Loading...
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Packet - 8/12/2014 CITY OF MUSKEGO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA August 12, 2014 5:45 PM City Hall, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 22, 2014 NEW BUSINESS 1. Budget Goals 2. Discussion on Allowance of Chickens on Smaller Lots COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW ADJOURNMENT Possible reconvening of the Committee of the Whole immediately following Common Council Meeting of the same date to continue work on agenda items NOTICE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT MEMBERS OF AND POSSIBLY A QUORUM OF MEMBERS OF OTHER GOVERNMENTAL BODIES OF THE MUNICIPALITY MAY BE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE ABOVE-STATED MEETING TO GATHER INFORMATION; NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL BODY AT THE ABOVE-STATED MEETING OTHER THAN THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO ABOVE IN THIS NOTICE. ALSO, UPON REASONABLE NOTICE, EFFORTS WILL BE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF DISABLED INDIVIDUALS THROUGH APPROPRIATE AIDS AND SERVICES. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR TO REQUEST THIS SERVICE, MUSKEGO CITY HALL, (262) 679-4100. Unapproved CITY OF MUSKEGO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES July 22, 2014 5:45 PM Police Dept Lobby, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Chiaverotti, Aldermen Wolfe, Hammel, Borgman, Di Pronio, Engelhardt, Kubacki, Madden, City Attorney Larsen, Chief Moser, George Wolwark, John Sabinash and Finance & Administration Director Mueller. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE Director Mueller stated that this meeting was noticed in accordance with the open meeting law. APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 24, 2014 Alderman Kubacki made a motion to approve the June 24, 2014 minutes, Alderman Hammel seconded and requested that the minutes reflect his concern about the needs of the school district and the city's facilities and their impact on taxes Motion Passed 7 in favor. NEW BUSINESS Facilities Needs Study - Tour of Police Department (meet in lobby of Police Department) Mayor Chiaverotti provided overview of the last COW meeting discussion that lead to taking the tour of the Police Department. Attorney Eric Larsen reminded everyone this tour is a formal meeting and open meetings laws apply. Side conversations should be avoided with discussion taking place in large areas where everyone is present and able to hear. John Sabinash with Zimmerman Architectural Studios led the tour. Chief Moser along with Mr. Sabinash provided the following facility information during the tour. · Entrance was built in 1978 with subsequent additions to the facility · Administration area is operationally adequate and the remodel with additions shows it remaining approximately the same. · Short on office space for current Lieutenant. · Officer workstation needs significant consideration. · Garage is not large enough for all vehicles which leads to a lot of maneuvering of vehicles. Garage door limits height of vehicles. Gun storage was moved from garage to basement to create some additional space. · Radio equipment room off of garage over heats. Is cooled with fans by leaving door open. · Jail has no “sally” port (prevents escape). · Evidence processing room is inadequate and should be connected to evidence storage room, larger, better ventilation, more locker space and lavatory. · Evidence storage room is in back of garage with freezer. Challenges with chain of custody in handling of evidence. · Holding cells are regulated by State Statute and governed by Department of Corrections to have separate cells for males, females and juveniles. PD does not meet Statute with only two cells while lacking additional cells for multiple lockups. · When building was constructed it was forecast to meet needs for 20 years. We are well beyond the 20 years. · Additional office for additional detective to investigate computer related crimes is needed. · Dispatch houses mechanicals that are crammed in and very difficult, if not impossible, to access. This was a custom design during one of the remodels. · Basement houses officer roll call room, training room, workout area and locker rooms. Inadequate space. Basement has often had water issues with damage. Lack of storage for workout equipment as well as lockers for officer equipment. Roll call room also stores tasers, radios flashlights and ID camera. Also stored in the basement include Citizens Academy items, hard copies of reports and hard copies of citations (per Statute). · Furnace room in basement houses an antique system. The building has 4 furnaces with 3 air handlers and 2 exchangers due to the many additions. Inefficiencies in heating and AC are evident. Maintenance is being done for short term use. · Existing building has been maintained well but is old and needs replacement based on growth and state requirements. · Difference between building new and updating the existing: Compromises are necessary when creating needed space in existing. Most needs are addressed but future modifications become more difficult. New construction meets all needs and allows more flexibility for future needs. For optimization and less compromise, John Sabinash recommends new building vs. remodel. COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW ADJOURNMENT Possible reconvening of the Committee of the Whole immediately following Common Council Meeting of the same date to continue work on agenda items Alderman Borgman made a motion to adjourn at 6:50 PM, Alderman Madden seconded. Motion Passed 7 in favor. OVERVIEW The budget for the City of Muskego serves a number of functions and is an extremely important work product of the municipality. At a basic level, the budget is a balanced financial plan which gives city officials authority to incur obligations and pay expenses through the convergence of public policy, financial oversight and operational accountability. It allocates resources among departments, reflecting the legislative body's priorities and policies through long-term goals. The budget also conveys to the citizens the municipality's elected body's vision for the future and assists in their communication to constituents why they have allocated the resources in the manner that they did. Following is a listing of proposed broad objectives and goals which promotes the preservation of the community's fiscal health: ●Apply Net New Growth as Allowed per State Levy Limit to Maintain and Enhance Services for a Growing Community ●Maintain High Bond Rating ●Limit One-Time Funding Sources ●Avoid Depletion of Special Revenue Funds & Utilize for the Purpose Created ●Support Economic Drivers to Ensure Long-term Viability, Including TID Creations and Incentives ●Strengthen Efficiencies ●Recognize and Respect the Expertise of Incumbent Employees ●Abide by General Operating Fund Balance Policy FUND BALANCE The City's fund balance policy addresses the ideal level of fund balance to be maintained in the General Fund which is the primary operating fund of the City, as well as Committed Special Revenues. In general, as recommended by the City Auditors and GAAP, the policy objectives are to provide for the following: - working capital to meet cash flow needs during the year (2 to 4 months of budgeted expenditures from the subsequent year) - preserving the City's credit rating for borrowing monies at favorable interest rates and minimizing fees - a comfortable margin of safety to address unanticipated expenditures / emergencies and unexpected declines in revenue due to economic downturns, natural disasters, etc. - a resource to stabilize fluctuations from year to year in the property taxes paid by the City of Muskego taxpayers - unfunded portion of accrued compensated absences liability BUDGET CATEGORIES As defined per State Statute, the City's budgets are presented using budget categories which include various departments & accounts. The following chart provides brief comprehensive objectives for budget development of each category. BUDGET CATEGORY DEPARTMENT / ACCOUNT GOALS / DESCRIPTION General Government:Continue, Strengthen or Seek Additional Efficiencies Mayor/Council Finance & Administration Assessor Law Non-Departmental Municipal Court Building Maintenance Information Technology Public Safety:Maintain a Volunteer Fire Service for Tax Payer Benefit/Enhance Drug Awareness Police Patrol Civilian Patrol Volunteer Fire Non-Departmental CDD-Building Inspection Health & Human Services:Enhance Drug Awareness through Website Animal Warden Public Safety Supplies CITY OF MUSKEGO 2015 SUMMARY BUDGET GUIDE BUDGET CATEGORY DEPARTMENT / ACCOUNT GOALS / DESCRIPTION Public Works:Continue Safe & Well Maintained Infrastructure/Regional Drainage Issues WI DOT Senior Taxi Transfer 'Senior Taxi' Account to Non-Departmental Engineering PW Administrative PW Maintenance PW Street Signs PW Storm Water PW Snow Removal PW Street Lights PW Machines & Equipment PW Garage Bridges & Dams Weed Cutting Culture, Recreation & Education:Maintain or Improve and Prioritize Master Plans Parade & LML Contribution Library Parks & Recreation Conservation & Development:Efficiencies/Support Economic Drivers to Ensure Long-term Viability Planning Division CDA Capital Outlay:(General Operating Budget) Continue General Accepted Accounting Principles Computer Replacements Includes: Mobile Devices Annual Equipment Replacements Police Estimated Useful Life over 1 Year Public Works Cost in Excess of $5,000 (General) & $10,000 (Infrastructure) Contingency:0.5% Minimum of Operating Expense for Unforeseen Events Plus Amount for Non-Departmental Unsettled Labor Contracts Debt Service:Limiting Borrowing to Long-Term Projects, Not to be Financed From Current Revenues General Final Maturity of Bonds/Notes Should Not Exceed Expected Useful Life of Project (over 10 years) CDA Lease Keeping within the Statutory Limit of 5% of the Equalized Valuation of Taxable Property Fees & Service Charges Providing a Cap on Total Annual Debt Service for General Obligation Debt (30% of Revenues) Maintain Communications with Bond Rating Agencies & Provide for Full Continuing Disclosure Special Revenue: Park Dedication 10% Contribution from Landfill Tipping Fees Per Agreement for Parks Projects Park Improvement Fund Tracks Subdivider Fees Against Relative Projects Refuse & Recycling Maintain User Rates for Waste Removal Service Fees Revolving Loan State Funding Loaned to Local Businesses at a Discounted Rate EPI Standing Committee Administrative & Committee Fees to Monitor Landfill Operations Under Terms of Contract Cable TV General Fund Designation for SIRE (Document Management) Annual Maintenance Expense Landfill Maintain minimum $1,000,000 Fund Balance Under Terms of Contract Future Parkland Standing Comm. Engineering Fees Incurred for Oversight of Former Briggs & Stratton Landfill. Well Testing Reserve 10% Contribution from Landfill Tipping Fees Per Agreement for Private Well Tests Land & Open Space Conservation 10% Contribution from Landfill Tipping Fees Per Agreement for Respective Projects Storm Water Priority Funding Per Landfill Agreement for Respective Projects Residual TIF/Capital Improvement Designated for Local Business Loan & Grant Program (Resolution #105-2009) TID #8 - Freedom Square TID #9 - CDA TID #10 - Moorland Gateway Recreation Ticket Sales Recommend Transfer to General Operating Budget Community Development Authority Operating Expenses Incurred by Authority for Redevelopment of Identified Areas Compensated Absences Fund Maintain Full Funding in Reserve/Fund Balance - Utilized for Employee Payouts *Assessment Fund Allocate $25K in Annual Operating Budget for Contracted Property Revaluation Expense *Facilities Needs Fund Dedicate up to 10% to Facilities Needs as Funds Become Available Note: * Proposed New Account or Designated Fund Dedicate Tax Increments for Relative Principal & Interest Payments CITY OF MUSKEGO Staff Report to Committee of the Whole August 12th, 2014 Meeting To: Committee of The Whole From: Jeff Muenkel, AICP Subject: Chicken Ordinance Discussion Date: August 6, 2014 Background Information: Some members of the Council requested that COW discuss possibly moving forward with a chicken ordinance for the City of Muskego. This was discussed in 2011 and COW decided not to move forward at that time. However, it appears that a few Alderman have many constituents behind such an ordinance today. Staff has included some information relating to chicken/duck ordinances from surrounding communities herein. Further, some questions to consider should an ordinance be prepared. Should COW want to move forward they should direct staff to prepare a new ordinance which will have to go thru the public hearing process since it would be a part of the Zoning Code. Please note some of the “Things to Consider” on the fact sheet attached as it would be good to direct staff any important details COW might want to see in an ordinance staff prepares one. Staff has prepared a possible ordinance change that would allow chickens in Muskego if COW desires. This ordinance change would occur in our RCE Rural Country Estate zoning district that applies to all residentially zoned areas in the city. Essentially, the ordinance would allow chickens in residentially zoned areas and would have the restrictions found in section b. below that should allow staff to enforce the ordinance. Staff took some of the more restrictive languages from ordinances in the surrounding area including having coop setback restrictions and nuisance restrictions. No permit would be required. Chapter 17, Section 8.01(3)B.6. The keeping or raising of domestic livestock for show, breeding, or other use incidental to the principal use of the premises subject to the following: a. The keeping or raising of hogs, or fur bearing animals other than rabbits shall not be permitted. b. The raising of chickens or ducks for personal use shall be considered an accessory use in all Single-Family Residential Zoning Districts and shall meet the following requirements below. For lots less than 120,000 square feet: 1. Up to a total of four chickens and/or ducks allowed per single-family dwelling. 2. No roosters. 3. No slaughtering. 4. Chickens and/or ducks shall be kept within a secure enclosure and said enclosure must be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. Said enclosure must be cleaned on a regular basis to prevent offensive odors. 5. Enclosures shall be located no closer than 25 feet to neighboring dwellings and a minimum of five feet from the property line. 6. The chickens and/or ducks cannot cause a nuisance, unhealthy condition, or interfere with the normal use of property or enjoyment of life by humans or animals. When more than four chickens, ducks, or other fowl are requested, then Section 8.01(3)B.6.c. applies. b.c. Not more than one head of livestock, and 20 fowl, shall be permitted per 40,000 square feet of lot area nor shall any such livestock or fowl be permitted on a lot less than 120,000 square feet in area. Community  Are Chickens Allowed  on Smaller Lots? # Allowed  Permit  Required?  Rooster  Allowed?  Slaughter  Permitted?  Coop  Restrictions?  New Berlin Yes 4 No No No  25' from neighboring homes, 5 '  from lot lines  Milwaukee  Yes,  Neighbors approval needed 4 Yes No No  Required, 25' from neighboring  homes, not in front yard  Madison Yes 4 Yes No No  Yes, must be enclosed, 25' from  neighboring homes  Franklin No, 3 acres or more ‐ ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  River Hills  Yes, typically larger lots  in the Village ‐ ‐ No ‐  ‐  Greenfield No ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  ‐  Oak Creek  No, Only in A‐1 Zoning  (Typically 5 Acres+) ‐ ‐ ‐  ‐  ‐  Wauwatosa Yes 4 Yes No No  Yes, must be enclosed, 25' from  neighboring homes  Greendale No ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐  ‐  General Observations:  Some communities allow chickens on residential lots, while some other do not.  The biggest concerns relate to cleanliness (relating to health issues and  smells) and noise.  These items appear to be addressable with proper code language and requirements.  Common Requirements:  1. Enclosures must be kept in a neat and sanitary condition at all times, and must be cleaned on a regular basis to prevent offensive odors.  2. Regulations do not apply to indoor birds kept as pets.  3. Not typically allowed on multi‐family, commercial, or mixed‐use properties.  4. Coops cannot be in homes or garages.  5. Chickens cannot cause a nuisance, unhealthy conditions, or interfere with the normal use of property or enjoyment of life by humans or animals.  6. The property must register as a "Livestock Premise" for chickens through the Wisconsin Department of Ag., Trade and Consumer Protection.  7. Coop must be located a certain distance from neighboring homes and/or lot lines.  Things to Consider:  1. Coops: Are they required?  Size minimums or maximums?  Building permits required?  Location requirements?  2. Licensing/Permits: Are licenses/permits required?  Permit fees?  Renewal required?  3. Chickens: Minimum lot sizes?  Number of chickens allowed?  Roosters allowed or hens only?    4. Is neighbor approval required?  Conditional Use Grant (CUG) required?  5. Can tenants or just property owners be allowed chickens?  6. Want to include ducks in this?