The URL can be used to link to this page

Full Agenda Packet CITY OF JANESVILLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, July 12, 2010 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Roll Call. 3. Minutes of City Council meetings: “C” A.Special meeting of June 24, 2010. B.Regular meeting of June 28, 2010. 4. Licenses; and Recommendations of the Alcohol License Advisory Committee. (Refer to separate agenda.) “C” 5. Authorization for the Administration to deny a personal injury Claim from Christine Welcenbach in the amount of $15,722.34. “C” 6. Tim Cullen Internship Program students. OLD BUSINESS 1. Requests and comments from the public regarding items on the Agenda not requiring a public hearing. 2. Second reading, public hearing and action on a proposed ordinance amending Section 18.36.050 (Industrial Districts) of the Code of General Ordinances. (Revised File Ord. No. 2010-455) 3. Second reading, public hearing and action on a proposed ordinance amending the list of connecting arterial streets. (File Ord. No. 2010-456) ----------------------- “C” – This designation indicates an item that the City Council will take up under a Consent Agenda. City Council Agenda – July 12, 2010 Page 2 NEW BUSINESS 1. Discussion/possible action on report from Rink Management Services Corporation on the ice rink evaluation. 2. Presentation and direction to staff on 2011 Sidewalk Program. 3. Action on a proposed resolution authorizing the sale of property located at 305 South Pearl Street. (File Res. No. 2010-718) 4. Action on a proposed resolution authorizing interfund borrowing to provide interim funding for the Clean Water Fund Project-Collection System Improvements and to comply with requirements of the Wisconsin Clean Water Fund Loan Program. (File Res. No. 2010-713) 5. Action on a proposed resolution authorizing the City Manager to proceed with certain improvements to the Wastewater Utility Sanitary Sewer System and to apply for a Wisconsin Clean Water Fund Loan. (File Res. No. 2010-714) 6. Introduce and schedule a public hearing on a proposed ordinance repealing JGO Chapter 8.75 and recreating JGO Chapter 8.74 regulating smoking in the City of Janesville with penalties and injunctive relief as set forth in proposed JGO 8.74.070 and 8.74.080. (File Ord. No. 2010-457) 7. Requests and comments from the public on matters which can be affected by Council action. 8. Matters not on the Agenda. 9 . 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 SPECIAL MEETING June 24, 2010 VOL. 61 NO. 9 A special meeting of the City Council of the City of Janesville held in the Municipal Building on June 24, 2010. The meeting was called to order by Council President Voskuil at 5:35 PM. Present: Council President Voskuil, Councilmembers Brunner, McDonald, Perrotto, and Rashkin. Absent: Councilmembers Steeber and Truman. Review East Milwaukee Street—Wright Road to Highway 14—Traffic Safety Improvements Carl Weber, Director of Public Works, reviewed safety concerns, bike tunnel for Wuthering Hills Road, previous improvements, and volume of traffic. Alternatives presented: (1) do nothing, which does not address safety issue; (2) build tunnel, which is the most expensive option; (3) widen road to four lanes of traffic, which provides a center lane refuge; (4) Hawks signal, which only turns red when pedestrian activates so they get the cross signal; (5) center refuge with RRFB and lane reductions, which is the recommendation by Public Works. The Council asked various questions about the five alternatives. Council President Voskuil shared Councilmember Steeber’s e-mailed comments and asked Council what options they prefer. Alternate 1: None Alternate 2: McDonald Alternate 3: None Alternate 4: None Alternate 5: Brunner, Perrotto, Rashkin, Steeber, and Voskuil. Councilmember Brunner asked the Administration to perform a traffic study at the intersection of Wright Road and Milwaukee Street and report back to the Council prior to any actions being taken on highway safety improvements. Discuss public education for the use of roundabout intersections. Carl Weber, Director of Public Works, shared an educational video about roundabouts produced by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. He also asked the Council to allow the Administration to begin an educational campaign about roundabouts. Through consensus, the Council agreed. Matters not on the agenda. Council President Voskuil thanked staff for progress reports in the Janesville Gazette. Councilmember Brunner moved to adjourn, seconded by Councilmember McDonald and passed unanimously. There being no further business, Council adjourned at 7:30 PM. These minutes are not official until approved by City Council. David T. Godek Deputy Clerk-Treasurer PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN REGULAR MEETING JUNE 28, 2010 VOL. 61 NO. 10 Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Janesville held in the Municipal Building on June 28, 2010. The meeting was called to order by Council President Voskuil at 7:00 PM. Council President Voskuil led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. Present: Council President Voskuil, Councilmembers Brunner, McDonald, Perrotto, Rashkin, Steeber, and Truman. CONSENT AGENDA Minutes of the regular meeting of June 14, 2010. Minutes of the special meeting of June 14, 2010. Licenses and Recommendations of the Alcohol License Advisory Committee. Financial Statement for the month of May 2010. 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report – Report on Internal Control. Council President Voskuil removed the 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) – Report on Internal Control from the Consent Agenda. She stated that all other items on the consent agenda would be approved if there were no objections. There were none. Heather Acker, Baker-Tilly partner, presented the 2010 CAFR and Report on Internal Control. Audit opinion was unqualified and numbers are materially accurate. She stated one internal control issue is that the accounting staff is too small to segregate all accounting duties. Donation from Monterey Questers and International Questers. Marge Smith, Monterey Questers representative, presented the City with a $5,000 check to fix four doors at the Tallman House. OLD BUSINESS 1. Requests and comments from the public regarding items on the agenda not requiring a public hearing. Dan Hartung, 121 S. Academy St. and Carolyn Brandeen, 2020 S. Crosby Ave., spoke in favor of a bicycle/pedestrian trail maintenance agreement with the Wisconsin DOT (NB #1). Andreah Briarmoon, 339 S. Locust St., stated auditor should be from out of town (Consent Item #6); stated there should be citizen input at Council study sessions; spoke against roundabout at Wuthering Hills and Milwaukee St. and reducing the number of lanes on Milwaukee Street. NEW BUSINESS 1. Action on a proposed resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation for the maintenance of a planned bicycle/pedestrian path along State Highway 26. Councilmember Steeber moved to adopt said resolution, seconded by Councilmember McDonald and passed unanimously. (File Res. No. 2010-712) 2. Council President Voskuil scheduled a Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Board meeting on July 12, 2010 at 6:30 PM. 3. Discussion and possible action on financial gain request for Fourth of July event. This item was removed from the agenda since the Rock Aqua Jays withdrew the request. 4. A proposed resolution vacating a portion of Pliny Ave. south of Delavan Dr. was referred to Plan Commission and scheduled for a public hearing on August 9, 2010. (File Res. No. 2010- 717) 5. A proposed ordinance amending the list of connecting arterial streets was introduced and scheduled for a public hearing on July 12, 2010. (File Ord. No. 2010-456) 6. Requests and comments from the public on matters which can be affected by Council action. Ty Bollerud, 4608 Pendleton Ct., asked Council to put on a future agenda the use of the Rock River as a resource for power generation. Peter Apted, 324 S. Academy St., asked Council to appoint Ward Supervisors under Ordinance 2.08.080. Andreah Briarmoon, 339 S. Locust St., asked Council to use CDBG funds to purchase and restore the Case Feed Building. 7. Matters not on the agenda. Councilmember Truman stated the Rock Aqua Jays request for funding for fireworks was his offer of funds and said the Rock Aqua Jays were required to submit a financial gain request even though they did not ask for the money. Councilmember McDonald asked Administration to investigate a bag of trash on Ruger Ave. between Forest Park Blvd. and Ringold Street. Councilmember Brunner requested a report on special event fees that have been waived over the years, including budgetary impact. Councilmember Rashkin asked why certain waiver requests are given to the Council and others are not. City Manager Levitt stated Council Policy on waivers with financial gains are required to come before the Council, and events co-sponsored by the City do not. Council President Voskuil requested a status update on the geese at the retention pond by Hobby Lobby and reminded citizens the City is observing the July 4, 2010 holiday on July 5, 2010. 8. Councilmember Steeber moved to convene into closed session pursuant to Wisconsin Statute Section 19.85(1)(e) for the purpose of considering, deliberating and setting the negotiating and bargaining strategies, terms, and conditions for a potential TIF 22 development agreement, since competitive and/or bargaining reasons require a closed session, seconded by Councilmember McDonald and passed unanimously. There being no further business, Council convened into closed session at 7:46 PM. These minutes are not official until approved by the City Council. David T. Godek Deputy Clerk-Treasurer JANESVILLE CITY COUNCIL LICENSE AGENDA 7/12/2010 RECOMMENDED A. ELECTRICIANS–ORIGINAL Tad Clark 1312 Barberry Dr. Todd A. Lueder N1204 Poeppel Rd., Ft. Atkinson, WI Robert Zimmerman 492 Windwood Circle, Edgerton, WI Ronald L. Davis 1116 N. Sumac Dr., Janesville, WI B. SIGN ERECTOR–ORIGINAL Wisconsin Sign & Graphics, LLC 2182 Hwy MM, Fitchburg, WI B & C Electric 492 Windwood Circle, Edgerton, WI C. AMUSEMENT CENTER-RENEWALS FOR THE 2010-2011LICENSE YEAR The Looking Glass 18 N. Main St. D. AMUSEMENT DEVICE-RENEWALS FOR THE 2010-2011LICENSE YEAR Dool’s Pub & Grub 967 S. Jackson St. Milton Avenue Mobil 1215 Milton Ave. The Looking Glass 18 N. Main St. E. CHANGE IN PREMISE TO ALLOW OUTDOOR SEATING WITHOUT AUDIO (See attached memo and floor plan). ADRIA Properties, LLC d/b/a Delavan Inn/Lunatic Reds Bar 120 W. Delavan Dr. CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE MEMORANDUM June 29, 2010 TO: City Council FROM: Tim Wellnitz, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Authorization for the Administration to Deny a Personal Injury Claim from Christine Welcenbach in the Amount of $15,722.34. On March 31, 2010, Christine Welcenbach was injured at the coffee shop at the Hedberg Public Library. She was sitting on a chair that was placed underneath the stairs and stood up and hit her head on the underside of the stairway. On June 14, 2010, a claim was received from Christine Welcenbach for medical expenses in the amount of $15,722.34. After investigating this incident, and with the concurrence of the City’s Insurance Claims Representative at Cities & Villages Mutual Insurance Company (CVMIC), it has been determined that the City should deny this claim. Resolution 89-1175, establishing our claims administration procedure, states in section 4.3a: The City Claims Administrator shall review, investigate, verify and within ninety (90) days of receiving such claim, prepare and forward a written recommendation to the Common Council for its review, consideration, and action each and every claim in face amount greater than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000). I recommend that the City Council deny by consent and authorize the Administration to deny the claim received from Christine Welcenbach in the amount of $15,722.34 cc: Eric Levitt, City Manager Jacob J. Winzenz, Director of Administrative Services/Assistant City Manager J:\Finance & Administration\Finance Administration\Risk\Claims-Word\City Council Memos\Christine Welcenbach.doc CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE MEMORANDUM June 29, 2010 TO: City Council FROM: Maxwell Gagin, Administrative Intern SUBJECT: Tim Cullen Internship Program Students Each year the City hosts students from Craig and Parker High Schools participating in the Cullen Internship Program. These events are part of the internship program that is endowed by area resident, Tim Cullen, which allows students to gain experience in local and state government. On July 12, four high school students and a teacher will meet with various staff members to learn about the role and functions of the City. Students will tour the wastewater treatment plant, sanitary landfill, and park system and will meet with staff from the City Manager’s Office, Police Department, Leisure Services, Community Development, and Public Works. Later that evening, students are scheduled to meet with Councilmembers during the Council’s Informal Listening Session. During the Information Listening Session, students will have opportunity to ask questions, learn about Council meetings, and discuss some of the current issues affecting the Council and the community. Students will then attend the City Council meeting following the Informal Listening Session and will be asked by Council President Voskuil to introduce themselves as well as share where they are interning before “Old Business”. CC: Eric Levitt, City Manager Jay Winzenz, Director of Administrative Services/Assistant City Manager 1 Community Development Department Memorandum Date: July 7, 2010 TO: Janesville City Council FROM: Duane Cherek, Manager of Planning Services SUBJECT: Second reading and public hearing and action on a proposed ordinance amending Section 18.36.050 (Industrial Districts) of the Code of General Ordinances (File Revised Ordinance No. 2010-455) _____________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY The Community Development Department is proposing an amendment to Section 18.36.050 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow public and private recreation facilities as a conditional use in the M1, Light Industrial District. Currently, the M1 District allows public recreation facilities as a permitted use; however, private recreation facilities are not permitted in the industrial zone district. The ordinance amendment proposes to combine both public and private recreation facilities into the same zoning classification and limit such uses to indoor types of activities as a conditional use in the M1 District. Examples of specific recreational activities listed in the proposed ordinance amendment include gymnastics, dance schools, skating rinks, tennis courts, soccer, fitness centers and other similar uses. Ordinance No. 2010-455 was revised to indicate these activities be contained within enclosed buildings. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION The Plan Commission and Community Development Department recommend that the City Council support a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 2010-455 amending Section 18.36.050 (Industrial Districts) of the Code of General Ordinances to allow public and private recreation facilities as a conditional use in the M1, Light Industrial District. CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION The City Manager concurs with the Plan Commission and Community Development Department recommendation. SUGGESTED MOTION A motion to adopt Ordinance No. 2010-455 amending Section 18.36.050 (Industrial Districts) of the Code of General Ordinances to allow public and private recreation facilities as a conditional use in the M1, Light Industrial District. ANALYSIS A. The M1, Light Industrial District, is generally designed to provide a suitable environment for those industrial activities which are substantially hazard and nuisance free and also for those activities which do not create appreciable hazards or nuisances. Most of the City’s major industrial areas are zoned M1, meaning a significant number of buildings and properties are located in this zone district. Buildings constructed in the M1 District are designed to accommodate a wide range of industrial establishments including manufacturing, production, processing, warehousing and distribution activities. Those structures usually contain a considerable amount of floor space (sq ft area) ranging from perhaps 10,000 sq ft to 100,000 sq ft or more. They also tend to have a higher than typical ceiling height based on their intended use. B. Considering the character of industrial buildings located in the M1 District and the current availability of vacant manufacturing space in the City, staff continues to receive inquiries for potential reuse of some of those properties for indoor recreational activities such as soccer, dance/gymnastics and karate, for example. The Zoning Ordinance currently restricts placement of such activities to the office and commercial districts. However, the nature of these types of activities, including trade schools, often require a greater amount of space per occupant or user group than what is typically available for most commercial space. Certain industrial buildings tend to lend themselves to accommodating indoor recreational uses and/or trade schools because of their spatial arrangement and layout. In most cases, sufficient parking can be provided on industrial-zoned sites due to their size and the number of stalls required for the specific use. Staff does not anticipate a conflict in land use to occur between light industrial development on adjoining sites and indoor recreational uses or activities. Rather, we view this amendment as an adjustment that is reasonable, proactive and provides additional flexibility in the code. It addresses a potential need and provides an opportunity to allow for a wider range of activities listed under the conditional use permit process in the M1 District. The amendment will also treat indoor public and private recreational facilities in the same manner; as a conditional use in the M1 District. C. If this amendment is enacted, trade schools and recreational facilities within enclosed buildings would be listed as a conditional use in the M1 District. As with all conditional uses, the Plan Commission would review the details provided on a site plan as well as hold a public hearing and evaluate the appropriateness of a proposed use at a specific location. This process would allow the Plan Commission to apply conditions, if necessary, to ensure the facility would be compatible with planned or existing development in the surrounding area. The conditional use process provides the Plan Commission and the City with the added safeguard of thorough evaluation prior to the establishment of a recreational use/trade school in this District. Based on these measures, staff supports the proposed amendment to include these activities as a conditional use with the M1 District. PLAN COMMISSION ACTION – 6 JULY 2010 Duane Cherek, Planning Services Manager, presented the written staff report and indicated that staff conducted some additional research on how recreational facilities are regulated in other communities. Cherek noted that other communities typically distinguish between indoor and outdoor types of recreational facilities, but most allow some level of recreational activity as a conditional use in industrial districts. Each community takes a slightly different approach and tailors the listing of permitted recreational activities uniquely into their respective codes. Cherek indicated the ordinance was revised to limit recreational activities to indoor facilities only. Commissioner Helgerson asked for an explanation of the M1 District and how the proposed amendment would impact that District. Cherek indicated the M1 District is principally designed to accommodate a wide range of light industrial, manufacturing, assembly and distribution types uses. Cherek stated the proposed amendment would provide some additional flexibility in the code to allow indoor recreational activities to be an eligible land use permitted in the M1district under the conditional use process. Cherek further stated that outdoor public recreational activities would continue to remain a permitted use in the M1 district since they would likely fall under the current parks, playgrounds and open space listing in the district. The public hearing was continued from the meeting of June 21. No one appeared to speak. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Werner with a second by Commissioner Adams to forward Revised Ordinance No. 2010-455 to the City Council with a positive recommendation to allow public and private recreational facilities as a conditional use in the M1, Light Industrial District The motion passed on a 6-0-0 vote. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed text amendment will expand the range of activities listed in the M1, Light Industrial District by includingpublic and private recreation facilities as a conditional use in the M1 District. The proposed change would provide an additional land use opportunity within the M1 District that will be reviewed under the conditional use permit process. While future occupancy of industrial-zoned property would provide a positive fiscal impact on the city, staff does not anticipate that impact to be significant as a result of this text amendment to the zoning ordinance. cc: Eric Levitt Jay Winzenz Brad Cantrell REVISED ORDINANCE NO. 2010-455 An ordinance amending various provisions of Section 18.36.050 (Industrial Districts) of the Zoning Code of the City of Janesville, with penalties for violations thereof, together with injunctive relief and remedies upon default of forfeiture payment as set forth in JGO 18.28.010. THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JANESVILLE DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 18.36.050 B.1.b.xxv. of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Janesville is hereby repealed: xxv. Public recreation facilities SECTION II. Sections 18.36.050 B.1.c.xi and xii. of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Janesville are hereby created to read as follows: “xi. Trade schools. xii. Recreation facilities (public and private) in enclosed buildings - gymnastics, dance schools, skating rinks, tennis courts, soccer, fitness centers and other similar uses. SECTION III. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the Common Council, the public health, welfare, peace, tranquility, good order, public benefit, and police power so requiring.” ADOPTED: Motion by: Second by: APPROVED: Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent Brunner McDonald Eric J. Levitt, City Manager Perrotto Rashkin ATTEST: Steeber Truman Voskuil Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer APPROVED AS TO FORM: Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney Proposed by: Community Development Department Prepared by: Community Development Department DUM ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORAN July 2, 2010 TO: City Council FROM: Mike Payne, Engineering Manager RECOMMENDATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE SUBJECT: SECOND READING, PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LIST OF CONNECTING ARTERIAL STREETS (FILE ORDINANCE NO. 2010-456) At its regular meeting of May 10, 2009, the Transportation Committee recommended (by a 4- 0 vote) to approve a stop sign on Enterprise Drive at Wuthering Hills Drive by extending the connecting arterial status of Wuthering Hills Drive from South Wyck Drive to State Trunk Hwy 11/East Racine Street. This change would result in the installation of stop signs at Enterprise Drive and the two Capitol Drive intersections with Wuthering Hills Drive. The staff report and draft meeting minutes related to this item are attached. Signing changes for this item are estimated to cost $375.00, with funding included in the 2010 General Fund – Traffic Management Budget. Recommendation This change requires adoption of attached Ordinance No. 2010-456,which was introduced at the June 28, 2010 Council Meeting. The Public Hearing and Council action on the Ordinance is scheduled for the July 12, 2010 Council Meeting. City Manager Recommendation The City Manager supports the Transportation Committee recommendation. Suggested Motion I move to adopt File Ordinance No. 2010-456. DFR: Attachments cc: Eric Levitt, City Manager Jay Winzenz, Director of Administrative Services/Assistant City Manager Carl Weber, Director of Public Works/City Engineer \\petey\COJHome\Agenda Review\Approved Agenda Items\2010\7-12-2010\Connecting Arterial Streets - Memo.doc CITY OF JANESVILLE ORDINANCE NO. 2010-456 An Ordinance amending the list of Connecting Arterial Streets with a stated penalty as provided in Section 10.04.020. THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JANESVILLE DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 10.16.020 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Janesville is hereby amended as follows: Connecting Arterial Streets Except At Wuthering Hills Drive (South Wyck Drive through Prairie Fox Drive) SHALL BE REVISED TO READ: Wuthering Hills Drive (S.T. Hwy. 11/E. Racine Street through Prairie Fox Drive) ADOPTED: MOTION BY: APPROVED: SECOND BY: COUNCILMEMBER AYE NAY PASS ABSENT Eric J. Levitt, City Manager BRUNNER ATTEST: McDONALD Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer PERROTTO APPROVED AS TO FORM: RASHKIN STEEBER TRUMAN City Attorney VOSKUIL Proposed by: Engineering Division Prepared by: Engineering Division \\petey\cojhome\agenda review\approved agenda items\2010\7-12-2010\connecting arterial streets - ord 2010-456.doc CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM July 12, 2010 TO: City Council FROM: Eric J. Levitt, City Manager SUBJECT: Discussion/possible action on report from Rink Management Services Corporation on the ice rink evaluation. Summary / Background In 2008, the City performed some preliminary evaluations of issues and possible deficiencies at the ice rink. During the spring of 2009, the City experienced several small failures and one large failure of the ice cooling system. In addition, there have been some continual structural concerns with the facility including the roof. Temporary repairs have been completed over the last year while a review of the current ice rink status has been on-going. A group of Janesville residents, now affiliated with the Janesville Youth Hockey Association, began developing a proposal to form a partnership with the City of Janesville to build a new rink rather than renovate the current rink. The proposed rink is located adjacent to the Youth Sports Complex and built on 11 acres of City owned land. The proposed partnership evolved over the summer into the th attached proposal. The proposal on October 26 had the following elements: ? The building and one sheet of ice would cost approximately $4 million (not including land). ? The expansion to a second sheet of ice would cost approximately an additional $1 million. ? The City is requested to commit an initial $2 million and an additional $500,000 when funds are raised for a second sheet of ice. ? The proposal projected the City to close its current $85,000 actual subsidy to a $0 operational subsidy when 2 sheets of ice are operational. ? The proposal discusses the expansion of users at the current rink over the last year ? The City Manager indicated to the group that due to concerns with competitive bidding, it would be his recommendation that if the City had ownership and responsibility for the operations of the facility that he believes that it would be best to competitively bid the project management and construction. The City Council in October approved $2 million in public funds for a one-sheet ice rink and up to $2.5 million in public funds for a two-sheet ice rink if private funds were raised to complete the facility. It was also approved to place the rink on the South side after discussion on location. The City currently has $2 million available for the rehabilitation of the current rink, the construction of a new rink or other eligible uses. The City contracted with an outside firm, Rink Management Services Corporation, this Spring for approximately $10,000 to do an overview evaluation of the current rink and the plans to construct a new rink. Typically to perform an intensive study of the current rink and evaluate the feasibility of a new facility would cost between $30,000 and $60,000. However, the City Manager believed that an abbreviated study for under $10,000 would provide enough valid information to provide an informed decision. Possible Motion rd I move to continue this agenda item to August 23 to allow for the Ice Center Advisory Committee to provide comment. City Manager Recommendation As the City Council is aware this project has been an evolving concept or project since the Spring of 2009. Due to that there have been a variety of issues that have arisen during this dialogue. Issues of focus included: ? Location of a new rink (currently the Council has designated a south side site as the preferred site.) ? Whether to renovate the current rink or build a new facility. ? Whether to financially support constructing one sheet or two sheets. Rink Management Services Corporation prepared a report that provided an overview of the following issues: 1. An overview of the current rink and the ability for it to continue to operate. 2. Evaluation of the current design of the proposed rink from an operational standpoint and capital. 3. An overview of a Revenue/Expenditure evaluation for both current rink and a 2 sheet ice rink. After reviewing the attached report and having discussions with the firm, the City Manager has the following recommendations. ? It appears that the current expenses would be close to $1 million for the basic renovation of the rink. This does not include any major enhancements. 2 ? If the City could limit its contribution to $2 million and the contribution of City owned land for a new rink, I believe that would be the best course of action if it also meant that the new Central Fire Station would be included at the current rink location. ? If land needed to be purchased for the Central Fire Station, I recommend that renovation of the current rink be evaluated as the best option. ? I believe based on the report that the City should limit the contribution to a single sheet rink at this time with expansion capability. If other parties prefer a two sheet rink, the additional costs should be paid for from non- city funds. The reason for this recommendation is that I am not convinced that the property tax subsidy will be eliminated and am concerned that two-sheets may even place more burden on the subsidy if certain assumptions don’t play out. ? If the private group wants the City to revisit the site location of the south side, I would recommend that this occur at a future meeting. ? The City should maintain ownership of the current or a new rink in the near term. Finally, in the report, the City was advised of an alternate approach to purchasing a new Zamboni. This approach would save the City approximately $85,000 in its Vehicle Operation and Maintenance fund in the short-term. 3 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM July 2, 2010 TO: City Council FROM: Mike Payne, Engineering Manager SUBJECT: Direction to Staff on 2011 Sidewalk Program Summary The Council held a sidewalk study session September 6, 2007 to consider changes to Council Policy #70 – Sidewalks. This lead to a follow-up public hearing and Council Action at the January 14, 2008 meeting where the Council adopted a Pedestrian Transportation Corridor Plan (PTCP) and directed revisions to the Policy. The City Sidewalk Policy was updated March 25, 2008, based on Council direction, to require the construction of approximately nine (9) miles of planned unfunded sidewalks annually until complete. The Council most recently considered changes to the Sidewalk Policy on December 12, 2009 and provided direction to staff to lower the proposed sidewalk permit fee. The City Sidewalk Policy was updated March 8, 2010 based on Council support for establishing a sidewalk permit fee. Following a review and public hearing of the 2010 Sidewalk Program, the Council requested further discussions of the PTCP and sidewalks in general. The Council has delayed implementation of a proactive sidewalk program for the last two years. Engineering is suggesting the annual sidewalk program be driven by petitions which will focus sidewalks in areas where there is some neighborhood support for installing new sidewalks. Recommendation The Engineering Division makes the following sidewalk recommendations: 1) Establish protocol for citizens to request planned unfunded (yellow) sidewalks. 2) Modify the existing petition process for unplanned unfunded (orange) sidewalks. 3) Limit the annual sidewalk program to less than 3 miles of new sidewalk per year to allow proper communication with property owners to work through conflicts with grades and landscape plantings. 4) Remove the nine (9) zones from the Pedestrian Transportation Corridor Plan (PTCP). 5) Use a petition process to define the annual sidewalk program. \\petey\cojhome\agenda review\approved agenda items\2010\7-12-2010\sidewalk - memo.doc City Manager Recommendation The City Manager supports the Engineering Division’s recommendation with one additional strategy. The additional strategy would be to have a review of possible gaps (defined as missing sidewalk on a block or a short connection missing between existing sidewalk), and provide recommendations for placing sidewalks in existing gaps on an annual basis. Suggested Motion I move to approve 1) establishing a protocol for citizens to request planned unfunded sidewalks, 2) modifying the existing petition process for unplanned unfunded sidewalks, 3) limiting the annual sidewalk program to less than 3 miles per year, 4) removing the nine (9) zones from the Pedestrian Transportation Corridor Plan, and 5) using a petition process to define the annual sidewalk program by approving the suggested changes to Council Policy #70 – Sidewalks. Discussion Planned Unfunded Sidewalk Recent History The current Council Policy for planned unfunded sidewalk indicates the City will start constructing approximately nine (9) miles of new sidewalk beginning in 2009 and continue with this approach until complete. There are approximately 63 miles of planned unfunded sidewalk “gaps” in the City sidewalk network. It is anticipated the sidewalk gaps would be completed within seven (7) years of commencing sidewalk construction. These numbers were arbitrarily selected and there is flexibility in modifying the number of miles constructed per year as well as the time frame for installing the improvements. Planned unfunded sidewalk requires the abutting property owners to pay for the sidewalk installation through an assessment process. The property owners are given the option to construct the sidewalk themselves, hire a private contractor, or have the City sidewalk contractor complete the work. If the work is performed by the property owner or their private contractor, an $85 sidewalk permit fee is required. If the City coordinates the installation, property owners have four (4) options to pay for the work: 1) Pay in one lump sum. 2) Pay the sidewalk assessment on a five (5) year plan at the City’s current interest rate. 3) Make a request to the Council for a financial hardship and spread the payments over 10 years rather than five (5) years at the City’s current interest rate. 4) An individual over the age of 64 at an owner occupied residence with a family income less than 50% of the County median income may apply for \\petey\cojhome\agenda review\approved agenda items\2010\7-12-2010\sidewalk - memo.doc payment under state statute 74.77 which places a lien on the property in lieu of requiring payment. Property owners living at corner lots pay for the full cost of sidewalk installation on the first frontage ordered to be constructed but are granted an exemption for the first 70 feet on the second frontage constructed. The corner lot exemption was added to Sidewalk Policy in 1999. Proposed 2010 Program As part of the 2010 Sidewalk Program, the Engineering Division forwarded eight (8) street segments to be considered for new sidewalks. Seven (7) of the eight (8) segments included in the program were obtained anonymously from two sources: 1) results of a safe routes to school survey distributed to parents with children in elementary schools 2) PTA groups walking a ¼ mile radius around all elementary schools and providing comments. There were a number of concerns raised by property owners along the proposed routes as well as Council members inquiring why it only takes one anonymous request to place a sidewalk section on the program for discussion at a public hearing. The Engineering Division was attempting to be reactive and responsive to the public requests and therefore included the segments on the proposed program. In hindsight, it was probably not a reasonable approach to react to a request from one citizen to install sidewalk. The current Council Policy on Sidewalks does not outline a protocol for citizens to request sidewalk on Planned Unfunded (yellow) sidewalk routes. For this reason, Engineering has proposed language in the attached CP#70 to define a petition process for discussion purposes. A revision is also included for the petition process of Unplanned Unfunded (orange) sidewalk routes. The Engineering Division believes these changes to the policy define a reasonable process which allows property owners and other citizens the opportunity to request sidewalk. The nine (9) zones on the PTCP were arbitrarily established and should not control the locations of sidewalks installed in any given year. For this reason, Engineering is recommending the zones be eliminated. Attachment: Council Policy #70 – Sidewalks cc: Eric Levitt Jacob J. Winzenz Carl Weber \\petey\cojhome\agenda review\approved agenda items\2010\7-12-2010\sidewalk - memo.doc CITY OF JANESVILLE Policy No. 70 Page 1 of 10 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, 03/09/2010 General Subject: Administration Effective Date 3/09/10 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 10 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, 03/09/2010 General Subject: Administration Effective Date 3/09/10 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. B. Effective August 8, 1992, construction of sidewalks in new developments are governed by Chapter 17.46 - Sidewalks, of the CITY OF JANESVILLE Policy No. 70 Page 3 of 10 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, 03/09/2010 General Subject: Administration Effective Date 3/09/10 Specific Subject: Sidewalk Cancellation Date Supersedes No. 18 & 48 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 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 CITY OF JANESVILLE Policy No. 70 Page 4 of 10 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, 03/09/2010 General Subject: Administration Effective Date 3/09/10 Specific Subject: Sidewalk Cancellation Date Supersedes No. 18 & 48 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 August 1 of the preceeding 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. 3050% 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.” Formatted: Indent: Left: 1" CITY OF JANESVILLE Policy No. 70 Page 5 of 10 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, 03/09/2010 General Subject: Administration Effective Date 3/09/10 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). CITY OF JANESVILLE Policy No. 70 Page 6 of 10 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, 03/09/2010 General Subject: Administration Effective Date 3/09/10 Specific Subject: Sidewalk Cancellation Date Supersedes No. 18 & 48 (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 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 CITY OF JANESVILLE Policy No. 70 Page 7 of 10 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, 03/09/2010 General Subject: Administration Effective Date 3/09/10 Specific Subject: Sidewalk Cancellation Date Supersedes No. 18 & 48 owner shall execute a Waiver of Special Assessment Procedure to use the five-year plan. (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. A. The Council may order sidewalk installation. CITY OF JANESVILLE Policy No. 70 Page 8 of 10 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, 03/09/2010 General Subject: Administration Effective Date 3/09/10 Specific Subject: Sidewalk Cancellation Date Supersedes No. 18 & 48 B. Citizens may request sidewalks be included on the Public Works Program for the year provided a petition is submitted with a minimum of 10 supporters representing owners of separate properties within a ¼ mile radius of the requested sidewalk installation. The signatories must include 30% of the abutting property owners on the block proposed for sidewalk installation. If only one side of the street is requested, the abutting property owners shall own property on the requested side. The limits of a block shall begin at one street intersection and end at the next street intersection. All petitions shall be submitted to Engineering by August 1 of the year preceding the requested installation. C. The total annual sidewalk program will not exceed 3 miles of sidewalk per year. If the amount of requests exceeds 3 miles per year, the requests will be prioritized based on value to the overall sidewalk network to the community. D. Staff will present the annual sidewalk program to Council in the Fall of the year. Once petitioned segments are approved by Council, the design will be completed and the project bid early the following year to allow installation to start weather permitting. Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.5", Numbered 9. Standards for Construction of New Sidewalk and Sidewalk Repair + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, + A. New Sidewalks shall meet the following standards: 1) Minimum width shall be five feet (5’). Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 2) Minimum thickness shall be four inches (4”) for terrace walk 0.75" + Tab after: 1" + Indent at: 1" 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” Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0" Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.5", Numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.75" + Tab after: 1" + Indent at: 1" Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.5", First line: 0" Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.5", Numbered + Level: 2 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.75" + Tab after: 1" + Indent at: 1" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0" CITY OF JANESVILLE Policy No. 70 Page 9 of 10 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, 03/09/2010 General Subject: Administration Effective Date 3/09/10 Specific Subject: Sidewalk Cancellation Date Supersedes No. 18 & 48 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. 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 CITY OF JANESVILLE Policy No. 70 Page 10 of 10 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, 03/09/2010 General Subject: Administration Effective Date 3/09/10 Specific Subject: Sidewalk Cancellation Date Supersedes No. 18 & 48 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. # # # # # City Manager’s Office Memorandum July 12, 2010 TO: Janesville City Council FROM: Al Hulick, Management Analyst SUBJECT: Action on a proposed resolution authorizing the sale of property located at 305 South Pearl Street (File Resolution No. 2010-718). Staff Recommendation Staff and Plan Commission recommend that the City Council support a motion to approve File Resolution No. 2010-718 which authorizes the sale of land at 305 South Pearl Street. City Manager Recommendation The City Manager concurs with staff’s recommendation. Suggested Motion A motion to approve File Resolution No. 2010-718 which authorizes the sale of land located at 305 South Pearl Street for $5,000 to Mr. James L. Hager. Background The City of Janesville acquired the property located at 305 S. Pearl Street in September 2009. The subject site was developed with a vacant single-family residence that was built in approximately 1880 and was in very poor condition. The property is zoned M4-Central General District and is surrounded by industrial zoning on all four sides. The property is located directly adjoining an active railroad line to the north, and a single-family residence to the south. The property is approximately 0.25 acres and has an assessed land value of approximately $8,900. The property was purchased in September 2009 through the Rock County Tax Foreclosure program. Because the City had an interest in the property through unpaid taxes, the City had a first right to acquire the property before Rock County would sell the property at a public auction. The purchase price was set by Rock County in the amount equal to the delinquent taxes and interest, plus closing costs. The City’s portion of the outstanding taxes is then returned to the City. Therefore, the City acquired the property for $4,568.83 ($6,856.22 less $2,287.39 City’s share of taxes). The City used TIF funds to acquire the site. Due to the deteriorated, blighting condition of the building at the time of acquisition the building was demolished in the early spring of 2010. Analysis A. Because the subject property is zoned M4 it cannot be redeveloped as a residence without being rezoned. Staff would not support a rezoning to a residential district in this area. The property could be developed with a permitted M4 use. Therefore, the most appropriate uses of this property would be to sell it to an adjoining property owner, or left as public open space. B. If the property were to remain in public open space, there could be ongoing annual costs of up to $2,354 to maintain the site (mowing and sidewalk shoveling). Beyond public open space, the site has no other viable public purpose. Therefore, it would be ideal for the City to sell this property. C. The City of Janesville purchased the property for $4,568.83, incurred demolition costs of $9,638.80, and had an additional $3,543 in other miscellaneous expenses. Therefore, the City has a total of $17,750 invested in the property. D. When the City Administration contacted all adjoining property owners, only Mr. Hager of 309 S. Pearl expressed any interest in the purchasing the site. Realizing that the City has nearly $18,000 invested in a site, but only has assessed value of $8,900; it would be difficult to sell the property for the amount of the City’s investment in the site. However, also realizing that Mr. Hager is the only adjoining property owner to express interest in the site, Staff would not be in support of rezoning the site, the site has no viable public purpose, and there would be ongoing annual maintenance costs to keep the site in public open space, Staff anticipated negotiating with Mr. Hager at a price less than the City’s investment in the property. Staff believes that a public good has been provided by removing a blighting influence in the area, and that returning the property to the City’s tax rolls as opposed to incurring ongoing maintenance costs would be fiscally responsible. E. Therefore, the City Administration extended an offer to sell the property to Mr. Hager for $8,900 (the assessed value of the site). Mr. Hager countered with an offer of $5,000. Mr. Hager cites that the additional work needs to be done on the site to clear demolition debris, the options for building on the site are very limited, and recently 5 vacant lots in the neighborhood were sold at a Sheriff’s sale of $3,200. The City Administration understands Mr. Hager’s concerns with the site, and recommends that the City Council accept Mr. Hager’s counter offer of $5,000 and authorize the City Administration to execute the sale of property at 305 S. Pearl St. If the Council decides to not accept Mr. Hager’s offer, it is unlikely that another prospective buyer would come forward, and the City would continue to incur ongoing maintenance costs at the site. Plan Commission Action – 6 July 2010 Al Hulick, Management Analyst, presented a written staff report. Commissioner Werner asked what ongoing maintenance would be required on the site if the City were to hold the property. Hulick indicated that the lot would need to be mowed periodically throughout the year, and the sidewalk would need to be shoveled and maintained during the winter months. Chairperson Zolidis asked if the Administration considered selling the property before demolishing the structure on the site. Hulick indicated that the City did not contact prospective purchasers before demolition. Hulick noted that it would have been difficult to find a private property owner who would have been willing to take on the liability and cost of demolishing the existing structure. Hulick also noted that the structure was extremely dilapidated and nonconforming. Hulick stated that the City was in the best position to remove this blighting influence and decrease the nonconformity in this area, and therefore, wanted to ensure that it was mitigated properly before marketing the site for sale. Commissioner Helgerson asked how long it would take before the costs would be fully recovered after this transaction. Hulick indicated that he did not have an exact number of years, but that it may take several due to the properties low taxable value. Commissioner Werner noted that based on the properties undesirable location, he was in support of the sale. Werner noted that if the location was different, he would consider holding the property. A motion was made by Commissioner Werner with a second by Commissioner Adams to forward the sale of 305 South Pearl Street to the City Council with a favorable recommendation noting that the Plan Commission had not reviewed the financial aspects of the transaction. The motion passed on a 6-0-0 vote. cc: Jacob Winzenz Eric Levitt q Ô»¹»²¼ ÍËÞÖÛÝÌ Í×ÌÛ Ü¿¬»æ íñïïñïð Í½¿´»æ ïþã ïëðù Ü®¿©² Þ§æ Þò Þ´«³»® ÔÑÝßÌ×ÑÒ ÓßÐ Ý×ÌÇ ÑÚ ÖßÒÛÍÊ×ÔÔÛ íðë Íò Ð»¿®´ Í¬ò ÓßÐ ï ÐÔßÒÒ×ÒÙ ÍÛÎÊ×ÝÛÍ ÍæÐ®±¶»½¬ÄÐ´¿²²·²¹ÄÓ·½ÄíðëÍÐ»¿®´ò³¨¼ RESOLUTION NO. 2010 – 718 A resolution authorizing the City Manager to proceed with the sale of surplus property located at 305 South Pearl Street. WHEREAS, the City of Janesville owns the following described parcel of real property: SMITH'S ADD. LOT 14 & S.1/2 VACATED W. HOLMES ST. EX.RR. ROW BLK 19 DAF:Pt SE1/4, Sec 35, T3N, R12E, 4th PM, City of Janesville, Rock Co, WI JC6107333 WHEREAS , The City of Janesville acquired the property located at 305 S. Pearl Street in September 2009 though the Rock County Tax Foreclosure program with TIF District No. 9 funds. The City’s portion of the outstanding taxes is then returned to the City. Therefore, the City acquired the property for $4,568.83 ($6,856.22 less $2,287.39 City’s share of taxes); and WHEREAS, the proceeds from the sale of this property will be returned to TIF District No. 9 funds. WHEREAS , this property is now surplus and no longer needed for any public purpose; and. WHEREAS , the City of Janesville has negotiated an agreement to sell the property to Mr. James L. Hager for $5,000.00; and WHEREAS , the sale of this surplus property is in the best interest of and benefit to the City and community; and WHEREAS , the Plan Commission has reviewed this land sale at their July 2, 2010 meeting and found the sale to be consistent with established City plans and recommended that the City Council proceed with the sale of this property, but further noted that the Plan Commission had not reviewed the financial aspects of this transaction. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL of the City of Janesville that the City Manager and others on his behalf are authorized to sell and convey this parcel of surplus property to James L. Hager for $5,000.00 on behalf of the City of Janesville; and to negotiate and execute such documents, papers, and forms as the City Manager may, from time to time, determine necessary and/or desirable to effectuate this transaction and the intent of this Resolution; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager and his designee(s) are hereby authorized to take whatever other actions and to make whatever other changes that may find necessary and/or desirable to effectuate this land transaction. ADOPTED: Motion by: Second by: APPROVED: Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent Brunner McDonald Eric J. Levitt, City Manager Perrotto Rashkin ATTEST: Steeber Truman Voskuil Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Wald Klimczyk Proposed by: City Manager’s Office Prepared by: City Manager’s Office DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM June 18, 2010 TO: City Council FROM: Daniel L. Lynch, PE, Utility Director SUBJECT: Action on Proposed Resolutions Authorizing the City Manager to Proceed with Improvements to the Wastewater Utility-Sanitary Sewer System, to Apply for a Wisconsin Clean Water Fund Loan and to Authorize Interfund Borrowing to Provide Interim Funding (File Resolution Nos. 2010-713 and 2010-714) Summary The City of Janesville has over 300 miles of sanitary sewer mains. Annual preventative maintenance on this system is necessary to help insure that the system remains operational. Preventative maintenance activities fall into two major categories. The first is the routine sewer cleaning activities performed by Utility employees to remove material which may interfere with the flow of the sewage through the sewer mains. The second maintenance activity is focused on the structural integrity of the sewer system. In this part of the Utility’s annual maintenance program, sewers in need of major repair or replacement are identified. Funding to inspect and repair these sewers has, in the past, come from the operating budget of the Wastewater Utility and from General Obligation (G.O.) Note borrowing. These resolutions will allow the City to pursue lower interest loans from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) instead of continuing to use the higher interest G.O. Notes. Department Recommendation The Utility staff strongly supports this project and encourages the City Council to adopt the proposed resolutions. Adoption of these resolutions does not create any additional financial obligation on the part of the City. Like the City’s other construction projects, this project will come before the Council following bid openings when contract award recommendations are made. Suggested Motion Move to adopt Resolution Numbers 2010-713 and 2010-714 authorizing the City’s application for a low interest loan and providing for interim financing for the proposed Wastewater Utility-Sanitary Sewer System improvements. City Manager Recommendation The City Manager concurs with the Utility’s recommendation. Analysis Following the structural failure and subsequent collapse of several major sanitary sewers during the 1990’s, the sewer maintenance program was expanded so sewers could be inspected and repaired or replaced before a collapse occurred. These maintenance activities are mostly designed and managed by the City’s Engineering 1 Department as part of its annual public works construction programs. Specifically, this work involves the inspection of sanitary sewers through televising, the repair or replacement of manholes and the repair, relining or replacement of mainline sanitary sewers. Funding for these projects has come from the operating budget of the Wastewater Utility ($290,000 in 2010) and from General Obligation Note borrowing (estimated at $875,000 for 2010). These amounts reflect a continuation of past funding levels. Adoption of these resolutions will simply allow the City to pursue low interest loans from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources instead of continuing to use G.O. Notes. Adoption of these resolutions does not commit the City to borrowing these funds or proceeding with any part of these projects. Both the award of future construction contracts and the application for a low interest WDNR loan will require future Council action. cc: Eric Levitt, City Manager Jay Winzenz, Director of Administrative Services Carl Weber, Director of Public Works 2 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2010-713 A Resolution authorizing interfund borrowing to provide interim funding for the Clean Water Loan Project and to comply with requirements of the Wisconsin Clean Water Loan Program WHEREAS, the City of Janesville, through its engineering department will provide engineering services to prepare the construction plans and specifications and for construction of improvements to the sanitary sewer system of the City of Janesville; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to fund this project by a combination of funding that includes: funds in the 2010 operating budget and borrowing or receiving funds in 2010 in the form of a Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Clean Water Loan Program low interest loan as outlined in the following table: Project Funding Summary Funding Amount 2010 Wastewater Utility Operating Budget $290,000 Clean Water Loan Program (DNR) $875,000 Total Project Cost $1,165,000 WHEREAS, the Wastewater Utility will make application for a Wisconsin Clean Water Loan Program to assist design and construction of sanitary sewer improvements including the televising of sanitary sewers, repair, reline or replace sanitary sewer structures and mains and repair of sewer main wyes; and WHEREAS, the City desires to comply in all respects with the requirements of the Wisconsin Clean Water Loan Program and to refrain from any financial activity which may be considered impermissible arbitrage; and WHEREAS, these projects and the funding are all found to be in the best interest and of benefit to the City, its residents, properties, and businesses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Janesville that they hereby approve and authorize the City Administration to take actions necessary to provide funding for the design and construction of repairs and/or replacements of sewer mains and structures of the sanitary sewer system not to exceed $1,165,000. No funds from sources other than its water system revenue bond or the Available Funds identified above are, or are expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside by the City for the project, except as permitted by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. This declaration of official intent is consistent with the budgetary and financial circumstances of the City. The purpose of this Resolution is to satisfy the “official intent requirement” of Treasury Regulation Section 1.150-2; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Janesville hereby sets forth as its policy compliance with all requirements of the Wisconsin Clean Water Loan Program so as to avoid impermissible arbitrage in financing and refinancing of the site acquisition, design and construction of thee utility facilities, and otherwise; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City pay for services received prior to the approval of any loan(s) from the Wisconsin Clean Water Loan Program and that such expenditures be paid from the general funds of the Utility or funds previously borrowed in the City’s prior G.O. notes; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City has the intent to seek financing and refinancing with the Wisconsin Clean Water Loan Program to pay $875,000 of the expenditures for the design and construction of these sanitary sewer system improvements, all said financing and refinancing to be in compliance with the Wisconsin Clean Water Loan Program so that the City may be eligible for all monies available under said program; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City may pay for services provided in conjunction with the design and construction of these sanitary sewer system improvements performed by independent contractors and seek reimbursement from the Wisconsin Clean Water Loan Program from the general funds of the Utility; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City has the intent that Clean Water Loan Program repayments be repaid with the revenues of the City wastewater user charge system; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager and/or his designee(s), on behalf of the City of Janesville, is/are hereby authorized to administratively negotiate, draft, execute, review, enter in, modify, amend, record, file, and otherwise effectuate the above agreements and promissory note, and/or to make and enter into any and all other agreements, contracts, documents, papers, and forms, and/or to take whatever other actions that the City Manager and/or his designee(s) may, from time to time and at any time, determine necessary and/or desirable to effectuate the above transactions, agreements, and/or above all the intent and/or purposes of this Resolution. ADOPTED: Motion by: Second by: APPROVED: Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent Brunner McDonald Eric Levitt, City Manager Perrotto Rashkin ATTEST: Steeber Truman Voskuil Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer APPROVED AS TO FORM: Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney Proposed by: Utility Director Prepared by: Utility Director Shared/Resolution NO 2010-713 interfund borrowing.doc RESOLUTION NO. 2010-714 A Resolution authorizing the City Manager to proceed with certain improvements to the Wastewater Utility-Sanitary Sewer System and to apply for a Wisconsin Clean Water Fund Loan WHEREAS, Inspection, repair, and/or replacement of the City’s existing sanitary sewer system including the sewer mains and structures is a necessary maintenance activity to insure the proper operation of the sewer system; and WHEREAS, The sanitary sewer mains and structures are necessary components of the overall sewer system and convey the untreated sewage from its point of generation to the City’s wastewater treatment plant; and WHEREAS, the design of a sanitary sewer system improvements are underway; and WHEREAS, the construction of this project is expected to begin in June 2010; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to fund this project by a combination of funding that includes: funds in the 2010 operating budget and borrowing or receiving funds in 2010 in the form of a Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Clean Water Loan Program low interest loan as outlined in the following table: Project Funding Summary Funding Amount 2010 Wastewater Utility Operating Budget $290,000 Clean Water Loan Program (DNR) $875,000 Total Project Cost $1,165,000 WHEREAS, the balance of said cost will be eligible for a Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Clean Water Loan Program low interest loan which will be repaid by user fees; and WHEREAS, the WDNR has required that an authorized representative be designated by adopted resolution for a Clean Water Fund Loan Program low interest loan; and WHEREAS, these projects and the funding are all found to be in the best interest and of benefit to the City, its residents, properties, and businesses; and WHEREAS, Daniel L. Lynch, P.E., 18, N. Jackson Street, Janesville, Wisconsin 53545, (608) 755- 3115, is the Utility Director of the City of Janesville; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Janesville that they hereby approve and authorize the City Administration to take actions necessary to provide funding for the design and construction of repairs and/or replacements of sewer mains and structures of the sanitary sewer system not to exceed $1,165,000. No funds from sources other than its water system revenue bonds or the Available Funds identified above are, or are expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long-term basis, or otherwise set aside by the City for the project, except as permitted by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. This declaration of official intent is consistent with the budgetary and financial circumstances of the City. The purpose of this Resolution is to satisfy the “official intent requirement” of Treasury Regulation Section 1.150-2; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Janesville that the City Manager be authorized to apply to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for a Clean Water Loan Program low interest loan and that it endorses Daniel L. Lynch as the authorized representative in any actions or for any requirements for a Clean Water Fund Program low interest loan; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager and/or his designee(s), on behalf of the City of Janesville, is/are hereby authorized to administratively negotiate, draft, execute, review, enter in, modify, amend, record, file, and otherwise effectuate the above agreements and promissory note, and/or to make and enter into any and all other agreements, contracts, documents, papers, and forms, and/or to take whatever other actions that the City Manager and/or his designee(s) may, from time to time and at any time, determine necessary and/or desirable to effectuate the above transactions, agreements, and/or above all the intent and/or purposes of this Resolution. ADOPTED: Motion by: Second by: APPROVED: Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent Brunner McDonald Eric Levitt, City Manager Perrotto Rashkin ATTEST: Steeber Truman Voskuil Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer APPROVED AS TO FORM: Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney Proposed by: Utility Director Prepared by: Utility Director CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE MEMORANDUM June 28, 2010 TO: City Council FROM: Tim Wellnitz, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Introduce and Schedule a Public Hearing on a Proposed Ordinance repealing JGO Chapter 8.75 and recreating JGO Chapter 8.74 regulating smoking in the City of Janesville with penalties and injunctive relief as set forth in proposed JGO 8.74.070 and 8.74.080. (File Ord. 2010-457) Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council adopt Proposed Ordinance 2010-457 repealing JGO Chapters 8.74 and 8.75 and recreating JGO Chapter 8.74 regulating smoking in the City of Janesville. City Manager’s Recommendation No recommendation. Suggested Motion I move to adopt Proposed Ordinance No. 2010-457. Request Council members Brunner and Truman requested an ordinance regulating smoking in the City of Janesville which clarifies the statutory definition of enclosed place. Background A change in state law will become effective on July 5, 2010, which will provide additional restrictions on smoking. Under these new changes smoking will be prohibited in several enclosed places, including day care centers, educational facilities, inpatient health care facilities, theaters, state institutions, restaurants, taverns, private clubs, retail establishments, common areas of multiple unit residential properties, lodging establishments, and government buildings. In addition, smoking will be prohibited in all other enclosed places that are places of employment or public places. Separate smoking rooms will no longer be allowed. In addition, the new law specifically prohibits smoking in sports arenas, bus shelters and public conveyances, even if they don’t meet the definition of “enclosed place.” 1 An “enclosed place” is defined as a structure or area that has a roof and more than two substantial walls. A “substantial wall” is a wall with an opening that may be used to allow air in from the outside that is less than 25 percent of the wall’s surface. Penalties may be imposed against individuals who smoke in prohibited locations and against the “person in charge” of the place where smoking is prohibited for not performing their required duties under the law. Analysis Concerns have been raised by the League of Wisconsin Municipalities and others about the new state law definition of enclosed place. This definition could be interpreted that a room with four walls in which 25 percent of two of the walls is covered by windows that are partially open would not be an enclosed place. If the building is not enclosed, then smoking would be allowed. Under the new law municipalities have the authority to enact more stringent regulations regulating indoor smoking. Proposed Ordinance No. 2010-457 creates an ordinance that is consistent with state law. There are two areas which would be different than state law so as to provide additional clarification to the “ regulations. The definition of enclosed place under the ordinance would be an area with a roof and with walls which occupy more than 50% of the perimeter of the area defining the space. The walls can be temporary or permanent and with or without openings. A fence, whether solid or open, does not constitute a wall.” This definition would allow for structures that are surrounded by more than 50% wall space with a roof to come under the definition of enclosed space and prohibit smoking. Smoking would be allowed in a location without a roof or with a roof and 50% or less of the perimeter of the area is occupied by walls. The second area would clarify that all vehicles that are places of public employment are enclosed places. cc: Eric Levitt, City Manager Jacob J. Winzenz, Assistant City Manager/Director of Admin. Services 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2010 - 457 An ordinance repealing JGO Chapter 8.75 and recreating JGO Chapter 8.74 regulating smoking in the City of Janesville with penalties and injunctive relief as set forth in proposed JGO 8.74.070 and 8.74.080. THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JANESVILLE DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Chapter 8.75 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Janesville is hereby repealed. SECTION II. Chapter 8.74 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Janesville is hereby recreated to read as follows: Chapter 8.74 REGULATION OF SMOKING Sections: 8.74.010 Intent and purpose. 8.74.020Adoption of State Laws – More Stringent Laws Govern 8.74.030 Definitions. 8.74.040 Prohibition Against Smoking 8.74.050 Responsibility of Persons In Charge 8.74.060 Exceptions 8.74.070 Penalties 8.74.080 Injunctive Relief 8.74.010 Intent and Purpose . The Common Council of the City of Janesville hereby find that: A . It is recognized and found that smoking of cigarettes and tobacco products is hazardous to an individual’s health and may affect the health of nonsmokers when they are involuntarily in the presence of smoking. B . Numerous scientific studies have found that tobacco smoke is a major contributor to indoor air pollution. C. Reliable scientific studies, including studies conducted by the Surgeon General of the United States, have shown that breathing sidestream or secondhand smoke is a significant health hazard to nonsmokers; particularly to children, elderly people, individuals with cardiovascular disease, and individuals with impaired respiratory function, including asthmatics and those with obstructive airway disease. D . Health hazards induced by breathing sidestream or secondhand smoke include lung cancer, respiratory infection, decreased respiratory function, decreased exercise tolerance, bronchoconstriction and bronchospasm. E. Reliable scientific studies assessed by the California Environmental Protection Agency have found that sidestream and secondhand tobacco smoke is a leading cause of premature death and disability among non-smokers. F. Air pollution caused by smoking is an offensive annoyance and irritant. Smoking results in serious and significant physical discomfort to nonsmokers. G . This ordinance is adopted for the purpose of protecting the public health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the people of the City of Janesville, especially recognizing the rights of nonsmokers who constitute a majority of the population; educating citizens affected by this ordinance; and assisting individuals and persons in charge in maintaining compliance. 8.74.020 Adoption of State Laws – More Stringent Laws Govern A. Incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this chapter as if fully set forth verbatim are Wis. Stats. § 101.123 as from time to time amended or renumbered. Any and all acts required to be performed or prohibited by any statutes so incorporated by reference is/are required or prohibited by this chapter. Any future amendments, revisions, or modifications of the statutes incorporated by this chapter are also adopted and incorporated as a part of this chapter. B. The more stringent provision set forth in this chapter or that is set forth in the incorporated state law(s) shall always take precedence and govern, notwithstanding any conflict, inconsistency or ambiguity to the contrary. The intent is to at all times render this chapter in full force and effect and in conformity with Wis. Stats. § 101.123 as from time to time amended or renumbered. 8.74.030 Definitions . For the purposes of this chapter: A. "Assisted living facility" means a community-based residential facility, as defined in Section 50.01(1g), a residential care apartment complex, as defined in Section 50.01(1d), or an adult family home, as defined in Section 50.01(1)(b) of the Wisconsin Statutes, as from time to time amended or renumbered. B. "Child care center" has the meaning given in Section 49.136(1)(ad) of the Wisconsin Statutes, as from time to time amended or renumbered. C."Correctional facility" means any of the following: 1. A state prison, as defined or named in Section 302.01, except a correctional institution under Sections 301.046(1) or 301.048(4)(b) of the Wisconsin Statutes, as from time to time amended or renumbered, if the institution is the prisoner's place of residence and no one is employed there to ensure the prisoner's incarceration. 2. A juvenile detention facility, as defined in Section 938.02(10r), or a juvenile correctional facility, as defined in Section 938.02(10p), except a juvenile correctional facility authorized under Sections 938.533(3)(b), 938.538(4)(b), or 938.539(5) of the Wisconsin Statutes, as from time to time amended or renumbered if the facility is a private residence in which the juvenile is placed and no one is employed there to ensure that the juvenile remains in custody. 3. A jail, as defined in Section 165.85(2)(bg), a Huber facility under Section 303.09, a work camp under Section 303.10, a reforestation camp under Section 303.07, or a lockup facility under Section 302.30 of the Wisconsin Statutes as from time to time amended or renumbered. D. "Educational facility" means any building used principally for educational purposes in which a school is located or a course of instruction or training program is offered that has been approved or licensed by a state agency or board. E. "Employment" means any trade, occupation, or process of manufacture or any method of carrying on such trade, occupation, or process of manufacture in which any person may be engaged. F. "Enclosed place" means an area with a roof and with walls which occupy more than 50% of the perimeter of the area defining the space. The walls can be temporary or permanent and with or without openings. A fence, whether solid or open, does not constitute a wall. G."Inpatient health care facility" means a hospital, as defined in Section 50.33(2), a county home established under Section 49.70, a county infirmary established under Section 49.72, a nursing home, as defined in Section 50.01(3), a hospice, as defined in Section 50.90(1), a Wisconsin veterans home under Section 45.50 of the Wisconsin Statutes as from time to time amended or renumbered, or a treatment facility. H. "Lodging establishment" means any of the following: 1. A bed and breakfast establishment, as defined in Section 254.61(1) of the Wisconsin Statutes as from time to time amended or renumbered. 2. A hotel, as defined in Section 254.61(3) of the Wisconsin Statutes as from time to time amended or renumbered. 3. A tourist rooming house, as defined in Section 254.61(6) of the Wisconsin Statutes as from time to time amended or renumbered. I."Person in charge" means the person, or his or her agent, who ultimately controls, governs or directs the activities aboard a public conveyance or at a location where smoking is prohibited or regulated under this chapter. J. "Place of employment" means any enclosed place that employees normally frequent during the course of employment, including an office, a work area, an elevator, an employee lounge, a restroom, a conference room, a meeting room, a classroom, a hallway, a stairway, a lobby, a common area, a vehicle, or an employee cafeteria. K. "Private club" means a facility used by an organization that limits its membership and is organized for a recreational, fraternal, social, patriotic, political, benevolent, or athletic purpose. L. "Public conveyance" means a mass transit vehicle as defined in Section 340.01(28m), a school bus as defined in Section 340.01(56) of the Wisconsin Statutes as from time to time amended or renumbered, or any other device by which persons are transported, for hire, on a highway or by rail, water, air, or guidewire within this state, but does not include such a device while providing transportation in interstate commerce. M. "Public place" means any enclosed place that is open to the public, regardless of whether a fee is charged or a place to which the public has lawful access or may be invited. N. "Restaurant" means an establishment as defined in Section 254.61(5) of the Wisconsin Statutes as from time to time amended or renumbered. O. "Retail establishment" means any store or shop in which retail sales is the principal business conducted. P. "Retail tobacco store" means a retail establishment that does not have a "Class B" intoxicating liquor license or a Class "B" fermented malt beverages license and that generates 75 percent or more of its gross annual income from the retail sale of tobacco products and accessories. Q. "Smoking" means burning or holding, or inhaling or exhaling smoke from, any of the following items containing tobacco: 1. A lighted cigar. 2. A lighted cigarette. 3. A lighted pipe. 4. Any other lighted smoking equipment. R. "Sports arena" means any stadium, pavilion, gymnasium, swimming pool, skating rink, bowling center, or other building where spectator sporting events are held. S. "State institution" means a mental health institute, as defined in Section 51.01(12), a center for the developmentally disabled, as defined in Section 51.01(3), or a secure mental health facility at which persons are committed under Section 980.06 of the Wisconsin Statutes as from time to time amended or renumbered. T."Tavern" means an establishment, other than a restaurant, that holds a "Class B" intoxicating liquor license or Class "B" fermented malt beverages license. U. "Tobacco bar" means a tavern that generates 15 percent or more of its annual gross income from the sale on the tavern premises, other than from a vending machine, of cigars and tobacco for pipes. V. "Tobacco product" means any form of tobacco prepared in a manner suitable for smoking but not including a cigarette. W. "Treatment facility" means a publicly or privately operated inpatient facility that provides treatment of alcoholic, drug dependent, mentally ill, or developmentally disabled persons. X. "Type 1 juvenile correctional facility" has the meaning given in Section 938.02(19) of the Wisconsin Statutes as from time to time amended or renumbered. 8.74.040 Prohibition Against Smoking . A. Except as provided in 8.74.060, no person may smoke in any of the following enclosed places: 1. Residence halls or dormitories owned or operated by a college or university. 2. Child care centers. 3. Educational facilities. 4. Inpatient health care facilities. 5. Theaters. 6. Correctional facilities. 7. State institutions. 8. Restaurants. 9. Taverns. 10. Private clubs. 11. Retail establishments. 12. Common areas of multiple-unit residential properties. 13. Lodging establishments. 14 State, county, city, village, or town buildings. 15. All enclosed places, other than those listed in subds. 1. to 14., that are places of employment or that are public places. All vehicles that are places of employment are considered enclosed places notwithstanding 8.74.030 (F). B. No person may smoke at any of the following outdoor locations: 1. Anywhere on the premises of a child care center when children who are receiving child care services are present. 2. Anywhere on the grounds of a Type 1 juvenile correctional facility. 3. A location that is 25 feet or less from a residence hall or dormitory that is owned or operated by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. C. No person may smoke in any of the following: 1. A sports arena. 2. A bus shelter. 3. A public conveyance. 8.74.050Responsibility of Persons In Charge A. No person in charge may allow any person to smoke in violation of 8.74.040 at a location that is under the control or direction of the person in charge. B. A person in charge may not provide matches, ashtrays, or other equipment for smoking at the location where smoking is prohibited. C. A person in charge shall make reasonable efforts to prohibit persons from smoking at a location where smoking is prohibited by doing all of the following: 1. Posting signs setting forth the prohibition and providing other appropriate notification and information concerning the prohibition. 2. Refusing to serve a person, if the person is smoking in a restaurant, tavern, or private club. 3. Asking a person who is smoking to refrain from smoking and, if the person refuses to do so, asking the person to leave the location. D. If a person refuses to leave a location after being requested to do so as provided in par. (C) 3., the person in charge shall immediately notify an appropriate law enforcement agency of the violation. E. A person in charge may take measures in addition to those listed in pars. B and C to prevent persons from being exposed to others who are smoking or to further ensure compliance with this section. 8.74.060 Exceptions The prohibition against smoking in 8.74.040 does not apply to the following: A. A private residence. B. A room used by only one person in an assisted living facility as his or her residence. C. A room in an assisted living facility in which 2 or more persons reside if every person who lives in that room smokes and each of those persons has made a written request to the person in charge of the assisted living facility to be placed in a room where smoking is allowed. D. A retail tobacco store that is in existence on June 3, 2009, and in which only the smoking of cigars and pipes is allowed. E. A tobacco bar that is in existence on June 3, 2009, and in which only the smoking of cigars and pipes is allowed. 8.74.070 Penalties A. Any person who violates 8.74.040 shall be subject to a forfeiture of not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100) nor more than Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250) for each violation together with the costs of prosecution, for each offense, or, in default of payment of such penalty shall be imprisoned for no more than sixty days for each violation in addition to such other penalties, remedies, sanctions and relief as may be, from time to time, provided by law. B. Except as provided in pars. (C) and (D), any person in charge who violates 8.74.050 (B), (C), or (D) shall be subject to a forfeiture of One Hundred Dollars ($100) for each offense together with the costs of prosecution, or, in default of payment of such penalty shall be imprisoned for not more than sixty days for each violation in addition to such other penalties, remedies, sanctions and relief as may be, from time to time, provided by law. C. For violations subject to the forfeiture under par. B, if the person in charge has not previously received a warning notice for a violation of 8.74.050 (B), (C), or (D), the law enforcement officer shall issue the person in charge a warning notice and may not issue a citation. D. No person in charge may be required under par. (B) to forfeit more than One Hundred Dollars ($100) for each violation together with the costs of prosecution for all violations of 8.74.050 (B), (C), or (D) occurring on a single day or in default of payment of such penalty shall be imprisoned for not more than sixty days for each violation in addition to such other penalties, remedies, sanctions and relief as may be, from time to time, provided by law. 8.74.080 Injunctive Relief. State or local officials or any affected party may institute an action in any court with jurisdiction to enjoin repeated violations of this section. ADOPTED: Motion by: Second by: APPROVED: Councilmember Aye Nay Pass Absent Brunner Eric J. Levitt, City Manager McDonald Perrotto ATTEST: Rashkin Steeber Truman Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer Voskuil APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney Proposed by: Council Members Brunner and Truman Prepared by: Assistant City Attorney and Manager of Building and Development Services