The Meeting of the Common Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, December 11, 2007. It was noted
that the meeting had been announced and a notice posted at City Hall.
Roll call was taken, with the following members present: Mayor Jim Bialecki, Ald. Mike Giese, Ald. Bob
Muth, Ald. Tim Miller, Ald. Jim Olson, Ald. Kim Smith, and Ald. Clarence
Stellner. Also in attendance were City
Clerk Cari Burmaster, Finance Director Fred Buehler, City Engineer Jarrod
Holter, Land Use & Development Director Jason Gilman, and City Attorney
Sean O’Flaherty.
Item 2 - Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was declared.
Item 3 - Approval of minutes from previous meeting.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Stellner, to approve the minutes
from the previous meeting as printed and on file in the City Clerk’s
Office. On voice vote, motion carried.
Item 4 - PUBLIC INPUT: (limited to 3 minutes/individual)
Mayor Bialecki turned the agenda item over to anyone wishing to provide
input.
Ann Brandau
“I’m here again to address Item 10(a), which is under the Plan
Commission, the preliminary plat application by Dave Evenson. When I was here last month, this council sent
the preliminary plat back to the Planning Commission with the understanding
that there were issues that needed to be discussed, resolved. At that time, (the time of the Planning
Commission), I was in attendance, as were a few other members of the
neighborhood. I will compliment Councilman
Giese on his conduct of the October Planning Commission because it was plainly
obviously when there was supposed to be public input. Unfortunately, at the November meeting, the
question was raised is there any discussion, and the impression from those of
us in the audience was that the discussion was internal and then would be
brought up to those of us who had an opportunity to speak for or against this
particular plat design.
Unfortunately, that wasn’t the way it was handled, and the question was
called without any discussion and without any comment internally other than Mr.
Gilman was asked, were the issues that were raised addressed - and I’m not sure
who he addressed them with because Mr. Evenson certainly declined to have any
meeting with me or any other members of the neighborhood about these
issues. The motion was then passed
without any further discussion and it came back to you tonight. We’re trying to be very succinct – rather
than trying to beat a dead horse, I’m going to give you my reasons why I think
this plat as designed is not the best for the community, for the city. And although I will admit that I had a prior
life as a map maker, the rendition that I have that I’d like to show you (and I
wish I had copies of everybody, but I don’t) shows at least one example of an
alternative that I believe would be a better design and I’ll explain why.
As you can see from the design, it is designed to create a looped
road. I raised this issue with Mr.
Gilman early on in this process, and I asked him would it be feasible to do
this. He said point blank, “Yes it would
be.” Mr. Evenson, when I spoke to him
said, well the city wouldn’t allow us to do it this way. I see no reason why that can’t be done as an
alternative, and when you look at that design, it does, (I will acknowledge),
it reduces the number of lots from 20, which is what Mr. Evenson has proposed,
to 19. However, 4 of those lots, (the
ones I have restructured) are actually larger in some cases than the lots that
Mr. Evenson had proposed with his design.
It preserves room for the storm water drainage area, and it provides for
19 lots. The other question that had
been raised was, if those roads go in and out of Valley View, won’t the
headlights from the cars somehow shine onto the houses across the street. While this is certainly not a perfect
rendition, it is designed in such a way so that when I looked at the houses
that are in those lots across from the inlet from Valley View into this new
subdivision, those roads, (the lane that would have traffic coming out with
headlights) would actually hit the garage area of both of the houses that
happened to be across the street – they would not be glaring into someone’s
living room. In fact, all of the roads
out there that seem to come in and out have that tendency – they tend to be in
an area where they’re not going to hit the part of the house that would
necessarily be disruptive to living in a home – they would be hitting, if at
all, the garage area.
But I have actually several points I would like to make in support of
this council looking at this design. I
was told by Mr. Gilman that this council has the authority to encourage and to
request that this road be redesigned from the plat that Mr. Evenson has
presented, and that’s the reason I brought it here. If you don’t have the authority to enforce
this option or at least look at it, then I guess I’ve been misinformed.
First of all I think this does a better job of complying with the
comprehensive plan. There’s no need to
cut away any of the trees along South Kinney Coulee in the right of way, so you
continue to have that natural barrier.
It can retain much, if not all, of the current land contour. It can preserve the scenic views, which is part
of the requirements under the comprehensive plan for a conservation cluster
district. It avoids any excessively steep
driveways or roads, which is also part of the comprehensive plan. Most of the lots would access the interior
street, which is exactly what the comprehensive plan requires. It would also minimize the street lengths. The lots would be grouped to minimize the
impact on the surrounding areas – there’s less disturbance of any mature trees
in the area.
The second issue that I think is important is public safety. The design that Mr. Evenson has brought
forward here has a road going out onto South Kinney Coulee. That road has a grade that will be in excess
of 6% - while that technically fits under the rules, the design for your
general subdivision regulation street design, 14170(n)(1) indicates that 6% is
what should be the highest grade in an arterial street. This is going to exceed according to your
engineering department – it will exceed 6%, and it’s going to be the kind of
design where I don’t know how much forgiveness there will be because you’re
going to be coming off a fairly steep incline onto South Kinney Coulee with no
run off – it’s not like you can go straight ahead if you were to be there
during inclement weather or icy patches, I was told that road would certainly
need to be salted regularly to keep it free of ice as currently designed. It would avoid obviously any possible
liability for designing what would be a potentially hazardous street. It faces north – that means it’s going to get
little or no sunlight – its going to have the ability to ice up regularly, and
it has no run off, as I indicated.
During inclement weather, I think the vast majority of people living in
there, even if there was a road going off to South Kinney Coulee, the vast
majority of the people are going to go out on Valley View anyhow because it’s
going to be the safer of the two options – it’s going to be flat, it’s going to
be level. They’re not going to be – at
least from a common sense standpoint – I don’t think people would be using that
road in the winter months if the roads are slippery or inclement anyway, so
it’s not that you would be directing traffic that direction.
The third issue is really taxpayers’ savings. The design, as presented by Mr. Evenson,
requires the city to improve
As I mentioned, Mr. Gilman has indicated that this is a possible
option. The down side for Mr. Evenson is
that he’ll have one less lot to develop, but I’m not really sure that the
city’s concern should be how many possible lots Mr. Evenson has to
develop. I think public safety and
taxpayer dollars and proper road design should certainly take precedent over
his profit motive. It would do a lot to
alleviate any noise concerns that have been raised for those of us living on
the
In response to comments, Mayor Bialecki indicated that this is not a
public hearing and clarified that in the previous meeting which was referred to
earlier where Ald. Giese gave the opportunity to speak, that was not a public
hearing and, therefore, there was no obligation for a public forum.
Dave Evenson
“I understand this young lady’s concerns and stuff like that. We’ve developed in this city for 38 years,
and I think we’re proud of every subdivision we did. We worked very closely with your planner,
your city engineer. A lot of these
things are things that they wanted and things of this nature, so we think we
have proposed the best plan under the scrutiny of the planner and the city
engineer, which made a recommendation, I know, to the Plan Commission and stuff
like that. So I guess that’s what I
would like to say. We’ve done it to the
comprehensive plan and things of this nature.
Any questions?”
This item was completed in Item 10 (a) of this agenda.
Item 5 - REPORT FROM THE MAYOR.
No report.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROVAL
AND/OR POSSIBLE ACTION FROM THE FOLLOWING COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS/BOARDS:
Item 6 – FINANCE COMMITTEE:
A. Vouchers.
Motion by Ald. Olson, second by Ald. Muth, to approve Vouchers No. 2583
through No. 2804, expended since the last Common Council meeting of November
13, 2007 in the amount of $1,723,487.89.
On voice vote, motion carried.
B. Enter into an agreement with GREAT (Gang
Resistance Education and Training) Program.
Motion by Ald. Olson, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the
Finance and Personnel Committee to approve the agreement with GREAT (Gang
Resistance Education and Training) Program.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Item 7 – PERSONNEL COMMITTEE:
Motion by Ald. Olson, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the
Finance and Personnel Committee to approve the salary of the Chief of Police in
a range from $66,973 to $78,815.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Motion by Ald. Olson, second by Ald. Muth, upon recommendation of the
Finance and Personnel Committee to approve the posting and advertising of the
position of Chief of Police.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Motion by Ald. Olson, second by Ald. Smith, upon recommendation of the
Finance and Personnel Committee to approve the Code Red Policy for the City of
On voice vote, motion carried.
This item was tabled for another 30 days as nothing further was brought
forward.
Motion by Ald. Olson, second by Ald. Smith, upon recommendation of the
Finance and Personnel Committee to approve the Local 150 Contract for the years
2008-2009.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Item 9 - ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE:
Motion by Ald. Stellner, second by Ald. Miller, upon recommendation of
the Administrative Committee to approve the Operator’s Licenses as printed on
file in the city clerk’s office.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Motion by Ald. Stellner, second by Ald. Miller, to approve the request
for burial of ashes for Gertrude and Jesse Graham in Block 100,
On voice vote, motion carried.
Item 9 - BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS:
Motion by Ald. Stellner, second by Ald. Miller, upon recommendation of
the Board of Public Works to schedule the public hearing for Wednesday, January
2, 2008, at 5 p.m.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Ald. Stellner quoted from the Inspection Report, “The city does an
excellent job running and maintaining its water utilities. As shown by the list of accomplishments
above, significant resources have gone into updating the system to keep it in
good working order.”
Motion by Ald. Stellner, second by Ald. Miller, upon recommendation of
the Board of Public Works to accept the annual Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resource Water Supply Inspection report.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Motion by Ald. Stellner, second by Ald. Miller, upon recommendation of
the Board of Public Works to approve the Supervisory and Data Acquisition
(SCADA) Project change order #1 for
On voice vote, motion carried.
Motion by Ald. Stellner, second by Ald. Giese, upon recommendation of the
Board of Public Works to approve the Amendment #1 to task order #02-07 for
Supervisory and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Project design by Strand Associates.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Ald. Stellner turned this item over to City Engineer Jarrod Holter.
Jarrod reported that there were questions regarding the consultant
selection criteria and scoring at the Board of Public Works meeting. Jarrod had a discussion with Joe Johnson,
Local Program Administration Coordinator in the Right of Way Department with
the State of
Mr. Johnson also indicated that they would prefer a consultant with
In terms of legal aspects, a question was raised at the Board of Public
Works meeting if the city is allowed to use the scoring system with the price
as part of the scoring items.
City Attorney Sean O’Flaherty said, “Right, and the answer is you can.”
Jarrod recommended hiring Timbers-Selissen for $130,950 and the state did
concur with this recommendation.
Motion by Ald. Stellner, second by Ald. Miller, upon recommendation of
the Board of Public Works to approve State Trunk Highway 35 right of way
services request for proposals and selection of Timbers-Selissen in the amount
of $130,950.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Motion by Ald. Stellner, second by Ald. Muth, upon recommendation of the
Board of Public Works to approve Well #10, change order #2, which is a
modification of the system.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Motion by Ald. Stellner, second by Ald. Miller, upon recommendation of
the Board of Public Works to approve Urban Nonpoint Source and Stormwater
Management Program grant.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Motion by Ald. Stellner, second by Ald. Smith, upon recommendation of the
Board of Public Works to approve the January meeting date and time as January
2, 2008, at 5 p.m. for the meeting and hearing.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Item 10 - PLAN COMMISSION:
A. Preliminary Plat application
filed by David Evenson of Evenson and Company, 1025 Riders Club Road, Onalaska
for the property located at South Kinney Coulee Road, East of Mary Drive
(Parcel # 18-3405-2).
Ald. Smith asked if Mr. Evenson has made an attempt to contact the
neighbors in terms of discussion regarding the plans.
Mr. Evenson said that he did not contact the neighbors because it would
not be feasible to question the neighbors in terms of the design, but rather
the design that is required by the city.
Mr. Evenson added that all considerations possible were given to the
city’s comprehensive plan and grades of roads.
There were also adjustments made with concurrence of city staff in terms
of the interstate noise issues.
Jarrod noted that the noise issue is the reason the elevation levels were
adjusted and said, “That’s why we didn‘t cut it down anymore, so we still
maintained that elevation.”
Ald. Smith asked if they could summarize the changes that have been made to
the plan since the last common council meeting.
Jason explained, ‘I’ve taken a look at alternative layouts too, and I
believe Mr. Evenson’s layout to be the best.
And the reason being is that when you look at the looped drive design -
And I’ve studied this too and drawn it myself, there’s pros and cons with every
design, and I’m reacting to Ms. Brandau’s right now as just in the last couple
of minutes. But the headlights coming in
the houses across the street – yes it might shine into the garage straight on,
but those cars turn and then the lights sweep across the home so that’s one
that might not please the people that live directly across from those
streets.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Stellner,
upon recommendation of the Plan Commission, to approve with 28 conditions the Preliminary Plat application filed by David
Evenson of Evenson and Company,
Jason continued, “There’s a somewhat strange and inefficient lot frontage
issue, too. When I looked at the
radiuses on the road and the way you end up with lot layout, you’ll note one of
the lots is sort of pie shaped, and that creates a problem, especially in a
double frontage situation with setbacks –it becomes very difficult to situate a
house in a lot like that. It can be
done in a cul de sac where you have a pie shaped lot, but usually there’s extra
depth. In this case the lot is not shown
with much depth. There are also two
double frontage lots that are shown – those are typically prohibited. We have a clause in our zoning code that says
they’re not a preferred arrangement.
Ms. Brandau indicated the city was going to pay for
And I do think that it’s unfortunate that trees have to be removed. Sometimes that’s part of the tradeoff with
development because of the sanitary sewer grades, the street grades – all of
the grading that goes into these lots – it becomes very difficult to preserve
every tree. And we have had instances
where the developer has preserved trees, only to have the homeowners have their
contractor cut them down when the houses are built - so we don’t have a permit
for private property owners to cut trees down – they can pretty much do that
when they buy a lot. If anything, I’d
like to see the trees along the lot lines preserved if possible. But that’s if possible, depending on the
engineering and the grading, and there’s a lot to balance with regard to
that. I do think that, based on the
cross section that the engineer showed me, that the interstate is sufficiently
lower than the mid point or the
And I think Commissioner Temte brought up the fact that additional houses
above that will also create sound barrier because the sound will actually
bounce off them. I think one of the
points with the straight street coming off of South Kinney is that maybe sound
would travel right up that like a corridor, but with that preserved high point
serving as sort of a berm between existing development and the freeway, we felt
that that’s going to take care of the issue, at least to the extent that we can
take care of it.”
On voice vote, motion carried.
B. Certified
Survey map submitted by Doug Buchner for a parcel located at
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Muth, upon recommendation of the
Plan Commission to approve with 7 conditions the Certified Survey map submitted by Doug Buchner
for a parcel located at
On voice vote, motion carried.
C. One year review of the
Conditional Use Permit issued to Dana Bart,
Ald. Giese reported that when this conditional use permit was granted one
year ago, the Plan Commission had requested that this be brought back for a
review after a year to see if there were any problems or issues with the
neighborhood, and there have been no concerns addressed thus far.
D. The Commissioner Newsletter –
Jason reported that this item is in reference to a quarterly newsletter
which profiles planning-related news around the country which is specifically related
to Plan Commissioners and decisions by cities.
Jason does keep a copy in the Planning Department office for review.
E. Certified Survey Map submitted
by the City of
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the
Plan Commission to approve the certified survey map submitted by the City of
On voice vote, motion carried.
F. Draft Development agreement
between the City of Onalaska and French Valley LLC, Leo Bronston, for the
proposed conservation subdivision development north of French Road,
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Olson, upon recommendation of the
Plan Commission to refer for 30 days.
On voice vote, motion carried.
G. Planning Newsletter.
Jason reported that annually the Planning Department submits an
informational item to citizens in one of the utility bill mailings, and they
are soliciting input on articles and ideas for the newsletter.
Jason requested that if anyone has any ideas that they would like
profiled in the mailing, to please inform him.
H. Subdivision request filed by
Bernard and Mary Pralle, 3025 Main Street East, for the purpose of transferring
land to a neighboring parcel. (Parcel
#18-3634-2).
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Miller, upon recommendation of the
Plan Commission to approve with 7 conditions the subdivision request filed by
Bernard and Mary Pralle,
On voice vote, motion carried.
I.
Jason reported that the city’s official map dates back to 1998. This is a document that is used in
conjunction with a zoning map that highlights where future roads, utility
corridors, and parkways are located. Jason
is in the process of updating the map of all these facilities and will provide
the Plan Commission with this. This is
anticipated to go through the public hearing process in January.
J. Meeting date and time for next
meeting.
Motion by Ald. Giese, second by Ald. Muth, upon recommendation of the
Plan Commission to approve the next meeting date and time for January 2, 2008
at 7:00 p.m. in Room 112.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Item 11 - JUDICIARY COMMITTEE:
A. Ordinance 1320-2007 – to create Chapter 7 of Title 11 of the Code
of Ordinances of the City of
Ald. Muth reported that this item will be tabled for 30 days.
B. Ordinance 1322-2007 – to amend Section 7-5-2 of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Onalaska relating to Hotel and Motel Room Tax (Third
and Final Reading).
Motion by Ald. Muth, second by Ald. Stellner, upon recommendation of the
Judiciary Committee to give Ordinance
1322-2007 its third and final reading.
On voice vote, motion carried.
C. Ordinance 1323-2007 – to amend Section 2-2-9 of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Onalaska relating to the Mayor’s Salary (First and
Second Reading).
Ald. Muth reported that both he and Ald. Giese abstained as they are both
candidates at this time, therefore, this item was forwarded directly to the
council for vote.
Motion by Ald. Stellner, second by Ald. Miller, to give Ordinance 1323-2007 its first and
second reading.
On roll call vote: Ald. Clarence
Stellner – aye, Ald. Kim Smith – no, Ald. Mike Giese – no, Ald. Bob Muth – abstain,
Ald. Jim Olson – no, Ald. Tim Miller – aye.
Ordinance denied.
Mayor Bialecki explained the reason this ordinance denied is because it requires
a ¾ vote. In other words, 5 of the 6
council members would have to vote in the affirmative.
Item 12 -
No Quorum.
Item 13 - UTILITIES COMMITTEE.
UTILITIES
No report.
Item 14 - MASS TRANSIT
Ald. Muth reported that they are continuing to see tremendous increase in
the amount of fares and involvement with this program.
Motion by Ald. Muth, second by Ald. Miller, upon recommendation of the
Mass Transit Committee, to accept the financials for October 2007.
On voice vote, motion carried.
MTU
Motion by Ald. Muth, second by Ald. Smith, upon recommendation of the
Mass Transit Committee to accept the 2008 agreement between City of
Ald. Giese questioned the financial impact of this.
Fred answered, “This figure is slightly lower than what was proposed – I
think it’s less than about $500 difference and less than what we originally ran
through the budget process.”
On voice vote, motion carried.
Item 15 - PARKS & RECREATION
BOARD:
Ald. Miller reported, “The Board discussed different revenue options
regarding our Youth Sponsorship Program.
In 2008 the Park and Recreation Department will sell advertising in our
brochure to offset the printing and distribution costs along with our t shirt
program.”
Ald. Miller reported that there was discussion if the board would prefer
to change the layout of the design of the proposed shelter.
Motion by Ald. Miller, second by Ald. Smith, upon recommendation of the
Park & Rec Board to leave the Van Riper Park Shelter as previously designed.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Ald. Miller reported the board approved the removal of the wooden monkey
bar structure from
Item 16 - TOURISM COMMISSION
Room occupancy for the month of October was 80.87% - An increase of
11.01%.
Motion by Ald. Olson, second by Ald. Muth, upon recommendation of the
Tourism Commission to approve the room occupancy report.
On voice vote, motion carried.
Ald. Olson reported that they have been advertising via announcements in
the La Crosse Tribune on November 21 through November 30 to promote the
Some aspects of the advertising:
Another form of advertising will take place in the form of an entire page
in the La Crosse Convention and Visitor’s Bureau Guide for 2008 with a
distribution of approximately 90,000 pieces.
Item 17 - SENIORS COALITION:
No report.
Item 18 - REPORT FROM LIBRARY
COMMISSION:
A Prequalification of contractors.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Giese, upon recommendation of the
Library Commission to consider 7 contractors for bidding on the library
expansion project. These contractors
include:
Borten Construction
Brickl Brothers, Inc.
Fowler and Hammer Inc.
R. J. Jurowski Construction Inc.
Mark and Johnson Inc.
Olympic Builders
General Contractors, Inc.
Wieser Brothers General Contractors Inc.
Under discussion, Ald. Smith noted that they will be going out to bid as
soon as the contract is in order. The
bids will be due on December 18 for review and awarding.
On voice vote, motion carried.
B. Report from Library.
Ald. Smith reported that they are reviewing items to go out for bids for
the contractors. The project is moving along
nicely. All the council members should
have received a copy of the statistics from the library report.
City Attorney Sean O’Flaherty said that the form of the deed is in order
and he will arrange for the recording of the deed upon council approval.
Motion by Ald. Smith, second by Ald. Miller, to approve the transfer of
land from