMORANDUM January 29, 2010 TO: City Council FROM:Thomas E. Malone, Management Analyst SUBJECT: Action on a Proposed Resolution Requesting the Return of the Historic Parker Pen Archive to Janesville. (File Res. 2010-675) Request At the January 25, 2010 City Council meeting a citizen suggested that the Parker Pen Archives be returned to Janesville. Council President Truman requested a resolution regarding the return of the historic Parker Pen Archives to the City of Janesville be placed on the February 22, 2010 agenda. Recommendation Staff recommends the Council adopt file resolution 2010-675. City Manager recommendation The City Manager concurs with staff’s recommendation. I believe that the suggested resolution by Al Lembrich was an excellent suggestion. Suggested Motion I move to approve file resolution 2010-675 to support the return of the historic Parker Pen Archives to the City of Janesville. Background The Parker Pen Company was founded in Janesville in 1888 by George S. Parker, a Janesville native. Over the years Parker Pen employed hundreds of residents in the Janesville and Rock County area and the executives in the company were leaders in the community. The company was an important factor in the growth of Janesville over the years. In 1986 the company was sold by the Parker family to a group of investors and managers in the United Kingdom. In 2001 the company was bought by Newell Rubbermaid and the remaining Janesville operation was consolidated into the Sanford Business to Business division. Recently the historic Parker Pen Archives became an issue because Newell Rubbermaid plans to close the Parker New Haven, East Sussex Plant, where the archives are currently stored, and move production to France. The fate of the Parker Pen Archives is unclear. The archives include historic documents, past pen models and other historic items from Parker Pen. Based on the rich history the Parker Pen Company and the City of Janesville share, it would be appropriate for portions of the historic Parker Pen archives be returned. If the City were to receive portions of the archives, then it could be displayed at the Rock County Historical Society. CC: Eric Levitt, City Manager Jacob J. Winzenz, Assistant City Manager/Director of Administrative Services FILE RESOLUTION NO. 2010-675 A Resolution Supporting the Return of the Historic Parker Pen Collection to the City of Janesville WHEREAS , the Parker Pen Company was founded in Janesville, WI over 100 years ago in 1888; and WHEREAS, George S. Parker the founder of Parker Pen Company was a Janesville native; and WHEREAS, the Parker Pen Company employed a large number of citizens in the Rock County area over the years; and WHEREAS , over the years Parker Pen executives served as the cornerstone of local leadership as representatives on civic and public boards; and WHEREAS , the Parker Pen Company sold the company in 1986 and was eventually bought by the Gillette Corporation in 1993 and later purchased by Newell Rubbermaid in 2001 which was consolidated into the Sanford Business to Business division; and WHEREAS, Sanford is closing the Parker Pen New Haven plant and shifting production to France; and WHEREAS, the issue of what to do with the historic collection of pens and documents that date back to the 1800s has been raised; and WHEREAS , the City of Janesville supports that portions of the historic Parker Pen archives be returned to the City of Janesville and displayed at the Rock County Historical Society in Janesville. NOW, THEREFORE, LET BE IT RESOLVED Bythe Common Council of the City of nd Janesville , on this 22 day of February 2010 that the City Council on behalf of the residents of the City of Janesville supports the return of a portion of the historic Parker Pen collection to the City of Janesville. Motion by: ADOPTED: Second by: Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent APPROVED: Brunner McDonald Perrotto Eric J. Levitt, City Manager Rashkin Steeber ATTEST: Truman Voskuil Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer APPROVED AS TO FORM: Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney Proposed by: Council President Truman Prepared by: City Managers Office CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM February 17, 2010 TO: City Council FROM: Eric J. Levitt, City Manager SUBJECT: Discussion of Proposal to Construct New Ice Skating Center Including Authorization for the City Manager to Retain a Consultant to Evaluate Current Facility and Feasibility of a New Facility; and Possible Action on a Request to Extend the March 1, 2010 Deadline for Fundraising. Summary In 2009, the City performed some preliminary evaluations of issues and possible deficiencies at the ice rink. During the spring of 2009, the City experienced several small failures and one large failure of the ice cooling system. In addition, there have been some structural concerns with the facility including the roof and back concrete wall. There are temporary repairs that are in process. A group of individuals proposed, during the spring, that the City consider building a new rink rather than renovating the current rink. This group is currently within the Janesville Youth Hockey Association. The City Council in October approved $2 million in public funds for a one-sheet ice rink and up to $2.5 million in public funds for a two-sheet ice rink if private funds were raised to complete the facility. It was also approved to place the rink on the South side after discussion on location. Possible Motion I move to authorize the City Manager to proceed with contracting with an outside rd firm to provide a 3 party analysis of the current and possible future ice rink. City Manager Recommendation As the City Council is aware this project has been an evolving concept or project since the spring of 2009. Due to that there have been a variety of issues that have arisen during this dialogue. Due to the evolving issues the City Manager approached and discussed the building of a new ice rink and the issues surrounding it with several outside consultants and management firms. Out of these conversations and contacts, the City Manager formed a recommendation that the City Council authorize contracting with an outside firm to evaluate a variety of the issues prior to moving forward on the project. The issues that I am looking for the firm to evaluate are: 1. To provide an overview of the current rink and the ability for it to continue to operate. 2. Evaluate the current design of the proposed rink from an operational standpoint and capital. 3. Provide a Revenue/Expenditure overview evaluation for both current rink and a 2 sheet ice rink. 4. Evaluate the current contracts and their effect on future operations. 5. Provide recommendations. The estimated cost for this overview is estimated at approximately $10,000. Background In 2008, the City began evaluating costs to improve the rink in response to the potential to attract a Junior A hockey team to Janesville. The initial estimates for full improvements to the rink ranged in costs from $1 million to over $2 million, but averaged out to approximately $1.5 million. As the City negotiated the contract with the Junior A team (now named the Janesville Jets), the City Council authorized $200,000 in improvements to the rink. Concurrently, the rink experienced a variety of problems this spring and was shut down for almost 2 months fixing issues with the ice cooling system. A group of Janesville residents, now affiliated with the Janesville Youth Hockey Association, began developing a proposal to form a partnership with the City of Janesville to build a new rink. The proposed rink was to be located adjacent to the Youth Sports Complex and built on 11 acres of City owned land. The proposed partnership evolved over the summer and has evolved into the th attached proposal. The proposal on October 26 had the following elements: ? The building and one sheet of ice would cost approximately $4 million (not including land). ? The expansion to a second sheet of ice would cost approximately an additional $1 million. ? The City is requested to commit an initial $2 million and an additional $500,000 when funds are raised for a second sheet of ice. ? The proposal projects the City to close its current $85,000 actual subsidy to a $0 operational subsidy when 2 sheets of ice are operational. ? The proposal discusses the expansion of users at the current rink over the last year ? The ownership of the rink would be initially the Janesville Youth Hockey Club, but would be sold to the City of Janesville for $100 at the completion of 5 years of operation (the City would operate the rink during the 5 years). 2 The City Manager indicated to the group that due to concerns with competitive bidding, it would be his recommendation that if the City had ownership and responsibility for the operations of the facility that he believes that it would be best to competitively bid the project management and construction. 3 Community Development Department Memorandum Date: February 22, 2010 TO: Janesville City Council FROM: Duane Cherek, Manager of Planning Services SUBJECT: Refer to Plan Commission and schedule a public hearing on a proposed resolution vacating undeveloped portions of Riverside Street, Mill Street, South Pine Street and South Walnut Street. (File Resolution No. 2010-677) ________________________________________________________________________________ The Community Development Department has received a request from Ryan Rueterskiold, Environmental Safety Manager for Evonik Goldschmidt Chemical Corporation, to vacate portions of unimproved streets south of Rockport Road and west of Palm Street (see location map). Following the June 2008 flood, Evonik Chemical acquired two residential properties located east of the manufacturing plant and removed the existing homes from the site. As a result, Evonik currently owns the surrounding parcels of land adjoining the street sections south of Rockport Road. The parcels of land under the applicant’s ownership are divided by the unimproved streets which were originally platted in the mid-1850’s. Evonik Chemical has requested the vacation of these street sections in order to provide them with contiguous parcels and allow for the consolidation of property and operations related to the manufacturing facility. The street segments are proposed to be vacated by resolution. In order to accomplish the vacation, it is necessary that it first be introduced for consideration by the City Council and then scheduled for Public Hearing at least 40 days in the future. The Community Development Department recommends that Resolution No. 2010-677 be introduced to the City Council and scheduled for Public Hearing on April 12, 2010. It is further recommended that this matter be referred to the Plan Commission for report and recommendation. cc: Eric Levitt, City Manager Jacob J. Winzenz, Dir. of Administrative Services/Asst. City Manager Brad Cantrell, Community Development Director q Ô»¹»²¼ ÍÌÎÛÛÌ ÐÑÎÌ×ÑÒÍ ÌÑ ÞÛ ÊßÝßÌÛÜ Ü¿¬»æ îñïïñïð Í½¿´»æ ïþã îððù Ó¿° Ý±±®¼·²¿¬»æ Õóïí ÔÑÝßÌ×ÑÒ ÓßÐ Ý×ÌÇ ÑÚ ÖßÒÛÍÊ×ÔÔÛ Ê¿½¿¬·±² ±º Ð±®¬·±² ±º Í É¿´²«¬ô ÓßÐ ï ÐÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ ÍÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ Í Ð·²»ô Î·ª»®·¼» ú Ó·´´ Í¬®»»¬ RESOLUTION NO. 2010-677 A resolution vacating undeveloped portions of Riverside Street, Mill Street, South Pine Street and South Walnut Street. WHERAS, undeveloped portions of Riverside Street, Mill Street, South Pine Street and South Walnut Street, hereinafter designated and previously dedicated for right-of-way purposes are hereby determined to be no longer needed for public use, and therefore, the public interest requires the vacation of such street portions; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the traffic flow will not be impeded by the vacation of such street portions; and WHEREAS, the proposed street vacations have been referred to the Plan Commission for its consideration and report as required by 62.23(5), Wisconsin Statutes. WHEREAS, the public hearing was held on vacation of such street portions and notice required by Wisconsin Statutes 66.1003 has been timely published and served; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JANESVILLE that the following described street portions be and are hereby vacated and discontinued pursuant to 66.1003 and 62.22(lm), Wisconsin Statutes: Street Section I: That part of Riverside Street (formerly Claron Street), from the west line of S. Palm Street to the northerly extension of the west line of Lot 167, Miltimore’s Addition; said street being platted on Miltimore’s Addition, City of Janesville, Rock County, Wisconsin. Street Section II: That part of Mill Street, from the west line of S. Palm Street to the Southerly extension of the west line of Lot 167, Miltimore’s Addition; said street being platted on Miltimore’s Addition, City of Janesville, Rock County, Wisconsin. Street Section III: That part of S. Pine Street, from the south line of Mill Street to the south line of a parcel described in Document No. 1315006 (for a bicycle / pedestrian trail); said street being platted on Miltimore’s Addition, City of Janesville, Rock County, Wisconsin. Street Section IV: That part of S. Walnut Street, from the south line of a parcel described in Document No. 1315006 (for a bicycle / pedestrian trail) to the north line of railroad property (said north line being measured 33 feet north of the main track); said street being platted on Miltimore’s Addition, City of Janesville, Rock County, Wisconsin. RESOLUTION NO. 2010-677 PAGE 2 ADOPTED: Motion by: Second by: APPROVED: Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent Brunner McDonald Eric J. Levitt, City Manager Perrotto Rashkin ATTEST: Steeber Truman Voskuil Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer APPROVED AS TO FORM: Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney Proposed by: Applicant Prepared by: Community Development Department