Loading...
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - MINUTES - 2/5/1998 CITY OF MUSKEGO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FEBRUARY 5, 1998 The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Mayor De Angelis. Committee of the Whole members present were Aldermen Patterson (arrived during the first closed session), Pionek, Salentine, Sanders, Slocomb and Woodard. Alderman D’Acquisto was absent. Clerk-Treasurer Marenda, Finance Director Gunderson, Plan Director Sadowski were also present as were representatives from Wausau Insurance and those per the attached list. The Deputy Clerk was present for the purpose of taking minutes. The Deputy Clerk reported that the meeting was noticed in accordance with the Open Meeting Law on January 30, 1998. Alderman Sanders moved for approval of the minutes of the 12/18/97 meeting. Alderman Pionek seconded; motion carried. The Mayor read the notice of closed sessions. Alderman Salentine moved to convene into closed session pursuant to §19.85(1)(e) Deliberating or negotiating the purchasing of public properties, the investing of public funds, or conducting other specified public business, whenever competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session, and §19.85(1)(g) Conferring with legal counsel for the governmental body who is rendering oral or written advice concerning strategy to be adopted by the body with respect to litigation in which it is or is likely to become involved, more specifically Freedom Acres sewer backup claims, Hegler claims, and Accurate Cad/Cam claim. Alderman Sanders seconded. Motion carried 5- 0. The Clerk-Treasurer and Finance Director were present for the closed session. The Committee reconvened into open session; Alderman Patterson was present. No. 9 - Discuss Possible Contested Case Hearing - SEPI. Mayor De Angelis noted that at the February 2, 1998 meeting, the Public Services Committee made a recommendation to the Common Council to file a petition for a contested case hearing. The Mayor is looking for direction on how to proceed prior to the Council meeting as there is a very tight time table regarding the petition process. Mrs. Roseann Campbell, Loomis Drive, appeared before the Committee to present the highlighted points she made at the Public Services Committee meeting. She stated some of the concerns the residents have are: wetland elimination, traffic, congestion, destruction of our roads, possibility of spills, possible ground water contamination, increase in property devaluation, closeness to area wells and a navigational waterway, out-of-state waste, and the increased impact on nearby residents regarding noise, smell, dust and debris. She also outlined concerns the City should have: possible affect on Big Muskego Lake, possible road expansions, the City’s image, traffic Committee of the Whole February 5, 1998 Page 2 congestion, litter, smell, City liability, wetland elimination, the City taking a stand on landfills, and the possibility of future landfills. She encouraged the City to take a step back and determine what the vision for the future is. Some may view this as a financial gain; it could turn out to be the biggest liability the City has ever seen. The company has betrayed the City and residents. Due to the impact of the proposed expansion on residents and the City, she requests that the City proceed to file a petition for a contested case hearing. She stated that the County has requested an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and she believes the City should also request an EIS and go forth and do the best for the community. The Mayor noted that Mr. Kramer of Emerald Park was also present. Mr. Kramer stated he was available to answer any questions regarding the landfill. The Mayor outlined how the process will proceed. Legal fees are the responsibility of the City and are estimated at $10,000 to $15,000. The overall expense of the case may end up in excess of $100,000 to $200,000. Alderman Slocomb moved to recommend to the Common Council to file a petition for a contested case hearing and include that the DNR be required to complete an EIS. Alderman Sanders seconded. Motion carried 6-0. No. 2. Discuss Language to Advertise for Appointive Positions of Assessor and Clerk-Treasurer. The Mayor noted that this issue has a May 1 deadline and is time sensitive. He stated that the City’s labor attorney informed him there is not a requirement that the City advertise to fill the positions. The Mayor provided cost factors to demonstrate the expense the City incurs when placing employment ads. Costs for advertising for the positions of Computer Specialist and Parks and Recreation Director ranged from $1,000 to $1,400. It is the Mayor’s perspective that we currently have two highly qualified people in the positions that could be appointed. If members of the Committee want to go through a selection process, he needs to know. Alderman Pionek stated the people elected the two people in the positions and he supports keeping them on. The Mayor noted that discussion as to the individual appointments can be done during an agendized closed session. Alderman Sanders stated the people in the positions have been elected numerous times. They have done a very good job and there is no need to go through the selection process; their names should be brought forward. The Mayor noted that the existing job descriptions have been modified to account for the change from elected to appointed. Alderman Patterson moved to not advertise for the positions and allow the Mayor to bring forth the names of the people currently in the positions. Alderman Woodard seconded and asked if there was a term for the appointments. The Mayor noted that the people appointed would become nonrepresented employees as the other Department Heads and be subject to the guidelines outlined in the Personnel Code. Motion carried. No. 7 Review City Payroll Procedures and No. 10 Consider Uniform City Payroll The Mayor noted these items would be discussed at the 2/10/98 Council meeting. The Clerk-Treasurer was dismissed No. 4 Discuss Language to Advertise for New Hired Position of City Engineer Committee of the Whole February 5, 1998 Page 3 The Mayor distributed a proposed job description for the position for the Committee’s review. The Mayor noted that further discussion of this issue will take place at the February 19 Committee of the Whole meeting; the City should begin advertising in late March. The Finance Director was also dismissed at this time. No. 5 Consider Printing Copy of New Business Park Ordinance in Next City Newsletter and No. 6 Discuss Educating Citizens on Business Park Referendum Alderman Patterson stated instead of taking one item, we should take an overall approach to get the facts to the citizens to help them make a legitimate, honest decision. Mayor De Angelis stated information regarding TIF districts, the business park zoning category, general location information, and the pros and cons of both sides could be disseminated. Mayor stated it is our responsibility to educate the public on all sides of the issue. He outlined the deadlines for the City’s next newsletter which would contain an insert with the suggested information. Alderman Patterson stated we should look at more than the newsletter insert as a source of providing information. Other possibilities were discussed. Alderman Slocomb stated he will work with Matt Sadowski to reformat the business park district ordinance for the insert. The Mayor and Finance Director will work with the City’s financial consultant to compile information regarding TIF districts. Plan Director Sadowski will compile other pertinent information. A draft of the insert material will be reviewed at the February 19 Committee of the Whole meeting. Alderman Salentine suggested the Mayor do a “City Talk” presentation which could also contain the information. The Mayor noted that the newsletter is distributed to every boxholder in the City. Alderman Patterson suggested the information needed to be brought up several times. No. 11 Discuss Fire Department Contracts Review at next Committee of the Whole meeting so update from February 9 meeting can be included. No. 12 Determination of Council Veto Power Over Plan Commission Alderman Pionek stated he placed this item on the agenda in light of a recent newspaper article about the City of Waukesha. The Mayor presented information about how the Waukesha Common Council and Plan Commission approval process differs from ours. The veto power of their Council is actually more restrictive. Mr. Sadowski stated that the way our ordinance is currently written, the Council does have veto power over the Plan Commission. The Plan Commission does review and approve site plans. However, the use of property regarding rezonings, land divisions, legal lot status, etc. the Council has the final word on. Alderman Patterson asked what specific concerns anyone had about the way we have been doing things. Alderman Pionek discussed the design manual and the Plan Commission’s authority to adopt it. Mr. Sadowski stated the design manual contains the policies of the Plan Commission. There is nothing new; the policies are now just in written format. Mayor noted changes have taken place and evolved as our community has grown and changed. Mr. Sadowski stated the manual is meant to set standards so the City is developed to provide a unique look to the community and be a step above. Alderman Pionek stated Committee of the Whole February 5, 1998 Page 4 if our standards are too strict, we will not get anything. The Mayor noted that most corporations have a degree of flexibility in their designs. The manual offers a set of parameters to start with; every site is unique. Alderman Patterson noted that it needs to be clear that things can be changed. Alderman Salentine noted that Aldermen Pionek and Slocomb made good comments and suggestions to the Plan Commission regarding the manual. No. 13 Discuss Extension of Moorland Road (Alignment and Cost). Alderman Pionek brought the issue (as it relates to the extension of Moorland Road between Janesville and Woods) forward for discussion. We should be able to give potential developers a centerline alignment. Ruekert & Mielke would have to do. The Mayor stated we could get a cost estimate to be submitted to the Public Works Committee. Matt Sadowski suggested that the extension of Moorland Road from Woods Road to “OO” (where Durham Road swings to the west) should also be evaluated. There may be wetland issues. The Mayor noted that there has been no money budgeted for this. Alderman Patterson suggested that when the City hires an engineer, work on the latter part could be performed by this employee. Alderman Pionek also asked about the cost arrangement for potential developers. The Mayor noted that this discussion began at the Finance Committee level and certain points were established. The Committee determined this issue would be placed on the February 19 agenda to further develop a policy. Alderman Pionek noted he will not be in attendance at the next Committee of the Whole meeting. The Mayor noted there was no reason to go into closed session # 3 or #4. Alderman Salentine moved to convene into closed session (#2) pursuant to §19.85(1)(c) Considering employment, promotion, compensation, or performance evaluation data of any public employe over which the governmental body has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility, more specifically Recreation Supervisor position. Alderman Sanders seconded. Carried 6-0. The Deputy Clerk and Plan Director were dismissed. The Committee reconvened into open session. Alderman Sanders moved to adjourn at 10:37 p.m. Alderman Patterson seconded, motion carried 5-1 with Pionek voting “no.” Respectfully submitted, Jill Blenski Deputy City Clerk