Advertisement The recommendation will be that the city spend $2,000 to $4,000 to place a 15-inch berm between properties on a city easement along the rear yards of homes along Aspen Valley Drive and Tahoe Drive.
Neighbors in the Aspen Valley subdivision are disputing the city’s claim they are encroaching on a city easement created for water to drain properly between the two rows of homes. The city has threatened to take enforcement action against some property owners because their landscaping features, such as brick retaining walls, are on the easement.
At the June meeting, Onalaska Common Council members seemed reluctant to do that and sent the issue back to the Board of Public Works.
Residents along Aspen Valley Drive claim that because neighbors behind them on Tahoe Drive are encroaching on a city easement, stormwater runoff that should be traveling through the drainage swale between their properties is being pushed off the city’s easement onto their properties.
After several residents spoke at Tuesday night’s board meeting, Alderman Tim Miller moved to have the city facilitate discussions between the neighbors so they could come to some sort of agreement.
Before the vote was taken on that motion, Finance Director Fred Buehler asked for a show of hands from those who would be willing to go along with that so they could make that recommendation with some confidence it is what the residents want.
It was immediately evident the residents who were present weren’t interested in that idea and Miller, losing patience, withdrew the motion.
The residents argued it is the city’s problem and should have been fixed years ago. They also argued there was nothing in writing indicating to the homeowners the city had the easement in place. They argued the development and homes were inspected by the city after being built and the city should be going after the builders and developers, not the homeowners.
One resident, John Kloehn of 939 Tahoe Drive, said he thought he had a “gentleman’s agreement” with City Engineer Jarrod Holter in 2007. Kloehn said Holter told him to leave things as they were.
“I was told everything was fine and I wouldn’t have to do anything with my hill. I could have done something then.” He asked if Holter remembered that meeting and the handshake on that understanding.
Holter disputed his recollection, saying the letter sent by the city said he had to remove part of the hill. When asked if he remembered the meeting, Holter said, “Yes, and I told you to remove part of the hill.”
“Well then a gentleman’s agreement and handshake don’t mean anything,” Kloehn said.
Mayor Mike Giese was not in favor of having taxpayers pay to fix the problem. “I think it’s certainly a serious problem for these particular residents, but not all the taxpayers of the city,” Giese said. “But I will approve the motion so it can move to the council.”
Stormwater utility
It’s shaping up to be a long council meeting July 14 because members will consider a task force recommendation to establish a stormwater utility. There was no discussion on the item at the public works meeting, but the issue has raised the ire of some residents.
The state, through the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, is mandating that municipalities reduce sediment reaching storm sewers by 40 percent by the year 2013. The city has already decided it can’t meet that timeline, but feels it should make a good-faith effort by reducing the sediment by 2018.
The problem is financing, which is currently coming from the city’s operating budget.
The city set up a task force to identify the best way to pay for the required infrastructure and other process improvements that will cost about $134,000 or more a year for the next 10 years.
Currently, stormwater management costs are borne by property taxpayers, with residential homeowners paying about 61 percent of costs even though only 40 percent of storm runoff comes from residential sites.
The task force decided that a stormwater utility would redistribute costs in a more equitable manner. Instead of through property taxes, residents would pay a utility fee based in proportion to the amount of impervious area on the site. Impervious area includes such areas as parking lots, rooftops and driveways where stormwater and snow melt do not get absorbed by soil.
Alderman Dennis Aspenson has repeatedly raised objections to caving to state unfunded mandates. “Just because the state mandated it, it doesn’t mean we roll over and say OK,” Aspenson said at a public hearing July 1. “We should be pushing back more than just moving the timeline to 2018 versus 2013.”
Holmen and the town of Onalaska already have established their own stormwater utilities.
Sand Lake roundabout
In a 3-2 vote, the public works board recommended the council approve installation of a roundabout at the intersection of Sand Lake and Riders Club roads.
After hearing a presentation on June 30, and expressing concerns for pedestrian and bicyclist safety, public reaction was mostly positive for a roundabout.
At the public works meeting, Alderman Clarence Stellner and Miller voted against the roundabout. Miller said roundabouts are confusing for too many drivers.
Stellner did not offer an explanation of why he objected.
