CCR1977254RESOLUTION #254-77
(As Amended)
DIRECTING THE MUSKEG0 POLICE DEPARTMENT TO
TO ISSUE CITATIONS AGAINST MUSKEG0
RENDERING COMPANY
WHEREAS, at the regular meeting of the Public Welfare Committee
held on October 12, 1977, the following motion was approved
Common Council that approval be given to cite
"That the Welfare -Committee recommend to the
the Muskego Rendering Company by the Muskego
Police Department upon citizen complaint for
malodorous odors emanating from the.Muskego
Rendering Company-under- provisions of Section
10.03 -- Public Nuisance,~_and -that: the Common
Council directs -.the :City. attorney- to -initiate
a nuisance citation under-the City's nuisance .
ordinance,=.Section 10.03.".
THEREFORE;=BE"IT ~RESOLVEDrthat the Common council of the.-City of
Muskego, upon the recommendat~ion of the -Public Welfare~ Committee,
does hereby approve of the Muskego Police Department citing the
Muskego Rendering Company upon citizen-complaints for malodorous
odors ema nating from the Muskego:Rendering Company under provisions
of Section 10.03-of the city!.s Municipal-Code.-. Public ,Nui.sance, "- and dir-ects ,~the :City iAttorneyl,.to ,init.iate .a nui'sance. citation under , - the 'Cityl'-s 'nuisance o~dinBnce:;-.-Sec'tion.-1-0.';03 :;"!
\ PUBLIC WE
Ald. Ralp'h R. Tomczyk v"
ATTEST.
City Clerk
.
I
Wl02 SBZOO RACINE AVENUE * MUSKEGO. WISCONSIN 53150
November 9. 1977
I, Bette J. Bowyer, City Clerk of the City of
Muskego, do hereby certify that on November 9, 1977,
the Mayor of the City of Muskego, submitted to this
office his.,i;iifention to veto Resolution #254-77,
entitled, Directing the Muskego Police Department to
Issue Citations Against Muskego Rendering Company,
which was adoped by the Common Council on November 8,
1977.
. Ii I
/
RESOLUTION #254-77
DIRECTING THE MUSKEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT TO
TO ISSUE CITATIONS AGAINST MUSKEGO
RENDERING COMPANY
WHEREAS, at the regular meet
Committee held on October 12
motion was approved:
"That the Welfare Corn
the Common Council th
to cite the Muskego R
the Muskego Police De
complaint for malodor
of Section 10.03 - Pu
the Muskego Rendering
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED t
Public Welfare Committee, d
the City of hluskego, upon r
Muskego Police Department c
Company upon citizen compla
provisions of Section 10.03
emanating from the Muskego
Code - Public Nuisance.
DATED THIS DAY OF , 1977.
ATTEST :
""_ Ald. Mark E. Pienltos
Ald. Thomas J. Van Lanen
Ald. Ralph R. Tomczyk
November 22, 1977
TO: THE HONORABLE ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF MUSKEG0
Gentlemen:
Resolution #254-77, As Amended, entitled, Directing the Muskego
Police Department to Issue Citations Against Muskego Rendering
Company.
On the 8th day of November, 1977, your honorable body adopted
The thrust of the resolution was that the Common Council approve
of the police department citing the rendering plant upon citizen
complaint for violation of Section 10.03 of the Municipal Code and
further that the City Attorney is directed to institute a nuisance
citation under the city's 'nuisance ordinance.
The resolution resulted from a series of complaints. from several
citizens that the police department has refused to cite the rendering
plant for a violation of Section 10.03 of the Municipal Code.
it appeared to me that it was not a question of whether or not the
citing of the Muskego Rendering Company would resolve the problem
During several discussions among the committee members and citizens
. but only that the owner be punished for creating it.
In reviewing the action taken by your body I do not take issue
with the fact that problems have occurred due to malfunctioning of
some portion of the operation of the company's equipment and possibly
poor housekeeping. What I do object to, however, is the Common
Council (legislative branch) imposing its will upon the law enforce-
ment agency and the city attorney's office. This, in my opinion,
is wrong and-establishes a very serious precedent regarding the re-
:latianship between a-legislative branch -of government. and -its law
:enforcement. agency. " as I. .have indicated to.-you previously ,. if a
law enforcement. agency is to function properly and beyond the- politics
of a- community. they must .be permitted the .right to-decide. whether. or
not there .has been a .violatton of a city ordinance and how to proceed
in the matter.
The prosecution of a: public nuisance is most difficult because of
the problem in proving guelt. Mr. Buckley has told us many times
that a nuisance to be considered a public nuisance must affect more
than one or two individuals and must be clearly documented. In dis-'
cussing this matter with Chief -Kraus and the city attorney it'was
agreed that in determining whether or not a person or persons should
be cited-under the public nuisance ordinance several things must
occur in order that the prosecution is fair and will stand up-in
court. They have. both advised~-me they do not need direction from
the Common Council to fulfill their legal responsibility, however,
what is needed is sufficient evidence to.:warrant t'aking the matter
to court. Chief. Kraus has-advised me that-if he received a signed
the violation occurred along with any other information-which might
complaint by several residents~documenting the time and place-where
help him he would as he does in most cases consult with the city
attorney prior to the issuance of a summons (or citation) to determine
its validity.
The Muskego Rendering Company is licensed by the State of Wisconsin
that licensing agency the license could be revoked. The City of
and it is my feeling that if they fail to meet the requirements of
Muskego does not have the power to revoke the license, or in my
opinion, to become involved in the compliance of that part of the
State Administrative Code under the jurisdiction of the DNR. This
view is substantiated by the fact that the DNR has, in fact, become
involved in the matter. They have issued an order that the objection-
able odors emitted from the rendering facility be controlled to
VYisconsin Administrative Code. They have further scheduled a public
equal or be below the level of that allowed by N.R. 154.18(1),
hearing on the matter.
- - . ..
As Mr. Buckley has stated, if the Common Council feels they have
the power to direct the activities of the police department and his
police department and his office to issue citations just to satisfy
office there could easily develop the possibility of forcing the
individual constituents without regard to due process of law. Or, the
or any agency of the city, by resolution, not to issue a citation.
reverse could also be true, that is, directing the police department
I am sure you will agree these kinds of procedures would bring
chaos to our city.
include such things as signs, political signs, traffic violations,
Dutch Elm disease, disorderly houses, gambling, stagnant water,
noxious weeds, adulterated foods, water pollution, air pollution,
unburied carcasses, etc.
Under Sections 10.02, .03, .04, .05, and .06, public nuisances
Chapter 10.07, entitled, Abatement-of Public Nuisances, states,
(1) Enforcement. the^ Chief of Police, the Chief of the Fire Depart-
ment, the Building Inspector and Health Officer shall enforce those
provisions of this chapter that come within the jurisdiction of their
offices, and they shall make periodic inspections and inspections upon
compl-aint to insure that such provisions are not violated. No action
shall be taken under this section to abate a public nuisance unless
the officer shall have inspected or caused to be inspected the premises
where the nuisance is alleged to exist and have satisfied himself
that a nuisance does in fact exist. (2) Summary Abatement. If the
inspecting officer shall determine that a public nuisance exists
within the"City .and that there.ri.s great and immediate danger to the
public health, safety, peace^, morals or decency., the Mayor may direct
the proper officer to cause the same to be abated and charge the cost
thereof to the owner, occupant or person causing, permitting or
maintaining the nuisance, as the case may be. (3) Abatement After
Notice; If the inspecting officer shall determine that a public
nuisance exists on.private premises .but--that the nature-of such
public health, safety, peace, morals or decency, he shall serve
nuisance .is not such as to threaten great and immediate danger to the
notice on the person causing or maintaining the nuisance to remove
the same within 10 days. If such nuisance is not removed within
such 10 days, the proper officer shall cause the nuisances to be
removed as provided in subsection (2).
Because of the nature of the problem I doubt very much that
emission of noxious odors falls under the jurisdiction of the Chief
of Police, however, more important than that is the question of whether
or not tbe Council, by resolution, intends in the future to determine
whether or not a nuisance exists and who shall be responsible for its
abatement.
question of whether or not a public nuisance exists but whether or
In summary, .I would like to reiterate once again it is not the
not the Common Council, by resolution, can or should impose its will
on those agencies hired by them to enforce the laws of the City of
bluskego.
It is for the above reason that I have chose to veto your action
of Resolution $254-77, As Amended. I respectfully ask that you
sustain that veto in order that the normal and healthy process of
body of this city.
law enforcement can continue free of interference from the political
JJG/je