Public Works Committee Packet 6-17-13
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF MUSKEGO
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE AGENDA
DATE: June 17, 2013
TIME: 6:00 P.M.
LOCATION: Aldermen’s Room – Upper Level of City Hall
W182 S8200 Racine Avenue
Muskego, WI 53150
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING HELD May 20, 2013
STATUS OF PROJECTS
Discussion update. No formal action may be taken on any of the following:
1. Janesville Road Reconstruction
2. Racine Avenue Recreational Trail
3. 2013 Road Program
4. Misc. Drainage Projects
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Discussion update and possible action may be taken on any or all of the following:
1. Discuss drainage issue near the intersection of Gold Drive and Diamond Drive.
2. Discuss drainage issue on Field Drive near Annes Way.
NEW BUSINESS
Discussion update and possible action may be taken on any or all the following:
1. Review and potential approval of revised construction plans for Belle Chasse Phase II.
2. Discuss policy regarding signs within public right of ways.
3. Review and potential approval of the 2012 Compliance Maintenance Annual Report.
NEW BUSINESS PLACED ON FILE
(The following items have been placed on file for staff review. Upon completion of review, staff will submit a supplement
detailing options and possible course of action to committee members.)
COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW
ADJOURNMENT
PLEASE NOTE: 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, contact Muskego City Hall, (262) 679-4100.
CITY OF MUSKEGO Unapproved
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD MONDAY, MAY 20, 2013
Ald. Dan Soltysiak called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Also present were Ald. Neil
Borgman and Public Works Director David Simpson. Ald. Bob Hammel excused.
Ald. Soltysiak led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The meeting was noticed in accordance with the Open Meeting Laws on May 17, 2013.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 15, 2013
Ald. Borgman moved to approve the minutes of April 15, 2013. Seconded by Ald. Soltysiak.
Motion carried 2-0.
STAFF REPORTS
None
STATUS OF PROJECTS
Director Simpson gave updates on the following projects:
Janesville Road Reconstruction – Project moving forward. Low bidder was Musson
Construction - the same contractor as first Phase.
Racine Avenue Recreational Trail – Still in DNR hands. Hoping permit will come through by
end of May.
2013 Road Program – On streets right now. See it at Finance and Council for approval on
May 28. Areas covered are Golden Country Estates, Crowbar from Field North, and
Crowbar from Kelsey South, and a few Parks projects. Bids will be open this week on
Thursday.
Flood Proofing of Structure on Saroyan Road – We obtained a grant from the DNR for
elevation of structure on Saroyan Road. Structure is in an unofficial flood plain. There is no
official FEMA map. We obtained grant last year. They realized their state statutes do not
match guidance documents. We received a letter about two weeks ago they were
rescinding our grant offer. We will look at other grant opportunities.
Miscellaneous Drainage Improvement Projects – Put this on to get you up-to-date on some
minor drainage issues we are dealing with. One is on Wildwood and Lake with basement
damage. One on East Drive Conservation Commission hasn’t looked at. Reditching on
Riese Drive.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
Discuss Island Drive Landscape Island Modifications – Ald. Borgman stated he and Director
Simpson were at the site. You can see on the top (lakeside) of the island tracks where the
trucks turn. We decided that if we took 3-1/2 – 4 ft. off the top of the island and put a curb
2
along it to prevent erosion, it would help the problem. Director Simpson advised staff looked
into the possibility of removing the island, which would also require the removal of the power
pole and other utilities. This would be more costly. Most residents affected by this project
would like to keep the island. Ald. Borgman made a resolution to move to Council to
shorten top end of island and adding a small section of curb to prevent erosion. Seconded
by Ald. Soltysiak. Motion carried 2-0.
Discuss Drainage Issue near the Intersection of Gold Drive and Diamond Drive – Two
homeowners near the intersection of Gold Drive and Diamond Drive have experienced
flooding related to storm water runoff coming from a large drainage area to the west of Gold
Drive per Director Simpson. City crews have worked for many years to attempt to remedy
the flooding in the existing drainage ditches along the roadside ditches. To reduce repeat
flooding many options exist and Director Simpson described four of them. After discussion
with Committee and homeowners it was decided to install a swale by clearing trees. Ald.
Borgman made a motion to try to contact people that would be affected for this drainage
option about tree clearing and draining option, and to put a swale in. We will bring back at
next meeting per Ald. Soltysiak. Ald. Soltysiak seconded. Motion carried 2-0.
Discuss Drainage Issue on Field near Annes Way – Director Simpson advised the
homeowners of S75 W2197 Field Drive have expressed concern related to storm water
runoff coming from a large drainage area from the rear of their property, approximately 60
acres, that drains into an area adjacent to their home. They have asked the City to look into
this. The downstream culverts and drainage areas must be considered when looking at this
project. Because of the complex series of wetland areas that act as natural retention ponds
it is difficult to assess the needs for a culvert system improvement. There are multiple
options for reducing the risk of flooding to this home. It was decided survey work would be
done and the size of the culverts and positions would be looked at. Ald. Borgman made a
motion that we pursue the investigation of the size of the culverts and the possible remedy.
Seconded by Ald. Soltysiak. Motion carried 2-0.
Discuss Drainage issue near Horn Park Drive at Pioneer Drive – Director Simpson stated
many owners of properties along Pioneer Drive have expressed concern related to storm
water runoff coming from the large wetland complex that is to the west and north of Horn
Park. The wetland complex drains through an existing 12” clay drain. During heavy rain
events when the wetland complex fills with water it begins to flow overland and eventually
through properties along Pioneer Drive. Completing a storm sewer installation along with
repairing the existing drain tile should reduce the likelihood of area wide flooding. Staff’s
recommendation is the installation of a 24” concrete storm sewer that will replace the
existing drain tile from the creek to the end of Horn Park Drive. This would enable the
system to take overland flows prior to reaching Pioneer Drive properties. Staff should be
able to survey and design the project. The existing Storm Water Special Revenue account
can be utilized to fund this project. Possibly putting a berm in back of Horn Park was also
discussed. Ald. Borgman made a motion to survey, design, permit and bid a project as
described above and shown on the attached exhibit. Ald. Soltysiak seconded. Motion
carried 2-0.
Review and Approve Sanitary Sewer Plan for the Davis CSM (Woods Road) - Director
Simpson advised at time of water main approval we had to split this project into separate
sanitary and watermain approval process because the property we required be connected to
sanitary wasn’t in the sanitary district. They had to go through the process and are nearing
completion. So I brought the plan here for approval so developer agreement can go to next
Council for approval. This is allowing one new lot to be created and that lot will be required
3
to connect to sewer and water. Ald. Borgman made a motion for approval of sanitary
connection. Seconded by Ald. Soltysiak. Motion carried 2-0.
Update regarding Molybdenum – A letter regarding Molybdenum was sent to residents
affected. The City of Muskego voluntarily tested all ten municipally owned wells. The
results of the test show that eight of the City owned wells have either none or very low levels
of Molybdenum. The two remaining wells which are located in the Champions Village
Subdivision tested at levels that exceed the State of Wisconsin groundwater standard.
Staff doesn’t have much more to offer than what was provided already. Director Simpson
just wanted to bring it to the Committees attention so you know we have taken both wells in
Champions Village off line temporarily until we get some better data from the DNR.
NEW BUSINESS PLACED ON FILE
Revise Sewer and Water Deferred Assessment Policy –
Staff needs more time per Director Simpson.
COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW
ADJOURNMENT
Ald. Borgman moved to adjourn the meeting 7:26 PM. Ald. Soltysiak seconded. Motion
carried 2-0.
Jeanne Struck
Recording Secretary
CITY OF MUSKEGO
Public Works Committee
To: Public Works Committee
From: David Simpson, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Subject: Discuss drainage issue near the intersection of Gold Drive and Diamond
Drive
Date: June 14, 2013
Previous Information:
Two homeowners near the intersection of Gold Drive and Diamond Drive have experienced flooding
related to storm water runoff coming from a large drainage area to the west of Gold Drive and have
asked the City to look into potential solutions. The existing area to the rear of their property drains at
least 5 acres, however, a more detailed analysis is needed to determine all of the drainage basin. City
crews have worked for many years to attempt to remedy the flooding in the existing drainage ditches
along the roadside ditches. In order to reduce the likelihood of repeat flooding, many option exist and
are described below and shown on the attachments.
A. Install 790 l.f. of storm sewer through easement and within School and Gold Drives. Approximate
cost would be $87,000 for the pipe installation plus $5,000-10,000 for easement acquisition for a
total cost of $92,000-97,000.
B. Install 715 l.f. of storm sewer in existing road right of way straight north on Gold for a total
approximate cost of $78,650.
C. Install 500 l.f. of storm sewer through an easement and City park land. Approximate cost for the
pipe installation would be $55,000 plus $5,000-10,000 for easement acquisition for a total cost of
$60,000-65,000.
D. Install a swale by clearing trees from approximately 1 acre of land and installing a swale to divert
the water south to an existing wetland. Approximate cost to clear the trees and install the swale
would be $30,000-50,000 plus easement acquisition costs ranging anywhere from $25,000-50,000
for a total project cost of $55,000-100,000.
All of these option have pros and cons and all should be discussed further by the Committee.
New Information:
At last month’s Public Works Committee Meeting, it was determined that option D
would be the preferred alternative. A draft design was established by staff (enclosed) and
resident contact was made. At this time, it appears that one resident may not be in favor
of this alternative. The Committee will need to decide if they would like to move ahead
with this alternative and utilize eminent domain or move ahead with a different
alternative as discussed previously.
Recommendation:
Discuss whether the Committee would like to move ahead with option D utilizing
eminent domain or move forward with a different alternative.
0
DRAFT
DRAFT
60.00'
60.00'
89
.
1
6
'
178.70'
146.28'
13
9
.
4
'
(
A
.
R
.
)
17
1
.
9
0
'
(
A
.
R
.
)
60.00'
25
4
.
8
4
'
25
4
.
4
4
'
25
4
.
0
4
'
13
9
.
3
8
'
13
8
.
3
6
'
35
'
179.70'
56.00'181.23'60.00'60.00'60.00'60.00'60.00'60.00'
19
.
0
0
'
>
>
97
.
5
0
'
60.00'60.0'58.00'56.00'
28
3
.
1
6
'
28
3
.
5
'
56.00'60.00'178.43'
25
6
.
8
4
'
25
7
.
4
5
'
25
7
.
6
0
'
60.00'
60.00'60.00'60.00'60.00'
179.31'
60.00'
20
9
.
5
0
'
122.00'54.00'
20
9
.
5
'
20
9
.
5
'
20
9
.
5
'
14
9
.
5
'
14
9
.
5
'
14
9
.
5
'
56.00'58.00'60.0'
145.00
'
11
0
.
0
0
'
55.00'45.00'
945.39'
13
9
.
2
6
'
13
9
.
2
5
'
235.00'
80
.
0
0
'
80
.
0
0
'
25
8
.
0
4
'
25
7
.
1
'
25
7
.
6
4
'
25
7
.
2
7
'
25
6
.
4
4
'
35
'
25
6
.
0
4
'
25
5
.
6
4
'
25
5
.
2
4
'
<<
>>
60.0'60.00'
20
9
.
5
'
20
9
.
5
0
'
20
9
.
5
'
1
1
3
.
3
5
'
>
>
75.00'
86
.
0
0
'
75.00'
25
7
.
1
1
'
25
7
.
4
3
'
60.00'
65.12'
167.99'
57.00'
54.00'54.00'122.00'60.00'60.00'60.00'60.00'60.00'
11
0
.
0
0
'
26
4
.
1
9
'
20
1
.
5
0
'
60.00'
60.00'60.00'
8
9
.
6
8
'
180.0'
180.0'
14
9
.
5
'
20
9
.
5
'
11
0
.
0
'
180.0'
60
'
11
0
.
0
'
60.00'60.00'
32.
6
'
13
9
.
4
'
(
A
.
R
.
)
17
1
.
9
'
(
A
.
R
.
)
13
9
.
4
'
(
A
.
R
.
)
30
'
108.94'
126.45'
1
1
7
.
9
0
'
60.00'
10
1
.
8
5
'
87
.
6
5
'
159.09'
5.
6
1
'
97
.
1
1
'
10
0
.
0
0
'
3.9
4
'
1
1
3
.
0
0
'
17
1
.
9
0
'
(
A
.
R
.
)
163.35'
80
.
0
0
'
10
5
.
0
0
'
13
5
.
0
0
'
15
2
.
5
0
'
7
5
.
0
0
'
2
4
0
.
0
8
'
8
7
.
0
0
'
7
2
.
5
0
'
32
.
5
0
'
32
.
5
0
'
60.00'60.0'60'
59'
13
9
.
2
'
(
A
.
R
.
)
109.84'
89
'
(
A
.
R
.
)
60.00'
26
'
(
A
R
)
-002
2177 2177-943
-004
-005
2177-996
2177-996
-001-9732177
-9692177
2174-197-001
-0012177-942
217721772177
2177-996-001
2177 2177-983-984
-980
2177-955
-972-973
2177-965 2177
2177-956
2174-1
1
1
2177
-967217721772177
2174-195
2174-197
2174-196
21772177
2177217721772177
-9642177
2177 2177-970
2177-971
2177-942-001
-976
-963-962-961-960-959-958-981-982
-974-975
!
!!
!
Approx. 790 feet ofNew Storm Sewer
SCHOOL DR
GO
L
D
D
R
PR
E
S
T
O
N
L
N
DI
A
M
O
N
D
D
R
806
808
8
1
0
81
2
814
81
6
8
1
8
82
0
822
8
2
4
8
0
4
83
4
826
832
830844
846
84
8
828
8
4
2
8
3
6
840
85
0
8
3
8
85
2
854
8
0
2
79
8
80
0
7
9
6
8
5
6
80
6
85
6
84
2
804 802 800
8
0
4
8
3
8
852
806
80
2
800
1 in = 80 ft
³
Legend
Storm Pipe
<all other values>
Storm Main Type
D Abandoned
Unknown
Double Underdrain
Underdrain
Cleanout
Culvert
Lead
Main
Stub
Sump
Private
Gold Drive Storm
Option "A"
60.00'
60.00'
17
3
.
2
0
'
98.95'
143.75'
127
.
4
4
'
89
.
1
6
'
424.03'
12
4
.
4
4
'
11
0
.
0
0
'
12
4
.
4
4
'
11
0
.
0
0
'
334.68'
178.70'
146.28'
13
9
.
4
'
(
A
.
R
.
)
17
1
.
9
0
'
(
A
.
R
.
)
60.00'
25
4
.
8
4
'
25
4
.
4
4
'
25
4
.
0
4
'
13
9
.
3
8
'
13
8
.
3
6
'
35
'
179.70'
56.00'181.23'60.00'60.00'60.00'60.00'60.00'60.00'
19
.
0
0
'
>
>
40
2
.
3
0
'
97
.
5
0
'
60.00'60.0'58.00'56.00'
28
3
.
1
6
'
28
3
.
5
'
56.00'60.00'
96.00'
103.
0
0
'
2
6
7
.
1
7
'
241
.
5
8
'
98.04'
25
.
5
4
'
128.29'
2
8
3
.
0
8
'
35.35'
60.00'
>
178.43'
25
6
.
8
4
'
25
7
.
4
5
'
25
7
.
6
0
'
60.00'
60.00'60.00'60.00'60.00'
60
.
0
0
'
59
.
0
0
'
198.98'
182.43'
60
.
0
0
'
165.58'
179.31'
60.00'
20
9
.
5
0
'
122.00'54.00'
20
9
.
5
'
20
9
.
5
'
110
.
0
0
'
>
20
9
.
5
'
14
9
.
5
'
14
9
.
5
'
14
9
.
5
'
56.00'58.00'60.0'
81.0
7
'
345.03'
145.00
'
71'
128.00
'
11
0
.
0
0
'
>
74
.
9
0
'
148.62'
127.10'
55.00'45.00'
<
35.00'
945.39'
983.85'
13
9
.
2
6
'
13
9
.
2
5
'
235.00'
235.00'
80
.
0
0
'
80
.
0
0
'
25
8
.
0
4
'
25
7
.
1
'
25
7
.
6
4
'
25
7
.
2
7
'
25
6
.
4
4
'
35
'
25
6
.
0
4
'
25
5
.
6
4
'
25
5
.
2
4
'
<<
>>
60.0'60.00'
20
9
.
5
'
20
9
.
5
0
'
20
9
.
5
'
11
3
.
3
5
'
254.03'
>>
>
>
>
>
>
160.59
'
72
.
1
0
'
3.0
0
'
8.
8
0
'
97
.
4
6
'
60.
0
0
'
>
>>
>
652.45'
450.73'
>
16
8
.
5
2
'
87.70'
87.70'75.00'
86
.
0
0
'
75.00'
25
7
.
1
1
'
25
7
.
4
3
'
25
7
.
8
0
'
60.00'
136.87'
65.12'129.47'57.
3
7
'
61.
0
3
'
167.99'
12
4
.
4
9
'
57.00'
54.00'54.00'122.00'60.00'60.00'60.00'60.00'60.00'
80.
0
0
'
73
.
2
3
'
11
0
.
0
0
'
26
4
.
1
9
'
20
1
.
5
0
'
10
0
.
0
0
'
280.48
'
91
.
2
0
'
143.61'
60.00'
60.00'60.00'
8
9
.
6
8
'
180.0'
180.0'
182.30'
14
9
.
5
'
20
9
.
5
'
11
0
.
0
'
180.0'
24
0
'
60
'
11
0
.
0
'
60.00'60.00'
>
>
32.
6
'
13
9
.
4
'
(
A
.
R
.
)
17
1
.
9
'
(
A
.
R
.
)
13
9
.
4
'
(
A
.
R
.
)
30
'
108.94'
126.45'
1
1
7
.
9
0
'
60.00'
10
1
.
8
5
'
87
.
6
5
'
159.09'
5.
6
1
'
97
.
1
1
'
10
0
.
0
0
'
3.9
4
'
58.
0
0
'
11
3
.
0
0
'
17
1
.
9
0
'
(
A
.
R
.
)
334.68'
334.68'
>
>
>
854.16'
163.35'
80
.
0
0
'
10
5
.
0
0
'
13
5
.
0
0
'
15
2
.
5
0
'
7
5
.
0
0
'
10
0
.
0
0
'
10
0
.
0
0
'
27
1
.
7
5
'
1
0
0
.
0
0
'
60.00'60.00'
2
4
0
.
0
8
'
60.00'
150.51'
250.00'
60.
0
0
'
15.00'
60.00'
20
5
.
4
0
'
20
8
.
6
0
'
(
A
.
R
.
)
87
.
0
0
'
7
2
.
5
0
'
60.00'60.00'
32
.
5
0
'
32
.
5
0
'
60.00'60.0'60'
59'
13
9
.
2
'
(
A
.
R
.
)
24'
109.84'
89'
(
A
.
R
.
)
60.00'53
.
0
0
'
182.91'
167.24'
26
'
(
A
R
)
-002
2177 2177-943 -943-001
2177-940-004
2177-940
-004
-005
2177-996
2177-996 2174-989
2174-971
2177-996-012
-001-9732177
-9692177
-121
2174-121-001
2174-197-001
-0012177-942
217721772177
2177-996-001
2177
2177-991
2177-990 2177
2174-985
2174-986
2177-012
2174-983
2174-973
2174-984
-983-984
2177-939-004
-980
2174 2174
2177-955
-972-973
2177-965 2177
2177-956
2177-996-013
2174-1
0
9
-
0
0
1
2174-1
0
9
2174-1
1
0
2174-1
1
1
2174-1
1
1
-120
2177
-967217721772177
2174-194
2174-195
2174-197
2174-196
21772177
2177217721772177
-9642177
2177 2177-970
2177-971
2177-992
2177-993
2177-994
2177-942-001
-976
-963-962-961-960-959-958-981-982
-974-975
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Approx. 715 feet ofNew Storm Sewer
GO
L
D
D
R
SCHOOL DR
DI
A
M
O
N
D
D
R
PR
E
S
T
O
N
L
N
SILVER DR
8
0
8
81
0
81
2
8
3
0
828
832
826
834
814
81
6
838 836
840
8
1
8
842
820
822844
82
4
846
8
4
8
850
85
2
8
0
4
7
9
8
8
0
6
80
0
854
8
0
2
7
9
6
8
5
6
858
860
794
816
824 794
80
6802804
794
81
2
808
81
2
84
2
800
81
0
8
0
8
814
85
2
8
0
4
806
798
79
8
852
81
4
802
1 in = 115 ft
³
Legend
Storm Pipe
<all other values>
Storm Main Type
D Abandoned
Unknown
Double Underdrain
Underdrain
Cleanout
Culvert
Lead
Main
Stub
Sump
Private
Gold Drive Storm
Option "B"
Approx. 500 feet ofNew Storm Sewer
GO
L
D
D
R
DI
A
M
O
N
D
D
R
SCHOOL DR
SILVER DR
TOPAZ DR
ONYX DR
7
9
6
79
8
82
0
8
0
8
818
81
6
81
2
81
4
822
8
2
4
80
0
826
828
8
0
2
8
0
4
806
83
0
832
83
4
81
0
794
794
808
80
2
7
9
8
80
8
8
0
4
798
8
0
0
7
9
6
798
81
2
814
824
798
80
6
798
79
6
808
812
796
79
8
8
1
0
1 in = 100 ft
³
Legend
Storm Pipe
<all other values>
Storm Main Type
D Abandoned
Unknown
Double Underdrain
Underdrain
Cleanout
Culvert
Lead
Main
Stub
Sump
Private
Gold Drive Storm
Option "C"
CITY OF MUSKEGO
Public Works Committee
To: Public Works Committee
From: David Simpson, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Subject: Discuss drainage issue on Field Drive near Annes Way
Date: June 14, 2013
Previous Information:
The homeowners of S75 W21497 Field Drive have expressed great concern related to storm water runoff
coming from a large drainage area to the rear of their property and have asked the City to look into
potential solutions. The existing area to the rear of their property drains approximately 60 acres into a
low area to the east of a driveway that holds water until it can drain through a culvert under Field Drive.
If a culvert was to be added under Field Drive we must consider downstream impacts. The attached
drawing shows the downstream culverts and drainage areas that must be considered when looking at this
project. The pictures below show some of the areas during a heavy runoff event.
Because of the complex series of wetland areas that act as natural retention ponds it is difficult to assess
the needs for a culvert system improvement. The residents that are concerned the most about this flooding
have not experienced any flooding of their home, however, they have experienced large amounts of water
around their home.
I see multiple options for reducing the risk of flooding to this home:
1. Add additional culvert capacity to the entire downstream system so that the area that currently
holds water will drain at a faster pace. This could be done by computing the existing ditches
maximum capacity and ensuring that the culvert system would match it. Cost would be
approximately $8,000 in materials (no labor, would be completed in house)
2. Hire a consulting engineer to model the existing system to see if other options exist. I would
estimate Engineering costs would be in the $5,000-$10,000 range.
3. Leave the system as is and do nothing.
New Information:
Since the last meeting, we were able to meet with residents in the area on-site and review
their concerns. We have determined that adding culvert capacity below Field Drive and
under two driveways prior to entering the retention area will be possible. As part of the
work, the homeowner on the NW corner of Field and Annes Way has asked that a berm
be removed to the south of their driveway and some additional grading of a swale be
completed to the north of the home near the roadway. We will also need to clean the
swale that leads from the retention area to the cross culverts under Annes Way. All of
this work will reduce the likelihood of flooding occurring at S75 W21497 Field Drive.
This work plan is shown on the attached plan as well.
Recommendation:
Direct staff to move ahead with the plan as described and shown on the attached plan.
2187-010
2187-011
2187-012
2185-999-001
2186-999-001
2186-001
2185-996
2185-996-001
2185-996-002
2185-995
2186-994
2186-995
2187-013
2187-014
2187-015
2187-016
2187-017
2187-018
2185-994-001
2185-994-003
2185-994-002
2186-993
2186-0022186-003
2186-004
2187-008
2187-009
2187-003
2187-004
2187-005
2187-006
2187-007
2188-995-006
2188-995-007
2188-995-008
2188-995-009
2188-995-010
2188-995-011
2187-001
2187-002
2186-006
2186-999
2186-990
2186-991-001
2186-991-002
2187-997
2187-997-001
2188-994
2186-005
2187-998
2185-995-001
2185-997
2187-996-001
2187-998-0012187-998-002
2187-998-003
2187-996
2188-998
2188-996-001
2188-986 2188-983
2188-995-004
2188-996
2188-997
2186-998-003
2186-998-005
2186-998-002 2185-999-003
!!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!!
1947RIM 885.16885.16 15X21"1946RIM 885.82885.82 15X21"
1948RIM 861.77 0.00
1949RIM 861.77861.77 15"
1950RIM 862.93862.93 15"
2021RIM 912.94912.94 48"
2022RIM 914.44914.44 48"
2020RIM 907.45907.45 12X18"
2019RIM 907.53907.53 12X18"
2017RIM 905.50905.50 15X21"
2018RIM 904.82904.82 15X21"
2014RIM 905.08905.08 24X36"2016RIM 904.95904.95 24X36"
2015RIM 904.70904.70 24X36"
28 Acres 19 Acres 4 Acres
60 Acres
Existing Culverts to Remain
Swale Areas
Remove Berm Add Additional 18"x29" Culvert
Replace Existing with a 36" Culvert
New 18" Culvert
FIELD DR
AN
N
E
S
W
A
Y
TWIN
P
O
N
D
S
R
D
CRIMSO
N
C
T
CITY OF MUSKEGO
Public Works Committee
To: Public Works Committee
From: David Simpson, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Subject: Belle Chasse Phase II- Approval of revised construction plans
Date: June 14, 2013
The second phase of the Belle Chasse subdivision was scheduled to move forward
this Spring, however, a new wetland delineation was required prior to
commencement of construction. The new wetland delineation was completed and
confirmed by the WDNR which identified wetlands that were not previously
mapped. This is most likely because the property was being farmed during the
previous delineation and is no longer being farmed.
A redesign of part of the subdivision is now required to work around the wetlands.
The attached maps show the new design along with the new construction plan
layout. In order to keep the project moving ahead, staff would like the Committee
to approve the revised construction plans contingent upon final revisions being
approved by myself.
Recommendation for Action:
Approve the revised layout and construction plans contingent upon final revisions
being approved by the Director of Public Works.
To: City of Muskego – Department of Public Works
CC: Dave Simpson, Jeff Muenkel,
From: Belle Chasse Partners LLC
Date: 6/13/2013
Re: Belle Chasse Phase 2 Changes
Belle Chasse Partners LLC acquired the 22 acres of land adjacent to Belle Chasse with the
understanding that is was planned and approved for a 43 lot single family residential
subdivision. The plan was reviewed and approved by the City of Muskego and permits had
been issued by the City of Muskego and the WDNR. Construction was scheduled to
commence in May 2013 with lots ready for home construction by late summer 2013.
SEWRPC reviewed the Sanitary/Water Permit application and determined that new wetland
delineation would need to be completed on the site. A new wetland delineation was
completed on May 31. It identified more areas of wetlands that were not defined on the
previous delineation.
The new areas of wetland impacted the overall plat design for Belle Chasse Phase 2. The
road connection to Mystic Drive adjacent to Grey Fox Trail was no longer possible and
several lots could not be constructed. A revised plat design had to be completed. This
revised plat design has 39 single family lots as opposed to the initial design of 43 single
family lots. We ask that you review the enclosed new site design for Belle Chasse Phase 2.
Our intention is to begin construction in two phases for this project. It is our belief that lots
44-46, 61-66, and 70-81 are in substantial conformance to the approved Preliminary Plat.
We would like to begin construction on these lots as soon as possible. We have the permits
necessary to begin construction. The Sanitary and Water System for these lots have not
changed. Storm Sewer plans have changed. With the review and approval of Municipal
Staff/DPW we would like to begin construction on these lots in July.
We intend to submit a revised Preliminary Plat for lots 47-61, and 67-69. We understand
that we will need to have the preliminary plat reviewed and approved by City Staff and City
Council. If the approvals are received for the revised Preliminary Plat lots 47-61, and 67-69
we would begin construction in Late Summer August/September.
Enclosed with this submittal are the Lot Layout, Adjusted Utility Layout, and Phasing
Layout for Belle Chasse Phase 2. We respectfully request to have the plans reviewed by the
Department of Public Works at the June 17, 2013 meeting and Common Council review at
the Common Council meeting on June 25, 2013.
Please advise us if any further clarification or documentation is needed.
We appreciate your assistance with this project.
Belle Chasse Partners LLC
CITY OF MUSKEGO
Staff Report to Public Works Committee
June 17, 2013 Meeting
To: Public Works Committee
From: Jeff Muenkel, AICP
Subject: Right-of-Way Signs
Date: June 12, 2013
Background Information:
It has come to our attention that the Public Works Committee has requested to look at how signage
is handled by staff and the City’s ordinances relating to the placing of signs in the road rights-of-
way.
In all, the city has a pretty strict ordinance (Chapter 17:16.05 shown below) that states that no sign
shall be placed within the ultimate right-of-way of any street or highway with the exception of City
gateway/directional signage and Community Event Signs that are approved by the Community
Development Department. This ordinance goes on to say that any sign violating this ordinance may
be summarily removed by the Director of Community Development or his designee.
The city has treated this ordinance like all of our zoning codes where we usually go by a complaint
basis. Thus, signs in the right-of-way are removed by Community Development Department staff or
at times PW staff once a formal complaint is found from an elected official. In the past we have
completed removal of specific signs, or all signs in a given location, based on complaints usually
around the times of elections. Staff has of course removed signage immediately though at times
when a sign is found to be a safety hazard.
For the most part staff hasn’t really found miscellaneous signs in the right-of-way to a problem with
the exception of around Janesville Road from Racine-Moorland and along Moorland Road from
Janesville to College. We foresaw this issue a couple years ago and actually had the following
recommendation written into the City’s adopted Redevelopment District #2 Plan under the general
Beautification & Upkeep Section:
One aspect of Janesville Road effecting overall appearance is in relation to temporary signs
randomly dotting the intersections in relation to telemarketing efforts or rummage sales. No
temporary signage of this nature is allowed in the county or city rights-of-way by City
Ordinance. Thus, by adoption of this Plan, the City will enforce this ordinance by removing
any signage in the rights-of-way within Redevelopment District #2 immediately upon being
found. Note: Temporary signage for businesses is still allowed by City ordinances as long as
proper permits are sought, and the sign is located outside of the public right-of-way.
Recommendation:
With the new beautification of Janesville Road being completed staff sees no issue in taking a more
active role in enforcing our prohibition of signs in the City right-of-ways. A Public Works
Committee approval to have Public Works staff and Community Development Department staff
remove any signs, within a given defined area, would work well in enforcing this ordinance. We’d
recommend that this enforcement apply specifically to Janesville Road from Racine-Moorland and
along Moorland Road from Janesville to College. The rest of the city would simply fall under our
complaint policy. Once this direction is given we could ensure that this staff knows to be on the
look for cleaning up these signs during a defined day of the week. Mondays would most likely work
best given that some people do put up signs and immediately take them down, such as rummage
sales and these signs usually don’t affect the given character of the roadways and usually are around
only during a weekend.
Community Development Department staff will still approve general community event signage hat
can be placed in the road rights-of-way and will have to work with PW staff to let them know
which signs are still allowed from time to time.
Chapter 17: 16.05
PLACEMENT IN RIGHT OF WAY PROHIBITED
No sign shall be placed within the ultimate right-of-way of any street or highway. The only exemption to this
are City gateway/directional signage and Community Event Signs that are approved by the Community
Development Department in advance, are determined to not hamper safety, and are erected for a specific
temporary period of time. The prohibition hereunder extends to trees, utility poles, fence posts, stakes, and
all other structures on which signs might be posted or placed except political signs installed or placed on
motor vehicles. Any sign violating this Section may be summarily removed by the Director of Community
Development or his designee.
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF MUSKEGO
Staff Report to Public Works Committee
To: Public Works Committee
From: David Simpson, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Subject: Recommend approval of the Compliance Maintenance Annual Report
(CMAR) for 2012
Date: June 14, 2013
One of our responsibilities in the operation of the City’s Sanitary Sewer Conveyance
System comes from the WDNR. They require an annual report titled “Compliance
Maintenance Annual Report” (CMAR). Part of the report (see attached) is a
requirement to have a resolution such as the attached resolution in order to ensure
that elected officials are aware of the current state of the system by sharing the
CMAR and ensuring adequate funding is available to the Utility.
For the year 2012 the City’s Grade was an A (4.0) as can be seen on the attached
report.
Recommendation:
Recommend approval of the attached resolution.
Page 2 of 2
COMMON COUNCIL - CITY OF MUSKEGO
RESOLUTION #____-2013
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
NR 208 - COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE RESOLUTION
FOR 2012
WHEREAS, It is a requirement under a Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (WPDES) permit issued by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources to file a Compliance Maintenance Annual Report (CMAR) for
the City of Muskego’s wastewater collection system under Wisconsin
Administrative Code NR 208; and
WHEREAS, It is necessary to acknowledge that the governing body has
reviewed the Compliance Maintenance Annual Report (CMAR) for 2012.
WHEREAS, The Muskego Sewer Utility had a 4.0 average in 2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED That the Common Council of the City of
Muskego, upon the recommendation of the Public Works Committee, does
hereby commit the necessary funding to operate the City’s sewer utility efficiently
and maintain its above 3.0 grade point average.
DATED THIS DAY OF , 2013.
SPONSORED BY:
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT
Facility Name: Muskego City Last Updated:
6/3/2013
Reporting Year: 2012
Financial Management
Name:Scott Kloskowski
Telephone:(262) 679-4128
E-Mail Address(optional):skloskowski@cityofmuskego.org
Yes (0 points)
No (40 points)
If No, please explain:
0-2 years ago (0 points)
3 or more years ago (20 points)
Not Applicable (Private Facility)
Yes
No (40 points)
REPLACEMENT FUNDS(PUBLIC MUNICIPAL FACILITIES SHALL COMPLETE QUESTION 5)
5.1 When was the Equipment Replacement Fund last reviewed and/or revised?
Year: 2012
1-2 years ago (0 points)
3 or more years ago (20 points)
Not Applicable Explain:
5.2 What amount is in your Replacement Fund?
Equipment Replacement Fund Activity
5.2.1 Ending Balance Reported on Last Year's CMAR:$762462.99
5.2.2 Adjustments
if necessary (e.g., earned interest, audit correction, withdrawal of
excess funds, increase making up previous shortfall, etc.)
+$0.00
5.2.3 Adjusted January 1st Beginning Balance $762,462.99
Questions Points
1.Person Providing This Financial Information
2.Are User Charge or other Revenues sufficient to cover O&M Expenses for your wastewater
treatment plant AND/OR collection system ?
0
3.When was the User Charge System or other revenue source(s) last reviewed and/or revised?
Year: 2012
0
4.Did you have a special account (e.g., CWFP required segregated Replacement Fund, etc.) or
financial resources available for repairing or replacing equipment for your wastewater treatment
plant and/or collection system?
0
5.Equipment Replacement Funds
0
Page 1 of 10
5.2.4 Additions to Fund (e.g., portion of User Fee, earned interest, etc.)+$27,387.91
5.2.5 Subtractions from Fund (e.g., equipment replacement, major repairs
- use description box 5.2.5.1 below*.)
-$0.00
5.2.6 Ending Balance as of December 31st for CMAR Reporting Year $789,850.90
(All Sources: This ending balance should include all Equipment Replacement
Funds whether held in a bank account(s), certificate(s) of deposit, etc.)
*5.2.5.1. Indicate adjustments, equipment purchases and/or major repairs from 5.2.5 above
5.3 What amount should be in your replacement
fund? $215,000.00
(If you had a CWFP loan, this amount was originally based on the Financial Assistance Agreement
(FAA) and should be regularly updated as needed. Further calculation instructions and an example
can be found by clicking the HELP option button.)
5.3.1 Is the Dec. 31 Ending Balance in your Replacement Fund above (#5.2.6) equal to or greater
than the amount that should be in it(#5.3)?
Yes
No Explain:
6.1 During the next ten years, will you be involved in formal planning for upgrading, rehabilitating
or new construction of your treatment facility or collection system?
Yes (If yes, please provide major project information, if not already listed below)
No
6.Future Planning
7.Financial Management General Comments:
Total Points Generated 0
Score (100 - Total Points Generated)100
Section Grade A
COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT
Facility Name: Muskego City Last Updated:
6/3/2013
Reporting Year: 2012
Financial Management (Continued)
Page 2 of 10
COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT
Facility Name: Muskego City Last Updated:
5/22/2013
Reporting Year: 2012
Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems
Yes
No
Yes (go to question 3)
No (30 points) (go to question 4)
Goals: Describe the specific goals you have for your collection system:
Properly manage, operate and maintain all parts of the collection system, provide
adequate capacity to convey base and peak flows, prevent and mitigate impacts of
SSO's, provide notification to those with reasonable potential for exposure to
pollutants associated with SSO's
Organization: Do you have the following written organizational elements (check only
those that you have):
Ownership and governing body description
Organizational chart
Personnel and position descriptions
Internal communication procedures
Public information and education program
Legal Authority: Do you have the legal authority for the following (check only those that
apply):
Sewer use ordinance Last Revised MM/DD/YYYY 05/22/2003
Pretreatment/Industrial control Programs
Fat, Oil and Grease control
Illicit discharges (commercial, industrial)
Private property clear water (sump pumps, roof or foundation drains, etc)
Private lateral inspections/repairs
Service and management agreements
Maintenance Activities: details in Question 4
Design and Performance Provisions: How do you ensure that your sewer system is
designed and constructed properly?
State plumbing code
DNR NR 110 standards
Local municipal code requirements
Construction, inspection and testing
Others:
Questions Points
1.Do you have a Capacity, Management, Operation & Maintenance(CMOM) requirement in your
WPDES permit?
2.Did you have a documented (written records/files, computer files, video tapes, etc.) sanitary sewer
collection system operation & maintenance or CMOM program last calendar year?
0
3.Check the elements listed below that are included in your Operation and Maintenance (O&M) or
CMOM program.:
Page 3 of 10
Overflow Emergency Response Plan: Does your emergency response capability
include (check only those that you have):
Alarm system and routine testing
Emergency equipment
Emergency procedures
Communications/Notifications (DNR, Internal, Public, Media etc)
Capacity Assurance: How well do you know your sewer system? Do you have the
following?
Current and up-to-date sewer map
Sewer system plans and specifications
Manhole location map
Lift station pump and wet well capacity information
Lift station O&M manuals
Within your sewer system have you identified the following?
Areas with flat sewers
Areas with surcharging
Areas with bottlenecks or constrictions
Areas with chronic basement backups or SSO's
Areas with excess debris, solids or grease accumulation
Areas with heavy root growth
Areas with excessive infiltration/inflow (I/I)
Sewers with severe defects that affect flow capacity
Adequacy of capacity for new connections
Lift station capacity and/or pumping problems
Annual Self-Auditing of your O&M/CMOM Program to ensure above components are
being implemented, evaluated, and re-prioritized as needed.
Special Studies Last Year(check only if applicable):
Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) Analysis
Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES)
Sewer Evaluation and Capacity Managment Plan (SECAP)
Lift Station Evaluation Report
Others:
8Cleaning % of system/year
0Root Removal % of system/year
100Flow Monitoring % of system/year
0Smoke Testing % of system/year
20Sewer Line Televising % of system/year
4.Did your sanitary sewer collection system maintenance program include the following
maintenance activities? Complete all that apply and indicate the amount maintained:
COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT
Facility Name: Muskego City Last Updated:
5/22/2013
Reporting Year: 2012
Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems (Continued)
Page 4 of 10
53Manhole Inspections % of system/year
52Lift Station O&M # per L.S/year
.1Manhole Rehabilitation % of manholes rehabed
.1Mainline Rehabilitation % of sewer lines rehabed
.01Private Sewer Inspections % of system/year
.01Private Sewer l/l Removal % of private services
Please include additional comments about your sanitary sewer collection system below:
Minor manhole and mainline leaks are repaired by staff when found.
29.29 Total Actual Amount of Precipitation Last Year
34.81 Annual Average Precipitation (for your location)
150 Miles of Sanitary Sewer
28 Number of Lift Stations
0 Number of Lift Station Failure
0 Number of Sewer Pipe Failures
0 Number of Basement Backup Occurrences
0 Number of Complaints
1.53 Average Daily Flow in MGD
2.73 Peak Monthly Flow in MGD(if available)
5.Provide the following collection system and flow information for the past year:
COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT
Facility Name: Muskego City Last Updated:
5/22/2013
Reporting Year: 2012
Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems (Continued)
Page 5 of 10
Peak Hourly Flow in MGD(if available)
COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT
Facility Name: Muskego City Last Updated:
5/22/2013
Reporting Year: 2012
Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems (Continued)
Page 6 of 10
NUMBER OF SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS (SSO) REPORTED (10 POINTS PER OCCURRENCE)
Date Location Cause Estimated
Volume (MG)
NONE REPORTED
Were there SSOs that occurred last year that are not listed above?
Yes
No
If Yes, list the SSOs that occurred:
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
0.00 Lift Station Failures(failures/ps/year)
0.00 Sewer Pipe Failures(pipe failures/sewer mile/yr)
0.00 Sanitary Sewer Overflows (number/sewer mile/yr)
0.00 Basement Backups(number/sewer mile)
0.00 Complaints (number/sewer mile)
1.8 Peaking Factor Ratio (Peak Monthly:Annual Daily Average)
0.0 Peaking Factor Ratio(Peak Hourly:Annual daily Average)
Yes
No
If Yes, please describe:
Yes
No
If Yes, please describe:
0
6.Was infiltration/inflow(l/l) significant in your community last year?
7.Has infiltration/inflow and resultant high flows affected performance or created problems in your
collection system, lift stations, or treatment plant at any time in the past year?
8.Explain any infiltration/inflow(l/l) changes this year from previous years?
COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT
Facility Name: Muskego City Last Updated:
5/22/2013
Reporting Year: 2012
Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems (Continued)
Page 7 of 10
Drought conditions kept I&I to a minimum
We have the ability to do spot mainline repairs and to grout manholes when leaks are found.
We have also participated in the MMSD private property I&I reduction program.
9.What is being done to address infiltration/inflow in your collection system?
Total Points Generated 0
Score (100 - Total Points Generated)100
Section Grade A
COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT
Facility Name: Muskego City Last Updated:
5/22/2013
Reporting Year: 2012
Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems (Continued)
Page 8 of 10
COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT
Facility Name: Muskego City Last Updated:Reporting Year: 2012
WPDES No.0047341
Notes:
A = Voluntary Range
B = Voluntary Range
C = Recommendation Range (Response Required)
D = Action Range (Response Required)
F = Action Range (Response Required)
GRADING SUMMARY
SECTION LETTER
GRADE
GRADE
POINTS
WEIGHTING
FACTORS
SECTION
POINTS
Financial Management A 4.0 1 4
Collection Systems A 4.0 3 12
TOTALS 4 16
GRADE POINT AVERAGE(GPA)=4.00 4.00
Page 9 of 10
COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE ANNUAL REPORT
Facility Name: Muskego City Last Updated:Reporting Year: 2012
Resolution or Owner's Statement
NAME OF GOVERNING BODY OR OWNER DATE OF RESOLUTION OR ACTION TAKEN
City of Muskego
RESOLUTION NUMBER
ACTIONS SET FORTH BY THE GOVERNING BODY OR OWNER RELATING TO SPECIFIC CMAR
SECTIONS (Optional for grade A or B, required for grade C, D, or F):
Financial Management: Grade=A
Collection Systems: Grade=A
ACTIONS SET FORTH BY THE GOVERNING BODY OR OWNER RELATING TO THE OVERALL GRADE
POINT AVERAGE AND ANY GENERAL COMMENTS (Optional for G.P.A. greater than or equal to 3.00,
required for G.P.A. less than 3.00) G.P.A. = 4.00
Page 10 of 10