Full Agenda Packet
CITY OF JANESVILLE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MONDAY, March 8, 2010
7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance.
2. Roll Call.
3. Minutes of regular City Council meeting of February 22, 2010. “C”
4. Licenses; and Recommendations of the Alcohol License Advisory
Committee. (Refer to separate agenda.) “C”
5. Authorization for the Administration deny a claim for excessive
assessments from Sun Vista Properties, LLC in the amount of
$13,090.19. “C”
OLD BUSINESS
1. Requests and comments from the public regarding items on the Agenda not
requiring a public hearing.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Action on a proposed resolution authorizing the reduction of a plant
screening requirement (from 80 to 40 feet) on property located at 3330
Palmer Drive (SSI Technologies). (File Res. No. 2010-678)
2. Award of contracts C2010-1 (street resurfacing), C2010-2 (curb & gutter
replacement), and C2010-3 (manhole rehabilitation/reconstruction) for
Public Works Bid Schedule “A” – 2010.
-----------------------
“C” – This designation indicates an item that the City Council will take up
under a Consent Agenda.
City Council Agenda – March 8, 2010
Page 2
NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED)
3. Amendments to Council Policy Statement #70 (Establishing Sidewalk
Inspection Fee).
4. Introduce and schedule a public hearing on a proposed ordinance creating
section 13.20 – stormwater illicit discharge ordinance of the municipal code.
(File Ord. No. 2010-452)
5. Introduce, refer to Plan Commission and schedule a public hearing on a
proposed ordinance amending Section 15.01.100(B) and various provisions
of Section 18.36.070.2 (Historic Overlay District) of the Code of General
Ordinances of the City of Janesville. (File Ord. No. 2010-453)
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 22, 2010
VOL. 60
NO. 32
Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Janesville held in the Municipal Building on
February 22, 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,
Steeber, and Voskuil.
CONSENT AGENDA
Minutes of the regular meeting of February 8, 2010.
Licenses and Recommendations of the Alcohol License Advisory Committee.
Authorization for the Administration to deny a liability claim from Brian Wolnick in the amount of
$30,000.
Financial statement for the month of December 2009.
Council President Truman stated that all items on the consent agenda would be approved if
there were no objections. There were none.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Requests and comments from the public regarding items on the agenda not requiring a public
hearing. Brian Garcia, 1132 Bruin Ln., spoke in favor of building new ice arena under original
plan, spoke against transferring ownership to Janesville Youth Hockey Association (JYHA) and
hiring a consultant. Carol Heimark, 2533 Wesley Ave., spoke against transferring ownership of
ice arena to JYHA. Alfred Lembrich, 541 Miller Ave., spoke in favor of a new ice center if it is
privately operated. Kelley Kaiser, 2307 Plymouth Ave., asked that a consultant for the new ice
center get input from all user groups (NB #4). Andreah Briarmoon, 339 S. Locust St., requested
the new ice skating center be put to referendum (NB #4), asked the purpose of vacation of
undeveloped land (NB #5), and asked Council to review the process of denying claims
(Consent).
2. A proposed ordinance amending the regulations of prohibiting chickens within City limits
received its second reading and public hearing. Allison Rollette, 927 Industrial Ct., Tom
Chilson, 618 S. Locust St., Todd Chilson, 618 S. Locust St., Diane Vanhorn, 1212 Bennett St.,
David Innis, 320 Park Ave., Billy Bob Grahn, 152 S. Locust St., Kim McCay, 472 N. Palm St.,
Tabitha McCay, 472 N. Palm St., Gail Andon, 221 S. Terrace St., and Andreah Briarmoon, 339
S. Locust St., spoke in favor of said ordinance. Burdette Erickson, 115 S. High St., Kurt Link,
118 S. High St., Dale Hicks, 2221 E. Milwaukee St., Paul Williams, 2426 N. Lexington Dr., and
Alfred Lembrich, 541 Miller Ave., spoke against said ordinance. David Atkins, 725 Cornelia St.,
asked the Council to postpone decision if the current ordinance isn’t right for Janesville. The
public hearing was closed. Councilmember Perrotto moved to deny said ordinance, seconded
by Councilmember Steeber and passed by the following vote: Aye: Brunner, Perrotto, Steeber,
Truman, and Voskuil. Nay: McDonald and Rashkin. (File Ord. No. 2010-450)
3. A proposed ordinance establishing Fire Department emergency response fees received its
second reading and public hearing. Paul Williams, 2425 Lexington Dr., Andreah Briarmoon, 339
S. Locust St., John Vanderhayden, 308 St. Lawrence Ave., Brian Garcia, 1132 Bruin Ln., and
Alfred Lembrich, 521 Miller Ave., spoke against said ordinance. Kay Deupree, 419 S. Franklin
St., expressed concern about people who can’t pay the fees. The public hearing was closed.
Councilmember McDonald moved to adopt said ordinance with an amendment to reduce
residents’ fees from $400 and $500 to $100. The motion died for lack of second.
Councilmember Steeber moved to adopt said ordinance with an amendment to remove fees for
residents, seconded by Councilmember McDonald and passed by the following vote: Aye:
Brunner, Steeber, McDonald, and Truman. Nay: Perrotto, Rashkin, and Voskuil. (File Ord. No.
2010-448)
4. 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 received its
second reading and public hearing. No one spoke. The public hearing was closed.
Councilmember Steeber moved to adopt said ordinance, seconded by Councilmember Rashkin
and passed unanimously. (File Ord. No. 2010-449)
5. A proposed charter ordinance amending the meeting time of regular Common Council
meetings from 7:00 PM to 6:30 PM on the second and fourth Mondays of the month continued
its public hearing. Andreah Briarmoon, 339 S. Locust St., spoke against said charter ordinance.
Scott Angus, representing the Janesville Gazette, spoke in favor of said charter ordinance. The
public hearing was closed. Councilmember Perrotto moved to adopt said charter ordinance,
seconded by Councilmember McDonald and failed by the following vote: Aye: Brunner,
McDonald, Perrotto, and Rashkin. Nay: Steeber, Truman, and Voskuil. (File Charter Ord. No.
2009-008)
NEW BUSINESS
1. Presentation by Census Complete Count Committee. Neil Duepree, Census Complete Count
Committee Chair made a presentation and distributed handouts. No Council action taken.
2. Action on a proposed resolution authorizing the acceptance of an Assistance to Firefighters
Grant for the purchase of Fire Department communications equipment. Councilmember
Steeber moved to adopt said resolution, seconded by Councilmember Brunner and passed by
the following vote: Aye: Brunner, Perrotto, Rashkin, Steeber, Truman, and Voskuil. Nay:
McDonald. (File Resolution. No. 2010-676). By consensus the Council encouraged the
Administration to find alternative other than borrowing to meet the grant match requirements,
however, the Council indicated that they were willing to borrow the funds if necessary
.
3. Action on a proposed resolution requesting the return of historic Parker Pen Archive to
Janesville. Councilmember Rashkin moved to adopt said resolution, seconded by
Councilmember Steeber. Councilmember McDonald offered a friendly amendment to change
the wording “over 100 years” to “nearly 125 years.” The friendly amendment was accepted by
the maker and the seconder. The motion, as amended, passed unanimously. (Revised File
Resolution 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.
Councilmember Steeber moved to retain a consultant to evaluate current ice center facility and
the feasibility of a new facility and extend the March 1, 2010 fundraising deadline to a new date
coinciding with completion of the report, seconded by Councilmember Voskuil. Councilmember
Voskuil offered a friendly amendment to limit cost of consultant to $10,000. The maker
accepted the friendly amendment. The motion, as amended, passed by the following vote:
Aye: Perrotto, Rashkin, Steeber, Truman, and Voskuil. Nay: McDonald. Pass: Brunner.
5. A proposed resolution vacating undeveloped portions of Riverside Street, Mill Street, South
Pine Street, and South Walnut Street was introduced, referred to Plan Commission, and
scheduled for a public hearing on April 12, 2010. (File Res. No. 2010-677)
6. Requests and comments from the public on matters which can be affected by Council action.
Andreah Briarmoon, 339 S. Locust St., requested Council authorize the Ice Center Committee
to appoint consultant (NB#4); asked if emergency vehicle sirens have volume buttons;
requested a citizen committee of attorneys be created to clean up ordinances; stated League of
th
Women Voters is celebrating 90 Anniversary; stated the City should purchase foreclosed
properties and sell properties back to owners on land contract.
7. Matters not on the agenda. Councilmember McDonald requested more clarification on
charter ordinance versus file ordinance for meeting time changes. Councilmember Voskuil
requested the Economic Development study session be rescheduled and requested the
Administration look at installing stop signs at Wuthering Hills and Enterprise Drive.
Councilmember Rashkin asked for the date of the first ice rink committee meeting and stated
th
there is a benefit concert for Haiti at JPAC on February 26. Councilmember Perrotto
supported Plan Commission’s work on the chicken ordinance (OB#2).
8. Councilmember McDonald moved to adjourn, seconded by Council President Truman and
passed unanimously.
There being no further business, Council adjourned at 11:01 PM.
These minutes are not official until approved by the City Council.
David T. Godek
Deputy Clerk-Treasurer
JANESVILLE CITY COUNCIL
LICENSE AGENDA
3/8/2010
RECOMMENDED
A. ELECTRICIANS – ORIGINAL
th
Brent D. Yauchler 210 8 Ave., Baraboo, WI
B. AMUSEMENT DEVICE LICENSE-ORIGINAL
FOR-SHER, LLC d/b/a OFF THE WAGON BAR N GRILL
Robert M. Forbush 18-24 S. River St.
C. AMUSEMENT DEVICE AND CENTER LICENSE-ORIGINAL
O’RILEY & CONWAY’S IRISH PUB, INC. d/b/a O’RILEY & CONWAY’S IRISH PUB
Edward F. Quaerna 214 W. Milwaukee St.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MEMORANDUM
March 2, 2010
TO: City Council
FROM: Jacob J. Winzenz, Dir. of Admin. Services/Asst. City Manager
SUBJECT: Authorization for the Administration to Deny a Claim for Excessive
Assessments from Sun Vista Properties, LLC in the Amount of
$13,090.19
The 2009 assessments of the properties owned by Robert Redmond, d/b/a Sun
Vista Properties, LLC were set by the City Assessor’s office in accordance with
State requirements. The claimant made timely appeals to the 2009 Janesville
Board of Review, which sustained the Assessor’s 2009 assessments.
On January 29, 2010, Attorney Don M. Millis on behalf of Sun Vista and Robert
Redmond filed a certain Claim For Excessive Assessments, dated January 22,
2010, against the City of Janesville. Redmond/Sun Vista seek a total refund in
the amount of $13,090.19 plus interest for tax year 2009 payable in 2010.
The City Assessor and the City Attorney have analyzed these joint claims from
Sun Vista and have concluded that they are without merit in fact and law. Both
the City Assessor and City Attorney recommend that the Common Council 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 Sun Vista Properties, LLC in the
Amount of $13,090.19.
cc: Eric Levitt, City Manager
Community Development Department Memorandum
March 8, 2010
TO: Janesville City Council
FROM: Vicky Miller, Development Specialist
SUBJECT: Action on a proposed resolution authorizing the reduction of a plant screening
requirement (from 80 to 40 feet) on property located at 3330 Palmer Drive (SSI
Technologies) (File Resolution No. 2010-678)
Summary
Excel Engineering, on behalf of SSI Technologies Inc. is requesting a reduction in the plant
screening requirement adjacent to the north property line at 3330 Palmer Drive from 80 feet
to 40 feet in order that there may be parking spaces constructed in front of the building. SSI
will be constructing a building addition on the north (front) elevation of the building which will
displace the existing parking in that location.
Department Recommendation
The Plan Commission and Community Development Department recommend that the City
Council support a motion to approve Resolution No. 2010-678 reducing the plant screening
requirement (from 80 feet to 40 feet) along the north property line at 3330 Palmer Drive (SSI
Technologies Inc.), subject to the conditions listed in the motion below.
City Manager’s Recommendation
The City Manager defers to the Plan Commission.
Suggested Motion
To approve Resolution No. 2010-678 reducing the plant screening requirement (from 80 feet
to 40 feet) along the north property line at 3330 Palmer Drive (SSI Technologies Inc.), subject
to the following conditions:
1. That the site plan review letter dated February 23, 2010 be adhered to.
2. That a copy of the recorded affidavit for the screening requirement reduction be submitted
to Staff prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit for the building addition.
Background
A. The subject property is approximately 6.57 acres and is located at 3330 Palmer Drive.
SSI also owns approximately 1 ½ acres southwest of the property which is referred to as a
“satellite site” for reserved parking should the business operations require the need for
more parking than can be accommodated on site. Both properties are zoned M1, Light
Industrial District. Surrounding properties include industrial uses to the east, west and
south and residential uses to the north.
B. SSI has operated at this location since 1978 and currently manufactures powdered metal
components. Production is approximately 80 percent automotive, globally providing parts
such as anti-lock brake parts and exhaust flanges. SSI also performs non-automotive
applications in many other industries such as military, food processing, and HVAC
equipment.
C. An 80 foot wide plant screening strip was established on a certified survey map recorded
in 1977 along the north property line (parallel to Palmer Drive) in order to buffer the
residential neighbors across the street from business and trucking traffic generated at
3330 Palmer Drive. An 80 foot screening requirement was also established along the
west property line; however, it was reduced in 1983 to twenty feet when SSI expanded
operations onto the adjacent lot at 3200 Palmer Drive (SSI no longer owns this lot).
D. SSI added onto the southwest corner of the facility in 2009 and is in the process of
applying for permits to expand again on the northeast corner with a 10,350 square foot
addition. The addition will be constructed in an area where there is currently customer
parking. Since the addition will be located outside of the existing 80 foot screening strip,
the building review is being conducted by Staff and no Plan Commission review is
required for this element. However, the Plan Commission must review the proposed site
plan (see attached) since SSI is requesting to reduce the screening requirement to 40
feet. The reduction would allow replacement of the existing parking which will be
eliminated when the building addition is constructed.
E. Attached is a copy of the proposed affidavit which would reduce the screening
requirement from 80 feet to 40 feet. That requirement was recorded as a restriction on the
original survey. Staff has included a condition in this recommendation that would require
the petitioner to provide Staff with a recorded copy of the affidavit prior to issuance of an
occupancy permit for the building addition.
F. Staff recommends approval of the proposal, subject to the conditions of the site plan
review letter dated February 23, 2010 (see attached). The conditions of the letter are
premised on an approval of the reduction to a 40 foot wide plant screening strip. (Staff’s
recommended changes are outlined on the attached revised site plan.) Highlights of the
letter include:
1. The project meets the zoning ordinance requirements for parking and greenspace.
Parking requirements will be met by showing 64 reserved stalls on the satellite site.
The ordinance requires that greenspace requirements be satisfied on the subject
parcel and in this case, they are; however, any future expansion of the building or
pavement area would likely cause a deficiency.
2. The drive aisle in front of the building must be marked as a one-way path with painted
pavement markings and a “Do Not Enter” sign from the east exit point. In addition, this
drive aisle narrows to 17 feet wide at one point and the Fire Department Inspector
emphasized that this area must be kept free of obstructions and any snow build-up
along the edges at all times.
3. The current parking lot is in need of repair and maintenance which Staff believes
should be completed along with this project.
4. Landscaping in front of the new parking stalls must include taller and more dense
screening than proposed. Staff is requiring evergreen plantings (to be a minimum of
42 inches in height at time of planting) which would remain “full” on a year-round basis.
Staff is also requiring that the landscaping around the electric transformer in this area
be modified to provide better screening on the north, east and west sides of the unit.
G. The current zoning ordinance requires a 10 foot wide landscape green area screen
opposite or adjoining a residence district. In addition, in new city industrial parks, the City
has implemented restrictive covenants to require the establishment of a 50 foot green
area screen opposite a residential district. The 80 foot screen planting area at SSI was
placed as a restriction on a certified survey map approved in the late 1970’s to screen the
industrial uses from the residential area on the north side of Palmer Drive. Since that
time, a well established landscape buffer screen has been created. The development of
the parking will have a minimum impact on this existing landscaping. Staff supports the
reduction of the 80 foot screen at this time because the applicant is willing to install
additional landscaping to further screen the parking area and building. In addition,
establishing a loop parking area in front of the building will provide a better layout for the
facility. A similar reduction was approved for 3430 Palmer Drive (Lab Safety) in 1985
when that 80 foot screening requirement was reduced to 67 feet to facilitate a building
expansion.
Staff’s role in this matter is to balance the needs of the neighbors while facilitating growth
of the business. Staff believes that the request to provide customer parking in front of the
building with the expansion of SSI is reasonable and that the increase in density and
height of the landscaping to the remaining screening area will create a balance to the
residential needs across Palmer Drive.
Plan Commission Action – 1 March 2010
Vicky Miller, Development Specialist, presented the written staff report.
A public hearing was opened and the following person appeared to speak regarding this item.
?
Bill Fassbender, 3513 Palmer Drive, voiced concerns about the reduction of parking on
the site possibly causing employees to park out on the street. He stated that he didn’t
have any other concerns with the project.
Chairperson Helgerson asked if the main reason for reducing the requirement would be to
add parking. Miller stated that reducing the setback would allow SSI to replace the parking
that would be displaced with building addition. She indicated that she had been to the site
several times, currently there isn’t a parking problem and since they are not reducing parking
spaces there shouldn’t be a problem with approval of this reduction.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Zolidis asked if SSI would be adding more employees with the addition. Miller
indicated that they may possibly add 40 more people to a shift in the future but it would be a
slow growth. She added that SSI has a satellite site for parking in case they run out of
parking in the current lot.
Commissioner Perrotto asked if SSI could encourage their employees to use the existing
parking as opposed to parking on the street. Representatives from SSI were in attendance at
the meeting and indicated that they could do that. Cantrell added that there are a lot of Mercy
employees parking on Palmer Drive because those spaces are closer to Mercy than the
parking lot for that building. He added that Mercy has attempted to encourage their
employees to use the parking lot.
There was a motion by Commissioner Werner with a second by Commissioner Adams to
approve the reduction of a plant screening requirement (from 80 to 40 feet) on property
located at 3330 Palmer Drive and to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the site plan review letter dated February 23, 2010 be adhered to.
2. That a copy of the recorded affidavit for the screening requirement reduction be
submitted to Staff prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit for the building addition.
The motion carried on a 7-0-0 vote.
cc: Brad Cantrell
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-678
Action on a proposed resolution authorizing the reduction of a plant screening
requirement from eighty (80) feet to forty (40) feet along the north property line located
at 3330 Palmer Drive (SSI Technologies, Inc.).
WHEREAS, a certified survey map consisting of Lots One and Two in the City of
Janesville, Rock County, Wisconsin, was approved by the City Council on June 13, 1977;
and
WHEREAS, a copy of said certified survey map is attached and made part of this
Resolution; and
WHEREAS, said certified survey map was recorded in the Register of Deeds Office in
Rock County on July 7, 1977 in Volume 6, Pages 331 and 332 of Certified Survey Maps of
Rock County, Wisconsin; and
WHEREAS, a restriction was placed on Lot One of said certified survey map which
required an 80 foot screen planning strip along the north lot line; and
WHEREAS, Lot One is now occupied by SSI Technologies, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, SSI Technologies, Inc. wishes to construct a building addition onto the
northeast corner of the existing building and thus necessitates development of customer
parking in a portion of the area reserved for screen planting, thereby resulting in a 40 foot
encroachment into the screen planting area; and
WHEREAS, SSI Technologies, Inc. plans to fully landscape the parking area which will
screen this parking area from the adjoining street; and
WHEREAS, the Plan Commission reviewed and considered the proposed screening
reduction at a public meeting on Monday, March 1, 2010, and voted in favor of
recommending that the City Council approve the request subject to installing additional
landscaping along the proposed parking lot as provided in the site plan review letter and
filing an affidavit noting this screening reduction; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the neighboring properties are adequately protected
by a screen planting of forty (40) feet and that it would not be contrary to the public interest
to reduce the width of the required screen planting from 80 feet to 40 feet; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the 80 foot wide screen
planting restriction along the north lot line shown on Lot One of said certified survey map
be reduced to a 40 foot wide screen planting restriction.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a landscape plan that screens the planned parking lot
which encroaches into the said 80 foot screen planting area from Palmer Drive be
submitted to the Site Plan Review Coordinator for approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon adoption of this Resolution, the City Clerk is
directed to record a certified copy of this Resolution with the Register of Deeds in Rock
County.
ADOPTED:
Motion by:
Second by:
Council member Aye Nay Pass Absent
APPROVED:
Brunner
McDonald
Perrotto
Eric J. Levitt, City Manager
Rashkin
Steeber
Truman
Voskuil
ATTEST:
Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney, Wald Klimczyk
Proposed by: City Plan Commission
Prepared by: Community Development Department
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM
22 February 2010
TO: City Council
FROM: Mike Payne, Engineering Manager
SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID SCHEDULE “A” – 2010
CONTRACT 2010-1, STREET RESURFACING
CONTRACT 2010-2, CURB & GUTTER REPLACEMENT
CONTRACT 2010-3, MANHOLE REHABILITATION/RECONSTRUCTION
Summary
Bids for Public Works Bid Schedule “A” – 2010, Contracts 2009-1, -2, -3, were opened
on Wednesday, February 24, 2010. The Engineering Division is recommending award
of these contracts to the low bidders, as shown on the attached tabulation of bids, and
that the City Council express their intent to include in the 2010 Note Issue $250,000 for
street resurfacing, $600,000 for curb and gutter replacement, and $38,150 for manhole
rehabilitation/reconstruction.
Background and Analysis
?
Contract 2010-1, Street Resurfacing
The work to be accomplished by this project includes approximately 6.80 miles of
street rehabilitation and 3.63 miles of final surface on streets constructed in 2007.
The asphalt unit prices for this contract increased 3.8% from last year.
We received two (2) bids for this project, with Rock Road Companies, Inc. providing
the low bid. The Engineering Division is recommending award of this contract to
Rock Road Companies, Inc. of Janesville, Wisconsin, in the amount of
$1,247,075.56.
Funding for Contract 2010-1 will come from various sources: special assessments,
operating budget, and Note Issue borrowing. The $316,000 for final street surface
will be paid from special assessments charged to properties at the time of initial
street construction. Street resurfacing will be funded through a combination of
operating budgets ($529,654) and the 2010 Note Issue ($550,000). The 2010 Major
Capital Projects budget anticipated $650,000 would be included in the 2010 Note
Issue for Street Maintenance. An additional $300,000 of the street maintenance
borrowing will be brought back to Council at a later date. This work includes repairs
to pavement at the roundabout in the Sandstone Drive and Sandhill Drive
intersection.
\\petey\cojhome\agenda review\approved agenda items\2010\3-8-2010\award of contracts - memo.doc
AWARD OF BID SCHEDULE “A” – 2010
CONTRACT 2010-1 STREET RESURFACING
CONTRACT 2010-2, CURB AND GUTTER REPLACEMENT
CONTRACT 2010-3, MANHOLE REHABILITATION/RECONSTRUCTION
_ _______________
22 FEBRUARY 2010 – PAGE 2.
?
Contract 2010-2, Curb & Gutter Replacement
This project provides for the replacement of sections of curb and gutter for streets
that are to be resurfaced in 2010 under contract 2010-1, Street Resurfacing. When
the Council adopted the 2010 Budget, the Council approved a budget enhancement
for the general fund to pay all costs associated with curb and gutter replacement,
therefore there are no assessments related to the street resurfacing program in
2010. This project includes the complete replacement of curb and gutter on
Carrington Street from S. Garfield Avenue to Logan Street; Avenue; and Wilson
Avenue from Chestnut Street to Park Street.
We received two (2) bids for this project, with Yeske Construction Co., Inc. providing
the low bid. The Engineering Division is recommending award to Yeske
Construction Co., Inc. of Edgerton, Wisconsin, in the amount of $563,149.50.
Funding for this project is a combination of $20,000 from utility budgets and
$600,000 from 2010 Note Issue borrowing. The 2010 Major Capital Projects budget
anticipated $500,000 would be included in the 2010 Note Issue for curb and gutter
replacement. Because the curb and gutter portion of the street rehabilitation exceeds
the amount in the Major Capital Projects budget, the resurfacing portion of the 2010
street rehabilitation program will be reduced by the same amount. This ensures the
combined street resurfacing and curb & gutter replacement remains within the 2010
Major Capital Projects budget.
?
Contract 2010-3, Manhole Rehabilitation/Reconstruction
This project rehabilitates or reconstructs existing sanitary sewer, water valve, and
storm sewer manholes in paved streets prior to the 2010 annual resurfacing
contract. This is the third year of an annual program for maintaining utility manholes
in conjunction with the street maintenance program.
We opened two (2) bids for this project with E&N Hughes Co., Inc. providing the low
bid. The Engineering Division is recommending award of this contract to E&N
Hughes Co., Inc, Monroe, WI, for a total amount bid of $154,838. Part A of the bid
includes work related to manhole rehabilitation/reconstruction while Part B of the bid
includes work related only to manhole chimney rehabilitation/reconstruction.
Funding for this project is from various sources: the sanitary manholes are funded
with $116,709 Wastewater Utility operating funds; the storm sewer manholes
AWARD OF BID SCHEDULE “A” – 2010
CONTRACT 2010-1 STREET RESURFACING
CONTRACT 2010-2, CURB AND GUTTER REPLACEMENT
CONTRACT 2010-3, MANHOLE REHABILITATION/RECONSTRUCTION
_ _______________
22 FEBRUARY 2010 – PAGE 3.
($24,752) will be included as part of the $250,000 planned for the 2010 Note Issue
borrowing; and the water valve manholes ($13,377) will be included as part of the
$165,000 planned for the 2010 Note Issue borrowing. The 2010 Major Capital
Projects budget anticipated $250,000 and $165,000 would be included in the 2010
Note Issue for storm sewer manholes and water valve manholes respectively.
Recommendation
Following review by the Council, the Engineering Division recommends award of
Contracts 2010-1, -2, -3 to the low bidders and that the City Council express their intent
to include in the 2010 Note Issue $550,000 for street resurfacing, $600,000 for curb and
gutter replacement, and $38,150 for manhole rehabilitation/reconstruction.
City Manager Recommendation
The City Manager recommends approval of the award of bids. The Street Resurfacing
bid came in lower than the budgeted amount by approximately $400,000. We
recommend that $100,000 be used on curb & gutter, that $150,000 be planned for use
for the roundabout on Sandstone Drive and that $150,000 of the savings be used to
reduce the use of the reserve in the General Fund.
Suggested Motion
I move to Award contracts 2010-1, 2010-2, and 2010-3 to the low bidders and express
intent to include in the 2010 Note Issue $550,000 for street resurfacing, $600,000 for
curb and gutter replacement, and $38,150 for manhole rehabilitation/reconstruction.
Attachment
cc: Eric Levitt, City Manager
Jay Winzenz, Director of Administrative Services/Asst. City Manager
Bid Opening: 25 February 2010
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF JANESVILLE
TABULATION OF BIDS
PUBLIC WORKS BID SCHEDULE “A” – 2010
2010-1 STREET RESURFACING
Rock Road Companies, Inc. Total Bid: $1,247,075.56
P.O. Box 1779
Janesville, WI 53547
Frank Bros., Inc. Total Bid: $1,420,695.72
2501 Morse Street
Janesville, WI 53545
2010-2 CURB AND GUTTER REPLACEMENT
Yeske Construction Co., Inc. Total Bid: $563,149.50
P.O. Box 71, 472 West High Street
Edgerton, WI 53534
J. W. Schultz Construction, Inc. Total Bid: $676,635.00
43 Highway 51
Edgerton, WI 53534
2010-3 MANHOLE REHABILITATION/RECONSTRUCTION
E & N Hughes Co., Inc. Part A: $74,130.00
N2629 Coplien Road, P.O. Box 408 Part B: $80,708.00
Monroe, WI 53566 Total Bid: $154,838.00
Infrastructure Technologies, Inc. Part A: $84,220.00
21040 Commerce Blvd. Part B: $75,340.00
Rogers, MN 55374 Total Bid: $159,560.00
\\Petey\COJHome\Agenda Review\Approved Agenda Items\2010\3-8-2010\Award of Contracts - Attach.doc
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM
February 24, 2010
TO: City Council
FROM: Mike Payne, Engineering Manager
SUBJECT: Changes to Council Policy # 70 - Sidewalk
Summary
The City Council held a study session on September 6, 2007 to discuss
sidewalks and consider changes to Council Policy #70 – Sidewalks. At the
January 14, 2008 City Council meeting the Pedestrian Transportation Corridor
Plan (PTCP) was adopted by the City Council and revisions to Council Policy #70
were discussed. On March 25, 2008 the City Council approved various
changes to the sidewalk policy including:
?
Color coded all lot frontages on PTCP corresponding to Planned
Unfunded Walk (Yellow), Planned Funded Walk (Purple), Future
Unfunded Walk (Yellow), Exissting Sidewalk (Green), and Trails (Blue).
?
Added implementation of Planned Unfunded Sidewalks (Yellow) starting in
2009 by constructing approximately 9 miles of sidewalk each year for a
period of 7 years to eliminate 63 miles of sidewalk gaps within the City.
?
Added Standards for construction of New Sidewalks and Repair
Sidewalks.
?
Added an appeals process for implementation of repair sidewalk
standards.
At the December 14, 2009 Council meeting, Engineering requested direction
from the Council regarding the annual sidewalk program. One item requiring
follow-up Council action is a sidewalk permit fee for property owners electing to
perform sidewalk improvements themselves or choosing to hire a private
contractor to complete necessary improvements. Attached is a draft copy of
Council Policy #70 – Sidewalk including proposed language for a permit fee.
This permit fee will recover the majority of City administrative costs for
coordinating private sidewalk construction or repairs rather than including all the
administrative costs in the assessment rate charged to property owners choosing
to have the City complete the improvements through a Public Works contract.
Recommendation
The Engineering Division supports the Council request at the December 14, 2009
Council meeting to establish a sidewalk permit fee for administrative costs
associated with staff coordination of private property owners and/or their private
\\petey\cojhome\agenda review\approved agenda items\2010\3-8-2010\cp70 sidewalk revisions memo.doc
contractors to ensure compliance with City standards. The attached changes to
Council Policy #70 include establishing a $75 sidewalk permit fee per affected
parcel.
Suggested Motion
I move to accept the proposed changes to Council Policy #70 – Sidewalks as
proposed.
City Manager’s Recommendation
The City Manager recommends approval of the revised proposed fee.
Discussion
The construction or repair of public sidewalks by private property owners is
permitted by state statutes, City ordinance and City policies. A consistent
message City staff receives during coordination of sidewalk programs concerns
the fairness and equity issues surrounding the private construction or repair of
sidewalks.
The primary issue with current practice of private sidewalk construction or repair
versus the City administered construction is that all City related administrative
costs must be recovered through the special assessment rates. This means
property owners who elect to have the City construct or repair their sidewalks are
paying for the inspection and other administrative costs associated with those
property owners who choose to construct or repair their sidewalks privately. On
an annual basis, approximately 50-60% of property owners choose to have the
City complete sidewalk improvements, but they pay 100% of the administrative
costs.
At the December 14, 2009 Council meeting, the following three (3) options were
presented to Council to address the equity issue:
1) No change to the current process.
2) Fund all overhead costs through program borrowing with the
corresponding debt service paid for by the General Fund.
3) Fund the overhead costs related to private sidewalk construction through
the institution of sidewalk construction / repair permit fee.
The pros and cons of each option are summarized in the following table.
Option Pros Cons
No Change ??
No additional steps needed Doesn’t address equity issues
?
Fewer oversight opportunities
Program Borrowing ??
Spreads costs city-wide Borrowed funding yields additional
?
interest expense
Induces contribution of those
without sidewalks
?
Less administrative
overhead
?
Eliminates discussion of
\\petey\cojhome\agenda review\approved agenda items\2010\3-8-2010\cp70 sidewalk revisions memo.doc
Option Pros Cons
additional costs over const.
Permit Fee ??
Better tracking of private Additional administrative process
?
construction
Additional cost to those citizens
?
Citizens pay for services electing private construction
received – addresses equity
issue
?
Fee is within range of
comparable Cities
At the December 14, 2009 City Council meeting, Engineering proposed a
sidewalk permit fee of $185. It was the consensus of the City Council that the
proposed sidewalk permit fee was too high and should be more consistent with
comparable Cities. Sixty percent (60%) of comparable Cities require a permit
with fees ranging from $10 to $130 and also require surety bonds of up to $5,000
and/or $1,000,000 general liability insurance. The Engineering Division believes
a $75 sidewalk permit fee is reasonable given that the City Council approved a
proactive sidewalk maintenance program associated with street resurfacing
activities, which will increase staff efficiency of administering the sidewalk
program.
It is important to point out that the proposed sidewalk permit fee will not generate
additional revenue. It merely redistributes who pays the administrative costs
associated with the sidewalk construction and repair programs. It shifts a portion
of the administrative costs, including inspection, from the property owners
electing to have the City perform the work to those property owners who choose
to perform or contract for the work themselves
Attachment -- Draft Changes to Council Policy #70 – Sidewalks
cc: Eric Levitt
Jacob J. Winzenz
\\petey\cojhome\agenda review\approved agenda items\2010\3-8-2010\cp70 sidewalk revisions memo.doc
CITY OF JANESVILLE Policy No. 70
Page 1 of 9
CITY COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued 7/28/92
Revised:9/21/92, 3/10/97,
12/4/2000, 5/12/2003,
1/14/2008, 3/25/2008,
03/08/2010
General Subject: Administration
Effective Date 3/25/08
Specific Subject: Sidewalk
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No. 18 & 48
PURPOSE
To establish objectives, criteria, and procedures for the construction and
maintenance of sidewalks.
STATEMENT OF POLICY
1. Objectives
A. To establish a system of sidewalks in Janesville that links pedestrian
generators to destinations and, thus, provides for pedestrian safety.
B. To establish criteria for the construction of sidewalks in existing
developed areas and future areas.
C. To provide a procedure for an orderly system of construction of
sidewalks in existing developed areas of the city based on established
criteria.
D. To provide for the equitable funding of sidewalk construction.
E. Maintain existing public sidewalks in a safe condition.
2. Criteria
A. Sidewalks should be constructed according to the adopted
“Pedestrian Transportation Corridor Plan” (PTCP).
B. The official PTCP will be maintained in the City Engineer’s Office.
C. The PTCP shall be updated and presented to the City Council for
review, amendment and approval at a January Council meeting of
each year.
CITY OF JANESVILLE Policy No. 70
Page 2 of 9
CITY COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued 7/28/92
Revised:9/21/92, 3/10/97,
12/4/2000, 5/12/2003,
1/14/2008, 3/25/2008,
03/08/2010
General Subject: Administration
Effective Date 3/25/08
Specific Subject: Sidewalk
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No. 18 & 48
D. The PTCP is intended to be a comprehensive tool used to
communicate with citizens about where the pedestrian corridors in
Janesville are located. It shall contain the following elements:
(1) Current city limits
(2) Adjacent trails/sidewalks not in City jurisdiction
(3) Layout of current street network
(4) Color coded lines representing the following:
a. Green shall represent existing sidewalks
b. Yellow shall represent planned unfunded sidewalks.
This is generally considered the minimal amount of
sidewalk system necessary to provide connectivity
throughout the community.
c. Purple shall represent planned funded sidewalks.
d. Orange shall represent future unfunded sidewalks. This
category is included on the PTCP to communicate with
citizens that a sidewalk may be constructed adjacent to
their property
e. Blue shall represent existing trails. This category is
shown to provide overall context for the connectivity of
the system.
3. Plats/Certified Survey Maps
A. For any new streets for which sidewalks are planned per a
Neighborhood Plan or designated by Plan Commission vote, before the
City Treasurer signs any plat or certified survey, the subdivider shall
list or show on the plat or certified survey the streets along which
sidewalks are to be constructed pursuant to City Ordinances and
these will be added to the PTCP upon subdivision approval.
4. Governing Ordinances
A. Effective June 13, 1977 through August 7, 1992, construction of
sidewalks in new developments are governed by Section 17.32.120
Sidewalks of the Janesville Code of General Ordinances.
CITY OF JANESVILLE Policy No. 70
Page 3 of 9
CITY COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued 7/28/92
Revised:9/21/92, 3/10/97,
12/4/2000, 5/12/2003,
1/14/2008, 3/25/2008,
03/08/2010
General Subject: Administration
Effective Date 3/25/08
Specific Subject: Sidewalk
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No. 18 & 48
B. Effective August 8, 1992, construction of sidewalks in new
developments are governed by Chapter 17.46 - Sidewalks, of the
Janesville Code of General Ordinances.
C. Effective February 27, 2006, File Ordinance No. 2006-308 established
additional requirements on the construction of sidewalks in new
developments.
5. Implementation Procedures
Pedestrian Transportation Corridor Plan
Color Category Implementation Procedures
Part of yearly plan beginning in
2009 to construct 100% of this
Yellow Planned Unfunded Walk walk. Implementation will follow
procedures outlined in Section 8
of this policy.
Construction will follow plat
Purple Planned Funded Walk approval. Section 6.A.4 of this
policy addresses this process
Construction follows a petition
Orange Future Unfunded Walk
process per Section 5.C
These are generally considered a
city-wide concern. Initiation
Blue Trails should be undertaken through the
capital improvements and
budgeting process
A. This policy shall not restrict the decision of the Council or actions of
CITY OF JANESVILLE Policy No. 70
Page 4 of 9
CITY COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued 7/28/92
Revised:9/21/92, 3/10/97,
12/4/2000, 5/12/2003,
1/14/2008, 3/25/2008,
03/08/2010
General Subject: Administration
Effective Date 3/25/08
Specific Subject: Sidewalk
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No. 18 & 48
City Administration to address a public safety concern.
B. If a section of sidewalk is included on the resolution for the annual
sidewalk program and is not approved by the City Council, then the
sidewalk shall not be placed by the Administration on the resolution
in the following two years. The receipt of a petition shall be reported
to the City Council.
C. Petition Procedures (Orange Sidewalk).
(1) All requests must be in writing and contain the name and
address of the persons initiating the request, the site of the
requested installation, and the reason(s) for the request.
(2) All requests must be submitted to the City Engineer by
February 1 of each year.
(3) The request will be placed on the Public Works Program for the
year provided it meets one of the following criteria:
a. 30% of abutting property owners per block signing a
petition in favor. The limits of a block shall begin at one
street intersection and end at the next street
intersection;
b. or, 10 unrelated persons residing within one-quarter
(1/4) mile of the requested sidewalk signing a petition in
favor.
(4) The City Engineer shall report any sidewalk that meets the
implementation criteria as “Recommended”, unless there are
topographical concerns that make the sidewalk inappropriate
to construct, in which case the City Engineer shall report it as
“Not Recommended-Topographical Problem.”
CITY OF JANESVILLE Policy No. 70
Page 5 of 9
CITY COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued 7/28/92
Revised:9/21/92, 3/10/97,
12/4/2000, 5/12/2003,
1/14/2008, 3/25/2008,
03/08/2010
General Subject: Administration
Effective Date 3/25/08
Specific Subject: Sidewalk
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No. 18 & 48
(5) After introduction by the City Council written notice shall be
sent to abutting property owners and requestors stating:
a. The date of the City Council public hearing.
b. The City Engineer’s recommendation per this policy.
(6) The official public notice for proposed sidewalk installations
shall contain:
a. The site of proposed installation.
b. The date, time, and location of the City Council public
hearing.
(7) After the public hearing, the City Council may order any
sidewalk installation(s) it deems justified.
(8) This policy in no way restricts pedestrians’ use of the public
right-of-way.
6. Construction and Maintenance
A. Construction.
(1) Sidewalks may be constructed privately by owners of the
abutting property.
(2) Sidewalks may be constructed by the City and billed to the
owner of the abutting property.
(3) All public sidewalks whether constructed privately or publicly
shall meet the City of Janesville’s Standard Specifications for
Sidewalk Construction (as shown in Section 9 of this policy).
(4) For sidewalks in new developments as defined by plats and
certified surveys approved after August 7, 1992, the City
Engineer shall direct the construction of the sidewalks at a
time he deems appropriate without further action by the City
CITY OF JANESVILLE Policy No. 70
Page 6 of 9
CITY COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued 7/28/92
Revised:9/21/92, 3/10/97,
12/4/2000, 5/12/2003,
1/14/2008, 3/25/2008,
03/08/2010
General Subject: Administration
Effective Date 3/25/08
Specific Subject: Sidewalk
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No. 18 & 48
Council, and the cost shall be charged to the sidewalk
construction account. (See Chapter 17.46 – Sidewalks, of the
Janesville Code of General Ordinances).
B. Maintenance/Repairs.
(1) Sidewalks shall be maintained by owners of abutting property.
(2) The Engineering Department shall establish a system of
inspection of existing sidewalks, including standards for
replacement (as detailed in Section 9 of this policy); shall notify
abutting property owners of necessary repairs; and shall have
the authority to order the repair of any sidewalk. If the
abutting property owner(s) fail to undertake the necessary
repairs within the notification period, the City Engineer may
arrange for a contractor to undertake the repairs; may bill the
abutting property owner; and if unpaid, a lien may be placed
on the property in accordance with Wisconsin Statute (66.615).
7. Cost Allocation
A. New Construction.
(1) For new developments as defined by plats and certified surveys
approved after August 7, 1992 in accordance with City
Ordinance Chapter 17.46, before the City Treasurer signs any
plat or certified survey, the City Engineer shall calculate the
totalcost of construction for all sidewalks shown on the
Neighborhood Plan or designated by Plan Commission vote of
the area affected by the survey or plat. The cost calculation
shall include intersections, greenbelt crossings, parkland, and
engineering.The property owner may either pay this amount in
full or may spread the principal over five years with interest
under the City’s Special Assessment Policy. The property
owner shall execute a Waiver of Special Assessment Procedure
to use the five-year plan.
CITY OF JANESVILLE Policy No. 70
Page 7 of 9
CITY COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued 7/28/92
Revised:9/21/92, 3/10/97,
12/4/2000, 5/12/2003,
1/14/2008, 3/25/2008,
03/08/2010
General Subject: Administration
Effective Date 3/25/08
Specific Subject: Sidewalk
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No. 18 & 48
(2)For existing areas, the sidewalk shall be assessed 100% to the
,
abutting property owner(s) except for corner lot exemption
provided below:
a.) All corner lots in Single Family (R1 and R2) Residential
Districts where sidewalk is required by Council on two
frontages.
1.)Assess full frontage on initial frontage ordered.
2.)Exempt 70 feet of sidewalk on second frontage
ordered.
3.) Assess the length greater than 70 feet on the
second frontage ordered on corner lots.
b.) Corner lot exemption is effective for sidewalks put in
during or after the 1999 Sidewalk Program.
B. Maintenance/Repairs.
The abutting property owner(s) shall pay the cost.
8. Implementation of Category Yellow Sidewalks
A.Yellow sidewalks shown on the PTCP shall be constructed each year
beginning in 2009 until complete.
B.The community will be divided into 9 zones as shown on the PTCP.
C.Approximately one mile from each zone will be selected by City
Administration for consideration and approval by the Council each
year until all yellow category sidewalks are constructed.
D.It is estimated this program will be completed in approximately seven
(7) years.
E.For 2008, the program will consist of petitions and public safety
concerns.
CITY OF JANESVILLE Policy No. 70
Page 8 of 9
CITY COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued 7/28/92
Revised:9/21/92, 3/10/97,
12/4/2000, 5/12/2003,
1/14/2008, 3/25/2008,
03/08/2010
General Subject: Administration
Effective Date 3/25/08
Specific Subject: Sidewalk
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No. 18 & 48
9. Standards for Construction of New Sidewalk and Sidewalk Repair
A. New Sidewalks shall meet the following standards:
1) Minimum width shall be five feet (5’).
2) Minimum thickness shall be four inches (4”) for terrace walk
and six inches (6”) for driveway walk.
3) Cross-slopes shall be 1/4” per foot (2%) or less
4) Running and ramp slopes of ADA shall govern.
5) Grading shall provide positive drainage to prevent ponding of
water.
6) Horizontal alignment shall generally be one foot (1’) on the
right-of-way side of the property line. Exceptions to this may
be granted by the City Engineer.
7) Vertical alignment shall generally follow the curb line and be 6”
above or below the curb depending on terrain. Exceptions to
this may be granted by the City Engineer.
8) Material shall be portland cement concrete. Exceptions may be
granted by the City Engineer for driveway crossing if existing
drive materials provide a smooth hard surface meeting ADA
requirements.
B. Repair Sidewalks
1) Repair any sidewalk which:
a) Has adjacent sections with a three quarter inch (3/4”)or
greater vertical displacement.
b)
May exhibit other hazardous conditions.
2) The appeal process for the implementation of repair sidewalk
standards shall move from the Sidewalk Inspector to Project
Manager for the Sidewalk Program to Assistant Engineering
Manager to Engineering Manager to Director of Public
Works/City Engineer to Assistant City Manager to City
Manager.
CITY OF JANESVILLE Policy No. 70
Page 9 of 9
CITY COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued 7/28/92
Revised:9/21/92, 3/10/97,
12/4/2000, 5/12/2003,
1/14/2008, 3/25/2008,
03/08/2010
General Subject: Administration
Effective Date 3/25/08
Specific Subject: Sidewalk
Cancellation Date
Supersedes No. 18 & 48
10. Permit Fees
A. Work Performed by Public Works contractor:
1) Administrative sidewalk program costs are included in the
sidewalk assessment rates referenced in section 7 – Cost
Allocation. Therefore, no permit fee applies to sidewalk
maintenance work or new installation.
B. Work performed by property owners or private contractors:
1) Property owners electing to perform sidewalk improvements
themselves or choose to hire a private contractor to complete
necessary improvements shall pay a nonrefundable $75 permit
fee to cover administrative costs associated with staff
coordination for compliance with City standards. The sidewalk
permit fee is required for each affected parcel and is required
for a specific sidewalk defect or installation.If property
owners fail to complete necessary repairs or installations by the
deadline established, the City has the right to add this work to
the Public Works contract. Property owners will be given no
less than 30 days to complete the sidewalk repairs or
installation before the work could be added to a public works
contract.
# # # # #
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM
March 1, 2010
TO: City Council
FROM: Mike Payne, Engineering Manager
SUBJECT: INTRODUCE AND SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON A
PROPOSED ORDINANCE CREATING SECTION 13.20 –
STORMWATER ILLICIT DISCHARGE ORDINANCE OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE (FILE ORDINANCE NO. 2010-452)
The City is regulated under a Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(WPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit by the Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR). This permit requires that the City address
stormwater quality through a number of measures. One of these being the
establishment of an illicit discharge program to detect and remove illicit
discharges to the municipal strom sewer system.
Proposed Ordinance No. 2010-452 specifically addresses this WDNR permit
requirement. The Ordinance gives the City the authority to properly identify illicit
discharges; to work with property owners to correct illicit discharges; and to
impose penalties and recover costs for the correction of these discharges when
necessary. This Ordinance is very similar to the requirements adopted by other
municipalities in Wisconsin to satisfy WDNR requirements.
Staff recommends that the proposed ordinance be introduced at the meeting on
March 8. 2010 and scheduled for a public hearing on March 22, 2010.
Attachment – Proposed Ordinance 2010-452
cc: Eric Levitt
Jacob J. Winzenz
\\petey\cojhome\agenda review\approved agenda items\2010\3-8-2010\illicit discharge - memo.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 2010 – 452
An ordinance creating Chapter 13.20 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of
Janesville controlling illicit discharge to, and illegal connections with the city’s publicly
owned and operated separate storm sewer system, with penalties and other relief for
violations thereof as set forth in proposed JGO 13.20.120.
THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JANESVILLE DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Chapter 13.20 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Janesville
is hereby created to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 13.20
Storm Sewer System Illicit Discharge and Illegal Connection Prevention
Ordinance
SECTIONS:
13.20.010 PURPOSE/INTENT.
13.20.020 DEFINITIONS.
13.20.030 APPLICABILITY.
13.20.040 RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADMINISTRATION.
13.20.050 COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER REGULATIONS
13.20.060 SEVERABILITY.
13.20.070 ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY.
13.20.080 DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS AND OTHER PROHIBITIONS.
13.20.090 COMPLIANCE MONITORING
13.20.100 REQUIREMENT TO PREVENT, CONTROL, AND REDUCE
ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE OF PROHIBITED MATERIALS
OR OTHER WASTES
13.20.110 NOTIFICATION OF SPILLS.
13.20.120 VIOLATIONS, ENFORCEMENT, AND PENALTIES.
13.20.130 APPEAL OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
13.20.140 ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AFTER APPEAL
13.20.150 COST OF ABATEMENT OF THE VIOLATION.
13.20.160 VIOLATIONS DEEMED A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
13.20.170 ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE.
13.20.010 PURPOSE -- INTENT.
The purpose of this ordinance Chapter is to provide
for the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Janesville through the
regulation of non-storm water discharges to the MS4 to the maximum extent practicable as
required by federal and state law. This ordinance establishes methods for controlling the
introduction of non-storm water pollutants into the municipal separate storm sewer system
(MS4) in order to comply with requirements of the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (WPDES) permit process. The objectives of this ordinance are:
(1) To regulate the contribution of non-storm water pollutants to the MS4 by storm water
discharges by any user.
(2) To prohibit illicit connections and discharges to the MS4.
(3) To establish legal authority to carry out all inspection, surveillance, monitoring, and
enforcement procedures necessary to ensure compliance with this ordinance.
13.20.020 DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this Chapter, the following shall mean:
Authorized Enforcement Agency. The City of Janesville. The Director of Public Works for the
City of Janesville or designees of the Director of Public Works for the City of Janesville.
Best Management Practices (BMPs). Structural or non-structural measures, practices,
techniques, or devices employed to avoid or minimize soils, sediments, or pollutants carried in
runoff to waters of the state.
Contaminated storm water. Storm water that comes into contact with material handling
equipment or activities, raw materials, intermediate products, final products, waste materials,
byproducts or industrial machinery in the source areas listed in NR 216 (effective August 1,
2004), as from time to time amended or renumbered.
Department (DNR). The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Discharge. As defined in Wisconsin Statute Chapter 283 Pollution Discharge Elimination
(November 1, 2005), as from time to time amended or renumbered, when used without
qualification includes a discharge of any pollutant.
Discharge of pollutant or discharge of pollutants. As defined in Wisconsin Statute Chapter 283
(November 1, 2005), as from time to time amended or renumbered, means any addition of any
pollutant to the waters of this state from any point source.
Hazardous Materials. Any material, including any substance, waste, or combination thereof,
which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics
may cause, or significantly contribute to, a substantial present or potential hazard to human
health, safety, property, or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported,
disposed of, or otherwise managed.
Illicit Discharge. Any discharge to a municipal separate storm sewer system that is not
composed entirely of storm water except discharges authorized by a WPDES permit or other
discharge not requiring a WPDES permit such as landscape irrigation, individual residential car
washing, fire fighting, diverted stream flows, uncontaminated groundwater infiltration,
uncontaminated pumped groundwater, discharges from potable water sources, foundation drains,
air conditioning condensation, irrigation water, lawn watering, flows from riparian habitats and
wetlands, and similar discharges.
Illicit Connections. An illicit connection is defined as either of the following:
(A)Any drain or conveyance, whether on the surface or subsurface that allows an illicit
discharge to enter the MS4 including but not limited to any conveyances that allow any
non-storm water discharge including sewage, process wastewater, and wash water to
enter the MS4 and any connections to the MS4 from indoor drains and sinks, regardless
of whether said drain or connection had been previously allowed, permitted, or approved
by an authorized enforcement agency; and/or,
(B)Any drain or conveyance connected to the MS4 from a parcel of land. which has not been
documented in plans, maps, or equivalent records and approved by the Department of
Public Works.
Industrial Activity. Activities subject to WPDES Industrial Permits per NR 216 (effective
August 1, 2004) and Wisconsin Statute 283 (November 1, 2005), both as respectively from time
to time amended or renumbered.
Municipality. The: City of Janesville, a Wisconsin Municipal Corporation.
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). As defined in Wisconsin Administrative Code
NR 216 (effective August 1, 2004), as from time to time amended or renumbered, means a
conveyance or system of conveyances including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets,
catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, channels or storm drains, which meets all the following
criteria: (a) Owned or operated by a municipality; (b) Designed or used for collecting or
conveying storm water; (c) Which is not a combined sewer conveying both sanitary and storm
water. For the City of Janesville, this definition explicitly includes, but is not limited to, the
identified Green Belt system and any and all additions thereto.
Non-Storm Water Discharge. Any discharge to the MS4 that is not composed entirely of storm
water.
Owner. Any person holding fee title, an easement, or other interest in property
Outfall. The point at which storm water is discharged from an MS4 to waters of the state or to a
storm sewer of another permitted MS4 system.
Person. An individual, owner, operator, corporation, partnership, cooperative, association,
limited liability company, limited liability partnership, entity of whatever other kind or nature,
municipality, interstate agency, state agency, or federal agency.
Pollutant. As defined in Wisconsin Statute 283 (November 1, 2005), as from time to time
amended or renumbered, means any dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage,
garbage, refuse, oil, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive
substance, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and industrial,
municipal and agricultural waste discharged into water.
Pollution. As defined in Wisconsin Statute 283 (November 1, 2005), as from time to time
amended or renumbered, means any man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical,
physical, biological or radiological integrity of water.
Pollution prevention. Taking measures to eliminate or reduce pollution or a pollutant.
Premises. Any building, lot, parcel of land, or portion of land whether improved or unimproved
including adjacent sidewalks and parking strips.
Storm Water. Runoff from precipitation including rain, snow, ice melt, or similar water that
moves on the land surface via sheet or channelized flow.
Storm Water Management Plan/ Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A document which
describes the activities to be implemented by a person or business to identify sources of pollution
or contamination at a site and the actions to eliminate or reduce pollutant discharges to
Stormwater, Stormwater Conveyance Systems, and/or Receiving Waters to the Maximum Extent
Practicable.
Wastewater. Any water or other liquid, other than uncontaminated storm water, discharged from
a facility.
Watercourse.A natural or artificial channel through which water flows. These channels include:
all blue and dashed blue lines on the USGS quadrangle maps, all channels shown on the soils
maps in the NRCS soils book for Rock County, Wisconsin, as from time to time amended, and
new channels that are created as part of a development. The term watercourse includes waters of
the state as herein defined and channelized systems that are not waters of the state including the
City of Janesville’s identified Green Belt system.
Waters of the state. As defined in Wisconsin Statute 283 (November 1, 2005), as from time to
time amended or renumbered, means those portions of Lake Michigan and Lake Superior within
the boundaries of Wisconsin, all lakes, bays, rivers, streams, springs, ponds, wells, impounding
reservoirs, marshes, water courses, drainage systems and other surface water or groundwater,
natural or artificial, public or private within the state or under its jurisdiction, except those waters
which are entirely confined and retained completely upon the property of a person.
Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) Storm Water Discharge Permit. A
Wisconsin pollutant discharge elimination system permit issued pursuant to Wisconsin Statute
283 (November 1, 2005), as from time to time amended or renumbered.
13.20.030 APPLICABILITY.
This Chapter shall apply to all water entering the City of Janesville’s MS4 generated on any
lands unless explicitly exempted by an authorized enforcement agency.
13.20.040 RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADMINISTRATION.
The Department of Public Works and/or its agents shall administer, implement, and enforce the
provisions of this Chapter, together with such others as may from time to time be designated by
the City Manager. Any and all powers granted and/or duties imposed upon the Department of
Public Works and/or the Director of Public Works may be delegated in writing by the Director of
Public Works and/or the City Manager to person(s) or entity(ies) acting in the beneficial interest
of and/or in the employ of the City and/or agency.
13.20.050 COMPATIBILITY WITH OTHER REGULATIONS
This Chapter is not intended to modify or repeal any other ordinance, rule, regulation, or other
provision of law. The requirements of this ordinance are in addition to the requirements of any
other ordinance, rule, regulation, or other provision of law, and where any provision of this
ordinance imposes restrictions different from those imposed by any other ordinance, rule,
regulation, or other provision of law, whichever provision is more restrictive or imposes higher
protective standards for human health or the environment shall control.
13.20.060 SEVERABILITY.
The provisions of this Chapter are hereby declared to be severable. If any provision, clause,
sentence, or paragraph of this Chapter or the application thereof to any person, establishment, or
circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or
applicability of the remaining provisions, requirements, mandates, or scope of this Chapter.
13.20.070 ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY.
The standards set forth herein and promulgated pursuant to this Chapter are minimum standards;
therefore this Chapter does not intend or imply that compliance by any person will ensure that
there will be no contamination, pollution, or unauthorized discharge of pollutants, or violations
hereof.
13.20.080 DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS.
(A) Prohibition of Illicit Discharges and other Prohibitions.
(1) No person shall throw, drain, or otherwise discharge, cause, or allow others under its
control to throw, drain, or otherwise discharge into the City of Janesville’s MS4 any
pollutants or waters containing any pollutants, other than storm water.
(2) Every person owning property through which a watercourse passes, or such person’s
lessee, shall keep and maintain that part of the watercourse within the property free of
trash, debris, or pollutants that would pollute or contaminate water.
(B) Allowed Discharges.
(1) Water line flushing, landscape irrigation, diverted stream flows, rising ground waters,
uncontaminated pumped ground water, discharges from potable water sources,
foundation drains, air conditioning condensation, irrigation water, springs, water from
crawl space pumps, footing drains, lawn watering, individual residential car washing,
flows from riparian habitats and wetlands, dechlorinated swimming pool discharges, and
street wash water.
(2) Discharges or flow from firefighting, and other discharges specified in writing by the
Department of Public Works as being necessary to protect public health and safety.
(3) Discharges associated with dye testing, however this activity requires a verbal
notification to the Department of Public Works and the Department of Natural Resources
a minimum of one day prior to the time of the test.
(4) Any non-storm water discharge permitted under a WPDES permit, waiver, or waste
discharge order issued to the discharger and administered under the authority of the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Any person subject to such a WPDES
storm water discharge permit shall comply with all provisions of such permit.
(C) Prohibition of Illicit Connections.
(1) The construction, use, maintenance or continued existence of illicit connections to the
MS4 is prohibited.
(2) This prohibition expressly includes, without limitation, illicit connections made in the
past, regardless of whether the connection was permissible under law or practices
applicable or prevailing at the time of connection.
(3) A person is considered to be in violation of this ordinance if the person connects a line
conveying sewage or pollutants to the MS4, or allows such a connection to continue.
(4) Improper connections in violation of this ordinance must be disconnected and redirected,
if necessary, to an approved onsite wastewater management system or the sanitary sewer
system upon approval of the Department of Public Works.
(5) Any drain or conveyance that has not been documented in plans, maps or equivalent, and
which may be connected to the storm sewer system, shall be located by the owner or
occupant of that property upon receipt of written notice of violation from the Department
of Public Works requiring that such locating be completed. Such notice will specify a
reasonable time period within which the location of the drain or conveyance is to be
determined, that the drain or conveyance be identified as storm sewer, sanitary sewer or
other, and that the outfall location or point of connection to the storm sewer system,
sanitary sewer system or other discharge point be identified. Results of these
investigations are to be documented and provided to the Department of Public Works.
13.20.090 COMPLIANCE MONITORING
(A) Right of Entry: Inspecting and Sampling.
The Department of Public Works shall be permitted to enter and inspect facilities subject to
regulation under this ordinance as often as may be necessary to determine compliance with this
ordinance.
(1) If a discharger has security measures in force which require proper identification and
clearance before entry into its premises, the discharger shall make the necessary
arrangements to allow access to representatives of the Department of Public Works upon
proper notification.
(2) Facility operators shall allow the Department of Public Works ready access to all parts of
the premises for the purposes of inspection, sampling, examination and copying of
records. The Department of Public Works shall follow all safety requirements of the
facility.
(3) The Department of Public Works and all City employees performing any activity
concerning any part of this Chapter shall have the right to set up upon any facility any
and all such devices as are necessary in the opinion of the Director of Public Works
and/or City Manager to conduct monitoring and/or sampling of the facility’s storm water
discharge. The Department of Public Works shall establish such devices in a manner
such that interference with facility operations is minimized.
(4) The Department of Public Works has the right to require the discharger to install
monitoring equipment as necessary. The facility’s sampling and monitoring equipment
shall be maintained at all times in a safe and proper operating condition by the discharger
at its own expense. All devices used to measure stormwater flow and quality shall be
calibrated to ensure their accuracy.
(5) Any temporary or permanent obstruction to safe and easy access to the facility to be
inspected and/or sampled shall be promptly removed by the operator at the written or oral
request of the Department of Public Works and shall not be replaced. The costs of
clearing such access shall be borne by the operator.
(6) Unreasonable delays in allowing the Department of Public Works access to a facility is a
violation. A person who is the operator of a facility commits an offense if the person
denies the Department of Public Works or any agent thereof reasonable access to the
facility for the purpose of conducting any activity authorized or required by this
ordinance.
(B) Special Inspection Warrant
If the Department of Public Works or any agent thereof has been refused access to any part of the
premises from which storm water is discharged, and he/she is able to demonstrate probable cause
to believe that there may be a violation of any provision of this Chapter, and/or that there is a
need to inspect and/or sample as part of a routine inspection and sampling program designed to
verify compliance with this Chapter or any order issued hereunder, and/or to protect the overall
public health, safety, and welfare of the City and/or community, and/or to any person, then the
Director of the Department of Public Works, and/or the City, and/or City Manager, and/or City
Attorney may seek issuance of a special inspection warrant, pursuant to Wis. Stats. § 66.0119, as
from time to time amended or renumbered.
13.20.100 REQUIREMENT TO PREVENT, CONTROL, AND REDUCE
ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE OF PROHIBITED MATERIALS OR
OTHER WASTES
The owner, possessor, or operator of any property, activity, operation, or facility which may
cause or contribute to pollution or contamination of storm water, the MS4, or waters of the State
shall provide, solely at his/her/their own cost and expense, reasonable protection from accidental
discharge of prohibited materials or other wastes into the municipal MS4 or watercourses
through the use of structural and non-structural BMPs. Further, any person responsible for a
property or premise, that is, or may be, the source of an illicit discharge, may be required to
implement, at said person’s expense, additional structural and/or non-structural BMPs to prevent
the further discharge of pollutants to the MS4. Compliance with all terms and conditions of a
valid WPDES permit authorizing the discharge of storm water associated with industrial activity,
to the extent practicable as determined by the Director of Public Works, shall be deemed
compliance with the provisions of this section.
13.20.110 NOTIFICATION OF SPILLS.
(A) As soon as any person responsible for a facility or operation, has information of any
known or suspected release of materials which are resulting or may result in illicit discharges or
pollutants discharging into the MS4, or a watercourse, said person shall immediately take all
necessary steps to ensure the discovery, containment, and cleanup of such release.
(B) In the event of such a release of hazardous materials said person shall immediately notify
emergency response agencies of the occurrence via emergency dispatch services. In the event of
a release of non-hazardous materials, said person shall notify the Department of Public Works in
person or by phone or facsimile no later than the next business day. Notifications in person or by
phone shall be confirmed by written notice addressed and mailed to the Department of Public
Works postmarked by the next business day.
(C) If the discharge of prohibited materials emanates from a commercial or industrial
establishment, the owner or operator of such establishment shall prepare a written record of the
discharge and the actions taken to clean up and prevent its recurrence. Such records shall be
personally delivered or mailed via certified mail to the City of Janesville Department of Public
Works.
(D) Failure to provide notification of a release as provided above is a violation of this
ordinance.
(E) This section does not replace, or relieve the property owner of or from any federal or
state spill response regulations or requirements.
13.20.120 VIOLATIONS, ENFORCEMENT, AND PENALTIES.
(A) Violations.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision or fail to comply with any of
the requirements of this ordinance. Any person who has violated or continues to violate the
provisions of this ordinance, may be subject to the enforcement actions outlined in this section or
may be restrained by injunction or otherwise abated in a manner provided by law.
(2) In the event the violation constitutes an immediate danger to public health or public
safety, the Department of Public Works is authorized to enter upon the subject private property,
without giving prior notice, to take any and all measures necessary to abate the violation
including suspension of MS4 access. The Department of Public Works is authorized to seek
costs of the abatement as outlined elsewhere in this Chapter.
(B) Notice of Violation.
Whenever the Department of Public Works finds that a person has violated a prohibition or
failed to meet a requirement of this ordinance, the Department of Public Works may order
compliance by written notice of violation to the responsible person.
The Notice of Violation shall contain:
(1) The name and address of the alleged violator;
(2) The address when available or a description of the building, structure or land upon which
the violation is occurring, or has occurred;
(3) A statement specifying the nature of the violation;
(4) A description of the remedial measures necessary to restore compliance with this
ordinance and a time schedule for the completion of such remedial action;
(5) A statement of the penalty or penalties that shall or may be assessed against the person to
whom the notice of violation is directed;
(6) A statement that the determination and/or notice of violation may be appealed to the City
Plan Commission and then to the Common Council of the City of Janesville, all subject
to judicial review in a circuit court solely in Rock County, Wisconsin, by filing a written
notice of appeal within three (3) business days service of the City’s notice of violation;
and
(7) A statement specifying that, should the violator fail to restore compliance within the
established time schedule, the work will be done by a designated governmental agency or
contractor and the expense thereof shall be charged to the violator.
Such notice of violation may require, without limitation:
(1) The performance of monitoring, analyses, and reporting;
(2) The elimination of illicit connections or discharges;
(3) That violating discharges, practices, or operations shall cease and desist;
(4) The abatement or remediation of storm water pollution or contamination hazards and the
restoration of any affected property;
(5) Payment of a fine to cover administrative and remediation costs; and
(6) The implementation of BMPs.
(C) Prosecution and Penalties.
(1)No person may violate or cause another to violate any provision, requirements,
obligation, and/or mandate set forth in this Chapter.
(2)Any person that has violated or continues to violate any provisions, requirement,
obligation, and/or mandate set forth in this Chapter shall be liable to prosecution to the
fullest extent of the law.
(3)Each violator shall forfeit and pay a penalty not to exceed One Thousand Dollars
($1,000) for each violation -- (depending on the severity of the violation).
(4)In addition, in the event that the alleged violator fails to take the remedial measures set
forth in the notice of violation or otherwise fails to cure the violations described therein
within the set time period specified by the City and/or any other authorized agency after
the City, the Department of Public Works, and/or the Director of Public Works has/have
severally or jointly taken one or more of the actions described above, the violator shall
forfeit and pay a penalty not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) per violation
(depending on the severity of the violation).
(5)In addition, each day’s continuance of each violation shall constitute a separate violation
whether or not notice is provided.
(6)In addition, and not in lieu thereof, each day that a violation remains unremedied after
receipt of the notice of violation shall also constitute a separate violation. The City may
concomitantly and/or separately seek and obtain other equitable and/or legal relief
including, but not limited to, injunctive relief and abatement. All penalties, forfeitures,
legal, and equitable relief and remedies shall be cumulative and not exclusive. The non-
use of one remedy, relief, or penalty for any violation, event, or situation, shall not act as
any waiver, estoppel, or other bar to seek and/or obtain such legal and/or equitable
remedy, relief, and/or penalty for similar and/or other violations(s) hereof.
Department of Public Works
13.20.130 APPEAL OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION.
(A) The Plan Commission for the City of Janesville shall serve as the board of appeals for
purposes of this Chapter; then the Common Council of the City of Janesville. The Plan
Commission and, if subsequently appealed thereto, the Common Council:
(1) Shall hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is error in any order, decision
or determination made by the City Engineer and/or the Director of Public Works in
administering this Chapter except for cease and desist order(s).
(2) Upon appeal, may authorize one or more variance(s) from one or more provision(s) of
this Chapter but only if such variance(s): (a) are not contrary to the public interest; and
(b) where owing to unique and/or special conditions, a literal enforcement of the
applicable provision(s) of the Chapter will result in “unnecessary hardship”; and
(3) Shall use the rules, procedures, duties, and powers authorized by other ordinances and/or
state statute and/or law in hearing and deciding appeals and authorizing such variance(s).
(B) WHO MAY APPEAL.
Appeals to the Plan Commission and subsequently to the Common Council may be made by any
aggrieved person, whether or not the affected property owner, and/or or by any elected or
appointment official, officer, department, board, commission, of the City of Janesville affected
by any decision of the Director of Public Works involving this Chapter.
Department of Public Works
13.20.140 ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AFTER APPEAL
(B) If any violation has not been fully remedied and/or corrected, pursuant to the requirements,
obligations, mandates, and provisions set forth in this Chapter and/or as set forth in the Notice of
Violation, and/or, in the event of an appeal, the municipal authority shall uphold the decision
and/or order(s) of the Department of Public Works, Director of Public Works, City Manager,
and/or her/his respective applicable designee(s), then representatives, employees, and agents of
the Department of Public Works are authorized to enter upon the subject private property from
time to time and at any time, and without prior or other notice, and take any and all measures the
Director of Public Works, the City Manager, and/or his/her respective designee(s) determine
from time to time and at any time, necessary, desirable, and/or helpful: (a) to abate the violation;
and/or (b) protect the public good, health, welfare, peace, tranquility, and/or good order; (c)
protect any person or property from harm or damage; and/or (d) to prevent further violation of
this ordinance; and/or (e) to directly and/or indirectly protect the public waters of the state. . It
shall be unlawful for any person, owner, agent or other in possession or control of any premises
or property to refuse, prevent, obstruct, hinder, delay or not allow the government agency, City,
City employees, agents, and representatives, and/or designated contractor(s) to enter upon the
premises or property for the purposes set forth above in this Chapter.
13.20.150 COST OF ABATEMENT OF THE VIOLATION.
The Department of Public Works of behalf of the City may recover, and the applicable property
owner(s) shall pay to the City, any and all staff time; contractor time; time and overhead of staff
and others; attorney’s fees; court costs; remediation and abatement costs, fees and expenses;
payment(s) of any kind made, and/or obligations incurred by the City; and any and all other
costs, fees, and expenses (“Costs”) directly and/or indirectly arising from and/or pertaining to the
enforcement of any provision set forth in this Chapter. Such shall include, but not be limited to:
costs of administration, city staff time, city expenses, private contractor work under contract with
the city, sampling and monitoring expenses. The owner of the property shall be notified of the
Costs. If the Cost amount due is not paid by the date determined by the municipal authority
and/or City Clerk-Treasurer and/or her/his designee, the charges shall become a special charge
against the property, shall constitute a lien on the property, and shall be collected as property
taxes are revered.
13.20.160 VIOLATIONS DEEMED A PUBLIC NUISANCE.
Any violation of any of the provisions set forth in this Chapter shall be declared and deemed a
nuisance, and may be summarily abated or restored at the violator’s sole cost and expense.
13.20.170 ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE.
Upon passage, this ordinance Chapter shall be in full force and effect the day after publication
ADOPTED:
Motion by:
Second by:
Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent
APPROVED:
Eric J. Levitt, City Manager Brunner
McDonald
Perrotto
ATTEST: ______
Rashkin
Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer
Steeber
Truman
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Voskuil
_________________________________
Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney
Proposed by: Tim Whitaker, Engineering
Prepared by: WDNR, Engineering, City
Attorney
Shared/Ordinance Janesville Illicit Discharge Ordinance 020210.docx
Community Development Department Memorandum
Date: February 22, 2010
TO: Janesville City Council
FROM: Bradley A. Cantrell, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Introduce, refer to Plan Commission and schedule a public hearing on a
proposed ordinance amending Section 15.01.100(B) and various
provisions of Section 18.36.070.2 (Historic Overlay District) of the Code of
General Ordinances of the City of Janesville
(File Ordinance No. 2010-453)
_____________________________________________________________________
The Historic Commission is proposing two ordinance changes that apply to the Historic
Overlay Districts within the City of Janesville. The first change would add removal of
original architectural details which affect the exterior of a structure within the Historic
Overlay District to the list of building permit items requiring Historic Commission review.
The second change amends the current ordinance which provides that the Historic
Commission can delay the issuance of a building permit for up to 6 months if it believes
an exterior building change would be detrimental to the building’s architecture and/or
inconsistent with the Secretary of Interior’s standards of historic preservation. The
Commission would like to amend the ordinance so that its decision to deny an
application for a permit would be final unless the applicant appeals the decision to the
City Council, which may affirm or overturn the Commission’s decision. The draft
ordinance was prepared following discussion and input from property owners within the
established Historic Overlay District that occurred at two separate meetings in late
2009. Currently, the Courthouse Hill Historic District represents the largest regulated
district in the City with 274 contributing buildings. In addition, there are four individually
listed buildings which are in overlay districts. Those include 10 South High (The
Armory), 221 West Milwaukee (Interiors Home Furnishings), 210 Dodge (Kealey
Pharmacy) and 201 East Milwaukee (Carriage Works Building).
The Community Development Department recommends that Ordinance No. 2010-453
be introduced to the City Council and scheduled for Public Hearing on April 26, 2010. It
is further recommended that this matter be referred to the Plan Commission for report
and recommendation.
cc: Eric Levitt
Jacob J Winzenz
ORDINANCE NO. 2010-453
An ordinance amending JGO 15.01.100(B) and various provisions of JGO 18.36.070.2 (H-Historic
Overlay District) to now provide for appeals of Historic Commission decisions directly to the Common
Council, with other changes, with penalties and injunctive relief for violations thereof, together with the
cost of prosecution, all in the manner set forth in JGO 18.80.150 and Chapter 18.28, respectively.
THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JANESVILLE DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I.
Section 15.01.100(B) of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Janesville is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(B) Historic Overlay District. In addition to the permits required for alterations and
changes which affect buildings, any structure included in any Historic Overlay District shall be required to
obtain a building permit for the installation of siding, and windows and removal of original architectural
details representative of an architecture style, a unique design element, fixture or material; however,
there shall be no permit fee required.
SECTION II.
Section 18.36.070.2.g.ii. of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Janesville is
hereby amended to read as follows:
ii. Denial of Certificate
. If the hHistoric cCommission reviews an application
and finds it inconsistent with the criteria set forth in Section 18.36.070 B.2.g.iii, the Commission may
deny the application and refuse to issue a certificate of appropriateness. If the Commission denies the
application, then within three (3) business days of such decision, written notice of the denial shall be
sent, by regular mail, to the applicant. The Historic Commission may refuse to grant a certificate of
appropriateness for a period not to exceed six months from the date of the original denial. Within thirty
days after the end of the six month period, the historic commission shall issue either a certificate of
appropriateness or a statement of waiver which shall be mailed, by regular mail, to the applicant.
I.
When the applicant for a permit for a proposed construction,
alteration, or demolition of an improvement within an historic district is denied a certificate of
appropriateness, the Historic Commission shall, at the request of the applicant, assist the applicant in
preparing an application for a certificate of appropriateness which shall meet the standards and criteria of
the Historic Commission, which shall comply with the provisions of the historic overlay district plan, if any,
and which shall comply with the provisions of this section. If the applicant chooses to work with the
Historic Commission and no mutually agreeable method is determined and both parties appear to be
deadlocked on the issue, the applicant may appeal the Historic Commission’s decision to the Common
Council, as provided for in Section 18.36.070 B.2.i.
SECTION III.
Section 18.36.070.2.i. of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Janesville are
hereby amended to read as follows:
i. Appeals.
i
. If the hHistoric cCommission denies a certificate of
appropriateness, the applicant may appeal such denial to the Common Council plan commission.
ii.
An appeal of a denial of the hHistoric cCommission shall be filed in
writing with the Building Official the secretary of the plan commission within thirty days of the mailing of
the notice of denial to the applicant.
iii.
The plan commission may affirm, overrule or modify an historic
commission decision within thirty days of the receipt of the applicant's written appeal. Failure of the plan
commission to act upon an appeal of an historic commission decision within such period of time shall
constitute a denial of such appeal. Any owner whose property is affected by a decision of the Historic
Commission may appeal such decision to the Common Council who, following a public hearing, may
affirm, overrule, or modify an Historic Commission decision within thirty (30) days of the receipt of
ORDINANCE NO. 2010-453
PAGE 2
the applicant’s written appeal. If the plan commission Common Council overrule or modify an hHistoric
cCommission decision, such plan commission Common Council decision shall have an effective date
fifteen (15) days from the date of the plan commission Common Council decision. On such effective
date, the hHistoric cCommission shall issue a statement of waiver.
iv
. Time periods tolled: The six-month time period, following a denial of
a certificate of appropriateness by the historic commission and during which a certificate of appropriateness
or statement of waiver may not be issued, shall be tolled during the pendency of any appeal by the
applicant.
SECTION IV.
Sections 18.36.070.2.j. and k. of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of
Janesville are hereby repealed:
j. Assistance by the Historic Commission
. When the applicant for a
permit for a proposed construction, alteration, or demolition of an improvement within an historic district
is denied a certificate of appropriateness, the historic commission shall, at the request of the applicant,
assist the applicant in preparing an application for a certificate of appropriateness which shall meet the
standards and criteria of the historic commission, which shall comply with the provisions of the historic
overlay district plan, if any, and which shall comply with the provisions of this section. Such assistance
may continue during the six-month denial period. If no certificate of appropriateness has been granted to
the applicant by the end of such period, a statement of waiver shall be issued and the building official
may issue a permit as requested.
k. Failure Of Applicant to Attempt to Comply with Historic Commission
Criteria.
In the event the applicant makes no attempt to discuss with the historic commission
alternatives to save the subject property or to comply with historic commission criteria for construction,
alteration or demolition, the historic commission may appeal to the plan commission for one additional
stay of construction, reconstruction, alteration or demolition. Such historic commission appeal shall be
filed in writing with the secretary of the plan commission prior to the expiration of the original six-month
delay period and shall be acted on by the plan commission within thirty days after receipt of the written
appeal. The plan commission may deny such appeal or grant such appeal for an additional delay period
of not more than six months. The burden of showing that the applicant has not attempted to discuss
alternatives with the historic commission shall be upon the historic commission. Upon expiration of any
additional delay period, the historic commission shall issue a statement of waiver and the building official
may issue the permit as requested.
ADOPTED:
Motion by:
Second by:
APPROVED:
Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent
Brunner
Eric J. Levitt, City Manager
McDonald
Perrotto
ATTEST:
Rashkin
Steeber
Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer
Truman
Voskuil
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney
Proposed by: Janesville Historic Commission
Prepared by: Community Development Department