On the heels of a January meeting with the City of Rushford, the City of Peterson, Rushford Police Department, and the Fillmore County Sheriff’s Department, the city has received a letter from Rushford indicating termination of the current policing arrangement and a desire to attempt to negotiate a new contemporary agreement. February 13, the City of Rushford approved ending the current arrangement December 31, 2017.
The arrangement, as detailed by City of Rushford Administrator Tony Chladek, is response only, not preventative. When there is a call in the Village, the call goes to the Fillmore County Sherrif’s Department, who dispatches the Rushford Police Department if a county deputy is not in the area. Rushford Village reimburses the Rushford Police Department for time and equipment.
Mayor Gordon Johnson indicated to the Village council at the February 20 meeting that he’d spoken with Peterson Mayor Tim Hallum, who was in attendance. “They could have come and talked to us. However, they’re going about it in a way… they’d like more dollars,” said Johnson. “I don’t recall that we ever asked for anything.” He indicated it could be in the best interest of both the Village and Peterson to have a joint meeting with Fillmore County Sheriff Tom Kaase.
The city believes the county is willing to offer a contract, similar to the cities of Canton and Wykoff, which would provide two-hours of patrolling in the city 365 days per year for a contracted price. Johnson questioned Mayor Hallum as to whether Peterson has asked for or needs patrolling. Hallum responded they had not.
“I don’t want to come off negative to the police department. I think they do a great job. But, I don’t think we’ve asked for services,” added Johnson.
“If that wasn’t enough, I wish they’d come to us,” added Councilor Dennis Overland. “We specifically said we didn’t want patrolling. The citizens didn’t want it.”
Johnson suggested attendance at a Fillmore County Commissioners meeting to determine what the county’s responsibility to the city is. “We seem to go through this every few years. It never gets any better. Until the sheriff comes back to us, maybe we need to wait,” said Johnson. “I wished it would have been a little different than it was. Their letter gave it a little more rose-colored look,” he added. The council will extend an offer to the Sherriff’s Department to attend a meeting. “If we don’t hear anything back, the ball is in his court. We’ve offered an invitation to come; let’s see what he does.”
In related news, Public Works has made some contact with Mitch Boyum of the DNR to determine if the city can take care of its own deer-related calls. The Rushford Police Department responded to six calls to dispatch deer that were hit on roadways. According to Hamilton Peterson, of Rushford Village Public Works/Maintenance, Boyum told him city officials can dispatch deer hit on roadways in their jurisdiction rather than call law enforcement to do the task.
Contact with county dispatch to report the issue would be required, as well as photographing and documenting the incident, but no special permitting would be needed. Peterson indicated the issue is a public safety hazard and there are guidelines about how to properly attend to it. It’s not clear if the city would approve other individuals to do the task, other than Peterson and Public Works Supervisor Travis Scheck.
The city is also looking to determine its response to the emerald ash borer quarantine on the county. The city is not currently targeting removal of trees, other than those of obvious need along city-owned roadways. Trees in urbanized areas of the city have not been officially inventoried and only trees within the city’s right of way could be removed by the city. Councilor Mike Ebner, who has some experience dealing with the problem, will talk to an arborist about the cutting timeline and touch base with Public Works. The warm temperatures may have shortened the cutting season the ends when the bugs leave dormancy in late spring.
The city’s Planning and Zoning Commission is continuing work through the multitude of city ordinances, looking to clarify and provide further detail, if needed. “We’re going over what we’re doing and why,” indicated Zoning Administrator Jon Pettit.
“There’s a lot of stuff in there and some of it is interpretation,” added Mayor Johnson. “We need to dig into it so everyone gets the same answer.”
Pettit also reviewed recent contact from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding the proposed flood mapping changes. Following record regional flooding in 2007, FEMA has been working with the county and municipalities to update their flood mapping. Several areas are no longer affected, while some areas that were not in the flood plain are now included and are subject to flood insurance requirements. “We’re close to the end of the flood map lifetime. If no one in the public brings anything forward in the next 90 days, they’re going to go ahead with Fillmore County as is,” said Pettit. The final map would be used by banks and insurance providers for property purchases and coverage.
“Have they made anything public so people can see what they look like,” asked Councilor Dennis Overland. “We have 90 days to comment, but how do you know what to comment if you haven’t seen it? What’s to contest? I would think people would want to see if they’re in [the flood plain] or not.”
Mayor Johnson indicated suggesting the city could announce a comment period for public viewing. “This is their opportunity to come to us.” No formal viewing was announced, but it was noted that the maps are available online on the FEMA website. Properties are searchable by address or latitude/longitude coordinates. The website is: www.msc.fema.gov/portal.
In FEMA related updates, Hamilton Peterson went through a number of items of recent concern. He stated the city had received contact from FEMA regarding possible funding for road and bridge damage related to late season storms in 2016. A representative was in the city February 17 to look over the areas, including a crossing at Benson Lane. Other reviewed areas included County Line Road, Cedar Road, Dump Hill Road, Aspen Road, and Ekern Road. It appears the city will receive an estimated $85,000 for damages. No funding will be provided for Benson Lane, which is an area also under review by the Department of Natural Resources.
Peterson also noted that a 1923 bridge on Village Road will need attention this year. While the structure itself is good, decking is in need of replacement. The council will need to determine whether to replace just the decking or the approach on either side of the bridge as well. Johnson, Pettit, Peterson, and Public Works Supervisor Travis Scheck will meet to discuss what is needed to maintain the bridge.
A noticeable crack running up the newly overlaid Main Street, in south Rushford, will be the responsibility of the city to address. Per the city’s 10-year road improvement and maintenance plan, developed with the firm of Bolton & Menk, the road was chosen for overlay rather than a mill and overlay due to most effective maintenance for the funding available. The crack will need to be cleaned out and sealed this spring/summer and the work will be put out for bidding.
The next regularly scheduled council meeting is Tuesday, March 7, at 7 p.m., at the Village Hall. The public is encouraged to attend.
Leave a Reply