GREEN COUNTY

Transcription

GREEN COUNTY

G REEN C OUNTY
WISCONSIN
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
G REEN C OUNTY
W ISCONSIN
GREEN COUNTY BOARD
Allen Benzschawel
Arthur Carter
Sherry Condon
Joseph Cousin
Cathy Cryor-Burgweger
Gene Curran
Dennis Dalton
Thomas Daly
Sue Disch
Dennis Everson
Ray Francois
Michael Furgal
Terri Grossen
Jerry Guth
Herb Hanson
Mary Alice Hart
Robert Hoesly
Gary Keegan
Barbara Krattiger
Harvey Kubly
Harvey Mandel
Jim Mielke
Oscar Olson
Don Rowley
Dave Rufenacht
Steven Stettler
Jeff Thomm
Donald Timm
Russ Torkelson
Calvin Wickline
Ron Wolter
SOUTHWESTERN WISCONSIN
REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
Lawrence T. Ward Executive Director
Ron Niemann Project Manager
Andrew Bremer Associate Planner/GIS Manager
Glenda Dye
Joni Herren Graves
Amy Knox
Mary Jenkins Penn
Jennifer Ginter-Lyght
Darlene Wilson
Office Manager/Bookkeeper
Transportation Planner
Planner
Local Assistance Planner
Planning Assistant
Cartographer
Partial fund support for this planning effort was provided by the
Wisconsin Department of Administration
Table of Contents
Green County
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES
1
1.1
Chapter Summary
1
1.2
Goals, Objectives and Policy Recommendations
1
1.3
Background
2
1.4
Planning Area
3
1.5
Public Participation Plan
4
1.6
Community Survey
4
1.7
Community Profile and Projection
4
1.8
Community Vision
7
Issues and Opportunities Chapter Attachments
CHAPTER TWO UTILITIES AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
9
20
2.1
Chapter Summary
20
2.2
Goals
21
2.3
Objectives and Policy Recommendations
21
2.4
Public Utilities and Community Facilities
25
2.5
Utilities and Community Facilities Agencies and Programs
37
Utilities and Community Facilities Chapter Attachments
CHAPTER THREE
3.1
41
AGRICULTURAL, NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
46
Agricultural Resources
46
3.1.1
Agricultural Resource Summary
46
3.1.2
Goals
47
3.1.3
47
3.1.4
Farming System
50
3.1.5
Land Sales Statistics
51
3.1.6
Agricultural Economy
52
3.1.7
Agricultural Infrastructure
52
Agricultural Resources Chapter Attachments
3.2
Natural Resources
59
60
3.2.1
Natural Resource Summary
60
3.2.2
Goals
60
3.2.3
61
3.2.4
Natural Resources
64
3.2.5
Water Resources
65
3.2.6
Wildlife
72
3.2.7
Forest Resources
76
3.2.8
Environmental Corridors
77
i
Table of Contents
Green County
3.2.9
Light Air and Noise
78
3.2.10
Geologic and Mineral Resources
79
3.2.11
Open Spaces and Parks
80
3.2.12
Local Park and Recreation Resources
80
3.2.13
Land Cover
81
3.2.14
Natural Resource Agencies and Programs
81
Natural Resources Chapter Attachments
3.3
Cultural Resources
84
88
3.3.1
Cultural Resource
88
3.3.2
Goals
88
3.3.3
89
3.3.4
Brief History of Green County
91
3.3.5
Cultural Resource Publication or Documentation
92
3.3.6
Local Historical Societies
92
3.3.7
Museum or Cultural Resource Center
93
3.3.8
Historical Markers
93
3.3.9
Cultural Resource Program and Special Events
94
3.3.10
Threats to Cultural Resources
95
3.3.11
Local Cultural Resources or Buildings
96
3.3.12
Historical Preservation Ordinances and Commissions
96
3.3.13
Churches
97
3.3.14
Cemeteries
97
3.3.15
Rural Schools
97
3.3.16
Architecture and History Inventory (AHI)
97
3.3.17
Archeological Site Inventory (ASI)
98
3.3.18
Cultural Resource Agencies and Programs
98
Cultural Resources Chapter Attachments
CHAPTER FOUR
101
HOUSING
103
4.1
Chapter Summary
103
4.2
Goals
104
4.3
104
4.4
Housing Characteristics
108
4.5
Housing Agencies and Programs
121
Housing Chapter Attachments
CHAPTER FIVE TRANSPORTATION
124
125
5.1
Chapter Summary
125
5.2
Goals
126
5.3
126
ii
Table of Contents
Green County
5.4
Transportation Infrastructure and Issues
132
5.5
U.S. Census
133
5.6
Commuting Patterns
134
5.7
Transportation Users
140
5.8
Modes of Transportation
143
5.9
Maintenance and Improvements
146
5.10
Transportation Planning
149
Transportation Chapter Attachments
152
CHAPTER SIX ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
156
6.1
Chapter Summary
156
6.2
Goals
157
6.3
157
6.4
Analysis of the Economic Base and Labor Force
163
6.5
Analysis of the New Business and Industry Desired
170
6.6
Analysis of the Business and Industry Parks
171
6.7
Economic Development Agencies and Programs
174
Economic Development Chapter Attachments
CHAPTER SEVEN INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION
177
187
7.1
Chapter Summary
187
7.2
Goals
188
7.3
188
7.4
Advantages and Disadvantages of Intergovernmental Cooperation
189
7.5
Existing and Potential Areas of Cooperation
190
7.6
Intergovernmental Relationships
192
7.7
Additional Intergovernmental Cooperation Ideas
193
7.8
Intergovernmental Cooperation Agencies and Programs
195
CHAPTER EIGHT LAND USE
198
8.1
Chapter Summary
198
8.2
Goals
199
8.3
199
8.4
Existing Land Use
208
8.5
Land Use Trends
209
8.6
Future Land Use
213
8.7
Land Use Agencies and Programs
217
Land Use Chapter Attachments
iii
219
Table of Contents
Green County
CHAPTER NINE IMPLEMENTATION
220
9.1
Chapter Summary
220
9.2
Vision Statement
220
9.3
Goals, Objectives and Policy Recommendations
221
9.4
Local Ordinance and Regulations
223
9.5
Consistency Among Plan Elements
223
9.6
Plan Adoption
223
9.7
Plan Amendments
224
9.8
Plan Updates
224
9.9
Measuring Progress
224
9.10
Rural Residential Siting Criteria
225
9.11
Non-Residential Siting Criteria
226
9.12
Implementation Measures
226
iv
Issues & Opportunities
Green County
1.0 ISSUES & OPPORTUNITIES
1.1 CHAPTER SUMMARY
The purpose of this section is to provide basic background information for the
comprehensive planning process and general demographic characteristics for Green
County. More specifically this section includes information from the community survey
and visioning sessions, community profile and projection data including population
trends, age distribution, and population projections.
1.2 GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are the Issues and Opportunities Goals, Objectives and Policy
Recommendations for Green County. The essence of these recommendations is carried
throughout the entire document and they are common to all participating Green County
communities. Note that the Villages of Belleville, Brooklyn, Albany, and the Town of
Albany are not included since they did not participate in this comprehensive planning
project.
x
Protect and improve the health, safety, and welfare of residents in Green
County.
x
Preserve and enhance the quality of life for the residents of Green County.
x
Protect and preserve the community character of Green County.
Note: The above policy recommendations are further explained in other elements of this
comprehensive plan. This section provides background information and overall
direction. For example, the above recommendations may be carried out by implementing
recommendations in other sections such as housing, economic development, and
transportation.
Wisconsin State Statute 66.1001(2)(a)
(a) Issues and Opportunities
Background information on the local governmental unit and a statement of overall objectives,
policies, goals and programs of the local governmental unit to guide the future development
and redevelopment of the local governmental unit over a 20-year planning period.
Background information shall include population, household and employment forecasts that
the local governmental unit uses in developing its comprehensive plan, and demographic
trends, age distribution, educational levels, income levels and employment characteristics
that exist within the local governmental unit.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 1
Green County
1.3 BACKGROUND
Under the Comprehensive Planning Smart Growth legislation, adopted by the state in
October of 1999, beginning on January 1, 2010, if a local governmental unit engages in
any of the actions listed below, those actions shall be consistent with that local
governmental unit’s comprehensive plan.
x
x
x
x
Official Mapping
Local Subdivision Regulations
County, Town, Village or City zoning Ordinances
Zoning of Shorelands or Wetlands in Shorelands
Comprehensive plans are a blueprint for how a community will develop and grow. Their
purpose is to provide communities with information and policies that they shall use in the
future to guide planning and community decisions. The Comprehensive Plan includes
nine elements: Issues and Opportunities, Housing, Transportation, Utilities and
Community Facilities, Agriculture/Natural/Cultural Resources, Economic Development,
Intergovernmental Cooperation, Land Use, and Implementation. In addition, the
Comprehensive Planning Smart Growth legislation establishes fourteen planning goals to
guide planning efforts. The fourteen goals, along with other planning policies and goals
created during the planning process appear throughout this document in each chapter.
Green County, together with twenty jurisdictions, applied for a Comprehensive Planning
Grant through the Wisconsin Department of Administration in the fall of 2002. In the
spring of 2003, a thirty month Comprehensive Planning Grant was awarded. Green
County and the jurisdictions within it contracted with the Southwestern Wisconsin
Regional Planning Commission (SWWRPC) to complete individual comprehensive plans
for each of the 21 jurisdictions (Green County, cities, towns, and villages) in accordance
with Wisconsin Statutes 66.1001. The only jurisdictions in Green County that did not
participate under the multi-jurisdiction grant were the Villages of Albany, Belleville, and
Brooklyn, and the Town of Albany. These jurisdictions chose to complete their
comprehensive plans using other resources. The following is a list of all of the
jurisdictions that participated under the grant.
x Green County
x City of Brodhead
x City of Monroe
x Village of
Browntown
x Village of Monticello
x Village of New
Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
x
x
x
x
Town of Mt. Pleasant
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
Town of Spring
Grove
x Town of Sylvester
x Town of Washington
x Town of York
1.3.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The following indicates the roles and responsibilities of each entity involved in the
comprehensive planning process.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 2
Green County
x
Southwest Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SWWRPC)
a.
Provide staff services and project management for process.
b.
Produce written plans and supplementary documents.
c.
Plan, coordinate, and staff joint-jurisdictional meetings.
x
UW-Extension, Green County
a. Assist in developing and coordinating public participation plans, press releases,
survey, visioning and education processes.
x
Green County Zoning and Land Use Department
a. Provide information, direction, and feedback to SWWRPC on process and plan
development.
x
Town, Village, City Plan Commission
a. Provide feedback and direction to SWWRPC in developing the plan
information, policies, and implementation measures.
b.
Hold meetings for the purpose of discussing comprehensive planning issues.
c. Develop comprehensive plan and recommend it to the governing body for
adoption.
d. Represent the jurisdiction at joint-jurisdictional planning meetings.
x
County Zoning and Land Use Committee
a. Provide feedback and direction to SWWRPC in developing the plan
information, policies, and implementation measures.
b.
Hold meetings for the purpose of discussing comprehensive planning issues.
c. Develop comprehensive plan and recommend it to the governing body for
adoption.
d. Represent the jurisdiction at joint-jurisdictional planning meetings.
x
Town, Village, City, County Board/Council
a.
Appoint plan commission members.
b.
Provide funds for the process.
c. Provide notice for and hold local meetings and hearings for the adoption of the
plan and implementation measures via ordinance.
1.4 PLANNING AREA
Refer to map 1.2 in the Issues & Opportunities Chapter Attachments for a map of the
planning area considered during this comprehensive planning process.
Although the County does not have direct control over planning decisions in the local
villages and cities, it can still set countywide policies and support municipal decisions;
therefore, the areas in Green County, villages and cities is considered as part of the
County planning area. Likewise, although the Villages of Albany, Belleville, Brooklyn
and the Town of Albany did not participate in the planning process, those areas are still
considered as part of the County planning area.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 3
Green County
1.5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN
As part of the Comprehensive Planning legislation, every community must develop a
public participation plan at the beginning of the planning process. The purpose of the
public participation plan is to outline procedures for public involvement during every
stage of the planning process. (See Issues & Opportunities Chapter Attachments for the
complete public participation plan.)
1.6 COMMUNITY SURVEY
In the spring of 2003, the staff from SWWRPC and University of Wisconsin Extension
Service-Green County (UWEX-Green County) developed a countywide survey that was
distributed to all property owners in Green County. The purpose of the survey was to
provide the Planning Commission with community feedback regarding the key elements
in the comprehensive plan. A total of 13,925 surveys were sent out to Green County
property owners. 3,926 surveys were sent back, giving the County a 28.2% return rate.
(See Issues & Opportunities Chapter Attachments for survey results.)
1.7 COMMUNITY PROFILE AND PROJECTION
Tables and graphs below display the population statistics and projections that were
prepared as part of the requirements of the Comprehensive Planning legislation. Other
demographic data and statistics, such as employment characteristics, are in their
corresponding chapters.
Table 1.1 Population Statistics (Source: US Census)
Adopted Plan
Population
Total Population (1970)
Green
County
Number
26,714
30,012
30,339
33,647
Green
County
Percent
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Wisconsin
Number
4,417,933
4,705,767
4,891,769
5,363,675
Wisconsin
Percent
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
SEX AND AGE (2000)
Male
Female
16,577
17,070
49.3%
50.7%
2,649,041
2,714,634
49.4%
50.6%
Under 10 years
10 to 19 years
20 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 59 years
60 to 74 years
75+ years
4,621
5,002
5,625
5,733
6,371
3,706
2,589
13.7%
14.9%
16.7%
17.0%
18.9%
11.0%
7.7%
721,824
810,269
1,063,460
875,522
985,048
560,306
347,246
13.5%
15.1%
19.8%
16.3%
18.4%
10.4%
6.5%
Median Age (2000)
37.7
36.0
April 18, 2006
Page 4
Green County
Figure 1.1 Population Changes in Green County
(Source: 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 US Census)
40,000
35,000
Population
30,000
25,000
20,000
33,647
15,000
30,339
30,012
26,714
10,000
5,000
0
1970
1980
1990
2000
Year
Figure 1.1 shows that between 1970 and 2000, Green County’s population has increased by 26.0%.
Wisconsin’s population increased by 21.4% during this same period. The greatest population increase was
10.9% (3,308 people) from 1990 to 2000.
Figure 1.2 Age Distribution in Green County
(Source: 2000 US Census)
7,000
Number of People
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Under 10
years
10 to 19
years
20 to 34
years
35 to 44
years
45 to 59
years
60 to 74
years
75+ years
Age Groups
Figure 1.2 shows the distribution of Green County’s population by age groups for the year 2000. The 45 to
59 age group is the largest with 6,371 people (18.9% of the total population). The 75+ age group is the
smallest with 2,589 people (7.7% of the total population). The median age is 37.7. Refer to Table 1.1 for
specific population numbers.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 5
Green County
Figure 1.3 Population Distribution
25.0%
Percent Population
20.0%
15.0%
Green County
Wisconsin
10.0%
5.0%
ar
s
75
+
74
60
to
ye
rs
ye
a
rs
ye
a
59
45
to
to
35
to
20
44
34
ye
a
ye
a
rs
rs
rs
ye
a
19
to
10
U
nd
er
10
ye
ar
s
0.0%
Age Groups
Figure 1.3 compares the percentage of Green County’s 2000 population by age group to that of Wisconsin.
Refer to Table 1.1 for specific population percentages.
Table 1.2 Population Projections (Source: SWWRPC)
2010 Low
2010 High
2020 Low
2020 High
2030 Low
2030 High
Age Group
Less than 10
10 to 19 Years
20 to 34 Years
35 to 44 Years
45 to 59 Years
60 to 74 Years
75+ Years
4,644
5,040
5,825
4,831
8,443
4,776
2,609
5,084
5,518
6,377
5,289
9,244
5,229
2,857
4,404
5,034
6,073
4,920
7,755
7,120
2,858
5,144
5,946
7,173
5,811
9,160
8,410
3,375
4,632
4,835
6,120
5,304
7,384
7,785
4,097
5,770
6,015
7,709
6,681
9,301
9,807
5,161
Total
36,168
39,596
38,163
45,019
40,157
50,444
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 6
Green County
Figure 1.4 Green County Population Projections
60,000
50,000
Population
40,000
Census
Low Projection
High Projection
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Year
Figure 1.4 shows the projected populations for the years 2010, 2020, and 2030. The red line indicates what
the projected high population could be, while the blue line indicates what the projected low population
could be. The projection figures were calculated using equations that took into account past population
trends, the current size of the community, and the location of the community with respect to types of
roadways (highway, county, etc.).
1.8 COMMUNITY VISION
A vision statement identifies where an organization intends to be in the future and how to
best meet the future needs of its stakeholders. The vision statement incorporates a shared
understanding of the nature and purpose of the organization and uses this understanding
to move towards a greater purpose together. SWWRPC, in conjunction with UWEXGreen County, sponsored visioning sessions for each jurisdiction in the autumn and
winter of 2003-2004. The Green County Zoning and Land Use Committee utilized the
visioning information from these sessions to create a formal vision statement. The vision
statement for Green County is
In the year 2024, we envision that in Green County we are
x Protecting our environmental resources to maintain a high quality of life for
future generations;
x Preserving our natural features through protection of our scenic vistas and open
spaces in the rural landscape;
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 7
Green County
x Promoting the well-being of our citizens through effective public safety and
various human services;
x Coordinating orderly commercial and industrial development by encouraging
business activity close to urban areas and services;
x Advocating rural and urban economic development to ensure adequate and
diverse local employment opportunities;
x Maintaining our agricultural base through preserving productive farmland and
supporting the agri-business community;
x Supporting tourism, recreational activities and preservation of historical sites, by
emphasizing our ethnic heritage and diverse cultures;
x Providing housing opportunities for everyone through coordinated, orderly,
planned new residential development;
x Maintaining a quality, safe, efficient and scenic transportation system of roads,
rail and air;
x Encouraging open communication, respect and working relationships between all
governmental entities within the county to promote a spirit of cooperation; and
x Operating as a progressive county using governance wisely for the benefit and
maintenance of landowners’ rights, balanced with responsible land use.
1.9 ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS
In each chapter of this comprehensive plan is a section listing some of the state and
federal agencies and programs that exist to help communities with various projects.
Many of theses agencies and programs can provide expertise or funding to help
implement some of the recommendations of this comprehensive plan. For each agency, a
brief description of some of the programs is listed along with contact information. The
lists of agencies and the programs they provide are not exhaustive. Your community
should contact agencies directly to obtain the most up to date information. The following
lists one source that could be used to accrue funding for all types of projects.
GRANTS.GOV (www.grants.gov)
Grants.gov allows organizations to electronically find and apply for competitive grant
opportunities from all Federal grant-making agencies. Grants.gov is the single access
point for over 900 grant programs offered by the twenty-six Federal grant-making
agencies. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is the managing partner
for Grants.gov.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 8
Green County
ISSUES & OPPORTUNITIES
CHAPTER ATTACHMENTS
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 9
Green County
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN
The Green County Zoning and Land Use Committee has developed guidelines for
involving the public as part of the requirements of the (Smart Growth) Comprehensive
Land Use Planning Process (Section 66.1001(4)(a), Stats.). The Committee
acknowledged that the goal of their public participation plan is to keep the public
informed and educated, gather broad-based input and involvement, including targeting
specialized groups to obtain their knowledge and perspectives, and attempt to obtain
public acceptance of the process and plan through ensuring opportunities for their
concerns to be understood and considered throughout the project.
The Zoning and Land Use Committee identified five primary audiences of the Green
County Public Participation Plan – the general public, legal boards/agencies, civil
associations, general public and groups/individuals dealing with land use issues. The
general public also includes the following specific population groups: elderly, youth,
minorities, renters (tenants), and property owners. Individuals/groups dealing with land
use issues would include realtors, surveyors, and developers. The Green County Board
of Supervisors, Zoning and Land Use Committee, and Board of Adjustment, Fire &
Police Departments, Department of Transportation, Department of Natural Resources,
and School Boards were identified as several of the key legal boards and agencies to be
involved in the planning process. The business community will be involved in the
planning process through local Chambers of Commerce and the Green County
Development Corporation. In addition, the following list of civic groups and associations
were identified as possible groups to involve, specifically during the element phase of the
project when specific expertise/opinions will be needed:
x 4-H Leaders Council
x Green County Medical Society
x Green County Retired Educators
x Green County EMS
x Habitat for Humanity
x Green County Conservation League
x Friends of New Glarus Woods State Park
x Prairie Bluff Chapter of the Prairie Enthusiasts
x Green County Cheesemakers Association
x Green County Foresters Association
x Property Owners Association/Housing Partnership
x Others where appropriate.
Table 1.3 shows what public participation methods will be used throughout the entire
Green County Comprehensive Land Use Planning Project.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 10
Green County
Table 1.3 Public Participation Methods
Stage
Visioning
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Elements/Goals
Documentation
Implementation
Audience(s) reached
Method
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Survey
UWEX Newsletter
Public Notice
SWWRPC, GC-UWEX,
Web Pages
Shopping News
Radio: WEKZ
Survey
UWEX Newsletter
Direct Mailings to
Appropriate
Associations
Public Notice
Input Meetings
SWWRPC, GC-UWEX,
Web Pages
Shopping News
Radio: WEKZ
UWEX Newsletter
Public Notice
Tax Bill Stuffers
Displays
SWWRPC, GC-UWEX,
Web Pages
UWEX Newsletter
Public Notice
Public Hearing
Tax Bill Stuffers
SWWRPC, GC-UWEX,
Web Pages
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Legal
Boards/Agencies
Civil Associations
General Public
Individuals/groups
dealing with land use
issues
Business Community
Legal Boards
Civil Associations
General Public
Individuals/groups
issues
Business Community
Legal
Boards/Agencies
Civil Associations
General Public
Individuals/groups
issues
Business Community
Legal
Boards/Agencies
Civil Associations
General Public
Individuals/groups
issues
Business Community
The success of the public participation plan will be measured by the extent to which
progress has been made towards the achievement of this plan’s goals. The Zoning and
Land Use Committee adopted this public participation plan for adoption during the fall of
2003.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 11
Green County
During the Implementation phase of the project, the Zoning and Land Use Committee
shall adopt, by majority vote, a resolution that “recommends” the adoption of the
comprehensive plan (or any future plan amendments) to the Green County Board of
Supervisors. Copies of the recommended plan will be sent to the Dane, Iowa, Lafayette,
and Rock County Clerks, the Wisconsin Land Council, Wisconsin Department of
Administration, Green County sanitary and drainage districts, Green County Public
Library System (Albany Public Library, Brodhead Memorial Public Library, Monroe
Public Library, Monticello Public Library, New Glarus Public Library), WisDOT, and all
school districts serving all or part of Green County (Pecatonica, New Glarus, Belleville,
Oregon, Evansville Community, Albany, Monticello, Argyle, Black Hawk, Monroe,
Juda, and Brodhead). In Illinois, both Stephenson and Winnebago Counties will receive
a copy of the recommended plan. In addition, letters announcing the formation and
availability of the recommended plan will be sent to the Clerks of Towns that border
Green County. The following Town Clerks will receive a letter regarding the
recommended plan.
Dane County
Montrose
Oregon
Perry
Primrose
Rutland
Iowa County
Moscow
Lafayette County
Argyle
Blanchard
Wiota
Wayne
Rock County
Avon
Magnolia
Spring Valley
Union
Prior to adopting the plan the Green County Board of Supervisors will hold at least one
public hearing to discuss the recommended plan (Section 66.1001(4)(d), Stats.). At least
30 days prior to the hearing a Class 1 notice will be published that at a minimum contains
the following:
x The date, time and location of the hearing
x A summary of the proposed plan or plan amendment
x The local government staff that can be contacted for additional information
x Where to inspect and how to obtain a copy of the proposal before the hearing
Prior to adopting the plan, the Green County Board of Supervisors will provide an
opportunity for written comments by the public and respond to such comments through
review and discussion at a County Board meeting.
The Green County Board of Supervisors, by a majority vote, shall enact the ordinance
adopting the recommended plan (Section 66.1001(4)(c), Stats.). The adopted plan and
ordinance shall be distributed to the aforementioned parties in Section 66.1001(4)(b),
Stats. The plan shall contain all nine elements identified in Section 66.1001(2), Stats. If
the Green County Board of Supervisors asks the Zoning and Land Use Committee to
revise the recommended plan, it is not mandatory that these revisions be sent to the
distribution list. However, in the spirit of public participation and intergovernmental
cooperation, revisions that constitute a substantial change to the recommended plan may
be sent to the distribution list.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 12
Green County
COMMUNITY SURVEY
The following document contains community survey results for Green County, WI. The
survey was sent to property owners in Green County in the spring of 2003. The
Southwestern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission compiled the information for
Green County as part of the requirements of the Wisconsin Smart Growth legislation. Of
the 13,925 surveys mailed, 3,926 (28.2%) were returned. The percentages below were
based on the 3,926 returned surveys.
Quality of Life
1. What are the three most important reasons you and your family chose to live in Green
County?
22% Agriculture
3% Appearance of homes
4% Community Services
16% Cost of home
3% Historical significance
21% Low crime rate
28% Natural beauty
34% Near job (employment opportunity)
7% Property taxes
11% Quality of neighborhood
20% Quality of schools
5% Recreational opportunities
53% Small town atmosphere
50% Near family or friends
2. Is there anything about living in Green County that you do not like?
Comments report not attached.
Community Facilities and Services
3. Rate the following local services. The rating selections are Excellent (E), Good (G),
Fair (F), Poor (P), Don’t Know (DK), and No Response (NR).
a. Ambulance
b. Fire protection
c. Garbage collection
d. Municipal water system
e. Park and recreation facilities
f. Police protection
g. Public library
h. Public school system
i. Recycling programs
j. Sanitary sewer service
k. Snow removal
l. Storm water management
m. Street and road maintenance
Adopted Plan
E
G
F
P
DK
NR
37%
41%
24%
15%
26%
23%
32%
24%
26%
14%
22%
10%
11%
39%
41%
34%
31%
49%
51%
41%
47%
48%
34%
50%
34%
47%
4%
3%
9%
7%
12%
13%
9%
12%
12%
7%
15%
14%
29%
1%
1%
6%
2%
2%
3%
12%
2%
3%
2%
4%
4%
8%
17%
12%
20%
33%
6%
7%
2%
12%
8%
32%
6%
30%
3%
2%
2%
7%
12%
5%
3%
4%
3%
3%
11%
3%
8%
2%
April 18, 2006
Page 13
Green County
Natural and Cultural Resources
4. How important is it to protect the following. Your selections are Essential (E), Very
Important (VI), Important (I), Not Important (NI), Not Applicable (NA), and No
Response.
E
VI
I
NI
NA
NR
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
Air quality
Farmland
Forested lands
Groundwater
Historic and
Cultural sites
Open space
Rivers and streams
Rural character
Scenic views and
undeveloped hills/bluffs
Wetlands
Wildlife habitat
53%
43%
38%
60%
17%
31%
34%
36%
27%
30%
13%
17%
21%
10%
42%
1%
3%
2%
<1%
8%
<1%
1%
1%
<1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
27%
46%
29%
30%
32%
35%
33%
31%
32%
16%
28%
28%
5%
1%
6%
7%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3%
1%
3%
3%
31%
36%
28%
31%
29%
26%
8%
4%
1%
1%
3%
2%
Housing
Please give us your opinion about the development of housing in your community. Your
selections are Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D), Strongly Disagree (SD), No
Opinion (NO), and No Response (NR).
SA
A
D
SD NO
NR
5. Your local jurisdiction should focus on
improving existing housing quality.
17%
49%
12%
3%
14%
5%
6. More of the following types of
housing are needed.
a. Single family housing
b. Duplexes (2 units)
c. Apartments
13%
4%
4%
37%
28%
18%
13%
22%
27%
6%
12%
17%
21%
22%
22%
10%
12%
12%
7. Affordable housing is needed
in your local jurisdiction.
15%
39%
17%
8%
16%
5%
8. Elderly housing is needed in your
local jurisdiction.
15%
42%
16%
5%
18%
4%
9. Starter (first time home buyer) homes
are needed in your local jurisdiction.
11%
38%
21%
6%
19%
5%
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 14
Green County
10. Would you prefer housing built in a traditional design (Option A), or a cluster design
(Option B)?
29% Option A
56% Option B
15% No Response
11. Productive agricultural land should be allowed to be used for:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Agricultural use
Residential use
Commercial use
Any use
SA
A
D
SD
NO
NR
72%
4%
3%
5%
22%
24%
15%
8%
1%
34%
37%
29%
<1%
23%
29%
36%
1%
3%
4%
8%
4%
12%
12%
14%
12. Large scale farms (300 or more animal units) should be allowed to expand:
a. Anywhere in Green County
b. Nowhere in Green County
c. Outside a 2 mile radius of
incorporated areas
9%
11%
15%
20%
11%
38%
31%
35%
15%
24%
20%
12%
5%
8%
9%
11%
15%
11%
13. Landowners should be allowed
to develop land any way they want.
11%
17%
42%
24%
3%
3%
14. The visual impacts (view of the
landscape) is an important consideration
when evaluating proposed developments.
30%
54%
6%
2%
4%
4%
15. It is important to require driveways
that will meet standards for providing
emergency services.
38%
50%
6%
1%
3%
2%
16. There should be a minimum lot size
on residential development in rural areas.
31%
41%
13%
7%
6%
2%
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 15
Green County
17. In your opinion, what should be the minimum lot size for rural residential
development? Check only one box.
15% Less than 1 acre
49% 1 to 5 acres
12% 6 to 10 acres
4% No response
6% 11 to 40 acres
6% 40 or more acres
8% No limitation
Transportation
Please give us your opinion about transportation in your community. Your selections are
Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D), Strongly Disagree (SD), No Opinion
(NO), and No Response (NR).
SA
A
D
SD
NO
NR
18. The overall network (roads, streets,
and highways) in Green County meets
the needs of its citizens.
14%
75%
6%
1%
1%
3%
19. The condition of local roads and
streets in your community is adequate
for intended uses.
10%
71%
13%
2%
1%
3%
20. Biking and walking are important
modes of transportation in your
community.
14%
48%
21%
5%
9%
3%
21. There should be more biking and
walking lanes along public roadways.
17%
32%
26%
11%
11%
3%
22. Rate the following for your local jurisdiction. Your selections are Essential (E),
Very Important (VI), Important (I), Not Important (NI), Not Applicable (NA), and No
Response.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Adopted Plan
Roads
Sidewalks
Bike trails
Airports
Bus service
Shared ride van service
Railroads
E
VI
I
NI
NA
NR
9%
4%
12%
4%
1%
1%
1%
64%
36%
43%
30%
4%
10%
12%
19%
19%
15%
12%
5%
15%
14%
4%
6%
6%
3%
15%
12%
14%
1%
30%
20%
45%
69%
53%
51%
3%
5%
4%
6%
6%
9%
8%
April 18, 2006
Page 16
Green County
23. Check the two most effective ways your local jurisdiction could provide smart
growth information to its landowners and residents.
63% Direct mailings
37% Newspaper articles
19% Radio
33% Newsletters
30% Public meeting
11% Internet
Economic Development
Please give us your opinion about economic development in your community. Your
selections are Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D), Strongly Disagree (SD), No
Opinion (NO), and No Response (NR).
SA
A
D
SD
NO
NR
a. In an existing city or village
b. Near a city or village
c. Anywhere in Green County
17%
16%
6%
41%
57%
16%
16%
8%
30%
4%
3%
25%
6%
5%
7%
16%
11%
16%
25. Green County should work to
coordinate efforts to actively recruit
new businesses and industry.
51% 36%
4%
2%
3%
4%
26. All Green County communities
should provide at least some land with
infrastructure (water, sewer, access, etc.)
for industrial and commercial uses either
owned publicly or privately.
20%
43%
16%
6%
11%
4%
27. Development at the edge of cities
and villages should be required to have
municipal water and sewer services.
23%
45%
13%
3%
12%
4%
21%
28%
36%
41%
44%
43%
12%
6%
5%
6%
2%
2%
14%
14%
11%
6%
6%
3%
24. Commercial or industrial buildings
and activities involving truck traffic and
manufacturing should be located:
28. Green County jurisdictions should
pursue alternatives as a form of economic
development:
a. Ethanol plants
b. Solar energy
c. Wind energy
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 17
Green County
29. Rate the importance of the following: Your selections are Essential (E), Very
Important (VI), Important (I), Not Important (NI), Not Applicable (NA), and No
Response.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Agricultural related businesses
Commercial and retail development
Downtown development -main street
Home based businesses
Industrial and manufacturing
development
f. Tourism and recreation
E
VI
I
NI
NA
NR
43%
22%
22%
9%
26%
36%
39%
32%
20%
34%
17%
29%
33%
38%
29%
1%
5%
7%
20%
5%
1%
2%
3%
9%
2%
2%
3%
3%
4%
4%
21%
34%
33%
7%
2%
3%
30. If you could change one thing in your community, what would it be? Comments
report not attached.
31. Other comments: Comments report not attached.
Demographics
1. Gender
54% Male
39% Female
7% No response
2. Age
1% 18-24
9% 25-34
20% 35-44
1% No response
25% 45-54
20% 55-64
24% 65 and older
3. Employment status
48% Employed full time
16% Self employed
1% No response
8% Employed part time
24% Retired
2% Unemployed
1% Other
4. Place of residence
96% Own
1% Rent
1% Other
2% No response
5. Number of adults (over 18) in your household.
3%-0
Adopted Plan
17%-1
67%-2
9%-3
2%-4 1%-5 or more 1%-No response
April 18, 2006
Page 18
Green County
6. Number of children (under 18) in our household.
63%-0
11%-1
13%-2
5%-3
1%-4
<1%-5 or more
7%-No response
7. Income range
5% Less than 15,000
12% 15,000 to 24,999
27% 25,000 to 49,999
10% No response
22% 50,000 to 74,999
14% 75,000 to 99,999
10% 100,00 or more
8. How long have you lived in Green County?
3% Less than 1 year
17% 10 to 24 years
10% 1 to 4 years
56% 25 Years or more
11% 5 to 9 years
3% No response
9. How many acres of land do you own in Green County?
10%
32%
28%
15%
13%
2%
None
Less than 1 acre
1-10 acres
11-100 acres
100 or more acres
No response
10. Do you actively farm the land you own?
16% Yes
59% No
21% Not applicable
4% No response
11. Do you think your land will be actively farmed (by you or someone else) in the next:
(check all that apply).
11% 0- 5 years
8% 6-10 years
6% 11-15 years
11% 16 to 20 years
65% Not applicable
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 19
Utilities and Community Facilities
Green County
2.0 UTILITIES AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
2.1 CHAPTER SUMMARY
The purpose of this section is to inventory, map, and forecast utilities and community
facilities in Green County. Utilities and community facilities, often referred to as public
works, is the physical infrastructure that allows a community to function and grow.
Community facilities may include libraries, municipal offices, schools, police stations,
fire stations, parks, etc. Many of the community facilities are supported by utilities
including water services, sewer system, stormwater drainage, electricity, etc.
It is expected that the population in Green County will grow by 13-34% over the next 20
years (See Issues and Opportunities Chapter). This increase in population will
undoubtedly increase the demand for public utilities and community facilities. However,
the exact needs to expand, rehab, or create new utilities and community facilities are
difficult to determine. To the extent possible, this chapter tries to forecast the future
utility and community facility needs of Green County; however, these needs will vary
across Green County according to growth pressure and the level of service that is deemed
publicly acceptable.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 20
Green County
Wisconsin State Statute 66.1001(2)(d)
(d) Utilities and Community Facilities
A compilation of objectives, policies, goals, maps and programs to guide the future
development of utilities and community facilities in the local governmental unit such as
sanitary sewer service, storm water management, water supply, solid waste disposal, on-site
wastewater treatment technologies, recycling facilities, parks, telecommunications facilities,
power-generating plants and transmission lines, cemeteries, health care facilities, childcare
facilities and other public facilities, such as police, fire and rescue facilities, libraries, schools
and other governmental facilities. The element shall describe the location, use and capacity
of existing public utilities and community facilities that serve the local governmental unit, shall
include an approximate timetable that forecasts the need in the local governmental unit to
expand or rehabilitate existing utilities and facilities or to create new utilities and facilities and
shall assess future needs for government services in the local governmental unit that are
related to such utilities and facilities.
2.2 GOALS
The State of Wisconsin passed a comprehensive planning law in 2000 to compel
municipalities to create comprehensive plans. The plans include nine basic chapters:
Issues and Opportunities, Housing, Transportation, Utilities and Community Facilities,
Agricultural, Natural, and Cultural Resources, Economic Development, Land Use, and
Implementation. In addition to these basic nine elements, fourteen Local Comprehensive
Planning Goals were established which are more general in nature. Of these fourteen
goals, the two listed below have the particular objective of utility and community facility
development.
1. Encouragement of land uses, densities and regulations that promote efficient
development patterns and relatively low municipal, state governmental and utility
costs.
2. Providing adequate infrastructure and public services and an adequate supply of
developable land to meet existing and future market demand for residential,
commercial and industrial uses.
2.3 OBJECTIVES AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are Utilities and Community Facilities objectives and policy
recommendations as indicated by each jurisdiction that support the above goals and will
guide utility and community facility decisions in Green County over the next 20 years.
Note that the Villages of Belleville, Brooklyn, Albany, and the Town of Albany are not
included since they did not participate in the Green County multi-jurisdictional
comprehensive planning project. However, the Town of Albany completed their
Comprehensive Plan in 2002. In order for the County’s Plan to be in compliance, the
Town of Albany’s policies are included. See Tables 2.1bb through 2.1gg.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 21
Green County
Table 2.1a Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Review new development proposals and carefully examine their impact on the
community’s services.
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Cadiz
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of New Glarus
Town of Spring Grove
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of York
Village of Browntown
Village of Monticello
Village of New Glarus
Table 2.1b Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Ensure that adequate public utilities including system capacity are available before
issuing new development permits.
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of Monroe
Town of Sylvester
x
x
x
x
Town of York
Table 2.1c Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Maintain a process that informs, notifies, and allows for public participation in all capital
facility planning projects and proposals.
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Table 2.1d Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage well testing as a means of protecting drinking water supplies for private,
individual well users.
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
Town of Adams
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Jefferson
x
x
x
x
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 2.1e Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the education of landowners on the management and maintenance of private
septic systems.
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Cadiz
x
x
x
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of New Glarus
x
x
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 2.1f Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Develop/Maintain* a stormwater management strategy to protect ground and drinking
water supplies.
x
x
City of Monroe
Town of Exeter*
x
x
Town of New Glarus
x
x
Table 2.1g Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Support Green County regulations for siting wind towers and communications towers.
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 22
Green County
Table 2.1h Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Consider a strategy to site telecommunication (“cell”) towers.
x
x
Town of Jordan
Town of York
Table 2.1i Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Ensure that new development bears a fair share of capital improvement costs (and impact
fees*) necessitated by the development (according to State Statutes*).
x
x
x
x
City of Monroe
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz*
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of York
Table 2.1j Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Evaluate public utility alternatives and services to reduce the capital facility and operating
costs.
x
x
x
x
x
City of Monroe
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Jefferson
Table 2.1k Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage/Locate*/New** development that requires urban services to locate within
village or city limits.
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead*
City of Monroe*
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of York**
Village of New Glarus*
Table 2.1l Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Maintain a capital improvements program, reviewing it annually to make adjustments to
meet the needs of the community.
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
x
x
x
x
x
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
Table 2.1m Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage new growth to locate in areas that are most efficiently served with utilities.
x
x
x
Town of Cadiz
Town of Decatur
x
x
Town of Washington
x
x
Table 2.1n Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Discourage utility extensions into areas environmentally unsuitable for urban
development due to soils, flooding, and topography.
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
x
x
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of Monroe
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Table 2.1o Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Maintain the Juda Sanitary District.
x
Town of Jefferson
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 23
Green County
Table 2.1p Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Consider creating a special purpose district to perform specific tasks and oversight
essential to the community, if a need for a special district such as a utility, sanitary, or lake
district, is identified.
x
Town of New Glarus
Table 2.1q Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Strongly encourage underground electric and telephone distribution in all new
developments and subdivisions.
x
Town of New Glarus
Table 2.1r Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Continue to work with the County on plans, programs, and policies it has regarding
utilities and community facilities that the Town has to comply with.
x
Table 2.1s Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Continue to work with existing policies and procedures the County has concerning
stormwater management to protect ground and drinking water supplies.
x
Table 2.1t Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Prepare and disseminate a package of information (existing ordinances, comprehensive
planning information, Town regulations, etc.) for residents doing new construction or
moving into the Town.
x
Table 2.1u Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Where possible, when making utility system improvements, relocate water and sewer lines
from private to public property.
x
City of Brodhead
Table 2.1v Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Identify recharge areas for local wells and inventory potential contaminant sources so
development in those areas can be limited.
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Jefferson (Juda)
x
x
x
Table 2.1w Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Maintain/Establish water demand guidelines and policies.
x
x
x
City of Brodhead*
City of Monroe
Table 2.1x Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Maintain, operate, and reconstruct the existing utility systems so they can support
existing development and redevelopment.
x
x
City of Monroe
Table 2.1y Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
No new private wells or septic systems within the Village limits.
x
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 24
Green County
Table 2.1z Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Support Green County regulations for stormwater management to protect ground and
drinking water supplies.
x
Town of Adams
Table 2.1aa Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Where and when appropriate, utilize county, state, and federal programs or grants to
maintain, enhance, or pursue new utility and community facilities.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Note: In spring of 2002, the Town of Albany completed their Comprehensive Plan in compliance with
State Statute 66.1001. Although Albany’s plan was completed before Green County’s Comprehensive
Planning Process, in order for the County’s Plan to be complete and in compliance, the Town of Albany’s
policies must be included (see below). For more information, please see the Town of Albany
Comprehensive Plan.
Table 2.1bbUtilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
The Town of Albany will ensure adequate parks, recreation and open spaces for its
residents.
Table 2.1cc Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
The Town of Albany will continue to provide adequate facilities for the purpose of
gathering to conduct public business. The town will also ensure that adequate facilities
for police and fire protection exist.
Table 2.1dd Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
The town will continue to manage its Town Hall facility to ensure that it meets the needs of
local residents.
Table 2.1ee Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
The Town of Albany will continue to support the Albany Public Library.
Table 2.1ff Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Continue to support the Albany Public School System.
Table 2.1gg Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Continue to support the Albany Recycling Program and Center.
2.4 PUBLIC UTILITIES AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
2.4.1 SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
Sewerage systems in Wisconsin are subject to the administrative rules of the WI-DNR.
A "sewerage system" is the collection of all structures, conduits, and pipes, by which
sewage is collected, treated, and disposed of, with the exception of building plumbing
and the service pipes from buildings to municipally owned sewers.
The WI-DNR regulates municipal, industrial, and significant animal waste operations
discharging wastewater to surface or groundwater through the Wisconsin Pollutant
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 25
Green County
Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit program. The WI-DNR also establishes
the performance standards for wastewater treatment systems and sets numeric criteria
(such as TMDL) the discharger must meet. Permits are for a maximum five-year period
and approves discharge of a set quantity of wastewater at a specific location.
Green County jurisdictions listed in Table 2.2 are served by wastewater treatment
facilities. In addition, there are a few private wastewater treatment systems in
unincorporated areas of Green County that serve various businesses or parks (See Map
3.2 Utilities and Community Facilities Chapter Attachments). Non-participating
jurisdictions (Town of Albany, and Villages of Albany, Belleville, and Brooklyn) are not
listed in this table.
Table 2.2 Green County Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Cities
Brodhead
Monroe
Villages
Browntown
Monticello
New Glarus
Towns
Jefferson*
(Source: Green County Comprehensive Planning Utilities and Facilities Element Worksheets, 2004, Wisconsin Public
Service Commission) (*Unincorporated Juda)
Private onsite wastewater treatment systems (POWTS), or septic systems, treat domestic
wastewater, which would include domestic activities such as sanitary, bath, laundry,
dishwashing, garbage disposal, etc. These systems receive domestic wastewater and
either retains it in a holding tank, or treats and discharges into the soil. Any system with
a final discharge upon the ground surface, or discharging directly into surface waters of
the state, is subject to WI-DNR regulation. POWTS are most commonly used in rural or
large lot areas where sanitary sewer is not available. These systems are regulated under
WI COMM-83 and permits are issued by the Wisconsin Department of Commerce and
the WI-DNR. The majority of towns in Green County are served by POWTS. A certain
number of private systems exist in cities and villages due to unique circumstances. Table
2.3 indicates the estimated number of POWTS per jurisdiction. The future number of
POWTS needed in Green County’s unincorporated areas will depend largely on the
number of new homes that are constructed (See Housing, Chapter 4). Non-participating
jurisdictions (Town of Albany, and Villages of Albany, Belleville, and Brooklyn) are not
listed in this table.
Table 2.3 Green County Jurisdictions with Private Septic Systems
CITIES
Brodhead – 7
Monroe – 3
TOWNS
Adams – 182
Brooklyn – 357
Cadiz – 477
Clarno – 411
Decatur – 722
Exeter – 456
Jefferson – 276
Jordan – 219
Monroe – 463
Mt. Pleasant – 251
New Glarus – 304+
Spring Grove – 335
Sylvester – 289
Washington – 242
York – 291
VILLAGES
Browntown – 7
Monticello – 3
New Glarus – 0
(Source: Green County Comprehensive Planning Utilities and Facilities Element Worksheets, 2004)
2.4.2 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Stormwater management provides controlled release rates of runoff to receiving systems,
typically through detention and/or retention facilities. A stormwater management system
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 26
Green County
can be very simple – a series of natural drainage ways – or a complex system of culverts,
pipes, and drains. Either way, the purpose of the system is to store and channel water to
specific areas, diminishing the impact of non-point source pollution and erosion.
Beginning in August 2004, any construction sites disturbing more than one acre of land
must get state permits and keep soil on their land during and after construction (NR 151,
216). The threshold was lowered from five acres to one acre in order to comply with new
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Phase 2 Storm Water Regulations. The purpose
of the regulation is to lower and control the amount of sedimentation that reaches
Wisconsin rivers and lakes. Refer to the WI-DNR, Green County Department of
Conservation, and the Department of Zoning and Sanitation for more information on
storm water management.
All Green County jurisdictions have some type of natural drainage and in some cases,
sewered stormwater systems. Table 2.4 below lists Green County jurisdictions and what
type of stormwater system, if any, exists in their community.
Table 2.4 Green County Jurisdictions Stormwater Systems
Jurisdiction
Has Stormwater
Management System?
City of Brodhead
Yes
City of Monroe
Yes
Yes
Yes
Town of Clarno
Yes
Yes
Town of Decatur
Yes
Town of Exeter
Yes
Yes
Town of New Glarus
Yes
Yes
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Yes
Yes
What Type of System?
Erosion Control Ordinances, Storm
Sewers
Storm Water Ordinance, Erosion Control
Policy, Storm Sewers
Culverts, Ditches, Curb & Gutter
Storm Sewers, Drainage Ditches,
Biofilter on Lake Montesian
Erosion Control Ordinances
Per City of Monroe Ordinances
Agricultural Conservation Practices, 3
Drainage Districts
Soil Erosion & Storm Water Runoff
Ordinances
Driveway Ordinance, Direct Intervention
with Landowners
Residential Subdivision Ordinance
Agricultural Conservation Practices, 2
Drainage Districts
Culverts & Ditches Along Roads
Agricultural Conservation Practices
Has No Stormwater Management System
x
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Jefferson
x
x
x
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of York
2.4.3 WATER SUPPLY
A public water system can either be a community system, like a municipality, mobile
home park, or subdivision; or a non-community system, like a school, factory, or
wayside. Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources (WI-DNR) oversees
construction and operation of public water systems to make sure everyone has safe water.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 27
Green County
The Green County jurisdictions listed in Table 2.5 are served by a public water supply via
municipal well. No towns have a municipal well and non-participating jurisdictions
(Town of Albany, and Villages of Albany, Belleville, and Brooklyn) are not listed in this
table.
Table 2.5 Green County Municipal Wells
Cities
Brodhead
Monroe
Villages
Browntown
Monticello
New Glarus
(Source: Green County Comprehensive Planning Utilities and Facilities Element Worksheets, 2004, Wisconsin Public
Service Commission)
Groundwater from wells is the source of all Green County drinking water. Wells are
safe, dependable sources of water if sited wisely and built correctly. Wisconsin has had
well regulations since 1936, and today is recognized as a national leader in well
protection. NR 812 (formerly NR 112), Wisconsin’s Administrative Code for Well
Construction and Pump Installation, is administered by the WI-DNR. The Well Code is
based on the premise that if a well and water system is properly located, constructed,
installed, and maintained, the well should provide safe water continuously without a need
for treatment. The majority of town properties are served by private systems. Table 2.6
lists the Green County jurisdictions served by private wells. The future number of wells
needed in Green County’s unincorporated areas will depend largely on the number of
new homes that are constructed (See Housing, Chapter 4). Non-participating jurisdictions
(Town of Albany, and Villages of Albany, Belleville, and Brooklyn) are not listed in this
table.
Table 2.6 Green County Private Wells
Cities
Brodhead – 66
Monroe - 7
Towns
Adams - 182
Brooklyn - 357
Cadiz - 477
Clarno - 431
Decatur - 722
Exeter - 456
Jefferson - 442
Jordan - 219
Monroe - 443
Mt. Pleasant - 251
New Glarus - 304+
Spring Grove - 326
Sylvester - 289
Washington - 242
York - 291
Villages
Browntown - 10
Monticello - 1
New Glarus - 0
2.4.4 SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT
A special purpose district is a government entity that is responsible for performing
specific tasks and oversight essential to a community's or region's well being. Special
districts include sanitary districts, metropolitan sewerage districts, drainage districts,
inland lake protection and rehabilitation districts, business improvement districts (BIDs),
tax incremental financing districts (TIFs), architectural conservancy districts, and port
authorities. The following special purpose districts were identified in Green County.
x
x
x
City of Brodhead – BID & TIF Districts (Refer to Economic Development Chapter),
Brodhead Water & Light Commission
City of Monroe – BID & TIF Districts (Refer to Economic Development Chapter)
Village of New Glarus – Light and Water Works
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 28
x
x
x
x
Green County
Town of Decatur – Three Drainage Districts
Town of Exeter – Two Drainage Districts
Town of Jefferson – Sanitary District
Town of Spring Grove – Two Drainage Districts
2.4.5 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING FACILITIES
All jurisdictions in Green County have some form of solid waste (garbage) collection.
Some communities have curbside pick-up while others are serviced by a centralized drop
off location. Table 2.7 indicates what type of solid waste disposal and recycling
programs that exist in each community. Non-participating jurisdictions (Town of
Albany, and Villages of Albany, Belleville, and Brooklyn) are not listed in this table.
Table 2.7 Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling Programs
Cities
Brodhead*
Monroe*
Towns
Adams
Brooklyn
Cadiz
Clarno
Decatur
Exeter
Jefferson
Jordan
Monroe
Mt. Pleasant
New Glarus
Spring Grove
Sylvester
Washington
York
Villages
Browntown*
Monticello*
New Glarus*
*Curbside pick-up
In 1996, Wisconsin revised its solid waste rules to exceed the Federal (Subtitle ‘D’) rules
for municipal solid waste landfills becoming the first state to receive approval of its solid
waste program by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The WI-DNR authorizes
solid waste disposal pursuant to Wis. Stats. 289.35, and numerous WI Administrative
Codes. Refer to the WI-DNR, the Green County Department of Landfill, and the
Department of Zoning and Sanitation for more information on landfill regulations.
Table 2.8 lists the closed landfills in Green County. Specific information such as location
is given in each participating jurisdiction’s Utilities and Community Facilities Chapter.
Table 2.8 Closed Landfills
Cities
Brodhead - 0
Monroe – 3
Towns
Adams – 1
Brooklyn - 2
Cadiz - 2
Clarno - 0
Decatur – 3*
Exeter – 1
Jefferson - 0
Jordan - 0
Monroe - 0
Mt. Pleasant - 0
New Glarus – 1
Spring Grove - 0
Sylvester - 0
Washington – 1
York - 0
Villages
Browntown - 0
Monticello – 1
New Glarus – 1
*One landfill still excepting demolition waste
2.4.6 PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Refer to the Agricultural, Natural, and Cultural Resources Chapter for information on
County park and recreation facilities.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 29
Green County
2.4.7 TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Telecommunication towers, specifically cellular phone towers, are on the rise with
increased use of cellular phone. A number of jurisdictions in Green County already have
some type of tower either as a co-location tower (e.g. on top of a building or water tower)
or a freestanding tower. Table 2.9 below indicates jurisdictions with one or more types
of communication towers in the County. Non-participating jurisdictions (Town of
Albany, and Villages of Albany, Belleville, and Brooklyn) are not listed in this table.
Refer to the Green County Department of Zoning and Sanitation for more information on
telecommunication regulations.
Table 2.9 Green County Telecommunication Towers
Jurisdiction
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Number of Towers
Has a Location Strategy?
1, co-located on the water tower
1, 1110 18th Ave.
1, co-located on the water tower
0
1
0
1, STH 92
0
1, Franklin Road
0
1, CTH CC
3, Spring St., Radio Lane (2 WEKZ)
0
1, CTH N
0
2, STH 39 near Klitzke Road
0
1, CTH S
3, Fairview Rd, CTH J, CTH C
1, STH 39 near CTH J
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
2.4.8 POWER PLANTS AND TRANSMISSION LINES
Except for a few locations, most of Green County is part of the Alliant Wisconsin Power
and Light Company power grid. Two major East-West and one North-South electric
transmission lines cross the County. There are ten electrical substations located along
these lines in Green County. There is also one East-West and one North-South Northern
Natural Gas Pipelines crossing the County. Refer to the Alliant Energy, and Green
County Department of Zoning and Sanitations for more information on power plants and
transmission lines.
2.4.9 CEMETERIES
Refer to the Agricultural, Natural, and Cultural Resources Chapter for information on
local cemeteries.
2.4.10 POSTAL SERVICE
Post Offices are present in every Green County village or city.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 30
Green County
2.4.11 MUNICIPAL BUILDING
The two primary Green County municipal buildings are the County Courthouse in
downtown Monroe and the Government Services building. The 110-year old Courthouse
contains most of the government offices for the County and is the anchor of the
downtown Monroe business district. The Government Services building is located next
to the Pleasant View Nursing Home Complex on State Highway 81 just outside of the
City of Monroe. It contains additional Green County government offices including
UWEX.
2.4.12 POLICE, FIRE, AND RESCUE SERVICES
The Green County Sheriff’s Office/Jail/Highway Department is located at 2827 6th St. in
Monroe. All Green County jurisdictions have police, fire, and emergency services and
many communities share these services. Table 2.10 lists the police, fire, and emergency
services available in each jurisdiction. It is expected that the 13%-34% (See Issues and
Opportunities, Chapter 1) Green County population increase projected over the next 20
years will place greater demand on local police, fire, and rescue services. Nonparticipating jurisdictions (Town of Albany, and Villages of Albany, Belleville, and
Brooklyn) are not listed in this table.
Table 2.10 Green County Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
Jurisdiction
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
Adopted Plan
Police Protection
Brodhead Police Dept.
Monroe Police Dept.
Green County Sheriff Dept.
New Glarus Police Dept.
Green County & Lafayette
County Sheriff Depts.
Green County & Dane County
Sheriff Depts.
Green County & Lafayette
County Sheriff Depts.
Green County Sheriff &
Brodhead Police Depts.
Green County Sheriff & Belleville
Police Depts.
Green County Sheriff & Monroe
Police Depts.
Green County Sheriff & New
Glarus Police Depts.
Fire Protection
Emergency Services
Brodhead Fire Dept.
Monroe Fire Dept.
Browntown-Cadiz Fire &
Rescue Squad
Monticello Fire Dept.
New Glarus Fire Dept.
Argyle, Blanchardville,
Monticello, New Glarus,
Browntown
Albany, Belleville,
Brooklyn, Evansville,
Monticello, Oregon Fire
Depts.
Rescue Squad
Monroe Fire Dept.
Brodhead, Albany, Juda
Fire Depts.
Belleville, Monticello, New
Glarus Fire Depts.
Juda Fire & Rescue
Squad
Argyle, Browntown-Cadiz
Fire & Rescue Squad
Monroe Fire Dept.
Brodhead EMS
Monroe EMS
Rescue Squad
Monticello Fire Dept.
New Glarus EMS
Argyle, Blanchardville,
Monticello, New Glarus,
Browntown-Cadiz
Albany, Belleville,
Brooklyn, Evansville,
Monticello, Oregon
Rescue Squads
Rescue Squad
Monroe EMS
Brodhead, Albany, Juda
Fire Depts.
Belleville, Monticello, New
Glarus EMS
Juda Fire & Rescue
Squad
Argyle, Browntown-Cadiz
Fire & Rescue Squad
Monroe EMS
Albany, Monticello, New
Glarus Fire Depts.
New Glarus Fire Dept.
Albany, Monticello, New
Glarus Fire Depts.
New Glarus EMS
Brodhead & Juda Fire &
Rescue
Brodhead & Juda Fire &
Rescue
April 18, 2006
Page 31
Green County
Table 2.10 (cont.) Green County Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
Jurisdiction
Police Protection
Fire Protection
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Green County Sheriff &
Monticello Police Depts.
Green County Sheriff,
Blanchardville & New Glarus
Police Depts.
Albany, Monroe,
Monticello, & Juda Fire &
Rescue
Monticello & New Glarus
Fire & Rescue
Blanchardville & New
Glarus Fire & Rescue
Emergency Services
Albany, Monroe,
Monticello, & Juda Fire &
Rescue
Monticello & New Glarus
Fire & Rescue
Blanchardville & New
Glarus Fire & Rescue
Refer to each jurisdiction’s Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter for specific
information on shared police, fire, and emergency services, and mutual aid agreements.
2.4.13 LIBRARY FACILITIES
Below is a table of the libraries that are in Green County. Green County is part of the
South Central Library System. In 1971, the Wisconsin State Legislature passed a law
creating seventeen Library Systems in Wisconsin. The purpose of the Library Systems is
to provide free and equitable access to public libraries for all residents in Wisconsin even
if their community has no library. The Library Systems also serve to take on projects too
costly or complex for individual community libraries. The funding for the Public Library
Systems comes from a set percentage of the budgets of all the public libraries in
Wisconsin. It is expected that the 13%-34% (See Issues and Opportunities, Chapter 1)
Green County population increase projected over the next 20 years will place greater
demand on local libraries. Green County can support local libraries by continuing to
support the Public Library System.
Table 2.11 Libraries Serving Green County (Source: WI Department of Public Instruction)
Green County Public Libraries
Albany Public Library
Belleville Public Library
Brodhead Memorial Public Library
Monroe Public Library
Monticello Public Library
New Glarus Public Library
Address
203 Oak St., Albany WI 53502
130 Vine St., Belleville WI 53508
902 W. 2nd Ave., Brodhead WI 53520
925 16th Ave., Monroe WI 53566
512 E. Lake Ave., Monticello WI 53570
319 2nd St., New Glarus WI 53574
Phone
608-862-3491
608-424-1812
608-897-4070
608-325-3016
608-938-4011
608-527-2003
South Central Libraries Near Green County
Evansville Public Library
Oregon Public Library
5250 E. Terrace Dr., Madison WI 53718
39 W. Main St., Evansville WI 53536
256 Brook St., Oregon WI 53575
608-246-7970
608-882-2260
608-835-3656
Southwest Libraries Near Green County
Argyle Public Library
Blanchardville Public Library
1775 Fourth St., Fennimore WI 53809
401 E. Milwaukee St., Argyle WI 53504
208 Mason St., Blanchardville WI 53516
608-822-3393
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
608-523-2055
Page 32
Green County
2.4.14 PRIMARY, SECONDARY, AND HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES
Green County is covered by twelve school districts (See Map 2.1 Utilities and
Community Facilities Chapter Attachments). Below is a table and graph of past and
projected school enrollment for Green County. Past enrollment figures are from the U.S.
Census, while projected enrollment figures are based on the population projections
presented in the Issues and Opportunities Chapter. Table 2.12 School Enrollment Projections
As the data indicates, it does not appear there will (Source: US Census, SWWRPC)
be a significant increase in children attending KK-12 Past & Projected
Year
Enrollment
12 schools over the next 30 years. Green County
can support the schools that serve the community
1970
7,054
6,486
by continuing to work with and support the school 1980
5,625
districts that serve local communities. None of the 1990
2000
6,905
School District Administrators indicated any plans
2010 Low
7,585
to expand or create new schools in the near future.
2010 High
8,304
Refer to the Utilities and Community Facilities
2020 Low
7,419
Chapter Attachments Table 2.17 for a list of the
2020 High
8,763
Public and Private Green County Educational
2030 Low
7,314
Facilities.
2030 High
9,138
Figure 2.1 Green County School Enrollment Projections
(Source: US Census, SWWRPC)
10,000
9,000
8,000
Population
7,000
6,000
Census
5,000
Low Projection
High Projection
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
Year
Figure 2.1 shows the projected K-12 enrolled for the years 2010, 2020, 2030. The red line indicates what
the projected high enrollment could be, while the blue line indicates what the projected low enrollment
could be. Enrollment projections are based on the population projections for children age 5-19. Note:
Census collected population data by groups; therefore, the 15-19 year old category has to be used; thus, the
inclusion of those who are 19 will slightly inflate the enrollment figures.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 33
Green County
There are several regional institutions of higher education offering a wide variety of
educational opportunities including certificates, technical diplomas, associate, bachelor,
and master’s degrees. The nearest colleges and universities outside Green County are
located in Fennimore (Southwest Wisconsin Technical College), Platteville (UW Platteville), Madison (Edgewood College, UW-Madison, Madison Area Technical
College), Beloit (Beloit College), Whitewater (UW-Whitewater), and Richland Center
(UW - Richland).
The Blackhawk Technical College in Monroe (www.blackhawk.edu or 608-328-1660) is
the only higher education facility located in Green County. In 2004, the BTC in Monroe
was expanded by approximately 10,000 sq.ft. to accommodate a new nursing program.
In addition, work began in 2005 at BTC’s central campus in Janesville. An 80,000 sq.ft.
addition will house a new protective services area designed for police, fire, and EMS
training. Both the Rock and Green County Sheriff’s Departments will use this facility.
2.4.15 CHILDCARE FACILITIES
Green County is served by Southcentral Wisconsin Child Care Resource and Referral
(SCCCR&R), which is committed to improving early care and education by providing
support and information to families, providers, and the public in order to create and meet
a demand for high quality childcare. Services provided include information, education,
and referrals for childcare consumers, recruitment and training for childcare
professionals, technical assistance and support to those in the childcare business,
employer assistance in addressing work/family issues, and childcare data for local
community planning. SCCCR&R is part of a statewide network of community-based,
childcare resource and referral agencies.
Below is a table of formalized childcare centers in Green County. Similar childcare
facilities are available in communities outside of Green County. In addition, the
Southcentral Wisconsin Child Care Resource and Referral (SCCCR&R) estimates that
there are fifty independent providers found throughout Green County municipalities.
Based on Green County’s current population and projections for ages 10 or less (See
Issues and Opportunities Chapter), there does not appear to be a significant increase in
demand for childcare facilities in the next 30 years.
Table 2.13 Childcare Facilities in Green County (Source: SCCCR&R)
Green County Childcare Facilities
A Home Away From Home
Albany Playhouse Children Center LLC
Allen's Day Care
Color Me Day Care
Heart of Brooklyn Preschool & Childcare Center
Heart of Brooklyn School Age CC
Helping Hands Day Care
Little Red Caboose Inc.
Play Pals Family Day Care
Adopted Plan
Address
304 E. State St., Albany WI 53502
334 S. Main St., Monticello WI 53570
109 Hotel St., Brooklyn WI
201 Church St., Brooklyn WI
2568 13th St., Monroe WI 53566
103 21st St., Monroe WI 53566
April 18, 2006
Phone
608-328-2880
608-862-3888
608-325-9840
608-938-1555
608-455-3301
608-455-6080
608-329-6172
608-329-6103
608-329-7618
Page 34
Green County
Table 2.13 (cont.) Childcare Facilities in Green County (Source: SCCCR&R)
Rainbow
Room to Grow LLC
Small World Inc.
Numerous Individual Licensed & Certified Providers
11 Karl Ave., Belleville WI 53508
107 2nd Ave., New Glarus 53574
608-328-8203
608-424-6319
608-527-2954
2.4.16 HEALTHCARE FACILITIES
There are numerous healthcare facilities located within Green County. Based on Green
County’s current population and projections for ages 60 and over (See Issues and
Opportunities Chapter), there seems to be an indication for an increased demand for
healthcare facilities. Over the next 10 to 30 years, the population of individuals 60 and
over may increase from 6,395 in 2000 to an estimated 7,375 (2010 Low) to 14,968 (2030
High). This aging population trend can be found throughout Wisconsin. As the
population ages there will be an increased demand for all types of healthcare facilities.
Since many doctor offices, medical clinics, and hospitals are located within cities and
villages, it is more difficult for Green County to make decisions on the future of these
facilities. However, since all County residents need healthcare, Green County should
work with communities that have facilities to make sure that there is an adequate supply
of healthcare facilities in the future. Below is a table of all of the healthcare facilities that
serve Green County residents.
Table 2.14 Health Care Facilities Serving Green County (Source: WI Department of Health and Family Services)
Green County Health Care Facilities
Dean Health System (Branch)
Mercy Clinic (Branch)
Monroe Clinic (Branch)
Monroe Hospital & Clinic
UW Health Belleville Family Medical Clinic (Branch)
Address
515 22nd Ave., Monroe WI 53566
2310 1st Center Ave., Brodhead WI 53520
1800 2nd St., New Glarus WI 53574
100 N. Water, Albany WI 53502
515 22nd Ave., Monroe WI 53566
21 S. Vine St., Belleville WI 53508
Phone
# Beds
608-324-2000 None
608-897-8664 None
608-527-5296 None
608-897-2191 None
608-862-1616 None
608-324-1000
100
608-424-3384 None
Health Care Facilities Near Green County
Beloit Memorial Hospital
Memorial Community Hospital
Memorial Hospital of Lafayette County
Mendota Mental Health Institute
Mercy Health System Corporation
Meriter Hospital
St. Mary's Hospital
Stoughton Hospital Association
University of Wisconsin Hospital
Upland Hills Health Inc.
William S. Middleton Memorial VA Medical Center
Numerous Dean Health Care Clinics
Address
1969 W. Hart Rd., Beloit WI 53511
313 Stoughton Rd., Edgerton WI 53534
800 Clay St., Darlington WI 53530
301 Troy Dr., Madison WI 53704
1000 Mineral Point Ave., Janesville WI 53545
202 S. Park St., Madison WI 53715
707 S. Mills St., Madison WI 53715
900 Ridge St., Stoughton WI 53589
600 Highland Ave., Madison WI 53792
800 Compassion Way, Dodgeville WI 53533
2500 Overlook Terrace, Madison WI 53705
1808 W. Beltline Highway, Madison WI 53713
Phone
608-364-5011
608-884-3441
608-776-4466
608-301-1000
608-756-6625
608-267-6000
608-251-6100
608-873-6611
800-323-8942
608-930-8000
608-256-1901
800-279-9966
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 35
# Beds
256
29
28
384
240
448
440
69
536
40
99
None
Green County
Refer to the Utilities and Community Facilities Chapter Attachments for a table that lists
Non-Emergency Medical Facilities (solely in Green County) such as chiropractors,
dentists, optometrists, podiatrists, and sports medicine. Similar facilities are available in
other communities outside of Green County.
Refer to the Utilities and Community Facilities Chapter Attachments for a table listing
senior care facilities located in Green County. Similar facilities are available in other
communities outside of Green County.
2.4.17 OTHER COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Green County has other utilities available including satellite television, electric, Internet
services, telephone, and cellular services. Independent providers such as Alliant Energy,
Direct TV, and US Cellular provide these services. Current rate information and specific
services can be obtained by contacting the independent carriers. Additional Green
County buildings include:
x Highway Shop (2813 6th St., Monroe)
x Highway Shop (60 2nd St., New Glarus)
x Highway Shop (1800 W. 14th St., Brodhead)
x Salt Storage Shed (N7381 CTH X, Attica)
x Salt Storage Shed (CTH C & CTH J)
2.4.18 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (CIP)
A CIP is a multi-year scheduling of physical public improvements based on the
examination of available fiscal resources, as well as the prioritization of such
improvements. Capital improvements are those that include new or expanded physical
facilities that are relatively large, expensive, and permanent. Street improvements, public
libraries, water and sewer lines, and park and recreation facilities are common examples
of capital improvements. Only a few jurisdictions have a formal CIP, but several have
identified upcoming capital projects. The specific CIP’s were not included in this plan
but are available by contacting each jurisdiction independently.
Refer to Map 2.1 in the Utilities and Community Facilities Chapter Attachments for a
map of various utilities and community facilities in Green County.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 36
2.5
Green County
UTILITIES AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES, AGENCIES, AND PROGRAMS
There are a number of available state and federal agencies and programs to assist
communities with public works projects. Below are brief descriptions of various
agencies and programs. Contact information has been provided for each agency. To find
out more information or which program best fits your needs, contact the agency directly.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE – RURAL DEVELOPMENT (USDA-RD)
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DIRECT GRANT AND LOAN PROGRAM
The community facilities grant program provides
grants to assist the development of essential
USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT OF
WISCONSIN
community facilities in rural areas and towns of up to
20,000 people. The objective of the agency is to
4949 Kirschling Ct
construct, enlarge, extend, or otherwise improve
Stevens Point, WI 54481
community facilities providing essential services to
rural residents. This can include the purchase of
Phone: (715) 345-7615
FAX: (715) 345-7669
equipment required for a facility’s operation. All
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/wi/
projects that are funded by the RHS grant program
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rhs/
must be for public use.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM
The community facilities loan program is similar to the grant program in that it provides
funding for essential community facilities, such as schools, roads, fire halls, etc. Again
local jurisdictions must have a population of less than 20,000 to be able to apply.
Applications are funded based on a statewide priority point system. For more
information on the loan program log on to the USDA-RD website or call the office listed
above.
UNITES STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE – RURAL UTILITIES
There are a number of available programs through USDA-RUS as part of the Water and
Environmental Programs (WEP). WEP provides loans, grants, and loan guarantees for
drinking water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, and storm drainage facilities in rural areas,
cities, and towns of 10,000 or less. Public bodies, non-profit organizations and
recognized Indian Tribes may qualify for assistance. WEP also makes grants to nonprofit organizations to provide technical assistance and training to assist rural
communities with their water, wastewater, and solid waste programs. Some of the
available programs include:
x Water and Waste Disposal Direct and Guaranteed Loans
x Water and Waste Disposal Grants
x Technical Assistance and Training Grants
x Solid Waste Management Grants
x Rural Water Circuit Ride Technical Assistance
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 37
Green County
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) NATURAL RESOURCE
CONSERVATION (NRCS) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (US
EPA) COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH EDUCATION EXTENSION SERVICE (CSREES)
FARM*A*SYST
Farm*A*Syst is a national program
cooperatively supported by the above agencies.
The program enables you to prevent pollution
on farms, ranches, and in homes using
confidential environmental assessments. This
program can help you determine your risks. A
system of fact sheets and worksheets helps you
to identify the behaviors and practices that are creating risks. Some of the issues
Farm*A*Syst can help you address include:
x Quality of well water, new wells, and abandoned wells
x Livestock waste storage
x Storage and handling of petroleum products
x Managing hazardous wastes
FARM*A*SYST & HOME*A*SYST
x Nutrient management
Farm*A*Syst is a voluntary program, so you decide
whether to assess your property. This program is
nationally and internationally recognized for its
common-sense approach to managing environmental
risks. Contact the Farm*A*Syst office for more
information on available programs.
303 Hiram Smith Hall
1545 Observatory Drive
Madison, WI 53706-1289
Phone: 608-262-0024
http://www.uwex.edu/farmasyst
http://www.uwed.edu/homeasyst
HOME*A*SYST
Also available through the cooperative efforts of USDA, NRCS, CSREES, and US EPA
is the national Home*A*Syst program. This program is very similar to the Farm*A*Syst
program explained above, but instead is specific to your home. The program begins with
a checklist to identify risks including safety of drinking water, use and storage of
hazardous chemicals, and lead based paint. The program can help you develop an action
plan to reduce your risks. Contact the Home*A*Syst program to find out more
information and to obtain worksheets to begin your assessment today.
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (WIDNR)
BUREAU OF COMMUNITY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE (DNR-CFA)
The Bureau of Community Assistance administers a number of grant and loan programs.
The Bureau supports projects that protect the public health and the environment and
provide recreational opportunities. The Bureau has three major areas of programs, which
include the following:
x Environmental Loans: This is a loan program for drinking water, wastewater, and
brownfield projects.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 38
x
x
Green County
Environmental Financial Assistance Grants: This is a grant program for nonpoint source runoff pollution, recycling, lakes, rivers, municipal flood control and
well compensation.
Land & Recreation Financial Assistance
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF
Grants: This is a grant program for
NATURAL RESOURCES (WI-DNR)
conservation, restoration, parks, stewardship,
101 S Webster St
acquisition of land and easements for
Madison WI 53703
conservation purposes, recreational facilities
and trails, hunter education, forestry, forest
Phone: 608-266-2621
fire protection, gypsy moth, household
Fax: 608-261-4380
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us
hazardous waste collection, dam rehabilitation
and abandonment, dry cleaner remediation,
and urban wildlife damage.
These programs listed above are the major program headings. There are numerous
programs available for specific projects underneath these umbrella programs. For
example, under the Environmental Loans Program, there is the Safe Drinking Water Loan
Program (SDWLP). The SDWLP provides loans to public water systems to build,
upgrade, or replace water supply infrastructure to protect public health and address
federal and state safe drinking water requirements. For more information on other
available programs, contact the Wisconsin DNR or visit the website listed above.
WISCONSIN WELL COMPENSATION GRANT PROGRAM
Another program available through the Wisconsin DNR is the Well Compensation Grant
Program. To be eligible for a grant, a person must own a contaminated private water
supply serving a residence or watering livestock. Owners of wells serving commercial
properties are not eligible, unless the commercial property also contains a residential unit
or apartment. The Well Compensation Grant Program provides partial cost sharing for
the following:
x Water testing if it shows the well is contaminated
x Reconstructing a contaminated well
x Constructing a new well
x Connecting to an existing private or public water supply
x Installing a new pump, including the associated piping
x Property abandoning the contaminated well
x Equipment for water treatment
x Providing a temporary bottled or trucked water supply
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
WISCONSIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM PUBLIC
FACILITIES (CDBG-PF)
This program is designed to assist small communities with public facility improvements.
Eligible activities would include publicly owned utility system improvements, streets,
sidewalks, disability accessibility projects, and community centers. Local governments
including towns, villages, cities, and counties are eligible. Entitlement cities, over 50,000
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 39
Green County
in population, are not eligible. Federal grant funds
are made available on an annual basis. The
maximum grant for any single applicant is $750,000.
Grants are only available up to the amount that is
adequately justified and documented with
engineering or vendor estimates.
WI DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
DIVISION OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
PO Box 7970
Madison, WI 53707
Phone: 608-266-8934
Fax: 608-266-8969
WISCONSIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
http://www.commerce.state.wi.us
GRANT PROGRAM PUBLIC FACILITIES (CDBGhttp://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rhs/
PFED)
This program helps underwrite the cost of municipal
infrastructure necessary for business development. This program requires that the result
of the project will ultimately induce businesses, create jobs, and invest in the community.
More information is available from the Wisconsin Department of Commerce.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 40
Green County
UTILITIES & COMMUNITY FACILITIES
CHAPTER ATTACHMENTS
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 41
Green County
Non-EMERGENCY MEDICAL AND SENIOR CARE FACILITIES
Table 2.15 Non-Emergency Medical Facilities in Green County (Source: 2004-2005 Green County Phone Directory)
Green County Chiropractors
Belleville Chiropractic Center
Brodhead Chiropractic Center
Chiropractic Center of Monroe
Family Chiropractic Clinic of Monroe
Flesch Chiropractic Clinic
Guerin Chiropractic Center
Luedtke-Storm-Mackey Chiropractic Clinic
Monroe Chiropractic Associates
Olson Chiropractic of Monroe
Onsrud, Erik
United Chiropractic
Address
1019 River St., Belleville WI 53508
807 16th Ave., Brodhead WI 53520
29 W. Main St., Belleville WI 53508
700 State Rd., New Glarus WI 53574
404 W. 10th Ave., Monroe WI 53566
Phone
608-424-1840
608-897-3080
608-328-2225
608-325-1999
608-424-6525
608-325-2626
608-527-2715
608-328-8304
608-329-4710
608-328-8226
608-897-2136
Green County Dentists
Brodhead Dental Clinic
Carter, Craig & Armstrong, Randy
Delforge, Drew
Donovan, G.S.
Frehner, Daniel
Ganshert Dental Clinic
Jeglum, Robert
Kebus, Andrew
Moen, Donald
New Glarus Family Dentistry
Patterson, Scott
Southern WI Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery
Wake, David
Walker, George
Winn, James
Address
702 23rd St., Brodhead WI 53520
577 W. Church St., Belleville WI 53508
1001 W. 6th Ave., Monroe WI 53566
113 6th Ave., New Glarus WI 53574
152 N. Main St., Monticello WI 53570
Phone
608-897-8645
608-325-6661
608-325-4995
608-424-3301
608-328-8149
608-325-9105
608-328-8228
608-897-4300
608-527-2922
608-527-2121
608-328-8160
608-325-7177
608-325-6129
608-325-6680
608-938-4001
Green County Optometrists
Mueller & Healy
Schoenenberger, Jake
Vision Clinic
Address
1005 17th St., Brodhead WI 53520
Phone
608-325-5606
608-527-2615
608-897-2128
Green County Podiatrists
Monroe Foot Clinic
Address
Phone
608-325-9175
Green County Sports Medicine
Orthopaedic & Sports Medicine Clinic
Address
Phone
608-325-1900
Green County Veterinarians
Belleville Veterinary Clinic
Brodhead Veterinary Medical Center
Green Pastures Veterinary Service
Monroe Veterinary Service
New Glarus Veterinary Service
Sugar River Veterinary
Address
201 S. Vine, Belleville WI 53508
W1175 State Rd., Brodhead WI 53520
203 E. Lake Ave., Monticello WI 53570
1317 31st Ave., Monroe WI 53566
1106 State Rd., New Glarus WI 53574
1305 20th Ave., Brodhead WI 53520
Phone
608-424-6364
608-897-8632
608-938-1581
608-325-2106
608-527-2212
608-897-2438
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 42
Green County
Table 2.16 Senior Care Facilities in Green County (Source: WI Department of Health and Family Services)
Green County Nursing Homes
Monroe Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation
New Glarus Home Inc.
Pleasant View Nursing Home
Address
600 2nd Ave., New Glarus 53574
N3150 Highway 81, Monroe 53566
Phone
608-325-9141
608-527-2126
608-325-2171
Use
68-74
69
128
Capacity
74
97
130
Green County Residential Care
Apartments
Angelus Retirement Community
St. Clare Friendensheim
Address
Phone
608-328-2339
608-329-3601
Use
30
47
Capacity
40
50
Green County Adult Family Homes
Chambers Hansion
Country Care
Greenco House I
Greenco House II
Greenco House III
Greenco House IV
Grimm Residence
Raabs Adult Family Home I
Raabs Adult Family Home II
Address
W5860 Advance Rd., Monroe WI 53566
2506-8 16th Ave., Monroe WI 53566
132 Peerless Rd., New Glarus WI 53574
Phone
608-325-9875
608-325-4686
608-328-8324
608-328-2349
608-328-8326
608-325-4016
608-527-2059
608-328-4619
608-328-4619
Use
4
4
3
4
7
3
3
NA
NA
Capacity
4
4
4
4
8
4
4
4
4
Green County Community Based
Residential Facilities
Applewood
Caring Hands 2 Inc.
Churchill Woods Apts/Housing Authority
Collinwood Elderly Care
Encore Senior Village Monroe 1
Encore Senior Village Monroe 2
Glarner Lodge CBRF
Graceland Manor II
Graceland Manor III
Heartsong CBRF
Morning Sun Care Home
Suncrest Country
Sylvan Crossing
Twining Valley Neighborhood
Address
W6848 County B, Monroe WI 53566
605 E. 4th Ave., Brodhead WI 53520
703 Green St., Brodhead WI 53520
610 2nd Ave., New Glarus WI 53574
320 W. 17th St., Monroe WI 53566
316 W. 17th St., Monroe WI 53566
415 East Ave., Belleville WI 53508
N4166 County E, Brodhead WI 53520
N5604 Deerwood Dr., Albany WI 53502
2 Heritage Lane, Belleville WI 53508
Phone
608-325-7795
608-897-2451
608-325-2949
608-897-8624
608-329-6340
608-329-6336
608-527-2126
608-329-7090
608-329-7150
608-424-6787
608-897-8211
608-862-1011
608-274-1111
608-329-4400
Use
5
10
84
16
18
0
NA
13
9
13
11
5
20
60
Capacity
5
10
90
16
19
8
10
14
15
15
13
5
20
75
Green County Adult Day Care
Hand in Hand Adult Day Center
Address
Phone
608-558-7021
Use
NA
Capacity
20
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 43
Green County
Nursing Homes – A residential facility that provides 24-hour service including room and
board to three or more unrelated persons. These persons require more than seven hours a
week of nursing care due to their physical or mental conditions.
Residential Care Apartments – Independent apartment units in which the following
services are provided: room and board, up to 28 hours per week of supportive care,
personal care, and nursing services.
Adult Family Homes – A place where three or four adults who are not related to the
operator reside and receive care, treatment, or services that are above the level of room
and board and that may include up to seven hours per week of nursing care per resident.
Community Based Residential Facility – A place where five or more unrelated people
live together in a community setting. Services provided include room and board,
supervision, support services, and many include up to three hours of nursing care per
week.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 44
Green County
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE GREEN COUNTY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
Table 2.17 Public Schools & Districts Serving Green County (Source: WI Department of Public Instruction, SWWRPC)
School District
Albany
Argyle
Belleville
Pecatonica Area
Brodhead
Evansville
Community
Black Hawk
Juda
Monroe
Monticello
New Glarus
Oregon
Private
Private
Adopted Plan
Public Schools
Phone
Grades
Albany Elem, Middle, High
Argyle Elementary
Argyle High
Belleville Elementary
Belleville Intermediate
Belleville Middle
Belleville High
Pecatonica Elementary
Pecatonica High
Ronald R Albrecht Elementary
Brodhead Middle
Brodhead High
Theodore Robinson
Levi Leonard Elementary
J C McKenna Middle
Evansville High
Black Hawk Elementary
Black Hawk Middle
Black Hawk High
Juda Elem, High
Abraham Lincoln Elementary
Monroe Alternative Charter
Northside Elementary
Parkside Elementary
Monroe Middle
Monroe High
Monticello Elem, Middle, High
New Glarus Elementary
New Glarus Middle & High
Brooklyn Elementary
Netherwood Knoll Elementary
Prairie View Elementary
Rome Corners Intermediate
Oregon Middle
Oregon High
608-862-3135
608-543-3318
608-543-3318
608-424-3337
608-424-3371
608-424-1902
608-424-1902
608-523-4283
608-523-4248
608-897-2146
608-897-2184
608-897-2155
608-882-3888
608-882-4606
608-882-4780
608-882-4600
608-439-5444
608-922-6457
608-439-5371
608-934-5251
608-328-7172
608-328-7128
608-328-7134
608-328-7130
608-328-7120
608-328-7117
608-938-4194
608-527-2810
608-527-2410
608-455-4501
608-835-4101
608-835-4201
608-835-4701
608-835-4801
608-835-4301
PK-12
K4-5
6-12
PK-1
2-6
7-8
9-12
PK-6
7-12
PK-5
6-8
9-12
3-5
PK-2
6-8
9-12
PK-4
5-8
9-12
K3-12
PK-5
9-12
PK-5
PK-5
6-8
9-12
K4-12
PK-6
7-12
PK-4
PK-4
PK-4
5-6
7-8
9-12
New Glarus Christian School
Saint Victor Grade School
608-527-2626 K-12
608-325-3395 Elementary
April 18, 2006
Year
Built/Last
2003
Estimated
Expansion Enrollment Capacity
1922/1996
1965
1999
1962
1922
1996
1996
1950/1990
1950/1995
1965/1990
1961/1970s
1996
1962/1993
1967/2002
1921/2002
2002
1921/1996
1951/1975
1921/1996
1924/2001
1979/1999
1970
1968/1999
1985/1999
1921/1999
1950/1999
1966/1995
1954/2000
1992
1961/1998
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
440
177
189
153
320
166
257
224
262
504
319
405
376
393
400
499
188
155
200
311
325
54
330
328
450
925
427
440
348
399
452
408
548
590
1086
600
150
200
300
750
750
750
310
330
NA
NA
NA
400
450
500
650
400
350
400
400
400
60
600
400
600
1000
500
500
500
476
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15
85
NA
NA
Page 45
Agricultural, Natural & Cultural Resources
Green County
3.0 AGRICULTURAL, NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Wisconsin State Statute 66.1001(2)(e)
(e) Agricultural, Natural and Cultural Resources.
A compilation of objectives, policies, goals, maps and programs for the conservation, and
promotion of the effective management, of natural resources such as groundwater, forests,
productive agricultural areas, environmentally sensitive areas, threatened and endangered
species, stream corridors, surface water, floodplains, wetlands, wildlife habitat, metallic and
nonmetallic mineral resources, parks, open spaces, historical and cultural resources,
community design, recreational resources and other natural resources.
3.1
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
3.1.1 CHAPTER SUMMARY
The purpose of the Agricultural element is to present agricultural data and provide
direction for land use decisions that affect agriculture for the next 20 years. Agriculture
is an integral part of Green County and although there are conflicts between farm
operations and non-farm neighbors, it is clear that maintaining current farm operations
and agriculture is vital to the County. Agriculture in general is rapidly changing in
response to market forces and government programs, challenging Green County to
maintain a balance between simultaneous growth of non-farm and agricultural sectors,
while also focusing on factors impacting agricultural land use decisions.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 46
Green County
3.1.2 GOALS
goals, the one listed below has the particular objective of agricultural resource protection,
both from an environmental standpoint, as well as an economic one.
1. The protection of economically productive areas, including farmland and forests.
3.1.3 OBJECTIVES AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Agricultural resource policies are intended to help support, encourage, protect, and
conserve specific indigenous resources that may or may not be renewable. The following
are the agricultural resources policies (not listed in order of priority) for Green County
jurisdictions.
The Agricultural Resource Worksheet asked questions pertaining to agricultural
resources, helping jurisdictions select and develop their particular policy statements.
Tables 3.1.1a through 3.1.1o lists the various agricultural resource policies selected by
each jurisdiction. The jurisdictions listed beneath each policy indicate those including
that policy in their plans. Note that the Villages of Belleville, Brooklyn, Albany, and the
Town of Albany are not included since they did not participate in this Green County
multi-jurisdictional comprehensive planning project. However, the Town of Albany
completed their Comprehensive Plan in 2002. In order for the County’s Plan to be in
compliance, the Town of Albany’s policies are included. See Tables 3.1.1p through
3.1.1t.
Table 3.1.1a Agricultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Maintain the rural and agricultural character of the community.
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 3.1.1b Agricultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
conserve, maintain, and protect agricultural resources.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Adopted Plan
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
April 18, 2006
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Page 47
Green County
Table 3.1.1c Agricultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage programs that educate local residents about the importance of agriculture
resources.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 3.1.1d Agricultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Require that new residents receive a copy of a ‘Rural Code of Conduct’ that outlines the
traditional community norms and expectations for rural residents/
x
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 3.1.1e Agricultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage farmers and landowners to conserve, maintain, and protect agricultural
resources.
x
Town of Cadiz
Table 3.1.1f Agricultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the preservation of the family farm, cropland, and farmland in the community.
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Exeter
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 3.1.1g Agricultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Preserve prime farmland for agricultural uses.
x
x
x
x
Town of Decatur
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
Table 3.1.1h Agricultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the preservation of the family farm and farmland in the community by
controlling the number of animal units to 300.
x
Town of Decatur
Table 3.1.1i Agricultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Preserve/Encourage* agricultural fields in the community from encroachment by
incompatible development (Limit fragmentation of crop fields).
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
x
x
x
Town of Decatur
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Table 3.1.1j Agricultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Maintain proper separation distances between urban and rural land uses to avoid
conflicts.
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Cadiz
Adopted Plan
x
x
x
x
Town of Clarno
Town of Sylvester
April 18, 2006
x
x
x
x
Town of Washington
Town of York
Page 48
Green County
Table 3.1.1k Agricultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Discourage isolated non-agricultural commercial and industrial uses in agricultural areas.
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
x
x
x
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of York
Table 3.1.1l Agricultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage residential and commercial development to locate in areas least suited for
agricultural purposes.
x
x
x
x
x
City of Monroe
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
x
x
x
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of York
Table 3.1.1m Agricultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Reduce new residential and commercial development growth to preserve farmland.
x
Town of Washington
Table 3.1.1n Agricultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Maintain the agricultural infrastructure to support agricultural operations.
x
x
x
x
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Clarno
x
x
x
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of Monroe
Town of Sylvester
x
x
x
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 3.1.1o Agricultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
The fragmentation of cropland should be avoided.
x
Town of York
Comprehensive Plan.
Table 3.1.1p Agricultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Provide continuing support to existing operations and agriculture activities throughout the
township.
Table 3.1.1q Agricultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Preserve and protect agriculturally productive soils in the Town of Albany.
Table 3.1.1r Agricultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage all farm operations in the Town of Albany to work with the Green County Land
and Water Conservation Department to create, file, and operate under farm management
plans.
Table 3.1.1s Agricultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
The Town of Albany advocates that state and federal agency policies should consider the
town’s preservation efforts when reviewed for interpretation and application within the
township. Specifically, farmers should be allowed greater access to limited wetlands,
once tiled and farmed, based on the town’s efforts to direct growth away from these areas.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 49
Green County
Table 3.1.1t Agricultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the use of conservation easements and deed restrictions by private
landowners to keep prime agricultural land from being developed.
The Agricultural Resource Element Worksheet asked Green County jurisdictions how
important agriculture is to their communities: aesthetically, recreationally, culturally,
aesthetically, economically, or not important? Table 3.1.2 gives their responses. (No
jurisdiction said agriculture resources were unimportant.)
Table 3.1.2 Importance of Agricultural Resources
Important
Aesthetically
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Important
Recreationally
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Important
Culturally
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Important
Economically
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Monroe
City of Brodhead
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
3.1.4 FARMING SYSTEM
Farm data from the Agricultural Census in Table 3.1.3 gives a general idea of the state of
agricultural health in the County over time. (The Agricultural Census defines a farm as
any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or
normally would have been sold, during the year.)
Table 3.1.3 Trends in Farm Numbers 1987 – 2002
Green County
Farms (number)
Land in farms (acres)
Average size of farm (acres)
Number of farms by size – 1 to 9 acres
Number of farms by size – 1,000 acres or more
Total cropland (farms)
Total cropland (acres)
1987
1,418
329,364
232
65
82
484
689
87
11
1,361
272,452
1992
1,271
293,134
231
55
107
429
582
85
13
1,196
241,533
1997
1,502
315,986
210
77
270
513
517
100
25
1,342
256,024
2002
1,490
306,946
206
93
362
536
467
95
30
1,345
247,639
(Source: 1997, 2002, US Census of Agriculture)
This Table shows that the County increased farms by 5% over the 15 years between 1987
and 2002. Note that while the number of farms has increased, the actual land in farms in
acres has declined by 7% in the same timeframe. All but mid-sized farms (180 to 499
acres) increased between 1987 and 2002 by varying percentages. Small farms of 10 to 49
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 50
Green County
acres rose by 341%. Very large farms (1,000+ acres) numbers rose by 173%, reflecting
the increased numbers of “mega” farms in the state and the region.
Table 3.1.4 Trends in Dairy Farms 1987 – 2002
Green County
Milk cows (farms)
Milk cows (number)
1987
922
50,326
1992
728
40,379
1997
575
36,951
2002
420
31,107
(Source: 1997, 2002, US Census of Agriculture)
Table 3.1.4 shows that from 1987 to 2002, the number of dairy farms and dairy cows in
Green County dropped by 55% and 38% respectively. Keep in mind that while dairy
farms are decreasing, overall farm numbers in Green County are increasing.
3.1.5 LAND SALES STATISTICS
Table 3.1.5 shows land values (both Ag and land sold for non-Ag uses) rising over time.
To show the impact of selling agricultural land for non-ag uses, the cost per acre of ag
land for non-ag purposes is divided into the cost per acre of land kept in agriculture.
Sellers gained a premium of $525 (29%) in 2000-2002. However, that premium was very
stable from 1990 through 2002: it changed only 3% in 12 years. At the same time, the
overall amount of ag-land sold is dropping while ag-land sold for non-ag purposes is
holding steady.
It is assumed these trends of the last decade are continuing and will therefore continue to
affect future efforts by farmers to compete for a shrinking land base needed to remain in
agriculture.
Table 3.1.5 Farmland Sales, 1990 – 2002
Average Value of Farmland Sold in Green County ($/acre)
1990-1994
Annual Average
Ag Land Kept in Farming ($/acre)
$888
Ag Land Sold for Non-Ag Uses ($/acre)
$1,123
Total Ag Land Sold ($/acre)
$916
Premium Paid for Non-Ag Uses (percent)
26%
(Source: UW Madison PATS) *Data only available up to 2002.
1995-1999
Annual Average
$1413
$1,807
$1,503
28%
2000-2002*
Annual Average
$1831
$2,356
$1,997
29%
Table 3.1.6 Farmland Conversions, 1990 – 2002
Annualized Averages of Agricultural Land Sold and Percent Converted
1990-1994
Annual Average
Ag Land Kept in Farming (acres)
10,830
Ag Land Sold for Non-Ag Uses (acres)
1,322
Total Ag Land Sold (acres)
12,152
Percent of Land Converted
11%
(Source: UW Madison PATS) *Data only available up to 2002.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
1995-1999
Annual Average
5,817
1,692
7,509
23%
2000-2002*
Annual Average
3,129
1,266
4,395
29%
Page 51
Green County
3.1.6 AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY
Although only 15% of the County’s population is living on farms and 3% of County
population is employed adults working as farmers and farm managers, there is no
question that agriculture and its resultant economy is significant to Green County (See
Economic Development, Chapter 6).
Table 3.1.7 Urban, Rural, Farm, and Non-Farm Populations
Jurisdiction
Urban Population
Rural Population
Total Population
Green County
14,410
19,235
33,645
Percent of Population
43%
57%
100%
Farm Population
Non-Farm Population
Total Rural Population
3,034
16,201
19,235
15%
84%
100%
(Source: 2000 US Decennial Census)
The total number of persons who are employed as either farmers or farm managers (and
who may or may not live on a farm) is 935 (3%) out of the total County population.
3.1.7 AGRICULTURAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Farming infrastructure includes businesses and services such as a feed mill, equipment
vendor, or veterinarian might supply. Farm supply businesses and food processing
facilities represent important resources to area farmers as well as the broader local
economy. Table 3.1.8 lists Green County’s agriculture infrastructure as reported from
Green County jurisdiction worksheets.
Table 3.1.8 Green County Agricultural Infrastructure
Jurisdiction
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Adopted Plan
Agriculture Infrastructure
x
x
x
x
x
x
Kuhn-Knight Manufacturing
Brodhead Farm and Home.
x
Studer Super ServiceImplement Dealer
x
Ken’s Agri Service
x
Craigo Grain Company
x
Badger State Ethanol
Schultz Ag
R. Mueller Co.
Klassy and Kubly
Trucking
Wisconsin Cheese
Group
x
x
x
x
Monroe Cheese Corp.
Mexican Cheese
Swiss Colony
Saputo Cheese.
None
x
Attica Garage
x
Wisconsin Farm Auctions
x
Gypsum Recycling
x
Kranig Ag Lime
x
Freidig Whitewashing.
x
Veterinary Medical Services
x
Curran’s Cheese Plant
x
Powers Sales
x
Bidlingmaier Auction Services
x
Black Hawk Excavating
x
Davis, Equity Livestock
x
Animal Health
x
Paul Reid
Sales
Management
x
Deppler Cheese Plant
x
Zwiefel
x
J&W Repair
x
Franklin Cheese Plant
x
Surge
x
Green City Repair
x
Super Soy
x
Decatur Dairy
x
Juda Grain
x
Steele’s Farm Market
x
Moorman Feeds
x
Sugar River Yogurt.
x
Torkelson Prairie Hill Cheese
x
Carter and Gruenewald
x
Maple-Leaf Cheese Coop.
x
Landmark Agronomy
x
Dunwiddie Trucking
No infrastructure, but there is one cheese processor, Klondike Cheese
April 18, 2006
Page 52
Green County
Table 3.1.8 (cont.) Green County Agricultural Infrastructure
Jurisdiction
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Agriculture Infrastructure
x
x
x
x
x
x
AgTech
UBC
GCR Tires
Triangle Truck
Northland Building
Alphor Ford
x
x
x
x
x
x
Diechman Arbeit
Aeromotors
Eastside Farm
Equipment
Coplien Paint
Monroe Feed and Seed
McGuires
x
Green County Grain
x
Pleasant Grain
x
Numerous trucking and custom operators
x
Silver Lewis Cheese
None
x
Frontier FS
x
Brodhead Veterinary Clinic
x
Jackson Farm Store
x
Carousel Grain Services
x
Sylvester Whey
x
Davis Implement
x
Ruffer and Son Excavating
x
Washington Mill
x
Washington Implement
x
Fairview Repair
x
One cheese processor
x
Postville Blacksmith
x
Raphael Peterson (seed).
None
x
Cargil
x
Marks Chemical
x
Klassy Transfer
x
Busch Tractor Repair
x
New Glarus Welding
x
LSI, a meat processor
x
x
x
x
x
MHI
J&R Excavators
R&R Excavating
Chalet Cheese
Deppler Wood Shop.
x
x
x
Rock Solid Concrete
Olsen Logging
Grande Cheese.
x
x
x
Zuber Sausage Kitchen
Swiss Heritage Cheese
Monroe Cheese Corp.
3.1.8 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Attached is the County soils map (Map 3.1.1). The dominant soils in the southern and
eastern towns in Green County are Class I and II.
3.1.9 CONFLICTS AND THREATS TO AGRICULTURE
Agriculture is the dominant land use and a major economic factor in Green County. With
changes from development pressure and the transition out of farming by many, the nature
of the agricultural industry is rapidly changing. Some of the conflicts and threats are
within local control and some are tied to state, national and global decisions. Obviously,
this comprehensive plan cannot affect circumstances such as commodity prices or
reduced marketing opportunities because of consolidation. However, the plan can
respond to local conflicts and threats such as the fragmentation of farm fields as new
parcels are created, agricultural land values exceeding possible agricultural income
opportunities, and the challenge of developing the next generation of farmers.
3.1.10 FUTURE OF AGRICULTURE
Agriculture is rapidly changing and is likely to continue to do so. It appears that the
future will include three types of operations including larger commodity producers,
niche/specialty producers, and life-style farming operations. In the past, commodity
producers were dominant, but this is changing as traditional dairy producers and older
farmers are leaving the business. A new opportunity for some farms will be the use of
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 53
Green County
manure to feed methane digesters for power generation, of corn for methanol, or soy for
bio-diesel.
3.1.11 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES, AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS
There are a number of county, state and federal programs to assist with agricultural
planning and protection. Below are some of the various agencies and programs. The
local offices supporting these programs include the Green County Land Conservation
Department and the USDA Farm Service Center both located at 2841 6th Street, Monroe
and the UW Extension office located at the Green County Government Services
Building, N3150B Hwy 81, Monroe, WI.
USDA FARM SERVICE AGENCY
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farm Service
Agency (FSA) has a direct financial impact on rural
Wisconsin families through the programs and services
they offer. They are dedicated to stabilizing farm
income, helping farmers conserve land and water
resources, providing credit to new or disadvantaged
farmers and ranchers, and helping farm operations
recover from the effects of disaster.
USDA FARM SERVICE AGENCY
WISCONSIN STATE OFFICE
8030 Excelsior Drive
Phone (608) 662-4422
Fax (608) 662-9425
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/WI
Programs and services offered by the FSA are
x Farm Loan Program (FLP)
The Farm Service Agency offers direct and guaranteed farm ownership and
operating loans to farmers who are temporarily unable to obtain private,
commercial credit.
Often, FLP borrowers are beginning farmers who cannot qualify for conventional
loans because they have insufficient financial resources. The Agency also helps
established farmers who have suffered financial setbacks from natural disasters,
or whose resources are too limited to maintain profitable farming operations.
x
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
The CRP is a voluntary program that offers annual rental payments, incentive
payments for certain activities, and cost-share assistance to establish approved
cover on eligible cropland.
The program encourages farmers to plant long-term resource-conserving covers to
improve soil, water, and wildlife resources. The Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC) makes available assistance in an amount equal to not more than 50 percent
of the participant’s costs in establishing approved practices. Contract duration is
between 10 and 15 years.
x
Direct and Counter-Cyclical Payments (DCP) The 2002 Farm Bill makes
payments to eligible producers of covered commodities and peanuts for the 2002
through 2007 crop years. Direct and counter- cyclical payments are made to
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 54
Green County
producers with established crop bases and payment yields. Payment rates for
direct payments were established by the 2002 Farm Bill and are issued regardless
of market prices. Producers also are eligible for counter-cyclical payments, but
payments are issued only if effective prices are less than the target prices set in
the 2002 Farm Bill. Commodities eligible for both direct and counter- cyclical
payments include wheat, corn, sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, rice,
soybeans, sunflower seeds, canola, flaxseed, mustard, safflower, rapeseed, and
peanuts.
x
Milk Income Loss Contract Program (MILC)
This program, authorized by the 2002 Farm Bill, financially compensates dairy
producers when domestic milk prices fall below a specified level.
Eligible dairy producers are those who produced milk in any state and marketed
the milk commercially beginning December 2001. To be approved for the
program, producers must be in compliance with highly erodible and wetland
conservation provisions and must enter into a contract with USDA's Commodity
Credit Corporation to provide monthly marketing data.
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is the federal agency that works
with landowners on private lands to conserve natural
WISCONSIN NATURAL
resources. NRCS is part of the U.S. Department of
RESOURCES CONSERVATION
Agriculture and was formerly the Soil Conservation
SERVICE (NRCS)
Service (SCS). Nearly three-fourths of the technical
6515 Watts Road
assistance provided by the agency goes to helping
Suite 200
farmers and ranchers develop conservation systems
Madison, WI 53719
uniquely suited to their land and individual ways of
Phone (608) 276-USDA
doing business. The agency also assists other private
landowners and rural and urban communities to reduce
http://www.wi.nrcs.usda.gov
erosion, conserve and protect water, and solve other
resource problems. NRCS provides:
x
Technical Assistance for Conservation
Conservation technical assistance is the basis of NRCS's mission to conserve,
sustain, and improve America's private lands. NRCS staff work one-on-one with
private landowners to develop and implement conservation plans that protect the
soil, water, air, plant and animal resources on the 1.5 billion acres of privately
owned land in the United States.
x
SOIL SURVEY
NRCS is responsible for surveying the soils of the United States, publishing and
interpreting soil information. Soil information is the basis for natural resource and
land use planning, key to assessing site potential for specific uses and identifying
soil characteristics and properties.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 55
Green County
x
National Resources Inventory
Every five years, NRCS conducts the National Resources Inventory (NRI) on
nonfederal rural land in the United States. This inventory shows natural resource
trends, such as land cover and use, soil erosion, prime farmland, and wetlands.
The 1992 NRI, for example, shows that farmers are dramatically reducing soil
erosion on cropland. From 1982 to 1992, erosion on all cropland declined by
about one-third, going from 3.1 billion to 2.1 billion tons a year.
x
WETLANDS
Wetland conservation is an important and sensitive issue. During 1982-1992,
wetland losses due to agriculture slowed to about 31,000 acres a year, more than a
90% reduction compared to conversion rates between 1954 and 1974. NRCS is
one of the four primary federal agencies involved with wetlands.
x
WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM
In the Wetlands Reserve Program, conservation easements are purchased from
landowners to restore or enhance wetland areas. Ownership, control of access, and
some compatible uses remain with the landowner.
x
WETLAND IDENTIFICATION
NRCS has technical leadership for identification and delineation of wetlands on
agricultural lands and on all USDA program participants lands. NRCS maintains a
list of hydric soils and a wetland inventory on agricultural land.
x
SOIL QUALITY
Over the past decade, NRCS has been helping producers develop and implement
1.7 million conservation plans on 143 million acres of highly erodible cropland as
part of the conservation compliance provision of the Food Security Act of 1985.
As a result, erosion on the most highly erodible cropland has been cut by twothirds.
x
WATER QUALITY
NRCS assists farmers to improve water quality. This includes improving nutrient
and pesticide management and reducing soil erosion, thus decreasing sediment
that would otherwise end up in lakes and streams. Technical assistance, including
engineering, structure design and layout for manure management and water
quality practices contributes significantly to state water quality efforts. Through
the Environmental Quality Inventive Program, NRCS provides technical and
financial assistance for local resource priorities.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 56
Green County
WISCONSIN FARM CENTER
The Wisconsin Farm Center provides services to Wisconsin farmers and agribusinesses
to promote the vitality of the state's agricultural economy and rural communities.
Services include:
TRADE AND CONSUMER
x Growing Wisconsin Agriculture
PROTECTION (DATCP)
Wisconsin is committed to the long-term
profitability of agricultural businesses.
2811 Agriculture Drive
PO Box 8911
Legislation passed in 2004 strengthens
Madison, WI 53708
agriculture and invites producers to invest,
reinvest and expand.
Phone (608) 224-4960
x
http://www.datcp.state.wi.us
Financial Counseling and Advising
The Farm Center's financial experts are trained
in feasibility analysis, enterprise analysis, debt analysis along with restructuring
and cash flow projection. They can personally assist producers and answer
specific questions, providing useful resource materials.
x
Farm Mediation
The Farm Center's farm mediation program provides dispute resolution services
to farmers with problems involving creditor-debtor issues; U.S. Department of
Agriculture program benefits; contracts with food processors, fertilizer, seed or
feed dealers; conflicts within farm families; and landlord-tenant issues.
x
Stray Voltage
Through Rural Electrical Power Services, the Farm Center provides information
about stray voltage and power quality issues; answers to regulatory questions; onfarm and distribution system investigations by a technical team that can assist
farmers in working with the utility or electrician to resolve a power quality
conflict; a format for dispute resolution; and research on electrical issues.
x
Legal
The Farm Center's agricultural attorney can answer general legal questions about
farm business organization, landlord-tenant issues, debt restructuring, legal
procedures, creditor-debtor law, and tax reorganization and estate planning.
x
Vocational
The Farm Center can help farmers or their family members make a successful
transition to off-farm employment. It can help them examine their skills and
explore their career options, regardless of whether they are looking to add offfarm income to the farm operation, starting a new small business, or seeking offfarm employment.
x
Farm Transfers
Through its Farm Link program, the Farm Center can help farmers who want to
start their own operation, retiring farmers who want someone to take over their
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 57
Green County
operation, or farmers who want to relocate due to urban or environmental
pressures.
x
Animal Agriculture
Animals are a vital part of agriculture in Wisconsin. Whether you are a farmer, a
veterinarian, a livestock dealer or trucker, or a consumer, DATCP provides
information and regulates many aspects of animal agriculture.
x
Crops
Statistics show Wisconsin ranks first in production of a number of agriculture
crops. Farmers in the State continue to adopt traditional and specialty crops.
Cultivating and protecting them is key to our mission.
x
Land and Water
The State works with county land conservation departments to protect the
environment through conservation practices, incentive programs and regulation.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 58
Green County
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
CHAPTER ATTACHMENTS
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 59
3.2
Green County
NATURAL RESOURCES
As Green County continues to grow, it is vital the County consider its future in
conjunction with natural resources. It can be very challenging for rural areas to allow
new development, while still protecting the environment and preserving the area’s
character. At first, development may have only a limited impact on the landscape, but as
it continues, both visual and environmental impacts become increasingly apparent. In
order to protect natural resources for the future, it is crucial to be aware of existing water
resources, geologic resources, forests and woodlands, wildlife habitat, parks, open space,
air, light, and wetlands.
3.2.2 GOALS
goals, the two listed below have the particular objective of natural resource protection,
both from an environmental standpoint, as well as an economic one.
1. Protection of natural areas, including wetlands, wildlife habitats, lakes,
woodlands, open spaces, and groundwater resources.
2. Protection of economically productive areas, including farmland and forests.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 60
Green County
Natural resource policies are intended to help support, encourage, protect, and conserve
specific indigenous resources that may or may not be renewable. The following are the
natural resources policies (not listed in order of priority) for participating Green County
jurisdictions.
The Natural Resource Worksheet asked questions pertaining to natural resources, helping
jurisdictions select and develop their particular policy statements. Tables 3.2.1a through
3.2.1v lists the various natural resource policies selected by each jurisdiction. The
jurisdictions listed beneath each policy indicate those including that policy in their plans.
included since they did not participate in this Green County multi-jurisdictional
comprehensive planning project. However, the Town of Albany completed their
Comprehensive Plan in 2002. In order for the County’s Plan to be in compliance, the
Town of Albany’s policies are included. See Tables 3.2.1w through 3.2.1aa.
Table 3.2.1a Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage programs that educate local residents about the importance of natural
resources.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 3.2.1b Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage water conservation and good water management practices.
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Cadiz
Town of Jefferson
Table 3.2.1c Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Establish water demand guidelines and policies.
x
Town of Brooklyn
Table 3.2.1d Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Consider ordinances and programs that preserve quality of groundwater resources.
x
Town of New Glarus
Table 3.2.1e Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Avoid disturbance to wetlands, shorelands, and other environmentally sensitive areas.
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Adopted Plan
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
April 18, 2006
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Page 61
Green County
Table 3.2.1f Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Discourage development in major drainage corridors in order to aid stormwater runoff and
prevent flooding.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 3.2.1g Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Follow FEMA guidelines for floodplain protection.
x
Table 3.2.1h Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Support partnerships with local clubs and organizations in order to protect important
natural areas held in common interest.
x
x
x
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
x
x
x
Town of York
Table 3.2.1i Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage and support prairie and savanna restoration.
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Sylvester
Town of York
Table 3.2.1j Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the maintenance and expansion of wildlife habitat.
x
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Exeter
Town of Washington
Table 3.2.1k Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Continue to support measures to control noxious weeds.
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
Town of Washington
Table 3.2.1l Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage tree preservation and sustainable forestry practices in the Town.
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Sylvester
Town of York
Table 3.2.1m Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Maintain a municipal tree-planting program while supporting tree preservation and
sustainable forestry practices.
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Table 3.2.1n Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Establish/Consider establishing* standards to decrease and prevent light pollution.
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Adopted Plan
x
x
x
Town of Cadiz
Town of Jefferson
Town of Monroe
April 18, 2006
x
x
Village of Monticello*
Page 62
Green County
Table 3.2.1o Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Establish standards to improve air quality.
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Cadiz
Table 3.2.1p Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Establish/Consider establishing*/Support** standards to decrease and prevent noise
pollution.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan**
Table 3.2.1q Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
&RQWLQXHWRHQIRUFHWKH9LOODJHಫV1RLVH2UGLQDQFH
x
Table 3.2.1r Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Continue to implement the City’s Non-Metallic Mine Reclamation Ordinance.
x
x
City of Brodhead
Table 3.2.1s Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the preservation and maintenance of rural views and vistas.
x
x
x
x
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
x
x
x
x
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 3.2.1t Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Continue to implement the City’s/Village’s Sign Ordinance.
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Table 3.2.1u Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Establish/Consider establishing* more parks and outdoor recreational amenities
including current park expansion and incorporate natural areas into parks and open
space areas to protect them.
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead*
City of Monroe*
Town of Exeter
Town of New Glarus*
Table 3.2.1v Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Where and when appropriate, utilize state and federal programs to conserve, maintain, and
protect natural resources.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 63
Green County
Comprehensive Plan.
Table3.2.1w Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Actively seek to provide long term and permanent protection to the Town of Albany’s
natural resource base.
Table3.2.1x Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Preserve and protect environmental corridors for wildlife, water quality values, habitat
protection, ecosystem, and ecology purposes.
Table3.2.1y Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Work in cooperation with the Green County Land and Water Conservation Department to
implement its water quality and conservation programs locally, encouraging their use by
local residents and property owners.
Table3.2.1z Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Preserve and protect the Town of Albany’s natural resource base from potential
degradation and contamination.
Table3.2.aa Natural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Support the enforcement of Green County’s non-metallic mining ordinance to ensure the
wise use of available resources incorporating reclamation procedures that will allow for a
safe and reusable site.
3.2.4 NATURAL RESOURCES
Natural resources are elements occurring in nature that are either essential, useful, or
both, to humans, such as water, air, land, trees, fish, wildlife, soil, and minerals. The
elements combine into the recognized natural systems in which we exist. These systems,
or combinations of natural materials, can be referred to as “natural environments”,
“ecosystems”, “biomes”, or “natural habitats”, among others. Humans and their activities
impact all natural resources. And whether obvious or not, these human impacts to natural
communities often have significant adverse impacts to the human community.
The jurisdictions of Green County were asked in the Natural Resource Element
Worksheet how natural resources are important to their communities: recreationally,
culturally, aesthetically, economically, or not important? Table 3.2.2 below gives their
responses. (No jurisdiction said natural resources are not important.)
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 64
Green County
Table 3.2.2 Importance of Natural Resources
Important
Aesthetically
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Important
Recreationally
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Important
Culturally
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Exeter
Town of Jordan
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Important
Economically
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
3.2.4.1 COMMUNICATION AND COOPERATION
Keeping residents informed is a proactive first step in supporting important natural
resources and natural resource protection efforts. Flyers included with a tax mailing,
articles in the local newspaper, workshops, or other similar education efforts can all help
to educate residents on natural resource issues.
Fostering working relationships with County jurisdictions, as well as with neighboring
counties (Lafayette, Iowa, Dane, and Rock) can help protect shared, contiguous natural
areas that give local residents space for recreational pursuits. State and federal programs
aiming specifically at protecting farmland, wetlands, forests, or historic buildings, can be
tapped, potentially adding to Green County’s support efforts in protecting natural
resources. State and federal agencies and contact information are listed at the end of this
Section.
3.2.5 WATER RESOURCES
Water, both surface and groundwater, is one of the most commonly used natural
resources, serving intrinsic and essential functions throughout communities. Plants,
animals, and people all use water on a daily basis. Over 70% of all Wisconsin
communities (that is, every two out of three people) rely on groundwater not only for
domestic use, but also for agriculture, industrial uses, recreational purposes, etc. All
Green County residents use groundwater for domestic use.
Water is also one of the most easily contaminated resources. Because of its mobile
nature, the water cycle can carry contaminants far from their source. Water cycle
contaminants come from a variety of sources commonly known as point source and nonpoint source pollution (NPSP). Point source pollution comes from identifiable sources
such as a factory outflow, a sewage treatment facility, or a manure storage facility.
Non-point source pollution comes from many diffuse sources such as agriculture runoff,
leaking septic systems, road salt and road building, parking lots, lawn, and golf course
runoff, all of which directly impact water resources.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 65
Green County
Water contamination can travel far from its source, infiltrating an entire watershed. A
watershed is the land area from which all surface- and ground-water drains into a stream
system. Watersheds are usually treelike in shape (dendritic), with smaller streams
feeding into progressively larger streams and rivers. In this way, watersheds nest within
one another, from smallest to largest, which explains how many small NPSP
contaminants can make a broad impact, since they collect and concentrate as water
continues to flow downstream.
The major watersheds in Green County are the Sugar River watershed and the Pecatonica
River watershed basin that together drain approximately 1,860 square miles across five
southwestern Wisconsin counties. Major streams in the basins include the Sugar River,
the Pecatonica River, the Little Sugar River, and the East Branch Pecatonica River.
Made up itself of smaller watersheds such as the Jordan and Skinner Creek’s watershed,
the Lower Sugar River watershed, the Honey and Richland Creeks watersheds and others,
the Sugar/Pecatonica Basins roughly divide the County in a northwest/southeast
direction. These two watersheds “nest” within the Lower Rock River watershed, which
in turn flows into the Mississippi River watershed. See Map 3.2.1 for the County’s Water
Resource map.
Some streams in the Sugar-Pecatonica watersheds have been identified as impaired:
meaning they are exceeding Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for sediment. Table
3.2.3 lists impaired streams within the Sugar-Pecatonica watersheds. (Eight SugarPecatonica watershed impaired streams are outside Green County and are not listed here).
Table 3.2.3 Impaired Streams in Green County
Stream Name
Argus School Branch
Braezel’s Branch*
Buckskin School Branch
Burgy Creek
Dougherty Creek
Jockey Hollow Creek*
Legler School Branch
Pioneer Valley Creek
Prairie Brook
Searles Creek
Silver School Branch
Twin Grove Branch
Impaired Stream Segment
Entire
0 to 4 miles
Entire
Entire
14.6 – 16.6
Entire
Entire
Entire
Entire
Entire
Entire
Entire
Stream Length
2 miles
7 miles
6 miles
10 miles
17 miles
2 miles
9 miles
5 miles
2 miles
9 miles
3 miles
10 miles
*These creeks are in both Green and Lafayette counties.
Most of these streams historically supported Redside Dace (a minnow of State Special
Concern) populations but more recent surveys indicate that the species has declined in
both numbers and distribution since the 1970’s. The main threats to the Redside Dace are
siltation of streams due to erosion and the clearing of streamside vegetation. Pesticide
drift from farm operations which kills the fish’s insect prey may have also contributed to
declines.
The Wisconsin Outstanding and Exceptional Resource Waters Program is designated to
maintain the water quality in Wisconsin's cleanest waters. Outstanding resource water is
defined as a lake or stream which has excellent water quality, high recreational and
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 66
Green County
aesthetic value, and high quality fishing and is free from point source or non-point source
pollution. Exceptional resource water is defined as a stream which exhibits the same high
quality resource values as outstanding waters, but which may be impacted by point
source pollution or has the potential for future discharge from a small sewer community.
The Sugar River is listed as an “Exceptional Resource Water” (ERW) in the state due to
high biodiversity and rare species of fish. Some of the oxbow lakes in the Sugar River
floodplain also support rare fish species. Listed below are the ERW’s for Green County
at this time.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Little Sugar
Burgy Creek
Sylvester Creek
Gill Creek
Ward Creek
Ross Crossing Creek
Richland Creek
Allen Creek
Norwegian Creek
Spring Valley Creek
N. Branch Hefty Creek
Story Creek
Liberty Creek
Center Branch Hefty Creek
At this time, water quality in the Sugar-Pecatonica River basin is generally fair to good.
The primary water quality problems are the result of NPSP, particularly from agricultural
operations, and hydrologic modifications such as dams, stream straightening, and
ditching, draining or other alterations of wetlands. Other threats include point source
discharges and urban NPSP from growing urban areas, particularly in the vicinity of
Brooklyn, New Glarus, and Monroe.
3.2.5.1 GROUNDWATER
Groundwater flows beneath the earths’ surface in spaces between rocks and soil particles,
filling wells and springs. It is a critical resource, not only because it is used daily by
almost all Wisconsin residents, but also because rivers, streams, and other surface waters
depends on it for recharge (the natural process of infiltration and percolation of rainwater
from land areas or streams through permeable soils into water-holding rocks that provide
underground storage (i.e. aquifers). Groundwater is easily contaminated through nonpoint source pollution, particularly in regions with thin soils over fractured limestone,
sandstone, and shale bedrock. See Map 3.2.2 for depth to water table.
3.2.5.2 GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
It is important to keep groundwater resources in mind for many areas of comprehensive
planning, because ultimately what takes place above ground directly affects groundwater
below. A variety of activities, including point and non-point source pollution, can impact
water resource qualities including but not limited to
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Adopted Plan
On-site septic systems
Sewage Treatment Plants
Surface Waste Water Discharge
Sanitary Landfills
Underground Storage Tanks
Feedlots
Junkyards
Abandoned Quarries/Wells
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
April 18, 2006
Pesticide and Fertilizer Applications
Road Salt
Household Cleaners & Detergents
Unsewered Subdivisions
Gas Stations
Chemical Spills
Leaking Sewer Lines
Old Mine Openings or Shafts
Page 67
Green County
Contamination of local groundwater supplies can be devastating, very costly to reverse,
and affects all area residents. Pinpointing pollution sources is made easier by identifying
the location and extent of groundwater recharge areas, as well as knowing the extent of
local watersheds, so communities can plan where and how much development can be
built with the least amount of impact.
One tactic for preventing groundwater contamination is to create a wellhead protection
plan, a requirement for all Wisconsin municipal wells installed after May 1, 1992.
A wellhead protection plan aims at preventing contaminants from entering the area of
land around public water supply well(s) in the first place. This area includes, "the surface
or subsurface area surrounding a water well or wellfield supplying a public water system,
through which contaminants are reasonably likely to move toward and reach such well or
wellfield" (US EPA. 1987). Land uses that might impact groundwater surrounding a well
might be a gas station, a cemetery, concentrated animal feeding operation, or golf course.
A city or village might find that developing a wellhead protection ordinance would work
for them, but for countywide protection, a groundwater protection overlay district or a
wellhead protection district ordinance might be more useful. Model ordinances are
available.
3.2.5.3 GROUNDWATER SUPPLY
Water supply is impacted as communities grow, bringing greater demand due to new
homes, businesses, and industries. An increasing number of wells, including both private
and public high capacity wells (a well, together with all other wells on a property, with a
capacity of more than 100,000 gallons per day), can reduce the amount of recharge to
surface waters, causing stream flow reduction, loss of springs, and changes in wetland
vegetative communities. The strains of meeting growing water demand from a sprawling
population are starting to show. Statewide water use has increased 33% in the last 15
years and water tables are plummeting in many urban areas as the thirst for more water
outstrips the land’s ability to provide it. (Lisa Gaumnitz, Tim Asplund, and Megan R.
Matthews, “A Growing Thirst for Groundwater”, 8-3-04, WI-DNR.)
Wisconsin is water rich: the sandstone aquifer underlying the southern two-thirds of the
State is 800 – 1,000 feet deep and drenched with water. However, water quality in this
aquifer varies due to naturally occurring chemicals and human contaminants, and its
water supply is declining due to inadequate management of the resource, particularly in
areas like Dane County and southeastern Wisconsin.
The Groundwater Bill (2003 Act 310) addresses groundwater quantity issues, requiring
approval for siting, fees, and environmental review. While this legislation is currently
more relevant in areas of the state experiencing severe water quantity issues (such as
southeast Wisconsin or the central sands region), the principle of controlling groundwater
withdrawal in all parts of the state is a growing concern for the future. By 2006, a State
level groundwater advisory committee will be organized to address groundwater
management. In Green County, only the Town of Brooklyn had a specific policy
statement regarding groundwater supply (Table 3.2.1 c).
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 68
Green County
3.2.5.4 SURFACE WATER
Surface water, which is all water naturally open to the atmosphere (rivers, lakes,
reservoirs, ponds, streams, impoundments, seas, estuaries) in Green County, includes the
Sugar and Pecatonica rivers and their subsidiary streams.
Lakes
Green County has few lakes. With the exception of floodplain oxbows and some lakes on
the east side of the County, almost all lakes in Green County are impoundments of
streams. These impoundments were often originally created to provide waterpower to
drive small gristmills, although the more recent ones were created to provide recreational
and/or residential opportunities. Impoundment lakes typically have a large drainage area
to lake area ratio, are usually shallow, and can be subject to rapid sedimentation.
Similar to millpond impoundments, construction of private ponds on perennial streams
also causes water quality and thermal problems to downstream reaches. Ponds that
intercept intermittent runoff water are found to be less detrimental than ponds that
impound springs or perennial creeks. Associated with County rivers, oxbow lakes
provide the best and most natural lake habitat for fish, herptile and waterfowl
populations.
Streams
The following streams or segments of streams are listed as trout waters in Green County:
x
x
x
x
Brennan Creek
Hammerly Creek
Marsh Creek
Story Creek
x
x
x
x
Bushnell Creek
Hefty Creek
New Glarus Branch
Sylvester Creek
x
x
x
x
Dougherty Creek
Liberty Creek
Prairie Branch
Tipperary Creek
x
x
x
x
Erickson Creek
Ward Creek
Sawmill Creek
Little Sugar and W.
Branch Little Sugar River
A total of 68 miles of Green County streams are classified as trout waters. See Map 3.2.1
for surface water resources.
3.2.5.6 FISHERIES
Game Fish: Streams
The Sugar and Pecatonica Rivers support a northern pike fishery. The Sugar River is also
considered one of the best catfish streams in the state. Smallmouth bass occur in eighteen
streams, with the best fisheries in the Sugar River, Allen Creek, Richland Creek, Skinner
Creek, and Tipperary Creek. White sucker occurs in fifty-one of the sixty-two named
streams.
In 1998 and 2000, the WI-DNR sampled small stream fish communities from twenty-two
sites in the Sugar River sub-basin. All of the sites were originally sampled as part of a
Fish Distribution Study (Fago, 1992) during the 1970’s. Most of the streams had not
been sampled since that time. Survey results indicated a decline in species richness,
intolerant species and species listed as endangered. While the reasons for these declines
can encompass both water quality and physical habitat degradation, expanding livestock
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 69
Green County
operations during the 1970’s and 1980’s contributed the most to the decline in some
streams (Marshall, et. al., 2004).
Game Fish: Lakes
Northern pike are found in Decatur Lake; and all five of the county’s lakes have
largemouth bass populations. Channel catfish occur in Albany Millpond and Decatur
Lake.
Mussels
A unique but often overlooked aquatic organism is the freshwater mussel. They are not
routinely monitored and therefore relatively little is known about their abundance and
distribution throughout the state. From 1900 to 1970, mussels were harvested from the
Mississippi River and most of the state’s larger rivers, including the Sugar and Pecatonica
Rivers (Welke, 2002). During this time, Wisconsin supplied thousands of tons of mussel
shells for the manufacture of pearl buttons. Commercial harvest of mussels still occurs
on the Mississippi River.
From 1973 through 1977, the department conducted a study to survey mussel populations
throughout the state of Wisconsin (Mathiak, 1979). The study showed that mussels are
well distributed throughout the State with the exception of the Driftless Area. The
smaller rivers in this area have fewer mussels due to poor habitat related to the “flashy”
nature of streams in this area. Still, the Sugar and Pecatonica Rivers contain populations
of several common mussel species such as Fat Mucket (Lampsilis radiata siliquoidea),
Floater (Anodonta grandis), Pocketbook (Lamsilis ventrocosa), and Pimple Back
(Quadrula pustulosa). Because they feed by siphoning water and filtering out the food
particles, grow slowly, and reproduce inefficiently, mussels are sensitive to pollution and
water quality changes. Many populations of mussels have been greatly reduced in
numbers and distribution resulting from dam construction, channelization, siltation, and
pollution. Important factors in sustaining or enhancing mussel populations include
maintenance of a stable baseflow and fish community, mitigation of sediment loads,
minimizing pollution loads, and preventing the introduction of exotic species.
3.2.5.7 WETLANDS
Green County is within the Southeast Glacial Plain ecological landscape, an area with a
significant number of wetlands resulting from continental glacial activity. Horicon
Marsh is a prime example of a Southeast Glacial Plain type wetland.
The Wisconsin Wetland Inventory (WWI) was completed in 1985 and provides the most
recent statewide data available. Pre-European settlement wetland figures estimate the
state had about 10 million acres of wetlands. Based on aerial photography from 1978-79,
the WWI shows approximately 5.3 million acres of wetlands remain in the state,
representing a loss of about 47% of original wetland acreage. According to the 1978-79
data, 3.3% of Green County was wetland. That percentage can have changed since the
first inventory. See Map 3.2.1 for more information.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 70
Green County
Most Green County wetlands not associated with rivers where converted to agriculture
years ago. But while Green County does not have wetlands of the extent of Horicon
Marsh, some natural wetlands do remain, primarily associated with rivers and streams.
Many wetlands formed along the larger streams in the eastern half of the County, and in
particular along the Little Sugar River, Allen Creek, and the main stream of Sugar River.
Skinner Creek, in southwest Green County, is the only stream that contains major
wetland complexes in the western half of the County.
With wetlands continuing to decrease, protecting those remaining is very important,
particularly when considering their benefits. Wetlands are important to a large number of
plant and animal species, providing spawning habitat for northern pike, nesting habitat
for waterfowl, filtering flood and storm waters, and recharging and discharging
groundwater, and helping maintain stream flow during dry periods.
3.2.5.8 FLOODPLAINS
A floodplain is a low area of land adjacent to a stream, river, or other watercourse subject
to flooding, which holds water overflow during a flood. Often they are classified as
wetlands. They are delineated on a 100-year storm event: the area that would be covered
by water during a flood that theoretically happens only every 100 years, although
flooding can occur every year. For that reason, development should not occur in drainage
ways and floodplains since they serve as stormwater runoff and infiltration systems and
flood mitigation landscape features.
Counties, cities, and villages are required to adopt reasonable and effective floodplain
zoning ordinances in order to participate in the Federal Emergency Management
Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program. FEMA has designated flood
hazard areas along many surface water resources. The importance of respecting
floodways and floodplains is critical in terms of planning and development. Ignoring
these constraints can cause serious problems relating to property damage and the overall
safety of residents. See Map 3.2.3 for the County’s FEMA floodplain map.
3.2.6
WILDLIFE
3.2.6.1 BIODIVERSITY
Biodiversity is the full spectrum of life forms and
Habitat is the combination of
ecological processes supporting them. Protecting
food, water, shelter, and
biodiversity is essential to maintaining clean air and
space necessary to meet the
needs of wildlife.
water, providing adequate habitat for the State’s flora and
fauna, and providing recreational opportunities.
Protecting biodiversity depends on the sustainability of diverse ecosystems, such as the
mosaic of forests, agricultural lands, grasslands, bluffs, coastal zones and aquatic
communities present in Wisconsin. It depends on the conservation of each ecosystem’s
basic components – the natural communities, and the plants and animals within them.
Ecosystems contain a variety of species that are unique in some way and provide value to
the diversity of the individual ecosystem and the state overall. It is important to view
biodiversity at all levels to ensure the adequate conservation of Wisconsin’s environment.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 71
Green County
At the broadest scale, the State of Wisconsin is divided into distinct “ecological
landscapes” based on unique combinations of physical and biological characteristics
making up ecosystems (climate, geology, soils, water, vegetation, etc.). Ecosystems differ
in levels of biological productivity, habitat suitability for wildlife, presence of rare
species and natural communities, and in many other ways that affect land use and
management. Green County is located in the Southeast Glacial Plain landscape.
3.2.6.2 GAME SPECIES
There are several groups of commonly managed animals in the County including deer,
turkey, pheasant, waterfowl, and non-game grassland birds. Hunting is a major
recreational activity, with deer, pheasant and turkey primary game species. Waterfowl
hunting can be good along reaches of the lower Sugar and Pecatonica rivers. DNR
Wildlife Management staff works to improve and increase wildlife habitat, particularly
for upland birds such as pheasants, by cooperating with local conservation groups and
landowners. State Wildlife Areas provide public access for hunting. Major public
hunting grounds in the county are the Brooklyn State Wildlife Area, Albany State
Wildlife Area, and Liberty Creek State Wildlife Area.
3.2.6.3 WILDLIFE
The alteration of oak savanna, prairie and grassland and the ultimate fragmentation of
habitat has had an impact on wildlife in the County. Wildlife species that are considered
generalist species, such as deer, red-winged blackbirds, robins, or coyotes are able to
adapt and thrive in these highly altered landscapes while species with more specific
habitat requirements, including grassland birds such as sandpipers, dickcissels, harriers,
and western meadowlarks are less likely to thrive.
In central Green County, among the rolling hills of old glacial moraine, the open
agricultural landscape supports prairie remnants (including Muralt Prairie Natural Area)
and savannas with wet-mesic prairie along the valley floors. These grassland landscapes
have an unusually large number of rare plants, insects, and birds. Such species include
the grasshopper sparrow, upland sandpiper, the Regal fritillary butterfly, and the prairie
bush clover.
3.2.6.4 GRASSLAND BIRDS
As native grasslands were converted for agricultural purposes, the population of
grassland birds started to decline. Between 1966 and 1994 the populations of 10
grassland bird species declined significantly in Wisconsin according to the Federal
Breeding Bird Survey (USGS, 2000). The main reason for this decline has been the loss
of native grasslands and changes in agricultural land use. Since the late 1950s, large
acreage of pasture and small grain crops have been converted to row crops, which
decreased useable habitat for grassland birds (Graber and Graber 1963). In addition,
much late-harvested grass hay has been converted to alfalfa, which is harvested early and
frequently, causing significant mortality of nesting birds (Frawley 1989). While some
grassland species were able to adapt and use these agricultural fields as surrogate
grassland habitat, the loss of hay and pasture acreage has been strongly correlated with
large declines in Midwest grassland bird populations (Herkert et al. 1996).
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 72
Green County
3.2.6.5 NATURAL COMMUNITIES
Ecological landscapes are comprised of natural communities – the assemblages of plants
and animals at specific locations. Because of the biotic and abiotic differences between
ecological landscapes, the natural communities within each are typically different as well.
Green County is part of the Southeast Glacial Plain landscape which originally was
composed of a mix of prairie, oak forests and savanna, and maple-basswood forests.
Today, this landscape is primarily in agricultural production with scattered woodlands,
savannas and remnant prairies. See the Natural Resources Chapter Attachments at the end
of this section for descriptions of rare natural community types.
3.2.6.6 STATE NATURAL AREAS
In 1951, Wisconsin initiated the country’s first statewide program to identify and protect
areas of outstanding and unique ecological, geological, and archeological value. These
natural areas provide the best examples of natural processes acting over time with limited
human activity impacts. The State Natural Areas program has grown to become the
largest and most successful program of its kind in the nation. State Natural Areas, of
which there are currently more than 335, are important not only because they showcase
the best and most pristine parts of Wisconsin, but also because they provide excellent
wildlife habitat and undisturbed natural communities. Many threatened, endangered, and
state special concern species are found in these areas. Table 3.2.4 list the six SNAs that
are found in Green County.
Table 3.2.4 Green County State Natural Areas
Jurisdiction
Town of Albany
Town of Cadiz
Town of Decatur
Town of York
State Natural Area
Abraham’s Woods
Browntown Oak Forest
Ward/Swartz Decatur Woods
x
Oliver Prairie
x
Muralt Bluff Prairie
York Prairie
3.2.6.7 WILDLIFE and HABITAT PROTECTION
Humans have a responsibility to protect wildlife and its habitat necessary for wildlife
survival. Because wildlife can cause problems such as destroying property, carrying
diseases, producing unsanitary waste, or conflicting with human activities, it is important
to provide sufficient natural habitat with enough space to separate human activities from
where animals can live, hunt, and breed without interference. Not only is having enough
wildlife habitat necessary, but natural communities need to have enough biological
structure to the withstand competition with exotic invasive species. Wildlife habitat is
vulnerable to a variety of exotic, invasive plants, such as Bull Thistle, Wild Parsnip,
Garlic Mustard, and Rosa multiflora, which can come into an area and out-compete
forage plants and destroy cover.
3.2.6.8 ENDANGERED SPECIES
Plant and animal species are considered fundamental building blocks of ecological
landscapes and biodiversity. The presence of one or more rare species and natural
communities in an area can be an indication of an area's health and ecological importance
and should prompt attention to conservation, management and restoration needs.
Protection of such species is a valuable and vital component of sustaining biodiversity.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 73
Green County
While the conservation of plants, animals and their habitat should be considered for all
species, this is particularly important for rare or declining species. An endangered species
is one whose continued existence is in jeopardy and may become extinct. A threatened
species is one that is likely, within the foreseeable future, to become endangered. A
special concern species is one about which some problem of abundance or distribution is
suspected but not yet proven. The main purpose of the special concern category is to
focus attention on certain species before they become endangered or threatened.
Remaining examples of Wisconsin’s intact native communities are also tracked but not
protected by the law. Natural communities capture much of our native biodiversity and
provide benchmarks for future scientific studies.
Both the state and federal governments prepare their own separate lists of such plant and
animal species but do so working in cooperation with one another, as well as with various
other organizations and universities. The WI-DNR’s Endangered Resources Program
monitors endangered, threatened, and special concern species and maintains the state’s
Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI) database. This program maintains data on the locations
and status of rare species in Wisconsin and these data are exempt from the open records
law due to their sensitive nature.
The Wisconsin Endangered Species Law was enacted to afford protection for certain wild
animals and plants that the Legislature recognized as endangered or threatened and in
need of protection as a matter of general state concern. It is illegal to
1) take, transport, possess, process or sell any wild animal that is included on the
Wisconsin Endangered and Threatened Species List;
2) process or sell any wild plant that is a listed species;
3) cut, root up, sever, injure, destroy, remove, transport or carry away a listed plant
on public lands or lands a person does not own, lease, or have the permission of
the landowner. There are exemptions to the plant protection on public lands for
forestry, agriculture and utility activities. In some cases, a person can conduct the
above activities if permitted under a Department permit (i.e. “Scientific Take”
Permit or an “Incidental Take” Permit).
The Federal Endangered Species Act also protects animals and plants that are considered
endangered or threatened at a national level. The law prohibits the direct killing, taking,
or other activities that may be detrimental to the species, including habitat modification
or degradation, for all federally listed animals and designated critical habitat. Federally
listed plants are also protected but only on federal lands. Implementation of the
Endangered Species laws is usually accomplished during the state permit review process,
but it is ultimately the responsibility of a developer and/or property owner to ensure that
they are not in violation of the laws.
According to the NHI database and listed in Table 3.2.5, ninety-four rare species and
natural communities are documented in Green County. NHI database collects data only
to the town level and thorough inventories of the entire County have not been conducted.
Map 3.2.5 provides a full list of all elements known to occur within Green County.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 74
Green County
Note: END = Endangered; THR = Threatened; SC = Special Concern; SC/M = fully
protected by federal and state laws under the Migratory Bird Act; SC/N = no laws
regulating use, possession, or harvesting; NA = Not applicable.
Table 3.2.5 Existing Records for Rare Species and Natural Communities
Group
Bird
Bird
Bird
Bird
Bird
Bird
Bird
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Fish
Herptile
Herptile
Herptile
Herptile
Invertebrate
Invertebrate
Invertebrate
Invertebrate
Invertebrate
Invertebrate
Invertebrate
Invertebrate
Invertebrate
Invertebrate
Invertebrate
Invertebrate
Invertebrate
Invertebrate
Invertebrate
Other
Plant
Plant
Adopted Plan
Scientific Name
Ammodramus Savannarum
Bartramia Longicauda
Dendroica Cerulea
Icteria Virens
Lanius Ludovicianus
Tyto Alba
Circus Cyaneus
Cedar Glade
Dry Cliff
Dry Prairie
Dry-Mesic Prairie
Mesic Prairie
Moist Cliff
Southern Dry Forest
Southern Dry-Mesic Forest
Southern Mesic Forest
Floodplain Forest
Southern Sedge Meadow
Wet Prairie
Anguilla Rostrata
Clinostomus Elongatus
Erimystax X-Punctatus
Etheostoma Microperca
Fundulus Dispar
Ictiobus Niger
Lythrurus Umbratilis
Macrhybopsis Storeriana
Moxostoma Carinatum
Notropis Amnis
Notropis Nubilus
Noturus Exilis
Terrapene Ornata
Acris Crepitans Blanchardi
Emydoidea Blandingii
Sistrurus Catenatus Catenatus
Catocala Abbreviatella
Catocala Whitneyi
Dichromorpha Viridis
Hesperia Leonardus Pawnee
Hesperia Ottoe
Meropleon Ambifuscum
Speyeria Idalia
Gomphurus Externus
Homoeoneuria Ammophila
Papaipema Silphii
Pentagenia Vittigera
Pseudiron Centralis
Stylurus Notatus
Stylurus Plagiatus
Tritogonia Verrucosa
Bird Rookery
Agalinis Gattingeri
Agastache Nepetoides
Common Name
Grasshopper Sparrow
Upland Sandpiper
Cerulean Warbler
Yellow-Breasted Chat
Loggerhead Shrike
Barn Owl
Northern Harrier
Cedar Glade
Dry Cliff
Dry Prairie
Dry-Mesic Prairie
Mesic Prairie
Moist Cliff
Southern Dry Forest
Floodplain Forest
Wet Prairie
American Eel
Redside Dace
Gravel Chub
Least Darter
Starhead Topminnow
Black Buffalo
Redfin Shiner
Silver Chub
River Redhorse
Pallid Shiner
Ozark Minnow
Slender Madtom
Ornate Box Turtle
Blanchard's Cricket Frog
Blanding's Turtle
Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake
Abbreviated Underwing Moth
Whitney's Underwing Moth
Short-Winged Grasshopper
Leonard's Pawnee Skipper
Ottoe Skipper
Newman's Brocade
Regal Fritillary
Plains Clubtail
A Brush-Legged Mayfly
Silphium Borer Moth
A Common Burrower Mayfly
A Flat-Headed Mayfly
Elusive Clubtail
Russet-Tipped Clubtail
Buckhorn
Bird Rookery
Roundstem Foxglove
Yellow Giant Hyssop
April 18, 2006
State
Status
SC/M
SC/M
THR
SC/M
END
END
SC/M
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SC/N
SC/N
END
SC/N
END
THR
THR
SC/N
THR
END
THR
END
END
END
THR
END
SC/N
SC/N
SC/N
SC/N
SC/N
SC/N
END
SC/N
SC/N
END
SC/N
SC/N
SC/N
SC/N
THR
SC
THR
THR
Date
1986
1993
1996
1997
1982
1982
1997
1977
1976
1987
1985
1976
1976
1976
1985
1984
1976
1976
1974
1976
1987
1974
1983
1976
1974
1974
1974
1976
1976
1988
1988
2001
1982
1994
1994
1999
1978
1996
1995
1998
1989
1992
1996
1991
1992
1992
1992
1993
1987
1973
1991
Page 75
Green County
Table 3.2.5 (cont.) Existing Records for Rare Species and Natural Communities
Group
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Scientific Name
Arabis Shortii
Asclepias Sullivantii
Besseya Bullii
Cacalia Tuberosa
Camassia Scilloides
Carex Gracilescens
Carex Richardsonii
Cirsium Flodmanii
Cirsium Hillii
Diplazium Pycnocarpon
Echinacea Pallida
Gentiana Alba
Lespedeza Leptostachya
Lithospermum Latifolium
Nothocalais Cuspidata
Onosmodium Molle
Orobanche Fasciculata
Orobanche Uniflora
Panicum Wilcoxianum
Parthenium Integrifolium
Pediomelum Esculentum
Phegopteris Hexagonoptera
Platanthera Orbiculata
Polytaenia Nuttallii
Prenanthes Aspera
Prenanthes Crepidinea
Ptelea Trifoliata
Silene Nivea
Thaspium Trifoliatum Var. Flavum
Trillium Recurvatum
Triphora Trianthophora
Cypripedium Candidum
Cypripedium Parviflorum
Chaerophyllum Procumbens
Hypericum Sphaerocarpum
Juncus Vaseyi
Napaea Dioica
Platanthera Leucophaea
Platanus Occidentalis
Polygala Incarnata
Scleria Triglomerata
Common Name
Short's Rock-Cress
Prairie Milkweed
Kitten Tails
Prairie Indian Plantain
Wild Hyacinth
Slender Sedge
Richardson Sedge
Flodman Thistle
Hill's Thistle
Glade Fern
Pale-Purple Coneflower
Yellow Gentian
Prairie Bush-Clover
American Gromwell
Prairie False-Dandelion
Marbleseed
Clustered Broomrape
One-Flowered Broomrape
Wilcox Panic Grass
American Fever-Few
Pomme-De-Prairie
Broad Beech Fern
Large Roundleaf Orchid
Prairie Parsley
Rough Rattlesnake-Root
Nodding Rattlesnake-Root
Wafer-Ash
Snowy Campion
Purple Meadow-Parsnip
Reflexed Trillium
Nodding Pogonia
Small White Lady's-Slipper
Small Yellow Lady's-Slipper
Spreading Chervil
Roundfruit St. John's-Wort
Vasey Rush
Glade Mallow
Prairie White-Fringed Orchid
Sycamore
Pink Milkwort
Whip Nutrush
State
Status
SC
THR
THR
THR
END
SC
SC
SC
THR
SC
THR
THR
END
SC
SC
SC
THR
SC
SC
THR
SC
SC
SC
THR
END
END
SC
THR
SC
SC
SC
THR
SC
SC
THR
SC
SC
END
SC
END
SC
Date
1973
1958
1992
1998
1951
1861
1995
1947
2001
1932
1996
2001
2002
1972
1933
1996
1938
1970
1968
2001
2001
1961
1972
1987
1997
1956
1972
1958
1986
1993
1996
1930
1930
1993
1972
1956
1994
1994
1976
1992
1950
3.2.7 FOREST RESOURCES
Forests provide raw materials for the forest products industry and a venue for hunting,
hiking, and fishing. Forests help sustain water resources and provide habitat for a wide
variety of plants and animals, including threatened and endangered species and by
balancing global warming effects and air pollution by producing oxygen and storing
carbon. Over half the forested lands in Wisconsin are privately owned (57%). See Map
3.2.6 for forested lands in the County.
3.2.7.1 RURAL FORESTS
Trees are important components of a community’s green infrastructure, offering
substantial environmental benefits, including cleaner air and water, quieter streets,
cheaper energy bills, cooler temperatures, and wildlife habitat. Trees covered over 10%
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 76
Green County
of Green County in 1986 (the latest year available), with most of forested acreage owned
privately. Currently, there are three primary forest product companies (e.g. pulpwood,
saw logs) in Green County and six secondary product companies (uses wood in some
form either in manufacturing product or as end product). Forest and forest products
produce eight million dollars in industry output and employ 107 people in Green County
(2000 data).
3.2.7.2 URBAN FORESTS
An urban forest is all the trees and vegetation in and around a city or a village, and
includes tree lined streets, home landscapes, school yards, parks, riverbanks, cemeteries,
vacant lots, right of ways, adjacent woodlands, and any other place that vegetation can
grow. Urban forest therefore does not necessarily only relate to trees, but also includes
shrubs, flowers, vines, ground cover, grass, and other plants. There are a number of
benefits associated with an urban forest including:
x Slows stormwater flow
x Intercepts and absorbs rainwater
x Alleviates pressure on drainage ways
x Provides wildlife habitat
x Provides relief against wind, heat, and cold
One of the more effective tools used by communities to conserve and improve their urban
forests is a tree ordinance. Often this type of ordinance is enacted in response to changes
from rapid land development. Tree ordinances range in complexity from simple tree
replacement standards to more comprehensive ordinances addressing natural resource
issues. In addition to ordinances, tree-planting programs, preserving established trees, and
using sustainable forestry techniques not only increase property values County residents,
but also lower air and water remediation costs for the urban environment.
3.2.8 ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDORS
Areas of concentrated natural resource activity (“rooms”),
such as wetlands, woodlands, prairies, lakes, and other
features, become even more functional when linked by
environmental corridors (“hallways”). Environmental
corridors refer to areas that contain groupings of natural
resource features. When mapped, corridor resource features
depict linear spaces that wildlife can move through, “room to
room”.
Environmental Corridor Benefits:
x
Reduced Flooding
x
Reduced Soil Erosion
x
Improved Water Quality
x
Improved Water Quantity
x
Groundwater Recharge
x
Bank Stabilization
x
Improved Air Quality
x
Improved Wildlife Habitat
Social Benefits:
x
Walking and Hiking
Fish and wildlife populations, native plant distribution, and
x
Cross Country Skiing
even clean water all depend on movement through
x
Horseback Riding
environmental corridors. Wildlife populations isolated in
x
Photography
one wooded location can overpopulate, die out, or cause
x
Wildlife Viewing
problems for neighbors if there are not adequate ways
allowing the population to move about freely. Over 70% of all terrestrial wildlife species
use riparian corridors, according to the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS).
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 77
Green County
Map 3.2.7 shows several natural resource features near the Green County, which can act
as environmental corridors. Preserving environmental corridors is not only a highly
effective way to protect natural resources, but also a beneficial way to protect and
enhance wildlife.
3.2.9
LIGHT, AIR, AND NOISE POLLUTION
Light Pollution
Improper night lighting or light pollution affects the night sky anywhere improperly
shaded nighttime outdoor lights are used. Lighting ordinances recognize the benefits of
appropriate outdoor lighting and can provide clear guidelines for installation, helping to
maintain and compliment a community’s character, as well as improve safety and
security.
A city or village might find that developing a light pollution ordinance would work for
them, but for countywide and/or town protection, a light pollution overlay district or
ordinance might be more useful. Model ordinances are available. The International Dark
Sky Association has produced one which aims to address light pollution harms such as
glare, light trespass, human health and environmental impacts, and energy waste, by
regulating the amount of light that can be used – bulb wattage, number of lights, etc. when it can be used, and what types of fixtures should be used to light outdoor areas.
Air Pollution
The most common air pollutants (dust, pollen, fumes and odors, ash, etc.) come from
industrial, automotive, and agriculture sources. Burn barrels are a common example of
local contributors to air pollution. Burning a barrel of trash in the backyard may release
the same amount of dioxin and furan into the atmosphere as a well-controlled municipal
waste incinerator serving thousands of residents, concluded a recent study by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
In some cases, zoning can be helpful in preventing air pollution issues, particularly odor
problems. A wide variety of model ordinances and recommendations exist which also
address air pollution issues such as wood burning stoves, outdoor wood burning furnaces,
and burn barrels. A number of Green County jurisdictions have added air pollution
policy statements to their comprehensive plans but while a city or village might find that
developing a specific air pollution ordinance would work for them, a countywide and/or
town overlay district or ordinance might be more useful for a larger scale need. Model
ordinances are available.
Noise Pollution
A number of land uses can contribute to noise pollution, such as train whistles, and
vehicle noise from highways or airports. Repetitive excessive noises like those from
boom cars, loud stereos, powered lawn and garden equipment, and construction activities
have been shown to have serious health consequences (e.g. tinnitus, balance problems),
not to mention problems between neighbors.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 78
Green County
A wide variety of model ordinances and recommendations exist to address noise
pollution. Some Green County jurisdictions have added noise pollution policy statements
to their comprehensive plans but while a city or village might find that developing a
specific noise pollution ordinance would work for them, a countywide and/or town
overlay district or ordinance might be more useful. Model ordinances are available.
3.2.10 GEOLOGIC AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Soils and geology require important planning considerations, particularly when thinking
about new development. Today, technological advances can overcome many
development challenges relating to soil and geology. However, it is important that these
resources not be abused, overused, or contaminated. Particular attention must be paid to
soils when development is occurring on steeper slopes. A series of maps showing slope
limitations (Map 3.2.8), septic limitations (Map 3.2.9), and depth to bedrock (Map
3.2.10) are included at the end of this Section.
Most of south/southwest Wisconsin’s bedrock is sedimentary rock, consisting of
sandstone and shale or limestone. Mineral resources are divided into two categories,
metallic and non-metallic resources. Metallic resources in the region include lead and
zinc. Non-metallic resources include sand, gravel, and limestone. Limestone for road
building is one of the most significant non-metallic geologic resources in the area today.
Nonmetallic Mining Reclamation
In June of 2001, all Wisconsin counties were obliged to adopt an ordinance for
nonmetallic mine reclamation. The purpose of the ordinance is to achieve acceptable
final site reclamation to an approved post-mining land use in compliance with uniform
reclamation standards. Uniform reclamation standards address environmental protection
measures including topsoil salvage and storage, surface and groundwater protection, and
concurrent reclamation to minimize acreage exposed to wind and water erosion. Green
County adopted such an ordinance in 2001.
Quarries
A quarry is a usually shallow open-pit mine from which rock or minerals such as granite,
limestone, marble, sandstone, and slate are extracted, generally for building materials.
Quarries in level areas often have special engineering problems for drainage as
groundwater that seeps into the quarry pit must be pumped out. Many quarries fill with
water to become ponds or small lakes after abandonment for mining purposes. Others
have become landfills.
The 1997 nonmetallic mine reclamation ordinance also regulates quarries within County
limits which is important, as specific restrictions at the County level can perhaps better
protect quarries from becoming entry source points for groundwater contamination, since
the County would have first hand knowledge of any issues related to quarry siting. Refer
to Map 3.1.1 for quarry locations in the County.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 79
Green County
3.2.11 OPEN SPACE AND PARKS
The value of open space lies not only in its inherent protection of ecologically sensitive
areas including wetlands and water resources, important wildlife habitat, and sensitive
soils, but also as visual relief to people as they live, travel, and work. It serves many other
functions for a community as well such as
x Preservation of scenic and natural resources;
x Flood management;
x Protection of water resources;
x Preserving prime agricultural land;
x Limiting development that may occur;
x Buffering incompatible land uses;
x Structuring the community environment.
Preserving open spaces not only directly protects resources, but the space itself becomes
a vital buffer between development and agricultural land or woodlands.
The public opinion survey revealed that undeveloped hills and open views were
important to Green County communities. A number of jurisdictions added policy
statements to their comprehensive plan with the intent of helping preserve and maintain
rural views and vistas.
Signs and billboards in the open spaces of communities can sometimes have a negative
visual aesthetic impact on the rural views and vistas if they are placed poorly. Eleven out of
fifteen Green County towns (and one village) added a policy aimed at preserving their rural
views. See Table 3.2.1s.
3.2.12 LOCAL PARK AND RECREATION RESOURCES
Every jurisdiction is unique and can capitalize on its significance and natural beauty. For
example, biking, driving, or walking tours can be designed to thread through areas of
cultural, historical, or environmental significance. Parks can be part of a “chain” along a
bike, horse, or ATV trail and can serve a limited neighborhood area, a portion of the
community, or the entire community or region and provide area and facilities for outdoor
recreation for residents and visitors.
Green County’s natural resources attract numerous recreational users, such as campers, bird
watchers, cyclists, snowmobilers, bikers, 4-wheelers, horse back riders, hunters, anglers, etc.
Jurisdictions listed the type and number of recreational amenities available to residents and
visitors in their communities in their worksheets, which resulted in some communities
selecting a scenic resources policy statement (see Table 3.2.6 below). Refer to Map 3.2.6.
Jurisdictions also indicated if they needed or anticipated additional recreational spaces.
Table 3.2.6 Additional Recreational Types, Locations, and Size
Jurisdiction
C. Brodhead
C. Monroe
T. Adams
T. Cadiz
Adopted Plan
Type of Facility
Location
Undeveloped
Walking Trail
Neighborhood Park
Did not identify
Need more recreation space but
did not identify what or where.
Boat landing
Southwest Mill Race
West Side of Mill Race
MariGill Park
April 18, 2006
Size
½ mile or longer
.4 Acres
Page 80
Green County
Table 3.2.6 (cont.) Additional Recreational Types, Locations, and Size
Jurisdiction
T. Exeter
Type of Facility
Location
Size
Parks
Hiking/Bike/Snowmobile trail spur
Near Sugar River
5 acres
From bike trail to Village Business District
1 mile
V. Monticello
J.C. Elmer subdivision from playground to
Hiking/Biking trail
Montesian Gardens
.5 miles
Tennis court
Veterans Park
V. New Glarus
Additional soccer field
New park location
Additional ball diamond
New park location
These jurisdictions have enough recreation spaces for their needs.
x
Town of Monroe
x
Town of Sylvester
x
Town of Brooklyn
x
x
Town of Washington
x
Town of Clarno
x
Town of New Glarus
x
Town of York
x
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
Town of Jefferson
x
Town of Jordan
Green County jurisdictions were also asked if and how they promoted their natural
resources to recreational visitors. See Table 3.2.7.
Table 3.2.7 Natural Resource Promotion
Jurisdiction
Promote Jurisdiction’s
Natural Resources?
C. Brodhead
Yes
C. Monroe
Yes
How?
Brodhead works to create an attractive recreational atmosphere,
to attract and retain tourists and outdoor enthusiasts, particularly
for the Sugar River Bike Trail.
The City promotes itself by advertising the City parks and
facilities in a fall/winter brochure and again in a spring/summer
tourism brochure. Monroe’s website lists City park facilities.
The Source magazine also lists the various City parks with their
respective facilities.
Yes, the Village actively promotes
its bike trails and lake to recreational
visitors and is interested in learning
what more they can do.
These jurisdictions do not promote their natural resources.
x
Town of Sylvester
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of Adams
x
Town of Washington
x
Town of Jordan
Town of Brooklyn
x
Town of York
x
Town of Monroe
Town of Cadiz
x
x
Town of Clarno
x
x
Town of New Glarus
Town of Decatur
x
Town of Exeter
V. Monticello
x
x
x
x
x
x
3.2.13 LAND COVER
Map 3.2.6 shows Green County land cover, including forested lands, lakes, streams,
wetlands, parks, campgrounds, golf courses, trails, urban development, barren land, and
agriculture.
3.2.14 NATURAL RESOURCE AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS
There are a number of available state and federal programs to assist with agricultural,
natural, and cultural resource planning and protection. Below are brief descriptions of
various agencies and programs, including contact information. To find out more specific
information or which program best fits your needs contact them directly.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 81
Green County
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (WI-DNR)
The Department of Natural Resources is dedicated
to the preservation, protection, effective
NATURAL RESOURCES (WI-DNR)
management, and maintenance of Wisconsin's
101 S Webster St
natural resources and is responsible for
Madison WI 53703
implementing the laws of the state and, where
applicable, the laws of the federal government that
Phone: 608-266-2621
Fax: 608-261-4380
protect and enhance the natural resources of our
state. It is the one agency charged with full
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us
responsibility for coordinating the many disciplines
and programs necessary to provide a clean
environment and a full range of outdoor recreational opportunities. The Wisconsin
DNR has a number of programs available ranging from threatened and endangered
species to water quality to parks and open space to wetlands.
The Bureau of Community Financial Assistance (CFA) administers grants and loan
programs under the WI-DNR. Financial program staff works closely with local
governments and interested groups to develop and support projects that protect public
health and the environment, and provide recreational opportunities.
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION (DATCP)
The Wisconsin Department of Trade and Consumer
Protection inspects and licenses more than 100,000
TRADE AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION (DATCP)
businesses and individuals, analyzes millions of
laboratory samples, conducts hundreds of hearings and
2811 Agriculture Drive
investigations, educates businesses and consumers
PO Box 8911
Madison WI 53708
about best practices, adopts rules that have the force of
law, and promotes Wisconsin agriculture at home and
Phone: 608-224-4960
abroad. Specifically DATCP has two divisions that
http://www.datcp.state.wi.us
relate directly to the agriculture and natural resource
section of the comprehensive plan. The Environmental
Division focuses on insects, land and water, as well as plants and animals. The
Agricultural Division focuses on animals, crops, agricultural resources, and land and
water resources.
WISCONSIN NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)
The Natural Resources Conservation Service is
WISCONSIN NATURAL RESOURCES
the federal agency that works with landowners on
CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)
private lands to conserve natural resources.
6515 Watts Road,
NRCS is part of the U.S. Department of
Suite 200
Agriculture, formerly the Soil Conservation
Madison, WI 53719
Service.
Phone (608) 276-USDA
http://www.wi.nrcs.usda.gov
Adopted Plan
Nearly three-fourths of the technical assistance
provided by the agency goes to helping farmers
and ranchers develop conservation systems
April 18, 2006
Page 82
Green County
uniquely suited to their land and individual ways of doing business. The agency also
assists other private landowners and rural and urban communities to reduce erosion,
conserve and protect water, and solve other resource problems.
WISCONSIN HISTORICAL SOCIETY (WHS)
The Society serves as the archives of the State of
WISCONSIN HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Wisconsin. It collects books, periodicals, maps,
Office of Preservation Planning
manuscripts, relics, newspapers, and audio and
Division of Historic Preservation
graphic materials as they relate to North America.
Wisconsin Historical Society
It maintains a museum, library, and research facility
816 State Street
Madison, WI 53706
in Madison, as well as a statewide system of
historic sites, school services, area research centers,
Phone: 608-264-6500
administering a broad program of historic
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org
preservation and publishing a wide variety of
historical materials, both scholarly and popular.
The historical society can also provide assistance for various state and federal programs.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 83
Green County
NATURAL RESOURCES
CHAPTER ATTACHMENTS
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 84
Green County
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF GREEN COUNTY
Cedar Glade
Dry sandstone, quartzite or dolomite exposures vegetated with dense thickets of red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana). Red maple (Acer rubrum), Paper birch (Betula papyrifera) and black and bur oaks (Quercus
velutina and Q. macrocarpa) may also be present. This community is usually if not always the result of
fire suppression on dry prairies, and in pre-settlement time it may have occurred only where extensive cliffs
served as firebreaks. Common herbs include bluestem and grama grasses (Andropogon spp. and Bouteloua
spp.), prickly-pear cactus (Opuntia compressa), flowering spurge (Euphorbia corollata), stiff sandwort
(Arenaria stricta) and gray goldenrod (Solidago nemoralis).
Dry Cliff (Exposed Cliff of Curtis’ community classification)
With dry vertical bedrock exposures, thin-soiled, very dry communities occur on many different rock types,
which are thus quite varied in species composition. Scattered pines, oaks, or shrubs often occur. However,
the most characteristic plants are often the ferns such as common polypody (Polypodium vulgare) and rusty
woodsia (Woodsia ilvensis). The following herbs are also common, such as: columbine (Aquilegia
canadensis), harebell (Campanula rotundifolia), pale corydalis (Corydalis sempervirens), juneberry
(Amelanchier spp.), bush-honeysuckle (Diervilla lonicera), and rock spikemoss (Selaginella rupestris), and
fringe bindweed (Polygonum cilinode).
Dry Prairie
This grassland community occurs on dry, often loess-derived soils, usually on steep south- or west-facing
slopes or at the summits of river bluffs with sandstone or dolomite near the surface. Short to medium-sized
prairie grasses such as little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), side-oats grama (Bouteloua
curtipendula), hairy grama (B. hirsuta), and prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis), are the dominants in
this community, along with the larger big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii). Common shrubs and forbs
include lead plant (Amorpha canescens), silky aster (Aster sericeus), flowering spurge (Euphorbia
corollata), purple prairie-clover (Petalostemum purpureum), cylindrical blazing-star (Liatris cylindracea),
and gray goldenrod (Solidago nemoralis).
Dry-Mesic Prairie
This grassland community occurs on slightly less droughty xeric sites than Dry Prairie and has many of the
same dominant grasses, but taller species such as big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) and Indian-grass
(Sorghastrum nutans) dominate and are commoner than little bluestem (A. scoparius). Needle grass (Stipa
spartea) may is also be present. The forb-herb component is more diverse than in Dry Prairies, including
many species that occur in both Dry and Mesic Prairies.
Floodplain Forest
(Replaces in part the Southern Wet and Southern Wet-Mesic Forests of Curtis)
This is a lowland hardwood forest community that occurs along large rivers, usually stream order 3 or
higher, that flood periodically. The best development occurs along large southern rivers in southern
Wisconsin, but this community is also found in the northern Wisconsin. Canopy dominants may include
silver maple (Acer saccharinum), river birch (Betula nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), hackberry
(Celtis occidentalis), swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), and cottonwood (Populus deltoides).
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) is a locally dominant shrub and may form dense thickets on the
margins of oxbow lakes, sloughs, and ponds within the forest. Nettles (Laportea canadensis and Urtica
dioica), sedges, ostrich fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris), and gray-headed coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata)
are important understory herbs, and lianas such as Virginia creepers (Parthenocissus spp.), grapes (Vitis
spp.), Canada moonseed (Menispermum canadense), and poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), are often
common. Among the striking and characteristic herbs of this community are green-headed coneflower
(Rudbeckia laciniata), cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis), green dragon (Arisaema dracontium), and false
dragonhead (Physostegia virginiana).
Mesic Prairie
This grassland community occurs on rich, moist, well-drained sites. The dominant plant is the tall grass,
big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii). The grasses little bluestem (Andropogon scoparius), indian grass
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 85
Green County
(Sorghastrum nutans), porcupine grass (Stipa spartea), prairie dropseed (Sporobolus heterolepis), tall
switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), and switch grass (Bouteloua curtipendula) are also frequent. The forb
layer is diverse in the number, size, and physiognomy of the species. Common taxa include the prairie
docks (Silphium spp.), lead plant (Amorpha canescens), heath and smooth asters (Aster ericoides and A.
laevis), sand coreopsis (Coreopsis palmata), prairie sunflower (Helianthus laetiflorus), rattlesnake-master
(Eryngium yuccifolium), flowering spurge (Euphorbia corollata), beebalm (Monarda fistulosa), prairie
coneflower (Ratibida pinnata), and spiderwort (Tradescantia ohioensis).
Moist Cliff (Shaded Cliff of the Curtis community classification)
This "micro-community" occurs on shaded (by trees or the cliff itself because of aspect), moist to seeping
mossy, vertical exposures of various rock types, most commonly sandstone and dolomite. Common
species are columbine (Aquilegia canadensis), the fragile ferns (Cystopteris bulbifera and C. fragilis),
wood ferns (Dryopteris spp.), polypody (Polypodium vulgare), rattlesnake root (Prenanthes alba), and wild
sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis). The rare flora of these cliffs vary markedly in different parts of the state;
Driftless Area cliffs might have northern monkshood (Aconitum noveboracense), those on Lake Superior,
butterwort (Pinguicula vulgaris), or those in Door County, green spleenwort (Asplenium viride).
Southern Dry Forest
Oaks are the dominant species in this upland forest community of dry sites. White oak (Quercus alba) and
black oak (Quercus velutina) are dominant, often with admixtures of red and bur oaks (Q. rubra and Q.
macrocarpa) and black cherry (Prunus serotina). In the well-developed shrub layer, brambles (Rubus
spp.), gray dogwood (Cornus racemosa), and American hazelnut (Corylus americana) are common.
Frequent herbaceous species are wild geranium (Geranium maculatum), false Solomon’s-seal (Smilacina
racemosa), hog-peanut (Amphicarpaea bracteata), and woodland sunflower (Helianthus strumosus).
Red oak (Quercus rubra) is a common dominant tree of this upland forest community type. White oak (Q.
alba), basswood (Tilia americana), sugar and red maples (Acer saccharum and A. rubrum), and white ash
(Fraxinus americana) are also important. The herbaceous understory flora is diverse and includes many
species listed under Southern Dry Forest, plus jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), enchanter'snightshade (Circaea lutetiana), large-flowered bellwort (Uvularia grandiflora), interrupted fern (Osmunda
claytoniana), Lady Fern (Athyrium Filix-femina), tick trefoils (Desmodium glutinosum and D. nudiflorum),
and hog peanut (Amphicarpa bracteata). To the detriment of the oaks, mesophytic tree species are
becoming increasingly important under current management practices and fire suppression policies.
This upland forest community occurs on rich, well-drained soils. The dominant tree species is sugar maple
(Acer saccharum), but basswood (Tilia americana) and (near Lake Michigan) beech (Fagus grandifolia)
may be co-dominant. Many other trees are found in these forests, including those of the walnut family
(Juglandaceae). The understory is typically open (sometimes brushy with species of gooseberry ((Ribes
spp.) if there is a past history of grazing) and supports fine spring ephemeral displays. Characteristic herbs
are spring beauty (Claytonia virginica), trout-lilies (Erythronium spp.), trilliums (Trillium spp.), violets
(Viola spp.), bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis), blue cohosh (Caulophyllum thalictroides), mayapple
(Podophyllum peltatum), and Virginia waterleaf (Hydrophyllum virginianum).
Widespread in southern Wisconsin, this open wetland community is most typically a tussock marsh
dominated by tussock sedge (Carex stricta) and Canada bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis).
Common associates are water-horehound (Lycopus uniflorus), panicled aster (Aster simplex), blue flag (Iris
virginica), Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), spotted joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium maculatum),
broad-leaved common cattail (Typha latifolia), and swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata). Reed canary
grass (Phalaris arundinacea) may be dominant in grazed and/or ditched stands. Ditched stands can succeed
quickly to Shrub-Carr.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 86
Green County
Wet Prairie
This is a rather heterogeneous tall grassland community that shares characteristics of prairies, Southern
Sedge Meadow, Calcareous Fen, and even Emergent Aquatic communities. The Wet Prairie’s more
wetland-like character can mean that sometimes very few true prairie species are present. Many of the
stands assigned to this type by Curtis are currently classified as Wet-Mesic Prairies. The dominant
graminoids are Canada bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis), cordgrass (Spartina pectinata), and
prairie muhly (Muhlenbergia glomerata), plus several sedge (Carex) species including lake sedge (C.
lacustris), water sedge (C. aquatilis), and wooly sedge (C. lanuginosa). Many herb species are shared with
Wet-Mesic Prairies, but the following species are often prevalent: New England aster (Aster novaeangliae), swamp thistle (Cirsium muticum), northern bedstraw (Galium boreale), yellow stargrass (Hypoxis
hirsuta), cowbane (Oxypolis rigidior), tall meadow-rue (Thalictrum dasycarpum), golden alexander (Zizea
aurea), and mountain-mint (Pycnanthemum virginianum).
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 87
Agricultural, Natural and Cultural Resources
3.3
Green County
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The purpose of this chapter is to inventory and support the management of cultural
resources in Green County. Determining what cultural and historic resources are has
been left open to some interpretation. For the purpose of this Plan, historic resources
include historic buildings and sites (as identified by the State and National Register of
Historic Places) such as museums, churches, cemeteries, old country schools, and other
buildings deemed appropriate by the community. The information presented here is to
serve as a guide to cultural and historic resources: it is not inclusive.
3.3.2 GOALS
The following is the Cultural Resources Goal.
1. Preservation of cultural, historic, and archeological sites*.
*Note: Part of the Smart Growth 14 Planning Goals.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 88
Green County
Agricultural, natural, and cultural resource policies are intended to help support,
encourage, protect, and conserve specific indigenous resources that may or may not be
renewable. The following are the Cultural Resources policies and program
recommendations for all participating Green County jurisdictions that will support the
above goal and will guide cultural resource decisions in Green County communities over
the next 20 years.
Table 3.3.1a through 3.3.1i lists each cultural resource policy for participating Green
County jurisdictions. The jurisdictions beneath each statement indicate those including
the specific policy in their plans. Note that the Villages of Belleville, Brooklyn, Albany,
and the Town of Albany are not included since they did not participate in the Green
County multi-jurisdictional comprehensive planning project. However, the Town of
Albany completed their Comprehensive Plan in 2002. In order for the County’s Plan to
be in compliance, the Town of Albany’s policies are included. See Table 3.3.1j.
Table 3.3.1a Cultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage programs that educate local residents about the importance of cultural
resources.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 3.3.1b Cultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Support partnerships with local clubs and organizations in order to protect important
cultural areas held in common interest.
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
x
x
x
x
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
x
x
x
Town of Washington
Table 3.3.1c Cultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Consider implementing an historical preservation ordinance, in order to preserve and/or
enhance the irreplaceable historic structures and locations and archeological sites in the
community.
x
x
x
City of Monroe
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Exeter
x
x
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of New Glarus
Town of Washington
x
x
Town of York
Table 3.3.1d Cultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Promote tourism opportunities and continue to pursue efforts to capitalize on local
resources in conjunction with programs like walking tours, the Wisconsin Historical
Markers Program, distributing ATV or bike trail maps, and maintaining trails.
x
x
x
City of Monroe
Town of Cadiz
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 89
Green County
Table 3.3.1e Cultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Continue to implement the community’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
x
x
City of Brodhead
Table 3.3.1f Cultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Review the impact of new development in the city/village, or the redevelopment, of
historically significant structures or sites before allowing it to occur.
x
x
City of Brodhead
Table 3.3.1g Cultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Investigate opportunities to promote local resources such as walking tours, the Wisconsin
Historical Markers Program, etc
x
Town of New Glarus
Table 3.3.1h Cultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage historical preservation, in order to preserve and/or enhance the irreplaceable
historic structures, locations, and archeological sites in the community.
x
x
x
Town of Cadiz
Town of Monroe
Table 3.3.1i Cultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
conserve, maintain, and protect cultural resources.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Comprehensive Plan.
Table 3.3.1j Cultural Resource Policies by Jurisdiction
Promote and preserve the town’s cultural resource base.
3.3.4 IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNITY CULTURAL RESOURCES
Many communities often ignore cultural and historic resources in order to deal with
“real” issues facing their community. However, the proper appreciation of these assets is
vital to the long-term success of a community. Respecting and utilizing these available
resources increases the overall quality of life and provides opportunities for tourism.
The Cultural Resources worksheet asked jurisdictions of Green County for their opinion
on the importance of cultural resources to their communities. Table 3.3.2 lists their
responses.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 90
Green County
Table 3.3.2 Importance of Cultural Resources
Aesthetically
Important
Recreationally
Important
Culturally
Important
Economically
Important
City of Brodhead
Town of Adams
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
City of Brodhead
Town of Adams
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Jordan
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Village of New
Glarus
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Decatur
Town of Jordan
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Village of New
Glarus
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Cadiz
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
Town of Washington
Village of New
Glarus
Not
Important
Town of Exeter
Town of Spring
Grove
Historically
Important
Town of Brooklyn
3.3.5 BRIEF HISTORY OF GREEN COUNTY
Many of the first settlers to Green County area were European immigrants from
Switzerland. The fertile land was more than suitable for dairy farming and soon a
bustling cheese industry was born. In the early 1900s, the number of cheese factories in
Green County peaked at just over 200 (See Map 3.3.1 Cultural Resource Chapter
Attachments). Today only twelve remain, offering many varieties of cheeses including
the only cheese factory in the nation that makes Limburger Cheese. Green County is also
home to the Joseph Huber Brewing Company (located in Monroe), the nation’s second
oldest brewery.
The Swiss heritage still has large impact on the community and its influence is enjoyed in
many County festivals. It can also still be seen in the architecture of many of Green
County’s buildings and homes, including the Green County courthouse, built in 1891.
Prior to farming, many immigrants came to Green County region for mining purposes:
the lead rush of the 1820s and 1830s attracted people to the area in masses. In 1835,
Jacob Andrick entered a claim and platted a site for the town of New Mexico, present site
of Lincoln Park. Several years later, Joseph Payne platted Monroe near the present
location of the courthouse square. In 1836, the territorial legislature designated the
County of Green, named after Revolutionary War hero General Nathanial Greene and the
lush vegetation in the region. Green County was sectioned into sixteen towns in 1850.
In 1839, Monroe was designated as the seat of Green County after Payne donated 120
acres to the County. Eventually, Monroe absorbed the settlement of New Mexico.
Monroe continued to modestly grow until the mid 1800s when the influx of Swiss
immigrants and the dairy/cheese industry began to boom. Monroe served as the major
service center for the production, warehousing, and retail sales of cheese. This economic
success naturally encouraged service industries and social centers to become established.
The combination of being County seat and the center of the cheese industry propelled
Monroe to become the largest city in Green County.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 91
Green County
3.3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCE PUBLICATIONS AND DOCUMENTATION
Maintaining a written record of cultural resources is an excellent way of educating
residents about a community’s past as well as encouraging tourism. Newsletters or
pamphlets describing a community’s history while showcasing particular sites can
provide residents and tourists alike with intriguing information.
The Cultural Resources worksheet requested jurisdictions to identify whether they
provided publications, pamphlets, or other media explaining their history. See Table
3.3.3 below. Most communities referred to the Green County Department of Tourism
(608-329-1838) for historical and cultural resource media and information.
Table 3.3.3 Historical and Cultural Publications
Jurisdiction
“Does your jurisdiction have any publications/pamphlets that
explain the history of your jurisdiction, or the history of the cultural
resources in your jurisdiction?”
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Jefferson
Yes
Yes
No
No, but those particularly interested in local history have submitted publications to the Town.
Yes, contact the Village for more information.
Yes, contact the Village of New Glarus or the New Glarus Historical Society for more
information.
These jurisdictions do not have any historical publications or pamphlets
but may create such during the life of this plan (or in the future*).
x Town of Brooklyn
x Town of Jordan
x Town of Sylvester
x Town of Monroe
x Town of Cadiz*
x Town of Mt. Pleasant
x Town of Clarno
x Town of York*
x Town of Decatur*
x Town of New Glarus
x Town of Exeter
x Town of Spring Grove
3.3.7 LOCAL HISTORICAL SOCIETIES
Local historical societies provide an important service to communities by documenting,
rehabilitating, maintaining, or promoting local cultural resources. The Table below lists
contact information for Green County jurisdiction’s historical societies.
Table 3.3.4 Local Historical Societies
Jurisdiction
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Brooklyn
Town of New Glarus
Adopted Plan
“Are there any local historical societies in your jurisdiction? If so,
please explain the purpose of the society and list contact
information for the president of the society.”
Green County Historical Society
Brodhead Historical Society
th
th
1218 17 Ave.
1101 E. 6 Ave.
Brodhead, WI 53520
Monroe, WI 53566
Phone (608) 897-8048
Phone (608) 325-2924
Monroe Historical Society, Phone: (608) 325-4471
Local Historian
th
Sharon George
1218 17 Ave.
W711 Amidon Rd.
Monroe, WI 53566
Brooklyn, WI 53521
Phone: (608) 325-2924
New Glarus Historical Society
th
PO Box 745
1218 17 Ave.
New Glarus, WI 53574
Monroe, WI 53566
www.swisshistoricalvillage.com
Phone: (608) 325-2924
April 18, 2006
Page 92
Green County
Table 3.3.4 (cont.) Local Historical Societies
“Are there any local historical societies in your jurisdiction? If so,
please explain the purpose of the society and list contact
information for the president of the society.”
Jurisdiction
Monticello Historical Society
th
P.O. Box 463
1218 17 Ave.
Monticello, WI 53570
Monroe, WI 53566
www.monticellowi.com/mahs
Phone: (608) 325-2924
New Glarus Historical Society
th
PO Box 745
1218 17 Ave.
New Glarus, WI 53574
Monroe, WI 53566
www.swisshistoricalvillage.com
Phone: (608) 325-2924
th
No local societies: jurisdictions referred to Green County Historical Society, 1218 17 Ave., Monroe, WI 53566,
Phone: (608) 325-2924
x Town of Jefferson
x Town of Adams
x Town of Sylvester
x Town of Jordan
x Town of Cadiz
x Town of Monroe
x Town of Clarno
x Town of York
x Town of Decatur
x Village of Browntown
x Town of Exeter
3.3.7 MUSEUM OR CULTURAL RESOURCE CENTER
Another way of preserving the past is through a local museum or cultural resource center.
Table 3.3.5 lists Green County jurisdictions that have a local museum or cultural resource
center.
Table 3.3.5 Local Museums
Jurisdiction
“Does your jurisdiction have a local museum or cultural resource
center? If so, please provide information for where it is located and
when it was created. Also, please provide contact information for the
person in charge of the museum?”
st
Yes, the City has a local museum located at 1108 1 Center Ave., Brodhead, maintained by
the Brodhead Historical Society.
Yes, there is a local museum located in a former Universalist church built in 1861. The
City of Monroe
Monroe Depot/Historic Cheesemaking Center serves as a local museum.
Town of Clarno
Yes, the Green County Forestry Center on County Highway P.
Yes, the Town has historic artifacts such as newspapers, photographs, war memorials, and
Town of Jefferson
fire fighting awards on display at their Community Center.
Yes, the Browntown Historical Museum located at 110 S. Mill St., Browntown.
Yes, three cultural resource centers:
x
Chalet of Golden Fleece Museum
x
Swiss Historical Village
x
Future Home of the Swiss Center of North America
These jurisdictions reported no local museums or cultural resource center.
x Town of Jordan
x Town of Adams
x Town of Sylvester
x Town of Monroe
x Town of Brooklyn
x Town of Cadiz
x Town of York
x Town of Decatur
x Town of Exeter
City of Brodhead
3.3.8 HISTORICAL MARKERS
Wisconsin Historical Markers identify, commemorate and honor the important people,
places, and events that have contributed to the state’s rich heritage. The Wisconsin
Historical Society’s Division of Historic Preservation administers the Historical Markers
program. See Section 3.3.19, Cultural Resource Agencies and Programs for contact
information. Table 3.3.6 below shows Green County jurisdiction responses when asked
if they had any Historical Markers in their jurisdictions.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 93
Green County
Table 3.3.6 Historical Markers
Jurisdiction
“Does your jurisdiction have any Historical Markers? Wisconsin
Historical Markers identify, commemorate, and honor the important
people, places, and events that have contributed to the state’s rich
heritage. If you do not have any but would like to place one, please
indicate the site(s) where you would possibly like to put one”
City of Brodhead
No, but it does have a marker indicating the historic downtown district (square).
No, but However, it does have a marker commemorating the following:
th
th
x
Vietnam Veterans –Tank at 6 St. & 30 Ave.
x
Korean Conflict – F860 Sabre Jet at Twining Park
City of Monroe
x
Spanish American War – Cannon at Recreation Park
x
Civil War – Soldier Statue at the Courthouse
No, but, it does have a marker at Liberty Pole Park (State Highway 92 & Amidon Rd.), to
Town of Brooklyn
commemorate a Civil War camp and nine one room schoolhouse markers.
Town of York
No, but the Town has a marker at Old York Church.
Yes, the Village has a State registered historical marker located at the wayside on State
Highway 69, honoring Niclolaus Gerber, a native of Switzerland, who came to Green County
in the 1860s and pioneered the concept of the cheese factory.
nd
Yes, the Village has State registered historical marker (319 2 St.) commemorating Herbert
Kubly, a well-known writer of Swiss descent. The Historical Preservation Commission is
working on a list of potential sites to add.
There are no State registered historical markers in these jurisdictions, nor do they wish to place any.
x Town of Adams
x Town of Jefferson
x Town of Cadiz
x Town of Jordan
x Town of Sylvester
x Town of Clarno
x Town of Monroe
x Town of Decatur
x Town of Exeter
3.3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCE PROGRAMS AND SPECIAL EVENTS
Cultural Resource Programs and Special Events are very effective methods of bringing
people of a community (both residents and non-residents) together to celebrate the
history, culture, and heritage of a community. Not only do these special events build
community spirit, but they can be important to the local economy. Table 3.3.7 lists
Green County jurisdiction’s special cultural events occurring through the year.
Table 3.3.7 Cultural Resource Programs, Special Events
Jurisdiction
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
“Please explain what sort of cultural resource and historic
preservation programs/special events your jurisdiction promotes and
supports. Please include dates of annual events and if possible the
year they were established.”
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Cadiz
Adopted Plan
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
nd
Covered Bridge Days – 2 Weekend in August
Walking Tours – Brodhead Historical Society
Autumn Fest – Last Saturday in September
Green County Cheese Days (Monroe) – Third Weekend in September (even yrs)
Historic Tour of Homes – December, Monroe Historical Society
Swiss Fest - November
Taste of Monroe –June
Cultural Festival – Syttendi Mai, a special service recognizing Norwegian heritage, every
May, at Adams Lutheran Church.
Apparitions Club – Labor Day fundraiser for children’s hospital.
Friends of Cadiz Springs Park Walking Tour – Valentine’s Day & Summer
Apple Blossom Time (Monticello) – Saturday Before Mother’s Day
Native American Artifact Show – Fourth Sunday in October
Community Fest – Memorial Day Weekend
Heidi Festival – June
Oktoberfest (New Glarus) – Mid-October
Winterfest – Third Weekend in January
Swiss Polksfest – Early June
Walking Tours – New Glarus Historical Society
William Tell Festival (New Glarus) – Labor Day Weekend
Volksfest – First Sunday in August
April 18, 2006
Page 94
Green County
Table 3.3.7 (cont.) Cultural Resource Programs, Special Events
Jurisdiction
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
“Please explain what sort of cultural resource and historic
preservation programs/special events your jurisdiction promotes and
supports. Please include dates of annual events and if possible the
year they were established.”
These jurisdictions reported no cultural resource programs or special events.
Town of Jordan
Town of Sylvester
Town of Monroe
Town of Washington
Town of York
Town of New Glarus
Contact Green County (www.greencounty.org) to obtain the latest visitor guide for
information about cultural resource programs and special events held in other
communities in Green County. Below is a list of some significant special events in Green
County during the year.
x Apple Blossom Time (Monticello) – Saturday Before Mother’s Day
x Breakfast on the Farm – Late May
x Depot Days of Green County (County Wide) – Last Weekend in April
x Green County Cheese Days (Monroe) – Third Weekend in September (even yrs)
x Green County Dairy Day – Late June
x Green County Fair – Begins Third Wednesday in July
x Monroe/World Honda Grand Prix Balloon Rally – Mid June
x Oktoberfest (New Glarus and Monroe) – Mid-October
x Summerfest (Browntown) – Mid-June
x William Tell Festival (New Glarus) – Labor Day Weekend
x Yesteryear Days (Albany) – Memorial Day Weekend
3.3.10 THREATS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES
Unfortunately, there are many threats to community cultural resources. Whether
development pressure, rehabilitation and maintenance costs, or simply the effects of time,
it is often difficult to preserve community history. Table 3.3.8 lists the threats to cultural
resources by jurisdiction.
Table 3.3.8 Threats to Cultural Resources
Jurisdiction
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Monroe
Adopted Plan
“What cultural resources are most important to your community and
what are the threats to them? How has your jurisdiction responded to
threats to your cultural resources?”
nd
1006 E. 2 Ave. – Neglect, Property Foreclosed in 2003
Cost of preservation for the historic square is the biggest threat.
x
Cemeteries – Deterioration and vandalism
x
Cheese Factories – Conversion to other uses
x
Wind Mills – Demolition and neglect
x
Barns – Demolition and neglect
x
One Room School Houses – Demolition and neglect
Vandalism is the biggest potential threat to cultural resources. The Town has responded to
this threat by implementing a neighborhood watch program.
Neglect of cemeteries is the biggest potential threat to cultural resources. The Town has
responded to this threat by doing headstone restoration at all cemeteries over the last three
years. In addition, the Genealogy Society is currently working on a cemetery directory of the
Town of Cadiz.
Economics, and labor-intensive economics, are the biggest potential threats to Cheese
Factories and the Dairy Industry. The Town has had no formal response to these threats to
date.
April 18, 2006
Page 95
Green County
Table 3.3.8 (cont.) Threats to Cultural Resources
Jurisdiction
“What cultural resources are most important to your community and
what are the threats to them? How has your jurisdiction responded to
threats to your cultural resources?”
Nothing has been done to date about Woolen Mill; however, the Town has provided walking
access to Truax Cemetery.
x
Woolen Mill & Bridge – Demolition or neglect
x
Cemeteries – Neglect or abandonment
Town of New Glarus
Neglect
x
Cemeteries – Neglect, damage, and vandalism
x
Old family farms - Development
Town of Washington
The Town has responded to these threats by implementing a land division ordinance to slow
sprawl and maintain cemeteries.
Town of York
Vandalism and neglect to cemeteries
x
Swiss Historical Village – Declining attendance
x
Chalet Golden Fleece Museum – Declining attendance
These jurisdictions reported no important cultural resources and possible threats to them.
x Town of Clarno
x Town of Jefferson
x Town of Sylvester
x Town of Decatur
x Town of Jordan
x Town of Exeter
3.3.11 LOST CULTURAL RESOURCES OR BUILDINGS
Sometimes important cultural resources are lost due to the threats discussed previously.
Table 3.3.9 lists lost or destroyed cultural resources and buildings in Green County.
Table 3.3.9 Lost Cultural Resources
Jurisdiction
Town of Adams
“Have any historic buildings/sites been demolished/lost in the last 20
years? If so, please try to explain what was lost, where the site was
located, when was it destroyed, and the circumstances around its
destruction.”
x
x
x
x
x
Big Rock Cheese Factory – Corner of Dougherty Creek Rd. & Holstein Prairie Rd.
Biggs Cheese Factory – Corner of County Highway A & Biggs Rd.
Apple Grove Cheese Factory – Corner of County Highway A & Apple Grove Rd.
School House – Puddle Dock Road
th
Pre 20 Century Barn – Nybroten Farm, Corner of County Highway A & Apple Grove Rd.
x
Dill Cheese Factory – Demolished
x
Hotel in Martintown – Demolished
Town of Cadiz
x
Depot in Martintown – There but not on historic list yet
x
Martintown Church – Active
Silver School House (Silver Rd. & County EE) – Neglected and has fallen down
Town of Sylvester
Dutch Hollow School – burned down.
One historic building, a bank on Mill & Main St., has been destroyed.
These jurisdictions reported no demolished or lost historic buildings or sites.
x City of Brodhead
x Town of Exeter
x City of Monroe
x Town of Jefferson
x Town of York
x Town of Brooklyn
x Town of Jordan
x Town of Clarno
x Town of Monroe
x Village of New Glarus
x Town of Decatur
3.3.12 HISTORICAL PRESERVATION ORDINANCES AND COMMISSIONS
The establishment of a historical preservation ordinance and commission is one of the
most proactive methods a community can take to preserve cultural resources. A
historical preservation ordinance typically contains criteria for the designation of historic
structures, districts, or places, and procedures for the nomination process. The ordinance
further regulates the construction, alteration, or demolition of the exterior of a designated
historic site or structure. Contact the Wisconsin Historical Society’s Division of Historic
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 96
Green County
Preservation for more information. See Table 3.3.10 for a list of those jurisdictions that
have an historic preservation ordinance.
Table 3.3.10 Historic Preservation Ordinances and Commissions
“Does your jurisdiction have an historic preservation ordinance? Is your jurisdiction
interested in forming an historic preservation commission?”
YES
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
x
9LOODJHRI1HZ*ODUXV
x
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
NO
x
x
x
x
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
x
x
x
x
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
A community with a historic preservation ordinance may apply for Certified Local
Government (CLG) status, with the Wisconsin State Historical Society. Once a
community is certified, they become eligible for
x Matching sub-grants from the federal Historic Preservation Fund,
x Use of Wisconsin Historic Building Code,
x Reviewing National Register of Historic Places nominations allocated to the state.
3.3.13 CHURCHES
Churches historically have had a significant impact on a community’s culture. At times
they are the only places were rural residents can gather to discuss important issues in
their community. Church locations in Green County may be found on Map 3.3.1.
3.3.14 CEMETERIES
Cemeteries are identified as prominent historic and cultural resources. They can provide
an historic perspective of an area, providing names and ethnicities of previous residents.
In some communities, cemeteries also provide green space. See Map 3.3.1 for Green
County cemeteries.
3.3.15 RURAL SCHOOLS
The old time, one-room schoolhouse once dotted the landscape, providing public
education for mainly rural communities. Over time, these buildings were utilized less
and less, as larger, more centrally located schools were built and students were bused in.
Nevertheless, the one room schoolhouse remains an icon of American rural culture and
some still exist in Green County, sometimes converted to homes, sometimes merely
marking a crossroads. See Map 3.3.1 for rural schools in Green County.
3.3.16 ARCHITECTURE AND HISTORY INVENTORY (AHI)
The Architecture and History Inventory (AHI) is a collection of information on historic
buildings, structures, sites, objects, and historic districts throughout Wisconsin. The
Wisconsin Historical Society’s Division of Historic Preservation maintains the inventory.
The AHI is comprised of written text and photographs of each property, which
documents the property's architecture and history. Most properties became part of the
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 97
Green County
inventory as a result of a systematic architectural and historical survey beginning in
1970s. Caution should be used as the list is not comprehensive and some information
may be dated, due to some properties being altered or no longer existing. Cutbacks in
funding have resulted in the Historical Society being unable to maintain the database.
Please note that many of the properties in the inventory are privately owned and are not
open to the public. Inclusion of a property in the Inventory conveys no special status,
rights, or benefits to the owners. Refer to each Green County jurisdiction’s
comprehensive plan for the AHI list in that community or contact the Wisconsin
Historical Society for more information about the inventory.
3.3.17 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY (ASI)
The Archaeological Site Inventory (ASI) is a collection of archaeological sites, mounds,
unmarked cemeteries, marked cemeteries, and cultural sites throughout Wisconsin. (The
Historical Society estimates that less than 1% of the archaeological sites in the state have
been identified.) The Wisconsin Historical Society’s Division of Historic Preservation
maintains the inventory. Similar to the AHI, the ASI is not a comprehensive or
complete list; it only includes sites that have been reported to the Historical Society.
Under Wisconsin law, Native American burial mounds, unmarked burials, and all marked
and unmarked cemeteries are protected from intentional disturbance. Refer to each
Green County jurisdictions comprehensive plan for the ASI list in that community or
contact the Wisconsin Historical Society for more information about the inventory.
3.3.18 STATE AND NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
The AHI contains all the documented historic sites in a community, as well as a list of
those sites that are on the State and National Register of Historic Places. The National
Register is the official national list of historic properties in America deemed worthy of
preservation. It is maintained by the National Park Service (U.S. Department of the
Interior). The State Register is Wisconsin's official listing of state properties determined
to be significant to Wisconsin's heritage and is maintained by the Wisconsin Historical
Society’s Division of Historic Preservation. Both federal and state listings include sites,
buildings, structures, objects and districts that are significant in national, state or local
history, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture. Refer to the Cultural
Resources Attachments at the end of this chapter for a list of existing and potentially
eligible State and National Resister of Historic Places in Green County or contact the
National Park Service or the Wisconsin Historical Society for more information.
Green County jurisdictions were asked if there were any historic or cultural resources
they might want to list in the State or National Registers. The Town of Adams and the
Village of New Glarus were the only two jurisdictions indicating a desire to add a site or
sites to the Register. Adams Township wants to add the lead mine on a Mr. Richard
Gordee’s property to the register, and the New Glarus Historical Society is working on a
list of potential sites to register on behalf of the Village of New Glarus.
3.3.19 CULTURAL RESOURCE AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS
There are a number of available state and federal programs to assist with agricultural,
natural, and cultural resource planning and protection. Below are brief descriptions of
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 98
Green County
various agencies and programs, including contact information. To find out more specific
information or which program best fits your needs contact them directly.
WISCONSIN HISTORICAL SOCIETY
The Society serves as the archives of the State of
Wisconsin. It collects books, periodicals, maps,
manuscripts, relics, newspapers, and audio and
graphic materials as they relate to Wisconsin. It
maintains a museum, library, and research facility
in Madison, as well as a statewide system of
historic sites, school services and area research
centers. It administers a broad program of historic
preservation and publishes a wide variety of
historical materials, both scholarly and popular.
The historical society can also provide assistance
for various state and federal programs.
WISCONSIN
HISTORICAL SOCIETY
816 State Street
Madison, WI 53706
Phone: 608-264-6500
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
The National Park Service administers the
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
National Register of Historic Places. In addition
to honorific recognition, listing in the National
1201 Eye St., NW
Register provides:
8th Floor (MS 2280)
Washington, DC 20005
x Consideration in planning for Federal,
federally licensed, and federally assisted
Phone: 202-354-2213
projects,
x Eligibility for certain tax provisions,
http:// www.cr.nps.gov/nr
x Qualification for Federal grants for
historic preservation, when funds are available.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a
nonprofit organization with more than 200,000
members. The Trust provides leadership, education,
and advocacy training to support efforts to save
America’s historic places.
NATIONAL TRUST FOR
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
1785 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036-2117
Phone: 202-588-6000
WISCONSIN TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
http:// www.nationaltrust.org
(WTHP)
The WTHP, established in 1986, is a private non-profit organization dedicated to the
preservation of the historical, architectural, and archaeological heritage of Wisconsin.
The Trust advocates for legislation and policies designed to encourage statewide historic
preservation. Examples of some of the programs they initiate are
x Wisconsin Main Street Program
A comprehensive program designed to revitalize designated downtowns and give
new life to historic business districts
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 99
Green County
x
Heritage Tourism Initiative
The Heritage Tourism Initiative has helped develop grassroots heritage tourism
organizations by encouraging Wisconsin communities to use their unique features
to tap into the mushrooming heritage tourism
market -- and protect that heritage at the same
WISCONSIN TRUST FOR
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
time.
x
Agricultural Buildings Preservation Initiative
Inspired by the National Trust's popular Barn
Again! program, this initiative provides
information and forums to help owners of
historic agricultural buildings determine how to
maintain and reuse their buildings.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
23 North Pinckney Street,
Suite 330, PO Box 2288,
Phone: 608-255-0348
http:// www.wthp.org
Page 100
Green County
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CHAPTER ATTACHMENTS
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 101
Green County
ARCHITECTURE AND HISTORY INVENTORY (AHI)
Compiled by Richard A. Bernstein, Preservation Planner
February 2004
Refer to each Green County jurisdictions comprehensive plan for the AHI list for that
community or contact the Wisconsin Historical Society for more information about the
inventory.
Compiled by Richard A. Bernstein
Preservation Planner
February 2004
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY (ASI)
Office of State Archaeology
Historic Preservation Division
John H. Broihahn
[email protected]
608-264-6496
February 2004
Refer to each Green County jurisdictions comprehensive plan for the ASI list for that
community or contact the Wisconsin Historical Society for more information about the
inventory.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 102
Housing
Green County
4.0 HOUSING
4.1 CHAPTER SUMMARY
Housing is a necessity of life and an important part of the comprehensive planning
process. The purpose of this section is to assess the current housing stock in Green
County and to identify policies and programs that will help meet existing and forecasted
housing demand. The housing stock assessment includes the age, value, and type (e.g.
single-family or multi-family) of existing housing units, as well as occupancy
characteristics such as tenure (owner occupied vs. renter occupied), and affordability (the
percentage of monthly income residents spend on housing costs). Special attention is
devoted to policies and programs that help to provide housing for residents with special
needs, such as the elderly and low- and moderate-income households and help
homeowners to maintain or rehabilitate their homes.
Wisconsin State Statute 66.1001(2)(b)
(b) Housing element.
A compilation of objectives, policies, goals, maps and programs of the local governmental unit to
provide an adequate housing supply that meets existing and forecasted housing demand in the
local governmental unit. The element shall assess the age, structural, value and occupancy
characteristics of the local governmental unit’s housing stock. The element shall also identify
specific policies and programs that promote the development of housing for residents of the
local governmental unit and provide a range of housing choices that meet the needs of persons
of all income levels and of all age groups and persons with special needs, policies and
programs that promote the availability of land for the development or redevelopment of low–
income and moderate–income housing, and policies and programs to maintain or rehabilitate
the local governmental unit’s existing housing stock.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 103
Housing
Green County
4.2 GOALS
goals, the two listed below are intended to promote quality housing.
1. Maintain the quality of existing housing units and developments.
2. Provide an adequate supply of affordable housing for individuals of all income
levels throughout the community.
4.3 OBJECTIVES AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Tables 4.1a through 4.1gg are the Housing objectives, and policies recommendations as
indicated by each jurisdiction, supporting the above goals to guide housing decisions in
Green County over the next 20 years. Note that the Villages of Belleville, Brooklyn,
Albany, and the Town of Albany are not included since they did not participate in the
Green County multi-jurisdictional comprehensive planning project. However, the Town
of Albany completed their Comprehensive Plan in 2002. In order for the County’s Plan
to be in compliance, the Town of Albany’s policies are included. See Tables 4.1hh
through 4.1nn.
Table 4.1a Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the location of new residential developments within (infill development) or
close to existing residential developments.
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Cadiz
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Table 4.1b Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Identify areas of land that is appropriate for future housing developments.
x
x
x
x
x
City of Monroe
City of Brodhead
Table 4.1c Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage future residential development in areas that can be served with public utilities
and community facilities.
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Cadiz
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
x
x
x
x
Town of York
Table 4.1d Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage clustering rural residential homes away from agricultural operations.
x
x
x
x
Town of Cadiz
Town of Decatur
Town of Jordan
Adopted Plan
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
April 18, 2006
Page 104
Housing
Green County
Table 4.1e Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage housing developers to cluster homes on smaller lots while preserving open
space in the development.
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Cadiz
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Decatur
Town of Jefferson
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 4.1f Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the location of new housing developments along major roads, around lake
areas and near or inside cities and villages.
x
Town of Cadiz
Table 4.1g Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Coordinate/support* planning activities for senior/special needs/low income housing with
Green County and surrounding jurisdictions to effectively plan for residential growth.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Cadiz*
Town of Decatur
Table 4.1h Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Impose impact fees on new development to mitigate the capital costs of new public
facilities/services necessitated by the development.
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Exeter
x
x
x
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
x
x
x
x
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 4.1i Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Discourage new housing development in areas where soils, slopes or topography are not
suitable.
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Clarno
Town of Exeter
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 4.1j Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Enforce the City/Village’s Zoning Ordinance to maintain the character of existing and
future residential neighborhoods.
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Table 4.1k Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of the community’s existing housing stock.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
Adopted Plan
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
April 18, 2006
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Page 105
Housing
Green County
Table 4.1l Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the provisions of an adequate and appropriate supply of single-family homes,
condominiums and townhouse, apartments, duplexes and manufactured homes.
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Table 4.1m Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the location of/Locate* multi-family apartment buildings, (duplexes**,) senior
housing and special needs housing near or inside cities and villages, where there is easier
access to public services and facilities.
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of Mt. Pleasant**
x
x
x
x
x
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York*
Table 4.1n Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Review new housing proposals and support those that meet the community’s housing
needs and are consistent with the policies in this comprehensive plan.
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Cadiz
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 4.1o Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
When and where appropriate, utilize county, state and federal programs or grants to
maintain existing housing or to support the construction of future housing.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 4.1p Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the availability of affordable rental and ownership housing for low and
moderate-income individuals.
x
City of Monroe
Table 4.1q Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the availability of housing units to serve the current and future needs of all
residents.
x
City of Monroe
Table 4.1r Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage both “single family” and “manufactured” housing.
x
Town of Adams
Table 4.1s Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Allow only single-family housing.
x
Town of Brooklyn
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 106
Housing
Green County
Table 4.1t Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage single-family and duplex homes.
x
x
Town of Clarno
Town of Washington
Table 4.1u Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage both single-family and senior housing.
x
Town of Decatur
Table 4.1v Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage “single-family” housing.
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Sylvester
Table 4.1w Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Support choices of ownership and rental housing units to serve the current and future
needs of all residents.
x
Town of Exeter
Table 4.1x Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage single-family, duplex and manufactured homes.
x
Town of Jordan
Table 4.1y Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the construction of single-family housing, duplexes and manufactured
housing.
x
Table 4.1z Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the provisions of an adequate and appropriate supply of single-family homes,
condominiums and townhouse, apartments, and duplexes.
x
Table 4.1aa Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage a variety of housing units to serve the current and future needs of all residents.
x
Table 4.1bb Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Locate multi-family apartment buildings, senior housing, and special needs housing near
or inside cities and villages, where there is access to public services and facilities.
x
Town of York
Table 4.1cc Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
All homes shall be a minimum of 1400 square feet of above grade living space.
x
Town of York
Table 4.1dd Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Mandate existing subdivisions be filled to 90% capacity before new development will be
considered.
x
Town of Adams
Table 4.1ee Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage new development to be consistent and compatible with existing structures in
the area.
x
Town of Jefferson
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 107
Housing
Green County
Table 4.1ff Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage siting rural residential homes away from agricultural operations.
x
Town of York
Table 4.1gg Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Promote and utilize federal and state housing assistance programs specifically for nursing
homes and assisted living housing.
x
x
Comprehensive Plan.
Table 4.1hh Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Preserve the town’s agricultural land base protecting its aesthetics, rural character, and
agricultural heritage for future generations.
Table 4.1ii Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
The Town of Albany will provide adequate lands to meet the needs of projected housing
demands.
Table 4.1jj Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Strengthen existing established neighborhoods by finding new uses for abandoned or
underused land.
Table 4.1kk Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
The Town of Albany will provide for the allowance of safe and affordable housing in a
variety of types and locations throughout the community.
Table 4.1ll Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the development of housing for people of all ages and income levels in
appropriate locations throughout the township.
Table 4.1mm Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Assure that the fair housing rights of all citizens are protected.
Table 4.1nn Housing Policies by Jurisdiction
Advocate the use of existing state and federal housing programs throughout the
community. Educate residents on their availability.
4.4 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
4.4.1 HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING UNITS: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
Green County experienced strong residential growth between 1970 and 2000. Total
households increased 58% in that period, and total housing units increased 56% (Table
4.2). Assuming that the number of people per household will stabilize at 2.5 (1990 &
2000 county average), population projections suggest that the County will gain at least
2,850 additional households by 2030 and possibly as many as 7,000 more (Figure 4.1).
(A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of
residence. A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home or trailer, a group of
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 108
Housing
Green County
rooms, or a single room occupied as separate living quarters, or if vacant, intended for
occupancy as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the
occupants live separately from any other individuals in the building and which have
direct access from outside the building or through a common hall.)
Prior to 2000, most of the residential growth occurred in rural and semi-urban areas at the
north and east edges of the county (Map 4.1 & Map 4.2, Housing Chapter Attachments).
Future growth is most likely to occur in the same areas, and gradually spread toward the
south and west.
Table 4.2 Housing Statistics (Source: US Census)
Housing
Green County
Number
Total Households (1970) *
Wisconsin
Number
8,387
1,328,804
Total Households (1980)
10,759
1,652,261
12,087
2,055,774
13,212
2,084,544
People per Household (1970)
3.2
3.3
2.8
2.8
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.6
Housing Units 1970 **
8,889
1,473,000
Housing Units 1980
11,317
1,863,897
Housing Units 1990
11,541
1,822,118
Housing Units 2000
13,878
2,321,144
*Total Households equal the number of occupied housing units.
**Total Housing Units are all those available, including occupied and vacant units
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 109
Housing
Green County
Figure 4.1 Green County Household Projections
(Source: US Census, SWWRPC)
25000
Households
20000
15000
Census
Low Projection
High Projection
10000
5000
0
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
Year
Figure 4.1 shows projected households for the years 2010, 2020, and 2030. The red line indicates the high
projection for additional households, while the blue line indicates the low projection for additional
households. Household projections are based on population projection figures and an average household
size of 2.5 people. Housing unit projections are based on a 5% vacancy rate.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 110
Housing
Green County
4.4.2 OCCUPANCY CHARACTERISTICS
Of the 13,878 housing units in Green County in 2000, 70% were owner-occupied, 25%
were renter-occupied, and five percent were vacant (Figure 4.2). Renter-occupied units
declined two percent between 1990 and 2000 – there were seventy-five fewer rental units
in 2000 than in 1990. The loss of rental units occurred primarily in rural towns (Table
4.3).
Table 4.3 Occupancy characteristics by jurisdiction, and percent change 1990-2000
Jurisdiction
Green County
Town of
Adams
Town of
Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of
Clarno
Town of
Decatur
Town of
Exeter
Town of
Jefferson
Town of
Jordan
Town of
Monroe
Town of Mount
Pleasant
Town of New
Glarus
Town of
Spring Grove
Town of
Sylvester
Town of
Washington
Town of York
Village of
Browntown
Village of
Monticello
Village of New
Glarus
City of
Brodhead
City of Monroe
Adopted Plan
Total
housing
units
(2000)
Change
1990 to
2000
Owner
occupied
(2000)
Change
1990 to
2000
Renter
occupied
(2000)
Change
1990 to
2000
Vacant
Housing
Units
(2000)
Change
1990 to
2000
13,878
15%
9,749
22%
3,463
-2%
666
22%
180
7%
129
36%
36
-23%
15
-44%
356
349
134%
4%
306
262
200%
17%
35
65
-24%
-23%
15
22
275%
-27%
410
10%
286
18%
107
-1%
17
-29%
645
60%
523
84%
64
-6%
58
18%
470
81%
382
105%
71
9%
17
89%
437
12%
341
20%
81
-10%
15
7%
219
11%
163
19%
37
-18%
19
19%
369
18%
305
34%
53
-28%
11
10%
193
3%
149
23%
39
-35%
5
-29%
337
72%
295
99%
34
-19%
8
33%
308
18%
247
36%
43
-31%
18
6%
309
18%
252
35%
37
-42%
20
67%
242
230
22%
44%
173
193
44%
65%
60
23
-10%
-36%
9
14
-25%
100%
104
0%
91
14%
9
-50%
4
-33%
517
7%
361
8%
137
5%
19
6%
893
16%
633
16%
229
12%
31
82%
1,355
4,943
4%
8%
963
2,998
6%
7%
338
1,712
-3%
7%
54
233
32%
54%
April 18, 2006
Page 111
Housing
Green County
Figure 4.2 Total Housing Units by Category in Green County
(Source: US Census)
80%
70%
70%
68%
67%
66%
60%
Percent
50%
Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied
40%
Vacant
30%
29%
28%
26%
25%
20%
10%
6%
4%
5%
5%
0%
1970
1980
1990
2000
Year
Figure 4.2 shows the total housing unit counts (owned, rented, and vacant) for the years 1970, 1980, 1990,
and 2000 in Green County. There has been very little variation (2% or less) in the 30 years that this graph
represents.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 112
Housing
Green County
4.4.3 AGE AND CONDITION CHARACTERISTICS
The age of a home is a simplistic measure for the likelihood of problems or repair needs.
Older homes, even when well-cared for are generally less energy efficient than more
recently-built homes and are more likely to have components now known to be unsafe,
such as lead pipes, lead paint, and asbestos products. Of Green County’s 13,878 housing
units, 58% were built before 1970 and 36% were built before 1940 (Figure 4.3).
Figure 4.3 Year Structures Built in Green County
40%
35%
36%
Percent of Total Housing Units
30%
25%
20%
17%
15%
16%
13%
10%
9%
9%
5%
0%
1939 or Earlier
1940 to 1959
1960 to 1969
1970 to 1979
1980 to 1989
1990 to March 2000
Year
Each jurisdiction in the county was asked in the 2004 public opinion survey to
subjectively rate the current condition of their housing stock (“Excellent”, “Above
Average”, “Average”, “Poor”, “Very Poor”), and to indicate whether they felt if the
condition of the housing stock will become a problem in the next 20 years. Among the
towns, eleven of the fifteen towns rated their housing stock “Above Average”, while the
towns of Jefferson, Spring Grove and Washington rated their housing stock as
“Average”. Among cities and villages, the two that responded rated their housing stock
at “Average”. Only one jurisdiction, the Village of New Glarus, reported clear concern
that the condition of their housing stock will become a problem over the next 20 years.
When county residents were surveyed about housing issues, 66% of respondents “agreed”
(49%) or “strongly agreed” (17%) that their local jurisdiction “should focus on improving
existing housing quality.”
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 113
Housing
Green County
4.4.4 STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS
As of the 2000 US Census, 77% of Green County’s 13,878 housing units were singlefamily homes, five percent of housing units were mobile homes or trailers, and the
remaining 18% were multi-family dwellings (Figure 4.4).
When county residents were
surveyed about housing issues,
50% of respondents agreed that
more single-family housing is
needed in the county, 32% agreed
that more duplexes are needed, and
22% agreed that more apartments
are needed. Fifty-seven percent of
respondents agreed that elderly
housing is needed in their local
jurisdiction.
Figure 4.4 Housing Unit Types in
Green County
Single Family
77.3%
2 to 4 Units
10.9%
Mobile Home
or Trailer
4.7%
10 or more
5 to 9 Units
4.4.5 VALUE CHARACTERISTICS
2.9%
4.3%
The 2000 median value for
specified owner-occupied homes in
Green County was $97,700. Home values rose in the 1990’s, due both to inflation and
new home construction (Figure 4.5). Whereas 95% of homes were valued below
$100,000 in 1990, 47% of homes were valued above $100,000 in 2000 (Figure 4.5).
Figure 4.5 Value of Specified Owner Occupied Units in Green County
(Source: US Census)
60%
Percent of Owner Occupied Units
50%
52%
48%
40%
43%
1990
30%
2000
29%
20%
10%
12%
5%
5%
1%
0%
5%
0% 1%
0% 0%
0% 0%
$300,000 to
$499,999
$500,000 to
$999,999
$1,000,000 or
more
0%
Less than
$50,000
$50,000 to
$99,999
$100,000 to
$149,999
$150,000 to
$199,999
$200,000 to
$299,999
Value
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 114
Housing
Green County
4.4.6 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CHARACTERISTICS
Housing is considered affordable when the owner or renter’s monthly costs do not exceed
30% of their total gross monthly income. Among Green County households that own
their homes, 19% exceeded the “affordable” threshold in 2000 (Figure 4.6). However, it
is the prerogative of the homeowner to spend above 30% of their total gross income on
housing.
Figures 4.7 and 4.8 illustrate the relationship between household income and affordable
ownership housing. Among households earning less than $35,000 per year (81% of
county median which was $43,228), 38% are paying more than 30% of their monthly
income for housing costs (Figure 4.7). However, among households earning $35,000 or
more per year, just 11% are paying more than 30% of their monthly income for housing
costs (Figure 4.8).
When county residents were surveyed about housing issues, 49% of respondents either
“agreed” (38%) or “strongly agreed” (11%) that starter homes for first time homebuyers
are needed in their local jurisdictions. Allowing residents to purchase and maintain
manufactured or trailer homes is one method of ensuring that there are affordable options
for prospective homeowners.
Figure 4.6 Monthly Owner Costs as a Percent of Household Income
in Green County
(Souce: US Census)
70%
60%
Percent of Owner Occupied Households
59%
50%
54%
40%
1990
2000
30%
20%
16% 17%
10%
12%
10% 10%
9%
5%
7%
0%
0%
0%
Less than 20%
20 to 24.9%
25 to 29.9%
30 to 34.9%
35% or more
Not computed
Percent of Household Income
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 115
Housing
Green County
Figure 4.7 Green County Monthly Homeowner Costs as a Percentage of 1999 Household
Income: Owner-Occupied Households with Income Below $35,000
Number of Households (2,190 Total)
900
800
807
700
600
627
500
400
300
300
200
244
199
100
13
0
Less than
20%
20.0 to 24.9% 25.0 to 29.9% 30.0 to 34.9% 35% or more Not Computed
Percentage of 1999 Household Income
Figure 4.8 Green County Monthly Owner Costs as a Percentage of 1999 Household
Income: Owner-Occupied Households with Income $35,000 or Greater
3500
Number of Households (5,061 Total)
3000
3104
2500
2000
1500
1000
935
500
480
271
265
6
30.0 to 34.9%
35% or more
Not Computed
0
Less than 20%
20.0 to 24.9%
25.0 to 29.9%
Percent of Household Income
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 116
Housing
Green County
Year 2000 Census data for renter occupied housing units indicates a wide range of
monthly rental costs, from below $200 to over $1,000 per month (Figure 4.9). Most
renter households that reported cash rent paid between $300 and $750 per month (Figure
4.10). Twenty-five percent of renter occupied households reported paying more than 30%
of household income for rent (Figure 4.8), although it should be noted that it is the
prerogative of the renter to spend above 30% of their total gross income on housing.
It is important to note that the higher rents may include land or tenant farming, and in
those cases, the rent for housing alone is lower than indicated. Also, as many older
farmers retire they have moved to urban areas but kept ownership of their house and land,
renting out each separately. In addition, Green County has many developers who have
purchased land as an investment and are renting either the house or land for supplemental
income.
When county residents were surveyed about housing issues, 54% of respondents “agreed”
(39%) or “strongly agreed” (15%) that affordable housing is needed in their local
jurisdictions.
Figure 4.9 Gross Rent for Renter Occupied Units in Green County
(Source: US Census)
60%
56%
Percent of Renter Occupied Units
50%
43%
40%
1990
30%
31%
20%
10%
2000
20%
10%
6%
8%
7%
0%
6%
0% 1%
0% 0%
6% 5%
$1,000 to
$1,499
$1,500 or
more
No cash
rent
0%
Less than
$200
$200 to
$299
$300 to
$499
$500 to
$749
$750 to
$999
Rent
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 117
Housing
Green County
Figure 4.10 Monthly Renter Costs as a Percentage of Household Income
in Green County
(Source: US Census)
45%
Percent of Renter Occupied Households
40%
42%
39%
35%
30%
25%
1990
2000
20%
20%
18%
15%
15%
14%
10%
13%
11%
8%
5%
7%
6%
6%
0%
Less than 20%
20 to 24.9%
25 to 29.9%
30 to 34.9%
35% or more
Not computed
Percent Household Income
Figure 4.10 shows the monthly rents from 1990 in comparison to 2000. Low (less than 20%) rents in 2000
have grown slightly while high (35% or more) rents have dropped in 2000.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 118
Housing
Green County
Figures 4.11 and 4.12 illustrate the relationship between household income and
affordable rental housing. Among households earning less than $35,000 per year (81%
of the county median of $43,228), 37% are paying more than 30% of their monthly
income for housing costs (Figure 4.11) out of a total of 1,995. However, among
households earning $35,000 or more per year, just one percent is paying more than 30%
of their monthly income for housing costs (Figure 4.12) out of 1,338 households.
Figure 4.11 Green County Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income RenterOccupied Households with 1999 Income Under $35,000
No. of Renter-Occupied Households
550
545
500
450
400
350
399
379
349
300
250
200
200
150
100
123
50
0
Less than 20%
20.0 to 24.9%
25.0 to 29.9%
30.0 to 34.9%
35% or more
Not Computed
Percentage of 1999 Household Income
Figure 4.12 Green County Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income
Renter-Occupied Households with 1999 Income $35,000 or Greater
No. of Renter-Occupied Househo
1000
900
921
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
100
33
8
4
72
20.0 to 24.9%
25.0 to 29.9%
30.0 to 34.9%
35% or more
Not Computed
0
Less than 20%
Percentage of Household Income
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 119
Housing
Green County
Between 1990 and 2000, the median household income in Green County increased 52%.
During the same period, rents increased a more modest 36%, while the median value of
owner-occupied homes increased a remarkable 92% (Table 4.4). These trends
correspond to a decline in demand for rental units and a rise in demand for owneroccupied homes, both shifts fueled by a strong economy and low interest rates.
Table 4.4 Household Income (1999), Median Gross Rent (2000) and Median Home Values (2000), with percent change
from 1990 US Census
Change
1990 to
2000
2000
Median
Value of
OwnerOccupied
Homes
Change
1990 to
2000
$464
36%
$102,700
92%
60%
$517
-2%
$146,900
121%
$53,333
63%
$513
4%
$160,100
164%
Town of Cadiz
$37,500
37%
$464
27%
$105,000
124%
Town of Clarno
Town of
Decatur
$47,167
50%
$444
15%
$138,900
143%
$50,809
41%
$466
24%
$125,800
94%
$58,824
78%
$658
59%
$165,200
148%
$43,393
38%
$450
23%
$100,000
107%
$46,458
67%
$486
40%
$139,900
129%
$55,625
73%
$563
53%
$151,600
109%
$57,656
72%
$436
12%
$134,800
127%
$63,667
147%
$663
117%
$206,100
268%
$45,515
66%
$488
30%
$121,000
127%
$52,917
49%
$517
34%
$155,500
101%
$50,000
81%
$600
71%
$138,400
135%
$50,833
55%
$758
66%
$171,600
206%
$36,500
40%
$608
87%
$58,900
71%
$44,087
58%
$483
45%
$90,700
101%
$45,000
38%
$471
30%
$111,600
61%
$36,506
29%
$486
50%
$81,400
84%
$36,922
39%
$445
30%
$88,800
59%
1999
Median
Household
Income
Change
1989 to
1999
2000
Median
Gross Rent
Green County
Town of
Adams
Town of
Brooklyn
$43,228
52%
$46,731
Jurisdiction
Town of Exeter
Town of
Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of
Monroe
Town of Mount
Pleasant
Town of New
Glarus
Town of Spring
Grove
Town of
Sylvester
Town of
Washington
Town of York
Village of
Browntown
Village of
Monticello
Village of New
Glarus
City of
Brodhead
City of Monroe
(Source: 1990 & 2000 US Census)
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 120
Housing
4.5
Green County
HOUSING AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS
In 2004, three programs provided financial assistance for Green County homeowners:
x Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): $270,000 in zero interest
revolving loan funds were provided to 19 low- and moderate-income homeowners
to finance home repairs.
x Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Homebuyer Program: $120,500 in zero
interest loan funds were used to help 14 former renters purchase homes.
x Housing Cost Reduction Initiative (HCRI): $27,000 in zero interest revolving
loan funds were distributed to help 9 households purchase homes.
For 2005 only the HOME program was funded again for Green County, making
$162,000 in loan funds available for low- and moderate-income homebuyers.
The only program in 2004 that provided ongoing rental assistance to low-income Green
County residents is the Section 8 Rental Voucher Program. Eligible households earn 50%
or less of the Green County median household income. As of November 2004 there were
eighteen households receiving Section 8 vouchers, and a waiting list of two to four years
for new applicants. To learn which programs are currently available in Green County,
contact Green County Human Services at (608) 328-9393.
There are other state and federal programs available where interested local governments
and non-profit organizations can apply for funding. Below are brief descriptions of the
agencies with funding available and the programs they offer. To find specific information
or to determine which program best fits your needs, contact them directly.
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS –
BUREAU OF HOUSING (DHIR_BOH)
More than $40 million is distributed annually to
WISCONSIN BUREAU OF
improve the supply of affordable housing for
HOUSING - DEPARTMENT OF
Wisconsin residents. The Bureau of Housing is
ADMINISTRATION
involved in the following programs:
x Administers federal housing funds such as
101 East Wilson Street
Madison, WI 53702
Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) and
Community Development Block Grants
Phone: 608-266-0288
(CDBG)
http://www.doa.state.wi.us/dhir
x Administers a variety of programs for persons
with Special Needs (Homeless)
x Provides state housing funds through local housing organizations
x Coordinates housing assistance programs with those of other state and local
housing agencies
x Develops state housing policy and provides housing information and technical
assistance
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 121
Housing
Green County
WISCONSIN HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WHEDA)
The Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development
Authority serves Wisconsin residents and
WHEDA (Madison Office)
communities by providing information and creative
201 W. Washington Ave.
financing to stimulate and preserve affordable
Suite 700
housing, small business, and agribusiness as a
P.O. Box 1728
stimulus to the Wisconsin economy.
x WHEDA offers programs for both single and
multi-family units. Below are examples of
Phone: 1-800-362-2761
projects that may qualify for WHEDA
http://www.wheda.com
Multifamily Loans.
x New construction
x Acquisition and/or rehabilitation of existing properties
x Historic preservation
x Community-based residential facilities
x Assisted living facilities
x Section 8 properties
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE – RURAL DEVELOPMENT (USDA-RD)
The Rural Housing Service helps rural communities
USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT OF
and individuals by providing loans and grants for
WISCONSIN
housing and community facilities. Funding is
provided for single family homes, apartments for
4949 Kirschling Ct
low-income persons or the elderly, housing for farm
laborers, child care centers, fire and police stations,
Phone: (715) 345-7615
hospitals, libraries, nursing homes, schools, and much
FAX: (715) 345-7669
more.
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/wi/
x The Rural Housing Service (RHS) is an
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rhs/
agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA). Located within the Department’s Rural Development mission area,
RHS operates a broad range of programs to provide:
x Homeownership options to individuals;
x Housing rehabilitation and preservation funding;
x Rental assistance to tenants of RHS-funded multi-family housing complexes
x Farm labor housing;
x Help developers of multi-family housing projects, like assisted housing for the
elderly, disabled, or apartment buildings; and
x Community facilities, such as libraries, childcare centers, schools, municipal
buildings, and firefighting equipment in Indian groups, nonprofit organizations,
communities, and local governments.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 122
Housing
Green County
UNITED STATES HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (HUD)
The mission of HUD is to provide decent, safe, and
sanitary home and suitable living environment for
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
every American. More specifically the programs of
(HUD)
HUD are aimed at the following:
x Creating opportunities for homeownership
451 7th Street S.W.
x Providing housing assistance for low-income
Washington, DC 20410
persons
Phone: (202) 708-1112
x Working to create, rehabilitate and maintain
http://www.hud.gov
the nation's affordable housing
x Enforcing the nation's fair housing laws
x Helping the homeless
x Spurring economic growth in distressed neighborhoods
x Helping local communities meet their development needs
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 123
Housing
Green County
HOUSING
CHAPTER ATTACHMENTS
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 124
Transportation
Green County
5.0 TRANSPORTATION
5.1
CHAPTER SUMMARY
A community’s transportation infrastructure supports the varied needs of its residents, local
businesses, visitors, and through-traffic. The Transportation Chapter summarizes the local
transportation system and, based on local input, provides a 20-year jurisdictional plan that can
serve as a resource guide and implementation tool.
Wisconsin State Statute 66.1001(2)(c)
(c) Transportation Element
A compilation of objectives, policies, goals, maps and programs to guide the future development of the
various modes of transportation, including highways, transit, transportation systems for persons with
disabilities, bicycles, electric personal assistive mobility devices, walking, railroads, air transportation,
trucking, and water transportation. The element shall compare the local governmental unit's
objectives, policies, goals, and programs to state and regional transportation plans. The element shall
also identify highways within the local governmental unit by function and incorporate state, regional
and other applicable transportation plans, including transportation corridor plans, county highway
functional and jurisdictional studies, urban area and rural area transportation plans, airport master
plans and rail plans that apply in the local governmental unit.
Beginning on January 1, 2010, any program or action of a local governmental unit that affects land
use shall be consistent with that local governmental unit’s comprehensive plan, including ... (m) An
improvement of a transportation facility that is undertaken under s. 84.185
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 125
Transportation
5.2
Green County
GOALS
The State of Wisconsin passed a comprehensive planning law in 2000 to compel municipalities
to create comprehensive plans. The plans include nine basic chapters: Issues and Opportunities,
Housing, Transportation, Utilities and Community Facilities, Agricultural, Natural, and Cultural
Resources, Economic Development, Land Use, and Implementation. In addition to these basic
nine elements, fourteen Local Comprehensive Planning Goals were established which are more
general in nature. Of these fourteen goals, the two listed below have the particular objective of
transportation.
1. Encouragement of neighborhood designs that support a range of transportation choices.
2. Providing an integrated, efficient, and economical transportation system that affords
mobility, convenience, safety, and meets the needs of all citizens, including transitdependent and disabled citizens.
5.3
OBJECTIVES AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Green County’s participating jurisdictions identified the following Transportation objectives and
policies recommendations. These support the aforementioned goals and will guide transportation
decision-making in these jurisdictions and in Green County over the next 20 years. More
information on these topics is included in the indicated sections.
Tables 5.1a through 5.1nn summarize the transportation policies that participating Green County
jurisdictions have identified as appropriate for their plan. The Green County Zoning and Land
Use Office also distributed the transportation worksheets to selected department heads and
requested their input. The averaged policy responses are included below and their responses to
worksheet questions are incorporated into the text of this chapter. Note that the Villages of
Belleville, Brooklyn, Albany, and the Town of Albany are not included since they did not
participate in the Green County multi-jurisdictional comprehensive planning project. However,
the Town of Albany completed their Comprehensive Plan in 2002. In order for the County’s
Plan to be in compliance, the Town of Albany’s policies are included. See Tables 5.1oo through
5.1rr.
SECTION 5.3.1
HIGHWAYS & LOCAL ROADS
Table 5.1b Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Maintain road standards, including permits, for the construction of public and private
roads.
x
x
x
Town of Cadiz
Town of Decatur
Table 5.1b Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Maintain an official map to reserve adequate right-of-way for future road linkages.
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 126
Transportation
Green County
Table 5.1c Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Consider the development of an official map to reserve adequate right-of-way for future
road linkages.
x
x
Town of Jordan
Table 5.1d Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
An area development plan should be submitted as a condition of all subdivision review in
order to ensure that proposed new streets can connect to adjacent properties and to avoid
unnecessary cul-du-sacs and loops that increase maintenance costs.
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Table 5.1e Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Development of all kinds, including streets, shall be coordinated and be in conformance
with all established rules and regulations as specified through local ordinances.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 5.1f Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
No new development shall be allowed to locate within the right-of-way along any existing
or future public road.
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Exeter
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 5.1g Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Where and when appropriate, coordinate with the Green County Highway Department and
the WisDOT on planning for the siting of residential, commercial, industrial, and other
developments to ensure that safety, efficiency, and access management are preserved
along all existing or future roadways.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 5.1h Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage future residential, commercial, and industrial development to locate on
roadways capable of accommodating resulting traffic.
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Adopted Plan
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
April 18, 2006
x
x
x
x
x
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
Page 127
Transportation
Green County
Table 5.1i Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction may require a Traffic Impact Analysis be submitted by developers, in
conjunction with WisDOT, for any type of large development that is anticipated by the
community to generate a large volume of new traffic on local roads.
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Clarno
SECTION 5.3.2
x
x
x
Town of Decatur
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
x
x
Town of Sylvester
TRAFFIC SAFETY
Table 5.1j Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Provide and maintain a safe and reliable transportation network.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
x
x
x
x
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 5.1k Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Driveways for new development should be limited to a reasonable distance, to assist in
response time for police, fire, and emergency rescue services.
x
Town of Jordan
Table 5.1l Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Reduce accident exposure by improving roadways and bridges.
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
SECTION 5.3.3
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
ACCESS MANAGEMENT
Table 5.1m Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Maintain access management controls along all the jurisdiction’s roadways (i.e. driveway
permits).
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 5.1n Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Ensure that new roads can connect to existing and planned roads on abutting properties
whenever possible, to facilitate emergency access and well-planned developments.
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Adopted Plan
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
April 18, 2006
x
x
x
Page 128
Transportation
Green County
Table 5.1o Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction should utilize the existing road network to the greatest extent possible, in
order to minimize future road maintenance costs and to avoid the fragmentation of
woodland and farmland.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 5.1p Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Where appropriate, shared driveways will be encouraged to minimize the number of
access points on local streets/roads.
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Exeter
Town of Jordan
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 5.1q Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Developers should be required to pay the cost of street improvements or construction and
these must meet the local street design standards.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 5.1r Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs shall be avoided to the extent possible.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
SECTION 5.3.4
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
x
x
x
Town of Washington
TRANSIT
Table 5.1s Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Collaborate with the WisDOT to explore development of a Park-and-Ride lot.
x
x
Town of Monroe
Table 5.1t Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Support the continued development of a local taxi service.
x
City of Monroe
Table 5.1u Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Coordinate with the Green County Social Services, and any other appropriate agencies, to
ensure that transportation options for the elderly and disabled populace meet local needs.
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
x
x
x
Town of Cadiz
Town of Monroe
Town of Sylvester
x
x
x
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 5.1v Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Support future passenger/commuter rail.
x
x
City of Monroe
Town of Jefferson
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 129
Transportation
SECTION 5.3.5
Green County
BICYCLES & PEDESTRIANS
Table 5.1x Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Consider bicycle and pedestrian use and safety needs when new roads are proposed
or when roadway improvements are made.
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Cadiz
Town of Decatur
Town of Monroe
Table 5.1y Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
The development of bicycle improvements on local town and county roads should be
coordinated with the County and, where appropriate, with WisDOT, to promote
alternative modes of transportation.
x
x
x
Town of Cadiz
Town of Jordan
Table 5.1z Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the development of multi-use trails, trail linkages, wide shoulders, or
sidewalks as part of new development proposals, where appropriate.
x
x
x
City of Monroe
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
x
x
x
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
x
x
x
Town of Washington
Table 5.1aa Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Provide for mapped and marked pedestrian and bike corridors.
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Cadiz
Table 5.1bb Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Improve and maintain continuity of sidewalk and pedestrian service areas throughout
the jurisdiction.
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Table 5.1cc Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage pedestrian, bicycle, and wheelchair travel by maintaining and enhancing
the connectivity of related transportation facilities on the local transportation system,
including those transportation networks in proposed land developments and
subdivisions.
x
x
Town of Cadiz
Table 5.1dd Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Add bicycle improvements to targeted Town roads to improve safety, connectivity, and
support tourism as a part of economic development.
x
x
Town of Cadiz
SECTION 5.3.6
MACHINERY & SHIPPING
Table 5.1ee Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Support continued freight rail services.
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Clarno
Adopted Plan
x
x
Town of Decatur
Town of Jefferson
April 18, 2006
Page 130
Transportation
SECTION 5.3.7
Green County
MAINTENANCE & IMPROVEMENTS
Table 5.1ff Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Where and when appropriate, coordinate with the Green County Highway Department and
the WisDOT for future improvements to community roads.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 5.1gg Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
New roads should be designed and located in such a manner as to encourage the
maintenance and preservation of natural topography, cover, agricultural land,
enviromental corridors, significant landmarks, and to preserve views and vistas.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 5.1hh Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Utility maintenance, construction, and upgrades will be coordinated with road
improvements, whenever feasible.
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Clarno
x
x
x
x
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
Town of Jordan
Town of Sylvester
x
x
x
x
Town of Washington
Table 5.1ii Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Formal truck routes should be established as new industrial developments are platted and
truck weight limits should be enforced.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 5.1jj Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Information from the PASER (Pavement Service and Evaluation Rating System), or a
similar program, should be used to maintain a transportation plan to address long term
needs for road upgrades and/or for the construction of new roads.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 5.1kk Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Support plans to add passing lane improvements where appropriate.
x
City of Brodhead
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 131
Transportation
Green County
Table 5.1ll Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Consider nominating qualifying road(s) for the state’s Rustic Roads program.
x
Town of New Glarus
Table 5.1mm Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Developers or others moving equipment on Town roads must repair or pay for repair of
damages to roads and highway structures.
x
Town of New Glarus
Table 5.1nn Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
When and where appropriate, utilize county, state, and federal programs or grants to
maintain, enhance, or construct new transportation facilities and services.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Note: In spring of 2002, the Town of Albany completed their Comprehensive Plan in compliance with State Statute
66.1001. Although Albany’s plan was completed before Green County’s Comprehensive Planning Process, in order
for the County’s Plan to be complete and in compliance, the Town of Albany’s policies must be included (see
below). For more information, please see the Town of Albany Comprehensive Plan.
Table 5.1oo Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Manage roadway speed limits and usage so as to minimize conflicts between farm
machinery and vehicular use.
Table 5.1pp Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
To classify roads in the Town of Albany.
Table 5.1qq Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Maintain an accurate and up-to-date Master Thoroughfare Road Plan.
Table 5.1rr Transportation Policies by Jurisdiction
Official mapping of future right-of-way can be used to inform the public and prevent
development in locations of future facilities.
5.4
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND ISSUES
There are places where people have daily transportation options that include driving, taking the
train, riding the bus, bicycling, or walking. In rural communities many of these options may not
be practical and others are simply not available. It may seem that local planning input has little
relation to a much larger system like transportation. However, the residents of towns, villages,
and cities – and the elected and appointed officials who represent them – have good reason to
care about local transportation needs related to:
x Mobility needs of the elderly and disabled
x Freight mobility
x Connectivity with the larger transportation system
x Supporting economic development
x Transportation safety
x Agricultural-vehicle mobility
x Recreational transportation uses
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 132
Transportation
x
Green County
Tourism (including preservation of rural views)
It appears that Green County’s participating jurisdictions intend to be proactive in their efforts to
maintain or improve their transportation infrastucture: 75% identified transportation projects or
issues that they foresee occurring in the next 10 years; 65% identified transportation projects or
issues that they foresee in the next 20 years (the life-span of this plan).
At the county level, administrators, elected officials, and others were asked for input related to
their areas of expertise or interest. Responses included:
x Reconstruction of CTH N (Vogel Road to Tucker Road) and the replacement of bridges
on CTH K, M, OK, P, and T.
x Concern and frustration about the deteriorated condition of STH 69 between Monticello
and New Glarus.
x Advocacy by a grass-roots group of citizens, based in Blanchardville, working with local
jurisdictions and four counties to garner support for improvements to the section of STH
78 between Blanchardville and Mount Horeb.
x Concern that, with the development of the Highway 20 corridor in Illinois into a 4-lane
facility between Rockford and Dubuque, Green County will have some challenges.
Specifically: “Shippers will want to get to Highway 20 quickly [and] travelers will want
to use this route as a quick route to Chicago. Traffic in general may use Highway 20
instead of Highway 11. There needs to be a regional coalition formed to look at the
Highway 11-Highway 20 corridor. What linkages should be pursued? How can Highway
11 be improved—especially with access east of Janesville to Racine-Kenosha?”
5.5
U.S. CENSUS
Transportation-related data from the 2000 U.S. Census is included in the Transportation Chapter
Attachments. For example, a large share of Green County’s labor force works outside of the
county. Over the next 20 years, Green County’s population is projected to increase and a
growing percentage will be elderly. The population of Green County is projected to increase
from 33,647 in the year 2000 to 38,163 or more by the year 2020. Additional housing will yield
increased trip generation (for more information related to housing projections, see the Housing,
Chapter 4).
With these demographic shifts, Green County can anticipate increased use of its transportation
infrastructure and greater need for transportation services. According to a summary of
participating local plan commission responses:
x 30% of participating jurisdictions responded that they are already experiencing regular
traffic delays on some roads or streets from increased traffic volume.
x 70% of local jurisdictions foresee future growth impacting the transportation system.
County level administrators were asked for input related to their areas of expertise and staff
indicated that they do not see traffic delays as a significant issue at the county-level. However,
concern was expressed about the impact of rural residential development on the transportation
system and the lack of funding to keep pace with increased demands.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 133
Transportation
5.6
Green County
COMMUTING PATTERNS
According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development WI-(DWD), roughly 34%
of the workers who live in the county leave the county to go to their jobs – more than 6,000
people. Three in every five workers who leave the county, head for employers in Dane County,
half of them to Madison. Since 1990 the number of commuters to Dane County has more than
doubled. The second largest destination is the City of Janesville in Rock County. Employers in
the cities of Belleville in Dane County and Evansville in Rock County also attract more than 300
Green County workers.
Employers in Green County attract roughly 3,550 workers who travel to jobs in the county. Most
of these workers travel from Lafayette County and are headed to employers in Monroe, which is
also the destination for the majority of workers from Stephenson County, Illinois. Overall,
employers in Monroe attract nearly two out of every three workers from neighboring
communities. Table 5.1 shows the number of Green County residents that commute to the listed
counties and the number of residents from the listed counties that commute into Green County
(based on the 2000 U.S. Census).
Table 5.2 Green County Commuting Patterns
Dane Co., WI
Rock Co., WI
Stephenson Co., IL
Lafayette Co., WI
Winnebago Co., IL
Iowa Co., WI
Sauk Co., WI
Cook Co., IL
Boone Co., IL
Walworth Co., WI
Elsewhere
1970
2000
2000
Green Co. residents Green Co. residents
residents of listed
commuting to listed commuting to listed county commuting into
county
Green Co.
county
527
3652
541
428
1308
594
226
257
747
58
225
1032
NA (Not Available)
217
61
11
44
55
NA
36
39
NA
29
9
NA
26
NA
NA
25
29
NA
226
445
2000
net gain or
loss of workers
-3111
-714
490
807
-156
11
3
-20
NA
4
219
1970 data from SWWRPC Planning Report #4
2000 data from DWD (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Census 2000, County-to-county worker-flow files)
For more information related to commuting, see the Transportation Chapter Attachments.
5.6.1 HIGHWAYS AND LOCAL ROADS
Green County has a total of 1124.47 miles of roads (see the Transportation Chapter
Attachments):
x 278.74 miles of County Trunk Highways
x 845.73 miles of Local Roads.
Residents were asked to rate transportation in their jurisdiction; of those who responded,
x 89% Strongly Agreed (SA) or Agreed (A) that Green County’s overall network (roads,
streets, and highways) meets the needs of its citizens.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 134
Transportation
x
Green County
81% Strongly Agreed (SA) or Agreed (A) that the condition of local roads in Green
County is adequate for intended uses.
5.6.2 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
The transportation system is classified according to primary function representing very different
purposes: 1) mobility and efficient travel and 2) access to properties. Simply put, when there are
more access points, carrying capacity is reduced and safety is compromised.
x Principal Arterials accommodate interstate and interregional trips.
x Minor Arterials accommodate interregional and inter-area traffic movements.
x Major Collectors serve moderate-sized communities and intra-area traffic generators.
x Minor Collectors link local streets and roads to higher capacity roads and smaller
communities.
x Local Roads provide access to residential, commercial, and industrial development.
The responsibility for maintaining and improving roads should ordinarily be assigned based upon
the functional classification of the roads. In 1991 the County worked with SWWRPC to update
its Green County Functional and Jurisdictional Highway Plan. As explained in the 1991 plan,
arterials should fall under state jurisdiction, collectors under county jurisdiction, and local roads
should be a local responsibility. Jurisdictional Transfers (JT), may occur to better reflect actual
use, but only when there is agreement between the units of government involved (whether local,
county, or state). When considering a possible JT, jurisdictions would want to take into account
the level of traffic on the road, the projected responsibility for maintenance and any required
improvements, and the possible impact on general transportation aids.
5.6.3 RUSTIC ROADS
Jurisdictions may nominate local roads for the state’s Rustic Roads Program. Currently Green
County has four designated Rustic Roads:
x The Town of New Glarus has designated Rustic Road 81: Marty Road beginning at the
intersection of County H and running northwesterly until it intersects with WIS 39. It is
paved and is 2.9 miles in length.
x Town of Decatur has designated Rustic Road 27: Park Road forming a loop off of County
F. It is paved and is 4.3 miles in length.
x The Towns of Adams and Jordan have designated Rustic Road 94: Skinner Hollow Road
from WIS 81 to County J. It is paved and is 4.6 miles in length.
x The Town of Spring Grove has designated Rustic Road 90: it includes portions of
Preston, Mill, and Kaderly Roads between County OK and County G. It is paved and is
3.2 miles in length.
As a part of drafting the Transportation Chapter of their local comprehensive plans, the Towns of
Exeter and New Glarus expressed interest in nominating one or more roads under the state’s
Rustic Roads program.
5.6.4 TRAFFIC COUNTS
Between 1990 and 2000, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increased by 30% in Wisconsin. The
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) counts are an important measure when prioritizing
improvements. WisDOT calculates the number by multiplying raw hourly traffic counts by
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 135
Transportation
Green County
seasonal, day-of-week, and axle adjustment factors. The daily hourly values are then averaged by
hour of the day and the values are summed to create the AADT count. The graph below indicates
selected AADT from 1995 and 2001. The Green County - Average Daily Traffic Map, in the
Transportation Chapter Attachments, is from WisDOT’s WISLR system.
Figure 5.1 Annual Average Daily Trafiic
(Source: 1995 & 2001 WI Highway Traffic Volume Data)
AADT Count
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
ST HWY 39 East of HWY 78
ST HWY 69 Northern County Line
ST HWY 69 Southern County Line
ST HWY 92 South of Belleville
ST HWY 92 West of Brooklyn
ST HWY 59 Western County Line
Location
ST HWY 81 Eastern County Line
ST HWY 81 Western County Line
ST HWY 11 West of Browntown (1993 & 1999)
2001
ST HWY 69 Between New Glarus & Monticello
1995
ST HWY 39 Between Monticello & Albany
ST HWY 59 Between Monroe & Albany
ST HWY 69 Between Monroe & Monticello
ST HWY 104 North of Cty C
ST HWY 104 South of ST HWY 59
ST HWY 104 North of ST HWY 11
Cty T North of ST HWY 81
CtyT South of ST HWY 81
Source: WisDOT. Graph created by SWWRPC.
5.6.5 TRAFFIC SAFETY
The majority of rural roads were not designed to handle current traffic volumes. In 2002,
according to Wisconsin’s Transportation Development Association (TDA), 64% of all vehicle
crashes in Wisconsin occurred on the state’s local road system (town roads and many county
roads fall into this category).
According to their 2004 report, better lane markings and signage, wider shoulders and lanes,
additional guardrails, and reduced slopes would make rural and two lane roads safer and reduce
the personal and financial loss that results from crashes.
The next section draws from multi-year Green County traffic safety data. WisDOT’s published
safety data for a five-year period was collected to compare property damage crashes, injuries,
and fatalities on local streets/roads, county highways, and state highways. Table 5.3 indicates the
percentage of crash types, broken down by road functional classification, for Green County
between 1999 and 2003.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 136
Transportation
Green County
Table 5.3 Percent of Crash Types by Road Classification in Green County (1999-2003)
County Highways State Highways
(collectors)
(arterials)
39%
23%
38%
44%
20%
36%
22%
39%
39%
GREEN COUNTY Local Streets/Roads
Property Damage
Injuries
Fatalities
According to Wisconsin’s Highway Safety Performance Plan 2004, significant external factors
include demographics (particularly the proportion of the population between the ages of 15-44
and over 65), the number of licensed drivers, the number of miles driven, types of driving
exposure, lifestyle factors (such as patterns of alcohol consumption), and the weather. The
annual report Wisconsin Crash Facts also supports a strong correlation with seasonal factors.
Looking at crash, injury, and fatality data from 1999-2003, the months with the highest average
for crashes are May-September and December. Injury rates are highest between April-September
and December. The month with the highest level of fatalities, on average over the five-year
period, is December.
Nationwide, crash fatalities are decreasing – even as traffic is increasing. Why? The reduction in
fatalities can be credited to a combination of factors, including improvements in vehicle safety,
better roads, increased seat belt use, and advances in on-site and emergency room care. As seen
from the AADT data, there is more traffic on many of the roads in Green County. Table 5.4
compares Green County’s crash data with the number of licensed vehicles in the county.
Table 5.4 Crash Data as Percentage of Total Licensed Vehicles & Cycles (1999-2003)
GREEN COUNTY
Crash Types
Fatalities
Injuries
Property Damage
Total Crashes
Licensed Vehicles
Licensed Cycles
Total Licensed Vehicles & Cycles (TLVC)
Total Crashes as Percentage of TLVC
Fatalities as Percentage of TLVC
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
9
7
7
7
6
249
275
219
241
254
641
676
635
629
669
899
958
861
877
929
33379 33915 35078 35917 36852
1453
1406
1587
1610
1817
34832 35321 36665 37527 38669
2.581% 2.712% 2.348% 2.337% 2.402%
0.026% 0.020% 0.019% 0.019% 0.016%
Although the total number of licensed vehicles and cycles has increased each year, the
percentage of total crashes has remained relatively constant from 2001-2003. Crash-related
fatalities, as a percentage of total licensed vehicles and cycles, has decreased from 1999-2003.
Although there are more licensed vehicles on the road, crashes and fatalities have not increased
proportionately.
Fatalities are not merely statistics – they represent terrible tragedies. The Green County Traffic
Safety Commission is made up of several representatives appointed by the County Board of
Supervisors, the County’s Highway Commissioner and Sheriff, and a representative from
WisDOT’s Bureau of Transportation Safety. Their responsibility is to 1) represent the interests of
their constituencies (including health, engineering, enforcement, and citizen groups), and 2) offer
solutions to traffic safety related problems that are brought to the Commission.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 137
Transportation
Green County
5.6.6 ACCESS MANAGEMENT
Transportation system users frequently select routes that maximize their personal mobility and
efficiency while, at the local level, property owners frequently seek to maximize access to their
personal property. The latter scenario reduces mobility and safety: studies show a strong
correlation between 1) an increase in crashes, 2) an increase in the number of commercial
establishments, and 3) an increase in the total number of driveways per mile.
Figure 5.2 Source: WisDOT
Commercial or industrial development seeks highly visible and accessible properties, preferably
on arterial streets with high traffic volumes and, optimally, at an important intersection. If the
new business is successful it will change traffic patterns and disrupt the efficiency of the larger
transportation system. Access and development can be better accommodated by creating an area
transportation plan for internal circulation and minimizing driveway access points.
Figure 5.3 Highway commercial development with linked parking areas behind stores
Connecting rear parking lots allows customers to drive to many other shops in the corridor without re-entering the
highway and interrupting traffic flow. Such arrangements can be required for new development, expansion of
existing buildings, and redevelopment. Source: Rural By Design, Randall Arendt (1994).
In Green County 90% of participating jurisdictions indicated that they have road or street design
guidelines for new development; half of those that do not expressed interest in adopting
guidelines. And 35% of participating jurisdictions indicated that they use WisDOT’s Access
Management Guidelines when considering new development. County-level administrators were
asked for input related to their areas of expertise; the response received indicated that the county
does not use WisDOT’s Access Management Guidelines when considering new development.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 138
Transportation
Green County
5.6.7 TRANS 233
In 2004, the legislature suspended sections of the Transportation Rule commonly referred to as
Trans 233. With the suspension of the state’s authority, local jurisdictions have increased
responsibilities when making decisions that could impact mobility and safety.
According to WisDOT, its District offices will no longer: 1) apply Trans 233 standards to land
that is not being subdivided, but is adjacent to the land being subdivided and owned by the same
entity; 2) review Certified Survey Maps (CSM), condominium plats, and other land divisions
that do not qualify as subdivisions; 3) review subdivision plats if the plats do not touch a state
highway or connecting highway (this includes subdivision plats that are separated from the
highway by unplatted land or a service road). In addition, WisDOT no longer has the authority
to: 4) ban improvements (other than buildings) within the setback; 5) declare some land divisions
as "technical land divisions”; 6) prohibit access onto service roads; 7) require a notice to be
placed on land division maps notifying property owners of possible excessive noise levels; 8) or
to require vision corners at intersections and driveways.
WisDOT will still review "subdivision" plats, as defined in Chapter 236 of the statutes (5 or
more lots of 1½ acre or less within a 5-year period) if such plats directly touch a state highway or
connecting highway. This authority includes:
x Restricting access to the state highway or connecting highway
x Considering access requirements of adjacent and contiguous lands
x Regulating surface drainage
x Requiring a "desirable traffic access pattern"
x Requiring a recordable covenant on other unplatted lands of the property owner
x Conducting conceptual reviews, if desired by land divider
x Issuing temporary connection permits
x Prohibiting buildings in the setback area
x Granting special exceptions
x Requiring performance bonds to insure construction of improvements which may impact
state highways.
Other access management tools are still used by WisDOT on longer segments, as part of corridor
preservation efforts, and include 84.09, 84.25, or 84.295 of the Wisconsin Statutes (see
below).
x Purchase for Access Control ( 84.09) WisDOT can purchase access rights to alter or
eliminate unsafe access points or to restrict or prohibit additional access.
x Administrative Access Control ( 84.25) WisDOT can designate controlled-access
highways and “freeze” present access; future alterations would require WisDOT
approval.
x Corridor Preservation Mapping ( 84.295) Local governments and WisDOT can work
together to map the land needed for future transportation improvements or local
governments can incorporate proposed transportation improvements into their adopted
land use maps. This mapping would inform the public and potential developers about
land that has been preserved for future transportation improvements and preserve the
future right-of-way.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 139
Transportation
Green County
WisDOT works with municipalities and counties, by request, to look at potential impacts of
development and provide its access management expertise. Coordination can help ensure that
more options are considered. One useful tool is a professional Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
study comparing before and after traffic conditions that could result from a proposed land use
change. WisDOT District 1’s current Access Control Map is included in the Transportation
Chapter Attachments.
5.7
TRANSPORTATION USERS
The worksheets used to gather information for the local plans asked several questions related to
the needs of transportation users. Responses to a question related to general satisfaction are
summarized below:
Table 5.5 Summary of responses to worksheet question #14.
Does your existing local transportation infrastructure do a good job of meeting the needs of the
jurisdiction’s economic development goals related to:
YES
NO
NOT SURE
Agriculture
60%
15%
20%
Retail/Commerce
70%
10%
15%
Shipping
75%
10%
10%
Manufacturing
55%
15%
20%
Tourism
90%
0%
10%
The next sections will address some of the issues related to the needs of specific user groups. At
the county level, administrators, elected officials, and others were asked for input related to their
areas of expertise or interest and their comments are incorporated into the related sections that
follow.
The next sections look at transportation options for commuters, the elderly and disabled, and
those who do not drive. In Wisconsin there are very few intercity services for smaller rural
communities. The recent loss of Greyhound bus service to several Wisconsin cities increased
interest in exploring regional transit systems and intercity services in many un- and under-served
areas.
5.7.1 WORK CARPOOLING
Wisconsin Department of Administration oversees a Vanpool/Ridesharing program for
commuters for state and non-state workers commuting to Madison. In Green County, there are
currently service points in Monroe, Monticello, and New Glarus. Participants can join an
established group if space is available or, if there is enough interest, form a new vanpool.
Contact the Vanpool Office at 1-800-884-VANS or e-mail [email protected] for
information. Shared-ride commuters often make informal arrangements to accommodate
carpooling; 15% of participating jurisdictions expressed interest in creating more formal Park-NRide facilities to support local needs. For more information on local commuting, see the
Transportation Chapter Attachments for U.S. Census data related to transportation.
5.7.2 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES FOR THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED
The need for some form of transit services is projected to increase as the “baby boom”
generation grows older. In 2000, according to U.S. Census Data, 18.7% of Green County’s
population was age 60-plus. By 2010, it is expected that 20% of Green County’s population will
be age 60-plus. The needs of this age cohort will become more important – at both the local and
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 140
Transportation
Green County
state level – during the 20-year window of this plan. The state’s Section 85.21 program currently
provides some funding to counties for Elderly/Disabled Transportation Programs.
In Green County, only Monroe residents have access to the Monroe Shared-Ride Taxi service;
comparable services are not available in the rest of Green County. Green County Human
Services does provide limited transportation services. Screened volunteers provide driver escort
transportation services using their own vehicles for medical, nutrition, business, and social
transportation in that order of priority. Vans (including two vehicles which are handicapped
accessible) transport individuals to an adult day center and provide shuttle transportation from
outlying areas to major shopping areas. The Aging Unit works with the Economic Support Unit
to arrange for Medical Assistance funded transportation.
At this point, 50% of the participating jurisdictions indicated that these options meet current
needs, while 15% believe that they do not. Based on anticipated future needs, only 30% of
jurisdictions indicated that the current level of service would be adequate if maintained at the
same level; 25% indicated that the current level of service would not be adequate.
County-level administrators were asked for input related to their areas of expertise. The response
related to this issue indicated that staff feels there is need for improvement. For example, the
volunteer driver program is currently non-existent in some parts of the county, due to the lack of
volunteers. Another concern related to this program is that the elderly disabled must be able to
get into the car unassisted. Utilization of the county’s two handicapped-accessible vans, which
run on a set schedule, is limited by the availability of operating funds.
5.7.3 BICYCLES & PEDESTRIANS
Bicycles, pedestrians, and motor vehicles have shared roads and streets for decades. Beginning in
1890 with the “good roads movement,” the activism of bicyclists paved the way for the system
of roads that we take for granted today. To help fund improvements, bicycle user fees – from 50cents to $1 per bicycle – were assessed in 1901; highway user fees – initially $1 for each vehicle
– were first assessed in 1905.
As a part of developing this plan, county-level administrators were asked for input related to
their areas of expertise. Staff indicated that tourism would benefit if there were a greater
emphasis on bike routes and bike trail development.
5.7.4 BICYCLES & PEDESTRIANS ON LOCAL ROADS & STREETS
Children under the age of 16, the elderly, and those with disabilities are the greater portion of the
public using pedestrian facilities. Many youth, and some commuters, ride bicycles as their
regular means of transportation. Bicyclists and pedestrians share local streets with motor
vehicles. The limited experience of children, and the limited physical ability of the elderly and
disabled, should be considered when making improvements and when new streets are added.
The Wisconsin Bicycle Facility Design Handbook, available online, provides information to
assist local jurisdictions in implementing bicycle-related improvements. For rural highways, a
methodology or rating index should be used whenever traffic volumes on town and county roads
increase beyond approximately 500 vehicles per day. Another resource is the Wisconsin Bike
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 141
Transportation
Green County
Map (included in the Transportation Chapter Attachments), which rates roadways for their
bicycle compatibility using traffic volumes and the width of the roadway.
On quiet country roads – including town roads and many county trunk highways – little
improvement is necessary to create excellent bicycling routes. State trunk highways, and some
county trunk highways, tend to have more traffic and a higher percentage of trucks and the
addition of paved shoulders may be appropriate in these areas. On most very-low-volume rural
roads (those with ADT’s below 700) special provisions like paved shoulders for bicyclists are
usually not necessary. A motorist needing to move left to pass a bicyclist is unlikely to face
oncoming traffic and may simply shift over and bicyclists can ride far enough from the pavement
edge to avoid hazards. However, paved shoulders should be seriously considered where new
suburban-style developments are planned – especially if the local road system provides access to
a nearby school.
In response to the initial planning survey, 62% of local residents indicated that walking and
bicycling were important modes of transportation in their community. In addition, 49%
expressed support for making improvements to provide safer opportunities for biking and
walking.
County-level administrators were asked for input related to their areas of expertise. The response
related to this issue indicated some support for adding bike lanes on county roads, noting that
many bike riders use the roads. One respondent wrote: “If Green County is serious about
tourism, all county roads should be built with bike lanes and paved bike trails would also be a
great asset.” However it was not clear who would pay for initial installation and maintenance of
expanded facilities. Maps of current rural bicycling conditions, and WisDOT’s proposed priority
improvements, are included in the Transportation Chapter Attachments.
5.7.5 RECREATIONAL TRAILS
By the mid-1970s, several rail segments or lines had been abandoned and some of these have
been converted to recreation trail use, either under the federal Rails-to-Trails program or more
informally. The recreational users – including bicyclists and ATV riders – that utilize these
facilities contribute to local economies. In Green County, cyclists and walkers have a variety of
recreational options on trails that are adaptive reuses of rail corridors; ATV users have access to
the Cheese County Trail.
x The 23-mile Sugar River State Trail connects New Glarus Woods with New Glarus,
Monticello, Albany, and Brodhead. It is maintained by the Wisconsin DNR for hiking,
bicycling, and snowmobiling.
x The South Central Wisconsin Rail Line was recently vacated and the DNR is
constructing a recreational trail along its right-of-way, under the federal Rails-To-Trails
program. When completed, the 40-mile Badger Trail will link the Jane Addams Trail in
Illinois, Sugar River State Trail near Monticello, Military Ridge Trail west to Mount
Horeb and Dodgeville, Madison’s bikeway system, and the Capital City State Trails. The
corridor is overseen by the South Central Wisconsin Rail Transit Commission, of which
Green County is a member. It includes 39 bridges and a 930-foot-long tunnel that was
constructed in 1887. According to the DNR, permitted uses will be determined after
reviewing input from the public.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 142
Transportation
x
Green County
The 47-mile Cheese Country Trail passes through the Green County communities of
Browntown and South Wayne, ending in Mineral Point. It is owned by Green, Lafayette
and Iowa counties and, unlike state-owned trails, allows ATVs, mini bikes, and
horseback riding, along with bicyclists and hikers; in season, snowmobiling and skiing is
permitted. In recent years, the trail’s increasing popularity with ATV riders has changed
its overall use patterns.
The Natural Resources Chapter of this plan has a Natural and Recreational Resources Map (Map
3.2.6) which shows these trails. Plan Commission respondents indicated that the community
needs to better promote its proximity to the Badger and Sugar River recreational trails.
5.8
MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
5.8.1 SHIPPING
According to a 2004 report by TDA, trucks carry 83% of all manufactured freight transported in
Wisconsin. More than 77% of all Wisconsin communities are served exclusively by trucks and
Green County is fortunate to also have a transport/corporate airport and freight rail service.
County-level administrators were asked for input related to their areas of expertise and staff
indicated concerns related to the future of Highway 11, given plans to improve Highway 20 in
Illinois. These comments are summarized elsewhere in this chapter.
5.8.2 TRANSPORTATION & AGRICULTURE
Transportation is critical for agriculture, yet ag-related transportation needs and impacts are
often overlooked. Ag-related transportation operates on several scales, ranging from moving
machinery on the system of local roads to moving commodities both through and to larger
communities via truck or rail.
Figure 5.4. Impact region of the Badger State Ethanol plant in Monroe
Figure 5.4 is an estimation
of Badger State Ethanol’s
regional impact on corn
prices in a 70-mile area.
Green-colored markets
have the highest impact
and red-colored markets
the lowest. The maximum
price impact in the region
is calculated to be more
than ten-cents/bushel of
corn. The facility relies on
the transportation system
for delivery of
commodities and shipment
of products.
Source: Ethanol Plant
Analyzer, Montana State
University and Farm
Foundation.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 143
Transportation
Green County
At the county-level, administrators, elected officials, and others were asked for input related to
their areas of expertise or interest. Staff expressed concern that town road weight limits restrict
the ability of some farm operations in the county to expand; as farm operations expand, the
equipment gets larger and the roads in rural areas were not originally built with a base to support
heavy equipment movement.
5.8.3 RAIL FREIGHT
WisDOT’s commodity forecasts project that Wisconsin’s freight rail tonnage will increase by
more than 50% by 2020. Green County is represented on the public Pecatonica Rail Transit
Commission (PRTC), which leases the rail corridor to the Wisconsin & Southern Railroad
(WSOR). The railroad currently serves the Badger Ethanol Plant and three other shippers in
Monroe and Brodhead. The line goes through the towns of Clarno, Decatur, Jefferson, Spring
Grove, and Sylvester.
Currently the rural crossings are passive (they do not have automatic gates or flashing lights), but
the railroad has worked with property owners to close private crossings, where possible, and
campaigned for local jurisdictions to install stop signs at all public crossings. In Wisconsin, the
Office of the Commissioner of Railroads (OCR) enforces regulations related to railway safety
and investigates the safety of highway/rail crossings. Working with the railroads and with state
and local government, the OCR oversees a variety of highway/rail crossing issues including: 1)
replacement or enhancement of passive and active warning devices at highway/rail crossings; 2)
repair of rough highway/rail crossing surfaces 3) installation of highway/rail crossings at new
locations; 4) alteration of existing highway/rail crossings; 5) closing or consolidating existing
highway/rail crossings.
Like roads and streets, rail infrastructure requires ongoing maintenance and improvements.
Much of the existing rail infrastructure dates back to the early 1900s when rail cars were smaller
and lighter. WisDOT oversees a low-interest loan rail improvement program and local units of
government can apply for funds to make safety improvements. On the Pecatonica line, STH 11
in Brodhead scheduled for warning device replacement in the OCR's 2005 program budget. The
existing cantilevered flashing light signals will be replaced with new, modern equipment
(cantilevers with LED lights, gates, and constant warning time circuitry) by December 31, 2005.
The City is funding $10,000 worth of the project.
At the county-level, administrators, elected officials, and others were asked for input related to
their areas of expertise or interest. Staff spoke of the need for a rail transfer facility to improve
accessibility of rail: “Currently rail service is limited and not available in most parts of the
county. Most industrial sites are not served by rail but, with gas prices on the rise, companies are
looking for sites with alternatives—including rail.”
5.8.4 OVER-ROAD SHIPPING
Although commercial vehicles account for less than 10% of all vehicle-miles traveled, truck
traffic is growing faster than passenger vehicle traffic according to the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). This share is likely to grow substantially if demand for freight
transportation doubles over the next 20 years, as has been predicted (from the 2002 report Status
of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance Report to Congress).
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 144
Transportation
Green County
At the county-level, staff responded that Green County’s highways are generally sufficient to
meet the needs of businesses shipping raw materials or finished goods, however concern was
expressed about the “competition” that the expanded Highway 20 in Illinois will create (see the
summary, above).
5.8.5 AIRPORTS
Some of the most important considerations related to protecting the long-term viability of local
airports include: population density, height of structures, presence of distracting lights, reflective
glare, smoke, dust, induced fog, electronic interference, and bird attractants. Any of these
potential conflicts can result in interference with safe approaches to and departures from the
airport. In October 2004, WisDOT released the Wisconsin Airport Land Use Guidebook
(WALUG), which is available online. More information on land use planning around airports is
also available from WisDOT’s Bureau of Aeronautics.
The publicly owned Monroe Municipal Airport is located in the Town of Sylvester and is three
miles northeast of the City of Monroe. The Wisconsin State Airport System Plan 2020 projected
that it would remain a General Utility (GU) airport through 2020 but it has been upgraded to
Transport/Corporate (TC). TC airports serve corporate jets, small passenger planes, cargo jet
aircraft used in regional service, and small airplanes (piston or turboprop) used in commuter air
service. According to WisDOT’s Bureau of Aeronautics, these aircraft generally have a gross
takeoff weight of less than 60,000 pounds, with approach speeds below 141 knots and wingspans
of less than 118 feet. In Wisconsin, airports in this category normally have a primary runway
length of greater than 4,500 feet. According to the WisDOT’s Five-Year Airport Improvement
Program (2003-2007), the airport was slated for a construction program totaling $1,277,038.00
from federal, state, and local sources. In 2004, with the completion of a 5,000 ft. runway built to
accommodate these types of aircraft, it was reclassified. According to earlier data, there were
approximately 38 aircraft based at the field and average aircraft operations of 48/day. Under the
previous classification, use was 48% local general aviation, 46% transient general aviation, and
6% air taxi. The WALUG’s survey of existing land uses identifies these uses adjacent to the
Monroe Municipal Airport:
x Residential (0-3 miles)
x Agricultural (0-3 miles)
x Recreational Uses (3-10 miles)
x Open Water (0-3 miles)
x Noise Sensitive Area (0-3 miles)
x Bird Attractants (0-3 miles).
The privately owned Brodhead Airport is located in the Town of Spring Grove and is two miles
south of Brodhead. There are approximately 50 aircraft based at the field; average aircraft
operations are 27/day; runways are turf and the longest is 2,430 feet. Use is 80% local general
aviation and 20% transient general aviation. According to Brodhead Airport – A Self Study
(1978), the Brodhead Airport was developed in the late 1940s by returning WWII pilots Bill
Earleywine and Wheeler Searles. The WALUG’s survey of existing land uses identifies these
uses adjacent to the Brodhead Airport:
x Residential (0-3 miles)
x Agricultural (0-3 miles)
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 145
Transportation
x
x
x
x
Green County
Recreational Uses (0-3 miles)
Open Water (0-3 miles)
Noise Sensitive Area (0-3 miles)
Wetlands (0-3 miles).
Local jurisdictions have an array of tools that can ensure the long-term compatibility of the
airport with surrounding land uses. These include planning and zoning as well as more specific
tools, including Airport Approach Protection, Airport Overlay Zoning, and Height Limitation
Zoning Ordinance (HLZO).
The nearest passenger airport is in nearby Dane County. The Dane County Regional AirportTruax Field is located five miles northeast of Madison.
County-level administrators were asked for input related to their areas of expertise and staff
responded that the Monroe Airport should continue to provide services both to businesses and
tourists.
5.8.6 WATER TRANSPORTATION
Green County does not have its own access to water transportation but is less than 50 miles from
Mississippi River access via Dubuque, Iowa and less than 100 miles via Prairie du Chien,
Wisconsin. The port of Milwaukee is approximately 100 miles to the east.
5.9
MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS
Up until 1919, Wisconsin had statutory labor requirements mandating that all able-bodied men,
except clergy, serve up to twenty days per year on local road building and maintenance. Every
man between the ages of 21 and 50 served on a road crew or paid a substitute to represent him. If
he could also bring a plow or wagon and a team of horses or oxen, he got triple credit for his
time of service.
Citizens value good roads and streets and, as Figure 5.5 illustrates, maintenance of the local
transportation system is the largest expenditure for many local governments.
Figure 5.5 WI local government expenditures on roads and streets per person
Source: WI Center for Land Use Education
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 146
Transportation
Green County
Compared to other states, Wisconsin has more local roads, the majority of them are paved, and
they must be maintained through four seasons. According to Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) data, Wisconsin’s per capita spending on local road systems is second only to
Minnesota’s (the national average is $123).
General Transportation Aids (GTA) represent the largest program in WisDOT’s budget. The
state returns roughly 30% of all state-collected transportation revenues (fuel taxes and vehicle
registration fees) to local governments. These funds offset costs of county and municipal road
construction, maintenance, bridge improvements, capital assistance for airports, rail and harbor
facilities, flood damage, expressway policing, and transit operating assistance. GTA funds are
distributed to all Wisconsin counties, cities, villages and towns based on a six-year spending
average or a statutorily set rate-per-mile. Some 90% of Green County’s participating
jurisdictions currently work to coordinate transportation infrastructure improvements with other
governmental entities.
Table 5.6 GREEN COUNTY - GENERAL TRANSPORTATION AIDS
District | CVT Code | Municipality
1 23000 COUNTY OF GREEN
1 23002 TOWN OF ADAMS
1 23004 TOWN OF ALBANY
1 23006 TOWN OF BROOKLYN
1 23008 TOWN OF CADIZ
1 23010 TOWN OF CLARNO
1 23012 TOWN OF DECATUR
1 23014 TOWN OF EXETER
1 23016 TOWN OF JEFFERSON
1 23018 TOWN OF JORDAN
1 23020 TOWN OF MONROE
1 23022 TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT
1 23024 TOWN OF NEW GLARUS
1 23026 TOWN OF SPRING GROVE
1 23028 TOWN OF SYLVESTER
1 23030 TOWN OF WASHINGTON
1 23032 TOWN OF YORK
1 23101 VILLAGE OF ALBANY
1 23109 VILLAGE OF BROOKLYN
1 23110 VILLAGE OF BROWNTOWN
1 23151 VILLAGE OF MONTICELLO
1 23161 VILLAGE OF NEW GLARUS
1 23206 CITY OF BRODHEAD
1 23251 CITY OF MONROE
GTA - 2003
GTA - 2004
$706,591.66
$76,650.00
$61,593.75
$77,726.75
$100,849.50
$112,347.00
$73,365.00
$71,266.25
$106,142.00
$80,628.50
$59,075.25
$70,116.50
$74,496.50
$91,359.50
$79,606.50
$76,248.50
$75,390.75
$59,655.44
$40,572.94
$12,352.62
$53,238.10
$135,508.47
$173,539.84
$503,459.92
$695,099.41
$76,650.00
$61,593.75
$77,726.75
$100,849.50
$112,347.00
$73,365.00
$72,835.75
$106,142.00
$80,628.50
$59,075.25
$70,116.50
$74,496.50
$92,545.75
$79,606.50
$76,248.50
$75,390.75
$56,619.71
$46,191.28
$11,734.99
$49,927.73
$155,834.74
$164,708.74
$496,432.68
Estimated
GTA - 2005
$708,401.22
$76,650.00
$65,097.75
$77,726.75
$100,849.50
$112,347.00
$73,255.50
$72,835.75
$106,142.00
$80,628.50
$59,568.00
$70,116.50
$74,496.50
$92,910.75
$80,573.75
$76,102.50
$75,390.75
$53,814.53
$53,119.97
$11,148.24
$50,466.58
$179,209.95
$156,548.38
$473,312.91
Source: http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/localgov/highways/gta.htm
The Local Roads Improvement Program (LRIP) assists local governments in improving seriously
deteriorating county highways, town roads, and city and village streets. The competitive
reimbursement program pays up to 50% of total eligible costs with local governments providing
the balance. The program has three basic components: Municipal Street Improvement (MSIP);
County Highway Improvement (CHIP); and Town Road Improvement (TRIP). In the 2002-2003
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 147
Transportation
Green County
LRIP project cycle, Green County and its local jurisdictions received $272,079.35 towards
seventeen projects with a total cost of $1,504,396.38. In that funding cycle, participating
jurisdictions included Green County; the cities of Brodhead and Monroe; villages of Albany,
Monticello, and New Glarus; and the towns of Brooklyn, Cadiz, Decatur, Exeter, Monroe,
Mount Pleasant, and Spring Grove. A list of current programs for local governments is included
in Section 5.10.1.
5.9.1 PAVEMENT SURFACE EVALUATION & RATING
Software tools help jurisdictions to prioritize their transportation projects. Information collected
as part of the PASER (Pavement Surface Evaluation & Rating) system helps establish budget
parameters, select possible projects, and evaluate the implications of maintenance decisions. This
information is submitted to WisDOT every two years and is integrated into the state’s WISLR
(Wisconsin Information System for Local Roads) database.
County-level administrators were asked for input related to their areas of expertise. County staff
and responding Green County jurisdictions indicated that the PASER software is useful for local
planning.
5.9.2 PLANNING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) can assist in planning for major project costs by creating
a multi-year scheduling plan for physical public improvements including transportation. The
schedule is based on the projection of fiscal resources and prioritization of improvements five to
six years into the future. Capital improvements include new or expanded physical facilities that
are relatively large in size, expensive, and permanent. In Green County, 30% of participating
jurisdictions currently have a Capital Improvement Program.
5.9.3 WISDOT DISTRICT 1 – PLANS & PROJECTS
These projects are included in WisDOT’s 2005-2014 Six Year Highway Improvement Program.
Note the plans and projects in the six year program are flexible. Contact the WisDOT for the
most up to date version of their plans and projects.
Table 5.7 WisDOT 2005-2014 Green County Planned Projects
Schedule
HWY
Title
Limit
Date
Concept
11-Jan-05
59
MONROE - ALBANY
ROAD
(STH 11 INTERCHANGE
BRIDGE)
CONST OPS - DECK OVERLAY
25-Mar-05
78
BLANCHARDVILLE CTH H ROAD
(LAFAYETTE CTH H -DANE
CTH H)
R/E OPERATIONS
25-May-05
104
STH 11 - STH 59 ROAD
(ATKINSON ROAD TOWNSEND ROAD)
R/E OPERATIONS
14-Feb-06
69
MONTICELLO - NORTH
COUNTY LINE
(WITTENWYLER - N COUNTY
LINE RD)
CONST OPSPULVRIZE,OVRLY&PASSNG LNS
25-Sep-06
104
UTL OPS - LEVEL OF EFFORT
08-May-07
104
CONST OPS - GRADE, BASE &
SURFACE
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 148
Transportation
Green County
Table 5.7 (cont.) WisDOT 2005-2014 Green County Planned Projects
Schedule
HWY
Title
Limit
Date
BLANCHARDVILLE (LAFAYETTE CTH H - DANE
25-Jul-09
78
CTH H ROAD
CTH H)
10-Nov-09
78
BLANCHARDVILLE CTH H ROAD
(LAFAYETTE CTH H - DANE
CTH H)
Concept
UTL OPS - LEVEL OF EFFORT
CONST OPS -GRADE, BASE &
SURFACE
Source: WisDOT District 1
5.10 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
5.10.1 PROGRAMS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
WisDOT administers a variety of state and federal programs, including:
x Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
x Connecting Highway Aids
x County Elderly and Disabled Transportation Assistance
x Federal Discretionary Capital Assistance
x Freight Rail Infrastructure Improvement Program (FRIIP)
x Freight Rail Preservation Program (FRPP)
x General Transportation Aids (GTA)
x Highways and Bridges Assistance
x Local Bridge Improvement Assistance
x Local Roads Improvement Program (LRIP)
x Local Transportation Enhancements (TE)
x Railroad Crossing Improvements
x Rural and Small Urban Public Transportation Assistance
x Rural Transportation Assistance Program (RTAP)
x Rustic Roads Program
x Surface Transportation Discretionary Program (STP-D)
x Surface Transportation Program – Rural (STP-R)
x Surface Transportation Program – Urban (STP-U)
x Traffic Signing and Marking Enhancement Grants Program
x Transportation Economic Assistance (TEA)
For more information, contact the Green County Highway Department, SWWRPC, or the
WisDOT District 1 office. More information is available at the WisDOT website at
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov or http://www.dot.state.wi.us/localgov/index.htm
5.10.2
x
x
x
x
x
STATE TRANSPORTATION PLANS & INFORMATION RESOURCES
In preparing this plan, several plans and information resources were consulted, including:
AirNav, LLC http://www.airnav.com/airports/us/WI
Green County Workforce Profile: Projected Population Growth (2000 – 2020)
http://www.dwd.state.wi.us/oea/cp_pdf/g045cpw.pdf
Growing Wisconsin’s Economy (WisDOT 2002)
Land Use & Economic Development in Statewide Transportation Planning (FHWA
1999) http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/CUTS//lu/lu-all2.pdf
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 149
Transportation
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Green County
Local Roads Improvement Program (LRIP) Summary Report 2002-2003
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/localgov/docs/lrip-biennial.pdf
Midwest Regional Rail Initiative
http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/docs/railmidwest.pdf
Rural By Design, Randall Arendt (APA 1994).
“Siting rural development to protect lakes and streams and decrease road costs”
(Wisconsin Center for Land Use Education)
http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/landcenter/pubs.html
Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit (FHWA, 2002)
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2002cpr/
TDA (Wisconsin Transportation Development Association) Report – 2004.
U.S. Census – 2000 http://www.census.gov/
Wisconsin State Airport System Plan 2020
http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/docs/air2020-plan.pdf
WisDOT - Transportation Planning Resource Guide
http://www.dot.state.wi.us/localgov/docs/planningguide.pdf
WisDOT’s Five-Year Airport Improvement Plan (October 2002)
http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/docs/air-5yr-plan.pdf
Wisconsin Airport Land Use Guidebook – 2004
http://www.meadhunt.com/WI_landuse/
Wisconsin Bicycle Transportation Plan – 2020
http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/docs/bike2020-plan.pdf
Wisconsin Bicycle Planning Guidance
http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/docs/bike-guidance.pdf
Wisconsin Bicycle Facility Design Handbook
http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/docs/bike-facility.pdf
Wisconsin County/City Traffic Safety Commission Guidelines (WisDOT 1998)
Wisconsin Crash Facts (1999-2003)
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/motorist/crashfacts/
Wisconsin Rail Issues and Opportunities Report
http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/docs/rail-issues.pdf
Wisconsin State Highway Plan – 2020
http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/docs/hwy2020-plan.pdf
Wisconsin Statewide Pedestrian Policy Plan – 2020
http://www.dot.state.wi.us/projects/state/docs/ped2020-plan.pdf
5.10.3 LOCAL & REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS
x Green County Functional and Jurisdictional Highway Planning Study (SWWRPC No. 17,
1975)
x Green County Functional & Jurisdictional Highway Plan Update (SWWRPC No. 88,
1991)
x Green County Road Maintenance and Improvement Study (SWWRPC No. 81, 1989)
x Inventory of Transportation Systems in Southwestern Wisconsin (SWWRPC No. 4,
1977)
x Monticello Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SWWRPC No. 113B, 1996)
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 150
Transportation
x
x
Green County
Monticello Comprehensive Planning Program (SWWRPC No. 00/138, 2000)
Monticello Summary Plan (SWWRPC No. 00/138-S, 2000)
Green County currently uses the Green County Functional & Jurisdictional Highway Plan
Update (SWWRPC No. 88, 1991).
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 151
Transportation
Green County
TRANSPORTATION
CHAPTER ATTACHMENTS
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 152
US CENSUS - TRANSPORTATION DATA
GREEN COUNTY
2000 US Census
T Adams
T Brooklyn
T Cadiz
T Clarno
T Decatur
T Exeter
464
944
863
1,079
1,688
1,261
Percentage of the population under 15 years
22.80%
21.50%
21.20%
21.50%
21.30%
23.00%
Percentage of the population age 62 or older
Median age (in years)
EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Employed percentage in the workforce
(age 16 & older)
Unemployed percentage in the workforce
WORK CARPOOLING
Percentage residents in the labor force working
at home:
Percentage who drove to work alone
Percentage who carpooled
2-person carpool
3-person carpool
4-person carpool
5- or 6-person carpool
7 or more person carpool
Public transportation
Motorcycle
Bicycle
Walked
Other means
COMMUTE TIME TO WORK
Less than 10 minutes
10-14 minutes
15-19 minutes
20-24 minutes
25-29 minutes
30-34 minutes
35-44 minutes
45-59 minutes
60-89 minutes
90 or more minutes
Mean travel time to work (in minutes)
TIME LEAVING HOME TO GO TO WORK
5:00 to 5:59 a.m.
6:00 to 6:29 a.m.
6:30 to 6:59 a.m.
7:00 to 7:29 a.m.
7:30 to 7:59 a.m.
8:00 to 8:29 a.m.
8:30 to 8:59 a.m.
9:00 to 11:59 a.m.
12:00 to 3:59 p.m.
All other times
VEHICLES AVAILABLE
None
One
Two
Three or more
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Median reported 1999 household income
11.20%
35.2
10.40%
38.1
13.70%
39
13.80%
38.2
12.40%
36.2
10.20%
35.3
82.80%
3.60%
80.90%
1.40%
74.40%
2.10%
77.50%
1.70%
74.40%
2.70%
84.80%
2.30%
19.70%
68.30%
8.60%
8.60%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.40%
0.00%
6.30%
81.00%
8.80%
5.00%
2.90%
0.00%
0.90%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.00%
1.30%
17.00%
69.90%
8.40%
5.10%
2.00%
0.90%
0.00%
0.40%
0.40%
0.00%
0.00%
3.50%
0.70%
16.50%
67.30%
9.30%
7.20%
0.50%
0.90%
0.00%
0.80%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.20%
2.70%
9.00%
76.30%
13.20%
10.70%
1.00%
0.20%
0.70%
0.60%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
8.10%
75.30%
13.90%
11.80%
0.50%
0.90%
0.00%
0.60%
0.30%
0.00%
0.00%
1.90%
0.50%
6.40%
9.90%
17.60%
17.60%
9.40%
7.30%
5.60%
9.90%
9.40%
6.90%
34.2
9.40%
6.70%
9.60%
10.10%
7.30%
19.50%
22.80%
7.10%
2.70%
5.00%
33.3
12.00%
22.40%
23.70%
14.90%
6.40%
2.90%
3.20%
4.80%
6.70%
2.90%
23.6
29.10%
31.50%
14.00%
8.30%
0.70%
3.20%
2.20%
6.50%
4.50%
0.00%
16.1
17.50%
13.50%
7.40%
14.10%
4.90%
13.50%
12.30%
12.30%
2.90%
1.80%
26.4
14.80%
9.00%
4.90%
11.90%
9.10%
24.60%
14.80%
7.70%
1.50%
1.70%
27.6
13.70%
6.40%
10.30%
21.00%
12.40%
9.90%
3.00%
4.30%
8.20%
10.70%
14.10%
10.90%
10.70%
21.40%
8.80%
6.70%
3.80%
4.40%
8.00%
11.10%
10.90%
6.40%
9.60%
17.90%
20.50%
8.80%
3.50%
1.90%
7.70%
12.80%
7.60%
10.30%
12.40%
14.00%
19.40%
6.10%
1.80%
5.20%
7.40%
15.80%
12.60%
9.40%
11.10%
17.50%
14.50%
3.90%
3.10%
2.40%
9.60%
15.90%
10.80%
14.50%
13.80%
20.30%
12.40%
7.00%
2.20%
2.40%
6.30%
10.20%
0.00%
22.10%
41.30%
36.60%
6.60%
24.10%
45.20%
24.10%
1.90%
21.40%
52.40%
24.30%
0.90%
18.40%
40.00%
40.70%
3.20%
13.00%
52.00%
31.80%
2.70%
14.20%
51.50%
31.60%
$46,731
$53,333
$37,500
$47,167
$50,809
$58,824
POPULATION
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 153
GREEN COUNTY
T Jefferson
T Jordan
T Monroe
T Mt.
T New Glarus
Pleasant
547
943
T Spring
T Sylvester T Washington
Grove
861
809
627
T York
1,212
577
1,142
23.70%
23.30%
19.10%
25.40%
26.80%
22.70%
25.50%
22.40%
20.70%
13.10%
36.2
11.80%
37.7
22.20%
42.2
12.80%
35.2
8.70%
36.9
12.10%
36.5
13.60%
39
14.20%
36.2
9.60%
38.5
75.50%
2.30%
79.80%
1.20%
71.10%
1.80%
83.10%
1.10%
83.60%
0.90%
72.70%
3.10%
87.10%
2.00%
80.10%
1.30%
83.40%
0.00%
17.40%
72.20%
6.50%
5.20%
0.60%
0.30%
0.00%
0.30%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.60%
0.30%
12.80%
69.10%
7.60%
5.80%
1.80%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
9.80%
0.00%
7.40%
82.20%
6.70%
6.70%
4.80%
1.40%
0.50%
0.00%
1.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.70%
0.00%
12.20%
64.20%
13.60%
13.60%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.10%
0.00%
0.00%
7.60%
1.40%
13.60%
69.10%
13.10%
8.60%
3.70%
0.00%
0.00%
0.70%
0.40%
0.00%
0.00%
3.70%
0.20%
19.60%
69.50%
8.50%
5.10%
2.80%
0.00%
0.00%
0.60%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.90%
0.00%
10.40%
79.30%
7.50%
4.50%
1.90%
1.20%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.80%
0.00%
15.80%
62.30%
12.00%
10.40%
1.60%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.80%
0.00%
0.00%
7.50%
1.10%
17.70%
69.80%
10.00%
7.70%
0.80%
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.10%
0.00%
21.00%
24.50%
21.00%
10.70%
2.50%
4.40%
4.80%
6.30%
3.60%
1.10%
19.4
18.20%
21.10%
29.80%
10.90%
3.90%
2.50%
3.20%
3.20%
6.30%
1.10%
19
44.60%
27.10%
8.80%
4.30%
1.00%
2.40%
1.90%
4.30%
3.50%
2.10%
16.1
18.20%
17.60%
13.30%
11.70%
4.90%
5.20%
9.90%
13.00%
4.90%
1.20%
23.9
21.50%
11.50%
2.30%
7.20%
8.70%
17.40%
16.00%
7.20%
5.70%
2.30%
27.4
22.30%
17.00%
8.50%
13.00%
6.10%
11.40%
5.60%
9.00%
4.20%
2.90%
27.4
19.70%
29.40%
18.60%
11.50%
1.30%
2.90%
2.90%
6.80%
2.60%
4.20%
27.4
22.90%
20.00%
18.40%
7.60%
2.50%
4.80%
4.40%
11.10%
7.00%
1.30%
22.7
10.80%
11.10%
8.60%
5.90%
4.30%
12.70%
18.80%
21.90%
2.80%
3.10%
31.8
12.20%
6.70%
13.00%
12.80%
22.80%
6.30%
1.70%
5.00%
6.30%
13.20%
19.30%
3.50%
12.30%
7.70%
16.10%
8.40%
2.80%
2.10%
8.10%
19.60%
9.50%
10.90%
12.10%
13.60%
19.90%
7.40%
3.30%
6.20%
6.70%
10.40%
9.60%
17.60%
12.70%
9.60%
13.00%
7.10%
1.50%
3.40%
13.30%
12.30%
8.30%
12.60%
8.10%
19.60%
16.20%
9.60%
3.60%
8.10%
4.50%
9.60%
12.20%
10.90%
7.20%
7.70%
21.50%
8.50%
2.10%
3.40%
12.20%
14.30%
7.10%
9.40%
16.00%
16.50%
17.30%
8.10%
3.40%
3.70%
8.40%
10.00%
14.30%
11.10%
13.30%
11.70%
12.70%
7.90%
2.20%
4.10%
7.60%
14.90%
15.70%
11.10%
12.30%
21.60%
10.20%
7.10%
2.50%
6.20%
4.90%
8.30%
1.20%
20.70%
44.30%
33.70%
1.00%
13.10%
44.90%
40.90%
1.10%
12.40%
47.70%
38.80%
0.90%
11.80%
50.50%
36.80%
0.90%
17.90%
50.90%
30.30%
2.10%
9.60%
43.60%
44.70%
2.90%
15.50%
54.00%
27.70%
1.30%
14.80%
54.60%
29.30%
0.00%
8.10%
48.40%
43.50%
$43,393
$46,458
$55,625
$57,656
$63,667
$45,515
$52,917
$50,000
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
605
$50,833
Page 154
GREEN COUNTY
V Browntown
V Monticello V New Glarus C Brodhead
C Monroe
Green County
Wisconsin
5,363,675
252
1,146
2,111
3,180
10,843
33,647
21.40%
19.90%
20.70%
22.20%
20.10%
21.70%
21.00%
19.80%
41.2
17.70%
38.7
24.20%
39.6
19.00%
36.3
20.90%
38.9
17.00%
37.9
15.40%
36.1
72.40%
3.40%
73.80%
1.20%
68.20%
1.70%
64.40%
0.90%
68.80%
2.90%
72.80%
2.30%
65.80%
3.20%
1.40%
76.80%
16.70%
11.60%
5.10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
5.10%
0.00%
3.20%
78.10%
11.70%
9.50%
0.30%
0.50% 1..
1.10%
0.30%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6.80%
0.30%
3.10%
72.70%
16.10%
13.20%
0.70%
0.00%
0.90%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6.70%
1.10%
1.70%
83.00%
12.80%
11.20%
1.70%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.70%
0.70%
2.40%
81.10%
8.40%
6.60%
0.90%
0.60%
0.10%
0.20%
0.40%
0.00%
0.00%
6.90%
0.10%
7.20%
76.30%
10.90%
8.60%
1.30%
0.50%
0.20%
0.30%
0.20%
0.00%
0.00%
4.60%
0.50%
3.90%
79.50%
9.90%
8.10%
1.20%
0.40%
0.20%
0.10%
2.00%
0.10%
0.40%
3.70%
0.40%
14.70%
17.60%
43.40%
6.60%
4.40%
2.20%
1.50%
0.00%
4.40%
5.10%
23.7
29.80%
9.80%
16.60%
8.10%
1.00%
7.30%
10.10%
15.30%
1.30%
0.70%
21.3
32.00%
7.80%
3.00%
6.50%
9.80%
13.10%
11.70%
13.70%
1.70%
0.70%
23.4
29.80%
11.20%
4.00%
15.10%
6.10%
13.30%
7.70%
7.40%
2.60%
2.80%
24.1
48.60%
20.70%
8.20%
4.00%
1.80%
3.20%
2.70%
5.10%
3.30%
2.40%
17.4
30.70%
16.50%
10.00%
8.90%
4.60%
8.30%
7.20%
8.20%
3.40%
2.30%
22.3
20.70%
18.40%
17.00%
14.40%
6.20%
9.60%
4.70%
4.60%
2.60%
1.70%
20.8
8.80%
14.70%
22.80%
7.40%
12.50%
4.40%
1.50%
8.80%
7.40%
11.80%
9.60%
8.10%
11.90%
17.40%
15.60%
7.70%
1.00%
5.90%
7.80%
15.00%
9.00%
14.60%
10.50%
14.80%
14.60%
11.20%
2.40%
8.00%
8.00%
7.00%
13.50%
10.00%
11.70%
15.80%
13.90%
3.70%
1.60%
3.20%
11.40%
15.20%
7.50%
7.80%
12.30%
11.60%
18.40%
8.70%
3.60%
6.10%
9.90%
14.10%
10.80%
9.90%
11.80%
14.20%
16.00%
7.40%
2.70%
5.10%
8.90%
13.10%
9.60%
8.90%
11.70%
14.30%
15.70%
8.00%
3.70%
6.70%
9.00%
12.30%
0.00%
29.00%
52.30%
18.70%
4.10%
35.40%
43.80%
16.70%
11.00%
37.70%
39.10%
12.10%
6.70%
36.80%
36.00%
20.50%
8.80%
40.80%
38.90%
10.50%
5.70%
29.50%
42.30%
22.50%
7.90%
32.50%
41.50%
18.10%
$36,500
$44,087
$45,000
$36,506
$36,922
$43,228
$43,791
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 155
Green County
6.0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
6.1
CHAPTER SUMMARY
As summarized in “A Guide to Preparing the Economic Development Element of a
Comprehensive Plan,”1 Economic Development Comprehensive Planning promotes new
growth and redevelopment to improve the community. Economic development is about
working together to maintain a strong economy by creating and retaining desirable jobs,
which provide a good standard of living. Increased personal income and wealth increases
the tax base, so a community can provide the level of services residents expect. A
balanced, healthy economy is essential for a community’s long-term well-being.
With rapid technological advancements and a general movement from an industrial based
economy to a knowledge based economy, demand for skilled labor is expected to
increase each year until 2020. Population projections indicate that by 2006, two workers
will exit the work force for every one entering, and by 2008 there will be a shortage of 10
million workers. Business decisions are more frequently based on where they can find
employees, and employees tend to choose places to live before finding a job. Now more
than ever it is important for communities to create a quality of life attractive to workers.
Successful economic development requires communities to develop plans based on local
strengths, goals and opportunities in the context of a changing world economy.
The purpose of this Section is to present a summary of Green County’s economic
situation and to identify policies, goals, objectives and programs required to ensure the
community’s long-term economic well-being.
1
“A Guide to Preparing the Economic Development Element of a Comprehensive Plan,” Wisconsin
Economic Development Institute, Inc., Copyright 2003
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 156
Green County
Wisconsin State Statute 66.1001(2)(f)
(f) Economic Development
A compilation of objectives, policies, goals, maps and programs to promote the stabilization,
retention or expansion, of the economic base and quality employment opportunities in the
local governmental unit, including an analysis of the labor force and economic base of the
local governmental unit. The element shall assess categories or particular types of new
businesses and industries that are desired by the local governmental unit. The element shall
assess the local governmental unit's strengths and weaknesses with respect to attracting and
retaining businesses and industries, and shall designate an adequate number of sites for such
businesses and industries. The element shall also evaluate and promote the use of
environmentally contaminated sites for commercial or industrial uses. The element shall also
identify county, regional and state economic development programs that apply to the local
governmental unit.
6.2 GOALS
goals, the five listed below have the particular objective of economic development.
1. Promote the expansion or stabilization of the current economic base and the
creation of a range of employment opportunities.
2. Provide adequate infrastructure and public services and an adequate supply of
3. Promote the redevelopment of land with existing infrastructure and public
services and the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing residential,
commercial and industrial structures.
4. Build community identity by revitalizing main streets and enforcing design
standards.
5. Protect economically productive areas, including farmland and forests.
6.3
The following are the Economic Development objectives, policies, recommendations for
all participating Green County jurisdictions. They will support the above goals and will
guide economic development decisions in Green County communities over the next 20
years. Tables 6.1a through 6.1gg show the economic development policy for
participating Green County jurisdictions. The jurisdictions beneath each statement
indicate those including the specific policy in their plans. Note that the Villages of
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 157
Green County
Belleville, Brooklyn, Albany, and the Town of Albany are not included since they did not
participate in the Green County multi-jurisdictional comprehensive planning project.
However, the Town of Albany completed their Comprehensive Plan in 2002. In order for
the County’s Plan to be in compliance, the Town of Albany’s policies are included. See
Tables 6.1hh through 6.1mm.
Table 6.1a Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Discourage unplanned, continuous strip commercial development along major roadways.
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 6.1b Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage non-agricultural commercial and industrial development to locate in areas with
adequate public services and transportation facilities and adjacent to existing commercial
and industrial developments.
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Clarno
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 6.1c Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Designate land in the community for future commercial and industrial development.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Jefferson
Town of New Glarus (commercial only)
Table 6.1d Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Direct large-scale economic development projects to urban areas where a full range of
utilities, services, roads and other infrastructure is available and when possible locate new
development adjacent to existing commercial or industrial developments.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 6.1e Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Where appropriate, encourage neighborhood retail development near planned residential
areas (mixed use development).
x
x
x
x
Town of Cadiz
Town of Jefferson
Town of New Glarus
Table 6.1f Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Consider implementing a “Big Box” ordinance to regulate the location size and design of
large commercial developments.
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Adopted Plan
x
x
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of Monroe
Town of Washington
April 18, 2006
x
x
Page 158
Green County
Table 6.1g Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Discourage/prohibit* adult oriented businesses in areas other than industrial.
x
x
x
Town of Decatur
Town of Jefferson
Village of Browntown*
Table 6.1h Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the redevelopment and reuse of the community’s downtown area and aging or
blighted business locations
a. Support development of a downtown Monroe revitalization plan to improve the
community’s attractiveness to business, visitors and residents.
b. Retain Green County offices.
c. Preserve the historic architectural motif of the downtown business district, as
reflected in building design, signage and landscaping.
x
City of Monroe
Table 6.1i Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the redevelopment and reuse of the community’s downtown area and aging or
blighted business locations.
a. Consider commercial activities in appropriate areas other than the downtown
business district in instances where no commercial space exists in the CBD and
when the proposed use is more appropriate.
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
Town of Jefferson (Juda)
Table 6.1j Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Maintain a list of vacant and under-used properties for prospective developers.
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
Table 6.1k Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage agriculture and agriculture–related businesses as a major economic
development force in the community.
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 6.1l Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Promote industrial and commercial development that contributes to local employment and
expands the Village’s economic base, while preserving the values, the character and the
quality of the surrounding environment of the community.
x
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 159
Green County
Table 6.1m Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage programs and marking initiatives that support local products.
a. Develop programs and policies to promote industries that are locally owned, to
support expansions of new and existing business that offer above average
wages and benefits.
b. Develop programs and policies that reduce the cost of doing business in
Brodhead and improve competitiveness for local employers.
c. Establishment of new industries should be encourage, but municipal incentives
of attracting new industry should not exceed benefits received.
x
City of Brodhead
Table 6.1n Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Utilize community festivals to promote area businesses.
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Table 6.1o Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Work with local business organizations to organize a regular calendar of annual business
recognition events within the community.
x
Table 6.1p Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Continue to support local business and tourism organizations, such as the Green County
Development Corporation, and local Chambers of Commerce (consider creating a
business incubator*).
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Exeter
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 6.1q Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Maintain a website as a vehicle form promoting the community.
x
x
Town of York
Table 6.1r Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Establish a website as a vehicle form promoting the community.
x
x
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Washington
Table 6.1s Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage programs and educational institutions that advance job skills and promote
labor retention.
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
Town of Adams
Town of Jordan
Town of Washington
Table 6.1t Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage programs and educational institutions that advance job skills and promote
labor retention.
a. Encourage programs and policies that reduce the cost of doing business in
Monroe and improve competitiveness for local employers.
x
City of Monroe
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 160
Green County
Table 6.1u Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Allow home-based businesses where there will be minimal impact on surrounding
properties.
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of York
Table 6.1v Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage programs and marketing initiatives that support local products.
x
x
x
x
x
City of Monroe
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 6.1w Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage historic preservation as an economic development strategy of community and
county efforts.
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Clarno
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Table 6.1x Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage Historic Preservation an economic development strategy of community and
county effort.
a. The central business district should be enhanced with a historic architecture motif
as reflected in building design, signage and landscaping.
b. Encourage the restoration of historic buildings to preserve Brodhead’s character
and establish a sense of community pride.
c. Utilize historic preservation as a toll to attract visitors and new residents, and to
act as a stimulus to business and industry.
x
City of Brodhead
Table 6.1y Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage efforts to capitalize on recreational and cultural resources where appropriate,
and when such efforts do not conflict with resources protection.
a. Brodhead should continue to capitalize on its location as the southern entrance to
the Sugar River State Trail
b. Brodhead should continue to encourage businesses that provide services to
visitors.
x
City of Brodhead
Table 6.1z Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage efforts to capitalize on recreational and cultural resource where appropriate,
a. Expand recreation trail system, especially Badger Trail and Cheese Country Trail.
x
x
City of Monroe
Table 6.1aa Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage efforts to capitalize on recreational and cultural resource where appropriate,
x
x
x
x
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Exeter
Town of Jordan
Adopted Plan
x
x
x
x
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
Town of York
April 18, 2006
x
x
x
Page 161
Green County
Table 6.1bb Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Collaborate with the Village of Brooklyn to attract more business to the area
x
Town of Brooklyn
Table 6.1cc Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Collaborate with local public and private utilities to improve telecommunications, sewer,
water and other local infrastructure in planned economic development centers and
corridors.
a. Enhance the City’s use of the internet as a promotional tool for visitors, new
residents and new businesses.
x
City of Monroe
Table 6.1dd Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Collaborate with local public and private utilities to improve telecommunications, (sewer,
water*) and other local infrastructure in planned economic development centers and
corridors.
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead*
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Clarno
x
x
x
x
Town of Decatur
Town of Jefferson*
Town of Monroe*
Town of New Glarus*
x
x
x
x
Town of Spring Grove*
Town of York
Table 6.1ee Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage housing development as an economic development strategy in areas - where
this is desired*/ - in appropriate areas**.
x
x
x
Town of Adams*
Town of Decatur**
Town of Jordan*
Table 6.1ff Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Support policies that support agri business growth and development, with an emphasis on
businesses producing/manufacturing value-added agricultural products.
x
Town of Adams
Table 6.1gg Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Where and when appropriate, utilize county, state and federal programs or grants to
pursue additional economic development activities.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Comprehensive Plan.
Table 6.1hh Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Support and assist when appropriate existing natural resource preservation groups and
associations.
Table 6.1ii Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
To provide adequate land area for commercial developments needs within the town.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 162
Green County
Table 6.1jj Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Insure that commercial businesses are located properly for their operations within the
township.
Table 6.1kk Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Refer larger potential commercial or industrial businesses to adjoining community
business parks.
Table 6.1ll Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage and participate in economic development efforts.
Table 6.1mm Economic Development Policies by Jurisdiction
Foster commercial growth in the “Village Fringe” as negotiated and within remaining
zones as appropriate.
6.4
ANALYSIS OF THE ECONOMIC BASE AND LABOR FORCE
Green County’s economy is firmly rooted in agriculture and the dairy industry. From the
dairy farm requiring milk haulers, grain/feed haulers and suppliers, implement dealers
and service providers, and veterinarians, to cheese producers needing specialized
equipment, packaging and distribution systems, the dairy industry is the foundation of
Green County’s economy.
In the 1970’s and early 1980’s the county had one of the highest per capita incomes in the
state, as well as the nation. This wealth led the County to become a regional retail and
service center attracting shoppers from surrounding counties. While the number of
cheese factories in the county has diminished, the County still has the largest number of
cheese factories in the nation.
Table 6.2 lists the ten largest private and public employers in Green County (see Table
6.9 in Chapter Attachments for a complete list of the fifty largest employers.) Green
County continues to have a strong cluster of ag and food processing businesses. This is
further accentuated by the number of ag related manufacturers, such as cheese factories,
and related service providers, such as trucking companies and cold storage facilities. In
2003, Green County participated in applying for the SW Wisconsin Ag Development
Zone designation. Since the zone’s authorization in early 2003, two Green County
businesses have taken advantage of the program securing over $300,000 in Wisconsin Ag
Development Zone Tax Credits.
TABLE 6.2 TOP 50 PRIVATE AND PUBLIC EMPLOYERS IN GREEN COUNTY
Rank
1
EMPLOYER LEGAL NAME
SWISS COLONY
Community
Monroe
Industry Product or Service
Mail-Order Houses
2
MONROE CLINIC
Monroe, New
Glarus, Albany
General Medical & Surgical Hospitals
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF MONROE
MONROE TRUCK EQUIPMENT
COUNTY OF GREEN
WOODBRIDGE
S C DATA CENTER
KUHN KNIGHT
WAL-MART
IROQUOIS FOUNDRY
BRODHEAD PUBLIC SCHOOL
Monroe
Monroe
Monroe
Brodhead
Monroe
Brodhead
Monroe
Browntown
Brodhead
Elementary & Secondary Schools
Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing
Executive & Legislative Offices, Combined
Motor Vehicle Seating & Interior Trim Manufacturing
Data Processing, Hosting, & Related Services
Farm Machinery & Equipment Manufacturing
Discount Department Stores
Iron Foundries
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Numeric Range
Employees
1,000 or More
500-999
500-999
250-499
250-499
250-499
250-499
100-249
100-249
100-249
100-249
Page 163
Green County
Table 6.10 is a list of manufacturers by North America Industry Classification System
(NAICS) who have expanded or developed in the past 2 years:
x Badger State Ethanol LLC, Monroe (NAICS – 325195, Ethanol
Manufacturer), new business constructed a new facility, adding 30 new jobs
x Faith Engineering, Inc., Monroe (NAICS – 332710, Fabricated Metal Product
Manufacturer), moved to a new building, added 8 new jobs
x Decatur Dairy Inc., Brodhead – (NAICS – 311513, Cheese Manufacturer),
plant expansion and renovation
x EPCO, Monroe (NAICS – 325998, Production of Food Grade Carbon
Dioxide), new business, creating 18 new jobs
x Grande Cheese, Juda (NAICS – 311513, Cheese Manufacturer), plant
expansion
x Klondike Cheese, Monroe (NAICS – 311513, Cheese Manufacturer) major
plant expansion, including installation of state-of-the art cheese making
equipment
x Kuhn Knight Inc., Brodhead (NAICS – 333111, Farm Machinery
Manufacturer), major plant expansion, job creation
x LSI Inc., New Glarus (NAICS – 311612, Meat Processing), major plant
expansion, job creation
x New Glarus Brewing Company, New Glarus (NAICS – 312120, Beverage
Manufacturing), major plant expansion
x Orchid Monroe, LLC, Monroe (NAICS – 332116, Fabricated Metal Product
Manufacturer), Purchased Advance Transformer, retaining 160 jobs with
potential for growth
x Roth Kase USA Ltd, Monroe (NAICS – 311513, Cheese Manufacturer),
expanding office area
x Stoughton Trailers, Brodhead (NAICS – 336212, Semi Trailer Manufacturer),
complete retooling of plant
x Swiss Heritage Cheese, Inc., Monticello (NAICS – 311513, Cheese
Manufacturer), major facility expansion
x Pick n’ Save, Monroe (NAICS – 445110, Grocery Store), construction of a
new grocery store
In addition, there have been several new retail businesses started in Green County.
Central Business District/downtown redevelopment is occurring in varying degrees.
Recent projects include the following:
x City of Monroe - currently working on a Main Street Improvement initiative
and is the first Green County community to hire a full-time Main Street
Coordinator.
x City of Brodhead – formed a Community Development Authority in 2002 and
is currently working on forming a new downtown Tax Increment District.
x Village of New Glarus – completed a downtown redevelopment project in
2003, which included a streetscape design.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 164
Green County
Agriculture has also impacted the labor force. As the dairy and food processing industry
changed, many farming families went to work for area manufacturers. This resulted in a
labor force with a very strong work ethic. However, Green County’s workforce is aging
and many with the skills and work ethic learned on the farm will reach retirement in the
next 10 to 15 years. Finally, according to a report by Davidson- Peterson & Associates,
The Economic Impact of Expenditures by Travelers on Wisconsin 2003, tourism plays a
vital role in Green County. Businesses that cater to tourism such as resorts, motels,
campgrounds, B&Bs, and retail stores, complement the hundreds of miles of
snowmobiling and biking trails as well as the many parks, golf courses, historic sites, and
area attractions.
x
Green County ranks 57th in the State for traveler spending.
x
Travelers spent an estimated $40 million in Green County in 2003.
x
Eighteen percent of all expenditures were made in the winter, which amounted to
$7 million; 19% were made in the spring ($8 million); 36% in the summer ($15
million) and 27% in the fall ($11 million).
x
It is estimated that employees earned $17 million in wages generated from tourist
spending, an increase of 1.9% from 2002.
x
Traveler spending in 2003 supported 1,199 full-time equivalent jobs, an increase
of 2% from 2002.
x
Local revenues (property taxes, sales taxes, lodging taxes, etc.) collected as a
result of travelers amounted to an estimated $2 million in 2003, an increase of
1.9% from 2002.
x
Travelers generated $3.5 million in state revenues (lodging, sales and meal taxes,
etc.), an increase of 1.9% from 2002.
In 1993, when the Wisconsin Department of Tourism first began tracking tourism
expenditure, travelers spent $25 million in Green County. In 2003 travelers spent a total
of $40 million, representing an increase of 63%. (“Travelers” are defined as Wisconsin
residents and out-of-state visitors traveling for pleasure, business or a combination of
reasons.)
6.4.1 ECONOMIC BASE
The economic base can be described by the reviewing how revenue is generated within
the community, what revenue is attracted from outside the community, and what revenue
is lost or spent outside the community. Increasing the value of raw materials, attracting
contracts or sales from outside the county or municipality, and creating opportunities for
residents to spend their money within the County all add to the economy.
As noted earlier, agriculture and related agri-business is important to Green County’s
economy. This is clearly demonstrated by the employment by industry breakdown (see
Table 6.3). The percentage of employment for the ag industry clearly outpaces the State
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 165
Green County
of Wisconsin. This is also true of retail trade, demonstrating Green County’s strength as
a regional retail center.
Table 6.3 Employment by Industry (Source: 2000 US Census)
Green
County Green County Wisconsin
Number
Percent
Number
Industry
Wisconsin
Percent
Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting & Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transp, Warehousing & Utilities
Information
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Rental &
Leasing
Prof, Scientific, Mgmt, Administrative &
Waste Mgmt
1,415
1,188
4,149
581
2,623
727
387
7.8%
6.5%
22.8%
3.2%
14.4%
4.0%
2.1%
75,418
161,625
606,845
87,979
317,881
123,657
60,142
2.0%
5.9%
22.2%
3.2%
11.6%
4.5%
2.2%
844
4.6%
168,060
6.1%
916
5.0%
179,503
6.6%
Educational, Health & Social Services
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation,
Accommodation & Food Services
Other Services
Public Administration
3,194
17.5%
548,111
20.0%
950
676
567
5.2%
3.7%
3.1%
198,528
111,028
96,148
7.3%
4.1%
3.5%
Another source of information regarding employment and business is the US Census
Bureau, County Business Patterns. County Business Patterns provides data on the total
number of establishments, mid-March employment, first quarter and annual payroll, and
number of establishments by nine employment-size classes by detailed industry for all
counties in the United States and the District of Columbia. The series excludes data on
self-employed individuals, employees of private households, railroad employees,
agricultural production employees, and most government employees. Looking at trends
of industries and employment, 2001 County Business Patterns notes that Green County is
home to over 920 business establishments (see Economic Development Chapter
Attachments, Table 6.11.). Based on the number of establishments, Retail Trade leads
the industry segments with 157 and Management of Companies & Enterprises with the
smallest number (two establishments). Between 1998 and 2001, Green County lost
twenty-six establishments, and 338 jobs. While most of the lost establishments were
retail in nature, job losses were mostly attributable to layoffs from Green County
manufacturers. Manufacturing jobs tend to be higher paying and their loss can affect
other segments of an economy.
Table 6.4 summarizes various income indicators for Green County. The information is a
comparison of the results of the 1990 and 2000 census, as compared to Wisconsin
averages. Median household income is based on every unit of occupancy with one or
more unrelated individuals. Median family income is based on units of occupancy with
individuals related by blood (children, grandparents, etc.) or by law (marriage, adoption,
etc.). Per capita income is based on the individual wage earner.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 166
Green County
Table 6.4 Income Statistics (Source: US Census)
Income
Green County
1990
Per Capita Income
$13,006
Median Family Income
$32,644
Median Household Income $28,435
Individuals Below Poverty
Green County
2000
$20,795
(98.0%)
(97.8%)
$50,521
(93.1%)
(95.5%)
$43,228
(96.6%)
(98.7%)
7.7%
5.1%
Wisconsin
1990
Wisconsin
2000
$13,276
$21,271
$35,082
$52,911
$29,442
$43,791
10.4%
8.7%
Map 6.2 depicts the median household incomes by Green County municipality. The
highest median household income was the Town of New Glarus with $63.667 and the
lowest was the Village of Browntown with $36,500.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), an agency of the U.S. Department of
Commerce, produces annual computer-generated narratives for states, counties,
metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), and BEA Economic Areas. The narratives describe
an area's personal income using current estimates, growth rates, and a breakdown of the
sources of personal income. According to the most recent BEA report, in 2002 Green
County had a per capita personal income PCPI of $28,065. Personal income is the
income that is received by persons from all sources. It is calculated as the sum of wage
and salary disbursements, supplements to wages and salaries, proprietors' income with
inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments, rental income of persons with
capital consumption adjustment, personal dividend income, personal interest income, and
personal current transfer receipts, less contributions for government social insurance.
This measure of income is calculated as the personal income of the residents of a given
area divided by the resident population of the area. In computing per capita personal
income, BEA uses the Census Bureau's annual midyear population estimates.
This PCPI ranked 25th in the state and was 93% of the state average, $30,050, and 91%
of the national average, $30,906. The 2002 PCPI reflected an increase of 1.7% from
2001. The 2001-2002 state change was 2.3% and the national change was 1.2%.
6.4.2 ANALYSIS OF THE LABOR FORCE
The January 2004, “Green County Workforce Profile,” an annual report prepared by the
Department of Workforce Development, Office of Economic Advisors, provides a
detailed overview of the Green County Labor Force (see Chapter Attachments). Some of
the findings of the report include:
x
The labor force participant rate (LFPR) in Green County in 2002 was 69%. This
is lower that the state rate of 73%, yet participation rates by sex and age group
tend to be high, with the highest participation (94%) by 35-54 year old males.
The highest participation by females is 88%, by the 25-34 year old group. The
LFPR has been declining since the late 1990’s.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 167
Green County
x
There has been a net in migration of residents. Since April 2000, the county
experienced a 1.7% in migration, compared to a state migration rate of 0.94%.
x
The share of residents by age group with at least a bachelor’s degree is smaller in
Green County than in the state, and the distribution declines in the 35-44 year old
group. Overall, 16.7% of population has at least a bachelor’s degree compared
with 22.4% in Wisconsin.
x
The labor force age population (16 years and older) is expected to increase from
25,890 to 30,620 by 2020, or about 13%. This is slightly slower than the 18%
increase in the last twenty-year period.
x
Of the 17,930 residents who participated in the labor force in 2002, 16,875 were
employed. The resulting unemployment rate of 5.9% was the highest annual
average rate since 1986.
x
Occupation projections for 2010 indicate that the top ten occupations with the
most openings tend to require less skill and are lower paying ($6.70-$10.87 per
hour). Registered nurses are the exception. Projections indicate the need for
registered nurses to continue to increase and wages to average $22.41 per hour.
(“Occupation” refers to the type of work a person does on the job.)
x
Approximately 26% of all jobs in Green County and 25% of the total payroll is
from businesses in the Trade, Transportation, and Utilities Industry (as classified
by the North American Industry Classification System-NAICS). (“Industry”
relates to the kind of business conducted by a person’s employing organization.)
x
The average wage for all workers in Green County was $25,756, or 79% of the
state average. This represented a 4.3% increase over the 2001 average.
Statewide, the average wage rose 2.7% in 2002. Nevertheless, Green County
average annual wages by industry are 60% (Information Industry) to 88% (Trade,
Transportation, Utilities) of the state wage average.
x
According to Census 2000, 22.1% of the Green County workforce work part-time
and 17.6 % work less than 40 hours per year. This is compared to the Wisconsin
averages of 24.1% and 19.5% respectively.
x
A higher share of asset income (from dividend, interest and rent), plus an annual
average wage that is much lower than in the state, contribute to a lower per capita
personal income in the county.
Census information is used to analyze the local labor force. (Current labor force
information is available only at the county level: see Chapter Attachments for Table
6.12’s outline of the 2000 Census labor force demographics by municipality). At the
time of the census, 72.8% of the labor force age population actually participated in the
labor force. The highest labor force participation was in the Town of Exeter (84.8%), and
the lowest was in the City of Brodhead (64.4%). Nearly 34% of those employed
worked outside the county, with the Town of Brooklyn and the Town of Exeter having
the largest percentage of residents commuting to jobs outside of Green County, 75.8%
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 168
Green County
and 75.7% respectively. This is up from the 1990 census figure of 16% giving
commuters a significant role in the make-up of the workforce. In addition, 23% of the
jobs in Green County are held by persons living outside of the county, up from 13% in
1990. (See Table 6.5.1 and 6.5.2)
Table 6.5.1 Commuting Patterns (Source: 2000 Census)
T ravel From Green County to:
1970
1980
1990
Boone Co. IL
15
36
18
2000
26
Cook Co. IL
0
20
17
29
Jo Daviess Co. IL
0
21
17
3
Stephenson Co. IL
143
226
249
257
Winnebago Co. IL
62
130
184
217
Dubuque Co. IA
6
0
0
7
527
845
1690
3,652
Dane Co. WI
Grant Co. WI
7
24
10
10
Green Co. WI
9336
11713
11838
11,952
Iow a Co. WI
11
0
0
44
Jef f erson Co. WI
0
16
28
10
Laf ayette Co. WI
58
175
299
225
Rock Co. WI
428
562
801
1,308
122
150
149
Out of State
Elsew here in Wisconsin
98
159
Table 6.5.2 Commuting Patterns (Source: 2000 Census)
T ravel T o Green County From:
Green Co. WI
11952
Laf ayette Co. WI
1032
Rock Co. WI
594
Dane Co. WI
541
Grant Co. WI
68
Iow a Co. WI
55
Other Wisconsin
243
Stephenson Co. IL
747
Jo Daviess Co. IL
133
Other Illinois
86
Iow a
21
Other US
32
Table 6.6 identifies the occupations or type of work of employed Green County residents.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 169
Green County
Table 6.6 Occupation of Employed Civilians 16 Years & Over (Source: 2000 US Census)
Occupations
Prod, Trans & Mat. Moving
Const, Extraction & Maint.
Farm, Fishing & Forestry
Sales & Office
Services
Mgmt, Prof & Related
Green
Green
County
County Wisconsin Wisconsin
Number
Percent Number Percent
4,016
22.0%
540,930
19.8%
1,915
10.5%
237,086
8.7%
471
2.6%
25,725
0.9%
4,342
23.8%
690,360
25.2%
2,311
12.7%
383,619
14.0%
5,162
28.3%
857,205
31.3%
Note that only 2.6% of the population is in the farming, fishing and forestry occupations,
while Table 6.3 identifies 7.7% in the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting industry.
Many people identify themselves as working in the agricultural industry, while not
farming.
Manufacturing accounted for 22.8% of all residents’ jobs in 2000, compared to 22.2% for
Wisconsin and 14.1% for the United States. Agriculture and related industries accounted
for only 2.7% of jobs in Wisconsin and even less nationally at 1.5% of all jobs. Further
information regarding how Green County residents are employed can be found on Tables
6.15 and 6.16 in Chapter Attachments.
6.5
ANALYSIS OF NEW BUSINESS & INDUSTRY DESIRED
Support for attracting new business seems to be strong. Community survey results
indicate that 87% of the respondents agree that Green County should work to coordinate
efforts to actively recruit new business and industry. Agricultural related businesses
seem to have the greatest support, with 96% of the respondents indicating that agribusiness was essential (43%) or important (53%). In general, respondents strongly
supported all forms of business, including commercial, retail, downtown, industrial,
manufacturing, tourism, and recreation businesses. Only home-based businesses receive
an essential/important rating of under 87% (rated at 67%).
6.5.1 STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Success in economic development is largely based on a community’s ability to identify
their strengths and weaknesses, then leverage the strengths, and minimize the affects of
the weaknesses. Following is a list of the key strengths and weaknesses as identified by
county and local planning commissions and community surveys.
COUNTYWIDE STRENGTHS
x Location/Proximity to Urban Areas
o Green County is in an excellent position, just south of Madison, west of
Janesville-Beloit north of Rockford. Within two hours one can easily
reach Dubuque, IA, Chicago, IL and Milwaukee, WI.
x Good Water
x Strong Agriculture-based industrial base and infrastructure to support it
x Cheese making resources
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 170
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Green County
o Number of certified cheese makers
o Boutique cheese production
Transportation
o Rail served communities
o Well-maintained highways connecting to major interstate corridors
Communities with strong historical/ethnic identity
Good workforce
o Good work ethic
o Relatively low cost
Quality of Life
o Small town atmosphere
o Especially attractive to families with children
o Good schools
o Good medical services
o Parks and recreational opportunities, such as Sugar River, bike,
snowmobile and ATV trails, golf courses, organized sports teams, etc.
o Low crime
Developed sites/business parks available for business relocations/expansion
Formal economic development and tourism organizations with good support from
county and local government
Rural/natural beauty – rural character/atmosphere
Countywide revolving loan fund
COUNTYWIDE WEAKNESSES
x Sprawl and unplanned growth
x Reluctance to change
x High taxes
x Farmland Costs
x Lack of incentives for businesses to locate in County, especially in unincorporated
areas
x Proximity to Madison (wages higher)
x Loss of farms and milk production
x Average education levels below state average
x Not close to an interstate highway
x Image (not seen as “the place to be” for business)
x Limited entrepreneurial support resources
x Limited wireless services
x Limited employment opportunities to attract young, skilled, workers (brain drain)
x Limited number of sites with rail access
x Limited understanding of development opportunities
x Aging farm population
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 171
6.6
Green County
ANALYSIS OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRY PARKS
6.6.1 EXISTING BUSINESS & INDUSTRY PARKS
Green County is home to six community owned business parks – Maps 6.2 to 6.7. (There
are no privately owned business parks.) All of the parks are fully developed with water,
sewer and roads suitable for commercial and industrial development. All are located
within the municipal boundaries of Villages or Cities; there are no Town owned business
parks.
Table 6.7 Green County Business & Industry Parks
Community
Village of Albany
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe (2 parks)
Totals
Total Acres
(approx.)
60
100
190
22
50
422
Current Number of
Businesses
6
2
8
1
9
26
Available Acres
(approx.)
30
30
114
17
Less than 10
180
A second concentration of business is typically found in Village/City downtowns or
central business districts (CBD). Green County communities have been fortunate to have
CBDs that continue to be vibrant places for business. Some communities are
experiencing a shift from the typically retail orientated nature of their business district to
a service related business district.
6.6.2 FUTURE BUSINESS & INDUSTRY PARKS
Recent years have seen communities move to revise plans regarding the types of
businesses allowed in business parks. Originally designed to accommodate heavy
industry, parks are now allowing supporting businesses, such as warehousing and
business services.
With just under 200 acres available for new and expanding businesses, Green County still
needs to identify land suitable for business development. Some of the land identified as
“available” cannot be easily developed. Topography, soils, and wetland issues create
some limitations. Further, Green County does not have sites suitable for a large
distribution or manufacturing facility.
Community support for business park development seems to be strong. Surveys indicate
that 63% of respondents agree that Green County communities should provide at least
some land with infrastructure (water, sewer, access, etc.) for industrial and commercial
uses, owned either publicly or privately. Further, 68% agree that development at the
edge of cities and villages should be required to have municipal water and sewer services.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 172
Green County
6.6.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY CONTAMINATED SITES
Brownfield sites in Green County, including Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
(LUST) and Environmental Repair (ERP) sites are identified on Table 6.8. The list omits
properties where no action is required, general spills, and other minor contaminations.
These sites may have existing or potential commercial application.
Table 6.8 GREEN COUNTY BROWNFIELD SITES
Activity
Type
ERP
LUST
LUST
LUST
ERP
ERP
ERP
LUST
LUST
LUST
LUST
LUST
ERP
LUST
LUST
LUST
ERP
ERP
ERP
ERP
ERP
LUST
LUST
LUST
LUST
LUST
LUST
LUST
LUST
LUST
Site Name
Argyle Vil Lf
Albany Mini Mart
Danco Prairie Fs Coop
River Bends Bar
Belleville Bulk Plt
Brodhead Farms
Green Cnty Lf
Beutel Property
Green Rock Fs Coop
Juda Grain
Lentz Mobil Mart
Olin Oil Co Inc
Union Coop
Wi Dot-Duerst Property
Browntown Oil
Iroquois Foundry Co
Leck Property
Agrico Farm Center
Green Rock Fs Coop
Green Rock Fs Coop
Monroe One Hour Cleaners Inc
Clark Oil
Daehlins Union 76
Inserta Kard Station
Monroe Tire and Service Center
Monroe One Hour Cleaners Inc
Orchid Monroe LLC
Stauffer Farm Property
Superamerica #4169
Wisconsin Cheese Group
ERP
ERP
LUST
LUST
LUST
LUST
Hwy 69 Near Washington Rd
Monticello Bulk Plt
Aeberhard Property
Bidlingmaier Property
Brusveen Estate Property
Gobeli Service
Adopted Plan
Address
White Oak Rd
700 Cincinnati St
300 Cinncinati St
N7298 Cth X
20 S Vine St
N2495 Cth T
W2002 Hwy Ss
W1428 Ten Eyck Rd
1104 12th Ave
N3481 Hwy 104
507 First Center Ave
N3461 Hwy 104
Cth T
100 Railroad St
303 N Mill St
218 Old Hwy St
W5833 Cth P
1302 10th St
1753 6th Ave
1753 6th Ave
1629 9th St
830 17th Ave
703 21st St
Sth 69 N Aebley Rd
250 8th St
1629 9th St
350 21st St
N2443 Bethel Rd
907 20th Ave
1722 12th St
Hwy 69 Near Washington
Rd
110 Pratt St
720 E Coates Ave
118 E North St
510 Monroe St
312 N Main St
April 18, 2006
Municipality
Adams Tn
Albany
Albany
Albany
Belleville
Brodhead
Brodhead
Brodhead
Brodhead
Brodhead
Brodhead
Brodhead
Brooklyn
Brooklyn
Browntown
Browntown
Clarno
Monroe
Monroe
Monroe
Monroe
Monroe
Monroe
Monroe
Monroe
Monroe
Monroe
Monroe
Monroe
Monroe
Monticello
Monticello
Monticello
Monticello
Monticello
Monticello
Page 173
Green County
Table 6.8 (cont.) GREEN COUNTY BROWNFIELD SITES
Activity
Type
Site Name
LUST
Swiss Lanes Bowling
LUST
Townmart
LUST
Zgraggen Property
Address
Sth 69 & 11th Ave
14th Ave & Sth 69
2 Sixth Ave (Hwy 39)
Municipality
New Glarus
New Glarus
New Glarus
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS
6.7
There is a wide range of potential assistance county and local governments can access to
help them with their economic development activities. Listed below are some of the key
programs and agencies.
6.7.1
x
COUNTY & LOCAL LEVEL AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS
Green County Development Corporation (GCDC) www.GreenCountyEDC.com –
GCDC’s mission is to work in partnership with development groups and local
governments to develop & implement strategies for supporting, retaining,
expanding & recruiting diverse business & industry in Green County. In order to
do this effectively, the Corporation provides leadership in understanding & acting
on economic development related issues across the County
x
Blackhawk Technical College – providing training in a variety of business areas,
including starting a business. BTC also provides customized labor training
programs to meet specific needs of local business.
x
Green County Job Center/Workforce Development Board of Southwest
Wisconsin – employment training through the Workforce Investment Act, On the
Job Training which can pay for up to 50% of training costs for six to eight weeks.
x
Monroe Main Street Initiative
x
Monroe Business Improvement District (BID)
x
Brodhead Business Improvement District (BID)
x
Local chambers of commerce – Monroe Chamber of Commerce & Industry,
Brodhead Chamber of Commerce, New Glarus Chamber of Commerce,
Monticello Business and Professional Association, Albany Chamber of
Commerce
x
Green County Revolving Loan Fund – a low-interest, flexible term loan fund to
assist new and expanding businesses throughout Green County. Originally
capitalized by grants from the Community Development Block Grant, total
capitalization of the fund is currently $925,000.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 174
x
Green County
Monroe Revolving Loan Fund - a low-interest, flexible term loan fund to assist
new and expanding businesses in Monroe. Originally capitalized by grants from
the Community Development Block Grants, the fund has revolved numerous
subsequent loans.
6.7.2 REGIONAL LEVEL AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS
x Small Business Development Center of Southwest Wisconsin
Ayla Annac, Program Director
438 Gardner Hall, 1 University Plaza, Platteville, WI 53818-3099
Phone: (608) 342-1038
Email: [email protected] Ayla Annac
Office on the campus of University of Wisconsin – Platteville
Phone: 608.342.1038.
Provides counseling, education and training in business planning, operation and management.
Serves Grant, Lafayette, Green, Richland, Crawford and Iowa Counties.
x
Southwestern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
Amy Knox, Economic Development Planner
719 Pioneer Tower, Platteville, WI 53818
Phone: 608.342.1636
Email: mailto:[email protected]
Administers a regional revolving loan fund that can make low-interest loans to projects providing
significant economic benefits to the area, or where there is a specific need identified in the
community.
x
Southwest Wisconsin Workforce Development Board
Bob Borremans, Executive Director
Southwest Job Centers Admin Office
319 Elaines Court Dodgeville, WI 53533
Phone: (608) 935-3116
Email: [email protected]
Web site for WDB: www.swwdb.org web site for Job Centers: www.jobcenter.org
6.7.3 STATE LEVEL AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS
x Wisconsin Department of Commerce
Bill Winter, Area Development Manager
Office in the Richland Center City Hall
Phone: 608.647.4613
Web site: www.commerce.state.wi.us
The Department has a broad array of programs to assist a full spectrum of economic development
strategies. Programs range from help to start a business to assisting large employer projects.
Several new programs target the development of dairying and other agriculture. Other programs
target businesses in rural areas. Programs include grants, loans and assistance with financing,
labor training and cleaning up brownfield sites.
x
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
Grow Wisconsin Dairy Team
James Cisler
Phone: 608.224.5137
Web site; www.datcp.state.wi.us
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 175
x
Green County
Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority
David Sheperd, Area Representative
Phone: 1-800-334-6873 Ext. 627
Web site, www.wheda.com
Sheperd serves Columbia, Dodge, Grant, Green, Iowa, Jefferson, Lafayette, Richland, and Sauk
counties. WHEDA economic development programs target agricultural development, businesses
owned by women and minorities, small businesses and construction projects.
x
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources – Brownfield Remediation
Linda Hanefeld, Hydrogeologist, Dodgeville Service Center
Phone: 608.935.1948
Web site: www.dnr.wi.gov
DNR staff administer grant and loan programs, and work closely with local governments and
organizations to plan and develop projects that protect public health, natural resources, the
environment and outdoor recreational opportunities. Through loans, grants and reimbursement
programs, the DNR programs target the cleanup of petroleum and other contamination to enable
Brownfield site redevelopment, prevent pollution and minimizing waste.
6.7.4 FEDERAL AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS
x Small Business Administration (SBA)
Becky Freund, Economic Development Specialist
Phone: 608.441.5519
Web site: www.sba.gov/wi
The SBA helps businesses obtain financing for various needs through loan guarantee programs,
loans and counseling and education services to small business owners.
x
USDA - Rural Development
Portage Local Office
2912 Red Fox Run, Portage, WI 53901
Phone: 608.742.5361
Web site: www.rurdev.usda.gov/wi
Rural Development programs help a rural community or business with economic development
through loan guarantees, loans and grants.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 176
Green County
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER ATTACHMENTS
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 177
Green County
Map 6.2 Albany Business Park
x
x
x
x
x
x
Located in the Village
of Albany
35+ acres available for
Commercial or
industrial development
(dividable &
expandable)
On Highway 59
Fully Serviced Park
12" Water main
8" Sewer Main
2"/60 psi Gas main
Price: $0 - $10,000 per
acre
Tax Increment Finance
(TIF) District
1) 35.7 acres Available (proposed detention area will reduce this significantly)
2) Level Propane
3) Verona Bus
4) Village of Albany
5) Bartelt Enterprise/Albany Materials Division
6) Ogden Manufacturing
7) Mike Rock Rifled Barrels
8) MG Cycles
9) 3.3 acres Available
10) Albany Property & Construction
11) Albany Recycling Center
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 178
Green County
Map 6.3 Brodhead Business & Industry Parks
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Located in the City of Brodhead
120+ acres available for commercial or
industrial development (Lot size vary)
On County T
Protective Covenants in place
Fully Serviced Park
12" Water main
8" Sewer main
2"/60 psi Gas main
Price: $1 - $15,000 per acre
Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District
Adopted Plan
1) 22 acres Available
2) 9.22 acres
3) 9.21 acres
4) Brodhead Farm & Home
5) Stoughton Composites
6) TIF Kuhse Land Industrial Park w/Rail
Access
7) 44.5 acres Edward Kuhse
8) 38.6 acres Edward Kuhse
9) Ray Popanz
April 18, 2006
Page 179
Green County
Map 6.4 New Glarus Business Park
Map Not
Available
Map 6.5 Honey Creek Business & Industry Park, Monroe
Map Not
Available
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 180
Green County
Map 6.6 Monroe Business & Industry Park
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Located in the City of Monroe
80+ acres available for Commercial or
industrial development (Lot size vary)
On Highway 69
Fully Serviced Park
12" Water main
8" Sewer main
2"/60 psi Gas main
Adopted Plan
1) Monroe Powersports
2) 3.04 acres
3) 3.02 acres
4) 9.77 acres
5) 4.77 acres
6) 4.66 acres
7) 2.25 acres
8) 2.79 acres
9) R Mueller Service & Equipment
10) 2.57 acres (optioned)
11) DP Concrete
12) Water Tower
13) Schultz Interstate Agriculture Inc.
14) 17.11 acres
15) Spec. Building - 5.33 acres (available)
16) 5.33 acres (available - private owner)
17) 7.5 acres
18) 21 acres
19) Canton Promotions LTD.
20) 6 acres
April 18, 2006
Page 181
Green County
Map 6.7 Monticello Business Park
Lot 1A & 1B - Sugar River Cold Storage
Lots 8 – 21 are Phase 2 of the park and are not currently developed.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Located in Monticello
120+ acres available for commercial or industrial development (Lot size vary)
On County C
Fully Serviced Park
12" Water main
8" Sewer main
2"/60 psi Gas main
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 182
Green County
TABLE 6.9 TOP 50 PRIVATE AND PUBLIC EMPLOYERS IN GREEN COUNTY
Rank
1
EMPLOYER LEGAL NAME
SWISS COLONY
Community
Monroe
Industry Product or Service
Mail-Order Houses
2
MONROE CLINIC
Monroe, New
Glarus, Albany
General Medical & Surgical Hospitals
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
24
26
26
28
29
30
31
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
39
41
42
42
44
45
46
47
47
47
50
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF MONROE
Monroe
MONROE TRUCK EQUIPMENT
Monroe
COUNTY OF GREEN
Monroe
WOODBRIDGE
Brodhead
S C DATA CENTER
Monroe
KUHN KNIGHT
Brodhead
WAL-MART
Monroe
IROQUOIS FOUNDRY
Browntown
BRODHEAD PUBLIC SCHOOL
Brodhead
CITY OF MONROE
Monroe
LSI INC - NEW GLARUS
New Glarus
ORCHID MONROE LLC
Monroe
WISCONSIN CHEESE GROUP
Monroe
NEW GLARUS HOME
New Glarus
NEW GLARUS PUBLIC SCHOOL
New Glarus
DICK'S SUPER MARKET
Monroe
OGDEN MFG
Albany
MONROE MANOR
Monroe
PREFERRED LIVING
Monroe
ROTH KASE USA
Monroe
MITEK
Monroe
ALBANY PUBLIC SCHOOL
Albany
MONTICELLO SCHOOL DISTRICT
Monticello
SHOPKO STORES
Monroe
GREENCO INDUSTRIES
Monroe
MCDONALDS
Monroe, Brodhead
THE MONROE TIMES
Monroe
SHOP-RITE
Monroe
OUDINOT-ONE
CITY OF BRODHEAD-GREEN COUNTY Brodhead
NEW GLARUS HOTEL
New Glarus
PIZZA HUT
Monroe
LAIDLAW
Monticello
PRECISION DRIVE & CONTROL
Monroe
MONROE CHEESE
Monroe, Monticello
FARM & FLEET OF MONROE
Monroe
GREEN COUNTY FAMILY YMCA
Monroe
JUDA PUBLIC SCHOOL
Juda
EDELWEISS CHALET COUNTRY CLUB New Glarus
GREEN COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICALMonroe
VILLAGE OF NEW GLARUS
New Glarus
CARING HEARTS
AMCORE BANK
Monroe, New Glarus
JOSEPH HUBER BREWING
Monroe
BANK OF NEW GLARUS
New Glarus
KLONDIKE CHEESE
Monroe
FIRST STUDENT SERVICES
S K PLASTIC MOLDING
Monroe
Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing
Motor Vehicle Seating & Interior Trim Manufacturing
Data Processing, Hosting, & Related Services
Farm Machinery & Equipment Manufacturing
Iron Foundries
Services for the Elderly & Persons with Disabilities
Meat Processed from Carcasses
Power, Distribution, & Specialty Transformer Manufacturing
Cheese Manufacturing
Nursing Care Facilities
Supermarkets & Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores
Industrial Process Furnace & Oven Manufacturing
Nursing Care Facilities
Services for the Elderly & Persons with Disabilities
Audio & Video Equipment Manufacturing
Vocational Rehabilitation Services
Limited-Service Restaurants
Newspaper Publishers
Supermarkets & Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores
Limited-Service Restaurants
Full-Service Restaurants
Full-Service Restaurants
Other Fabricated Wire Product Manufacturing
Elec. Apparatus & Eq., Wiring Supplies, & Related Whlsers
Corporate, Subsidiary, & Regional Managing Offices
Hardware Stores
Civic & Social Organizations
Golf Courses & Country Clubs
Ambulance Services
Home Health Care Services
Commercial Banking
Breweries
Commercial Banking
School & Employee Bus Transportation
All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
Numeric Range
Employees
1,000 or More
500-999
500-999
250-499
250-499
250-499
250-499
100-249
100-249
100-249
100-249
100-249
100-249
100-249
100-249
100-249
100-249
100-249
100-249
100-249
100-249
50-99
50-99
50-99
50-99
50-99
50-99
50-99
50-99
50-99
50-99
50-99
50-99
50-99
50-99
50-99
50-99
50-99
50-99
50-99
50-99
50-99
50-99
50-99
20-49
20-49
20-49
20-49
20-49
20-49
Source: Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 183
Green County
TABLE 6.10 GREEN COUNTY MANUFACTURERS
by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
(Note: Companies are listed under their primary classification. Some businesses may
actually fall under more than one classification.)
Farm City Elevators, Inc. (NAICS 3111)
Trygve Strommen, Brodhead
International Ingredient, Monroe
Dairy Product Manufacturing (NAICS 3115)
Chalet Cheese Cooperative, Monroe
Chula Vista Cheese Co., Browntown
Decatur Dairy, Brodhead
Deppeler Cheese Factory,Monroe
Glanbia Nutritionals, Monroe
Gobeli Cheesemakers Inc., Monroe
Grande Cheese, Juda
Klondike Cheese Co., Monroe
Maple Leaf Cheesemakers, Monroe
Monroe Cheese Corp, Monticello
Prairie Hill Cheese, Monroe
Protient, Juda
Roth Kase USA Ltd., Monroe
Swiss Heritage Cheese Inc., Monticello
Wisconsin Cheese Group, Monroe
Animal Slaughtering & Processing
(NAICS 3116)
Hoesly’s Meats Inc., New Glarus
LSI Inc – New Glarus
Rackow Family Sausage, Juda
Zubers Sausage Kitchen, Monroe
Bakeries (NAICS 3118)
The Swiss Colony, Monroe
Beverage Manufacturing (NAICS 3121)
Joseph Huber Brewing Company Inc., Monroe
New Glarus Brewery Co, New Glarus
New Glarus Primrose Winery, New Glarus
Wood Product Manufacturing (NAICS 321)
Deppeler Wood Shop, Monroe
Sugar River Hardwoods, Albany
Printing & Related Support (NAICS 323)
Canton Promotions, Monroe
Dairyland Press Inc, Brodhead
Heartland Graphics, Monroe
New Life Press, Monroe
Monroe Area Shopping News
Monroe Publishing LLC, Monroe
Monroe Sign Design, Monroe
RR Donnelly (formerly Moore N.A),Monroe
Stuart Printing Co, Inc., Monroe
Adopted Plan
Chemical Mfg (NAICS 325)
Badger State Ethanol, LLC, Monroe
Color Putty Co. Inc., Monroe
EPCO, Monroe
SK Plastic Molding Inc., Monroe
Nonmetallic Mineral Product Mfg (NAICS 327)
Alpine Ready Mix, Brodhead
Architectural Precast Inc, Browntown
Green Valley Ready Mix, Monroe
Primary Metal Mfg (NAICS 331)
Citation, Browntown
Plastics Product Mfg (NAICS 3261)
SK Plastic Molding Inc., Monroe
Fabricated Metal Product Mfg (NAICS 332)
Carter Machine Works, Monroe
Faith Engineering, Monroe
Industrial Combustion, Monroe
Laidlaw Corp, Monticello
McClaren Machine & Tool, Brodhead
Monroe Specialty Co Inc., Monroe
Monroe Truck Equipment, Monroe
Orchid International, Monroe
Precision Drive & Control, Monroe
Production Grinding & Machining LLC, Brodhead
Ruchti Stainless Inc., Monroe
Styleline, Monroe
Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS 333)
Ogden Mfg, Inc., Albany
Kuhn Knight Inc., Brodhead
Monroe Truck Equipment – Snow & Ice, Monroe
Precision Tool & Service, Brodhead
Roenneburg Machine & Tool Co, Albany
Audio & Video Equipment Mfg (NAICS 3343)
Mitek/MTX, Monroe
LoZ, Monroe
Transportation Equipment Mfg (NAICS 336)
Stoughton Trailers, Brodhead
Woodbridge Corp, Brodhead
Furniture & Related Product Mfg (NAICS 337)
Sugar River Design, Brodhead
April 18, 2006
Page 184
Green County
Table 6.11 Green County Business Patterns 1998 – 2001
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 185
Green County
TABLE 6.12 EMPLOYMENT STATUS & COMMUTING, AGED 16+ YEARS
Percent in Percent in
Percent
Percent
labor
labor
Unemployed worked
force,
force,
outside
Jurisdiction
Total
Female
county of
residence
Green County
72.8
67.2
3.2
33.6
COUNTY SUBDIVISIONS
Town of Adams
Town of Albany
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Exeter
Town of Jefferson
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of Mount Pleasant
Town of New Glarus
82.8
76.4
80.9
74.4
77.5
74.4
84.8
75.5
79.8
71.1
83.1
83.6
81.1
72.1
74.9
66.4
73.2
69.6
80
73
74
62.5
83
79
4.3
2.9
1.8
2.8
2.2
3.7
2.7
3
1.5
2.5
1.3
1.1
43.1
47.5
75.8
19.7
10.8
43.7
75.7
14.8
22.3
11
32.2
54.4
72.7
65.5
4.3
29.4
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
81.7
80.1
83.4
79.6
78.6
79.7
2.5
1.6
0
16.2
24.9
58.6
Village of Albany
Village of Belleville (part)
Village of Brooklyn (part)
74.9
68.7
77.3
72.4
73.8
68.2
69.5
56.4
72.5
73.6
67.2
60.1
7.2
8.8
4.7
4.8
1.7
2.5
47.1
100
89.8
21
38.5
53.9
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
64.4
68.8
61.6
62.5
1.4
4.3
45.9
15.7
Source: US Census Bureau, Census 2000.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 186
Intergovernmental Cooperation
Green County
7.0 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION
7.1
CHAPTER SUMMARY
Many cities, towns, villages, and counties begin cooperative arrangements to lower costs
and promote efficiency: opportunities for intergovernmental cooperation are endless.
Most arrangements involve only two governmental units, but there are also agreements
among multiple units. Intergovernmental cooperation may range from formal joint power
agreements to unwritten understandings. Two communities may have an unwritten
agreement about sharing road repair equipment, or a cluster of cities and towns may have
a written agreement concerning snow removal, economic development, fire, or EMT
services.
This section takes a closer look at intergovernmental cooperation including advantages
and disadvantages. It examines what Green County is doing today and what they may
consider in the future. Intergovernmental cooperation is an effective way for local
governments to respond to changing and diverse needs by working together with their
neighbors, while maintaining their own identity. If an agreement can be reached among
two or more units of government, services can often be provided with substantial cost
savings. Cooperation can also eliminate unnecessary duplication of services or
purchasing of equipment.
Wisconsin State Statute 66.1001(2)(g)
(g) Intergovernmental cooperation element.
A compilation of objectives, policies, goals, maps and programs for joint planning and decision
making with other jurisdictions, including school districts and adjacent local governmental
units, for siting and building public facilities and sharing public services. The element shall
analyze the relationship of the local governmental unit to school districts and adjacent local
governmental units, and to the region, the state and other governmental units. The element
shall incorporate any plans or agreements to which the local governmental unit is a party
under s. 66.0301, 66.0307 or 66.0309. The element shall identify existing or potential
conflicts between the local governmental unit and other governmental units that are specified
in this paragraph and describe processes to resolve such conflicts.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 187
7.2
Green County
GOALS
The following is the Intergovernmental Cooperation Goal.
1. Encouragement of coordination and cooperation among nearby units of
government.
7.3
The following are the Intergovernmental Cooperation objectives and policies
recommendations supporting the above goal and will guide intergovernmental
cooperation decisions in Green County over the next 20 years. The first three policies are
common to all participating Green County communities. Table 7.1a and 7.1b list
additional policies specific to the jurisdictions listed. Note that the Villages of Belleville,
Brooklyn, Albany, and the Town of Albany are not included since they did not participate
in the Green County multi-jurisdictional comprehensive planning project. However, the
Town of Albany completed their Comprehensive Plan in 2002. In order for the County’s
Plan to be in compliance, the Town of Albany’s policies are included. See Tables 7.1c
through 7.1g.
x
Work with local governments, state and federal agencies, the regional
planning commission, and local school districts to identify and coordinate
land use and community development policies and initiatives by exchanging
information about items of mutual concern.
x
Explore new opportunities to cooperate with other local units of government
to utilize shared public services, staff, or equipment where appropriate.
x
When appropriate, intergovernmental agreements with other local units of
government should be created through written contracts / agreements.
Table 7.1a Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Consider creating an Extraterritorial Zoning District and Commission with neighboring
Towns to guide the development of the City/Village’s perimeter.
x
x
City of Monroe
Table 7.1b Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Develop an Extraterritorial Zoning District and Commission with neighboring Towns to
guide the development of the Village’s perimeter.
x
Comprehensive Plan.
Table 7.1c Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage and assist with the planning for and wise management of the town’s natural
resource base.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 188
Green County
Table 7.1d Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Advocate the need for the creation of a lake and river association.
Table 7.1e Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
Continue to value the town’s ethnic diversity actively seeking to involve all groups in
activities and governance.
Table 7.1f Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
The Town of Albany will jointly plan with the village for the development of the village
fringe area surrounding the village to within one-mile.
Table 7.1g Utilities and Community Facility Policies by Jurisdiction
The town will work cooperatively with its fire district partners to ensure adequate fire
protection, equipment, and facilities exist.
7.4
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL
COOPERATION
Intergovernmental cooperation has many advantages associated with it including:
Efficiency and reduction of costs. Cooperating on the provision of services can
potentially lower costs per unit or person. Efficiency and reduced costs are the most
common reasons governments seek to cooperate, although by no means the only reasons.
Limited government restructuring. Cooperating with neighboring governments often
avoids time-consuming, costly, and politically sensitive issues of government
restructuring. For example, if a city and town can cooperate, the town may avoid
annexation of its land and the city may avoid incorporation efforts on the part of the
town, which may hinder the city's development. Cooperation also helps avoid the
creation of special districts that take power and resources away from existing
governments.
Coordination and planning. Through cooperation, governments can develop policies
for the area and work on common problems. Such coordination helps communities
minimize conflicts when levels of services and enforcement are different among
neighboring communities. For example, shared water, sewage, and waste management
policies can help avoid the situation in which one area's environment is contaminated by
a neighboring jurisdiction with lax standards or limited services. Cooperation can also
lead to joint planning for future services and the resources needed to provide them.
Expanded services. Cooperation may provide a local unit of government with services it
would otherwise be without. Cooperation can make those services financially and
logistically possible.
Intergovernmental cooperation also has its drawbacks, which may include the following:
Reaching and maintaining an agreement. In general, reaching a consensus in cases
where politics and community sentiments differ can be difficult. For example, all parties
may agree that police protection is necessary. However, they may disagree widely on
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 189
Green County
how much protection is needed. An agreement may fall apart if one jurisdiction wants
infrequent patrolling and the other wants an active and visible police force.
Unequal partners. If one party to an agreement is more powerful, it may influence the
agreement's conditions. With service agreements, the more powerful party, or the party
providing the service, may have little to lose if the agreement breaks down: it may
already service itself at a reasonable rate. The weaker participants may not have other
options and are open to possible exploitation.
Local self-preservation and control. Some jurisdictions may feel their identity and
independence will be threatened by intergovernmental cooperation. The pride of
residents and officials may be bruised if, after decades of providing their own police or
fire protection, they must contract with a neighboring jurisdiction (and possible old rival)
for the service. In addition, and possibly more importantly, a jurisdiction may lose some
control over what takes place within their boundaries. Moreover, although government
officials may lose control, they are still held responsible for the delivery of services to
their electorates.
7.5
EXISTING AND POTENTIAL AREAS OF COOPERATION
The table below indicates the existing areas of cooperation between Green County
communities.
Table 7.2 Existing Areas of Cooperation
Jurisdiction
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of
Brooklyn
Town of Decatur
Shared With
Areas of Cooperation
Equipment, man power
Fire equipment (MABAS)
Fire equipment, man power
Green County
Other Counties, Illinois
Surrounding Villages & Towns
Rural Fire District
Town of Argyle/Village of Argyle
Green County
Lafayette County
Village of Argyle
Village of Belleville
Town of Oregon
Town of Oregon
Town of Albany
Town of Alban
Town of Union
Village of Brooklyn
Village of Brooklyn
Town of Exeter
City of Evansville
Green County
Town of Sylvester
Town of Albany
Town of Spring Grove & Town of Albany
City of Brodhead
Albany Fire Department
Juda Fire Department
Albany Ambulance
Brodhead EMS
Green County
Town of
City of Monroe
Jefferson
(Source: 2004 Green County Planning Commission)
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Fire & Rescue Services
Law Enforcement
Law Enforcement
Law Enforcement
Law Enforcement
Law Enforcement
Maintenance of Alpine Road
Two Fire Districts: Belleville & Brooklyn
Maintenance of Brooklyn-Albany Rd.
Albany Fire & EMS
Joint Ownership in 2 Fire Districts: Evansville &
Brooklyn
Brooklyn Fire & EMS
Town Hall in Village
One Fire & EMS District
Joint of Owner of Fire District/EMS
Contract with County Highway Department for
roadwork
Snowplowing/brush cutting on Town Line Rds.
Snowplowing/brush cutting on Town Line Rds.
Use of wood chipper & labor
Fire protection
Fire protection
Fire protection
Ambulance service
Ambulance service
Police protection
Monroe EMS
Page 190
Green County
Table 7.2 (cont.) Existing Areas of Cooperation (Source: 2004 Green County Planning Commission)
Jurisdiction
Town of Jordan
Town of Mt.
Pleasant
Town of
Sylvester
Town of
Washington
Town of York
Village of
Browntown
Village of
Monticello
Shared With
Areas of Cooperation
Town of Cadiz & Village of Browntown
Village of Monticello &
Town of Washington
Juda
Village of Albany
City of Monroe
Green County
City of Monroe
Green County
Village of Blanchardville, Towns of Blanchardville,
Fayette, & Moscow
Village of New Glarus, Town of New Glarus, Primrose,
& Exeter
Green County
Town of Cadiz
1st Response, Fire
Fire and Rescue Services
Village of New Glarus, Town of Mt. Pleasant, Town of
Washington
Town of Exeter
Green County
Green County
Green County,
Town of Washington
Fire District, Fire & Rescue
Juda Fire & School
Albany Fire & School
Monroe Fire & School
Green County Sheriff
Fire & Rescue
EMS & Fire
Blackhawk Tech
EMS, Sheriffs Dept., plowing of Cty roads
Fire & Rescue Service
Fire & Rescue Service
Sheriff
Clerk, Community Center, Fire Protection
Fire District, Fire & Rescue
Fire & Rescue
Library Services
Swimming Pool
Community Center
Mowing of Greenspace
Nothing Listed At This Time
x
City of Brodhead
x
Town of Cadiz
x
Town of Clarno
x
Town of Exeter
x
x
x
x
Town of Monroe
Town of New Glarus
7.5.1 POTENTIAL AREAS OF COOPERATION
The table below indicates what services, equipment, staff, facilities, etc. Green County
planning commissions identified as a potential point of cooperation with a neighboring
jurisdiction.
Table 7.3 Potential Areas of Cooperation
Jurisdiction
City of Monroe
Town of
Brooklyn
Town of Clarno
Town of Jordan
Town of Mt.
Pleasant
Village of
Monticello
Service to Share
With Whom
Building Inspector, Safety Director
Waste Water
Plows and other equipment
Employee’s, Clerk & Treasurer
Possible equipment sharing with bordering
Towns
Equipment, snow plowing
Tractor/Roadside Mower, Garbage & Recycling
Services, Public Works Garage
Municipal Clerk
City of Brodhead & surrounding Towns
Juda & Browntown
Village of Brooklyn
Surrounding Communities
Town of Cadiz, Jefferson, Monroe, and the City of
Monroe
Town of Adams and Cadiz
Anyone
x
City of Brodhead
x
Town of Adams
x
Town of Cadiz
x
Town of Decatur
x
Town of Exeter
x
Town of Jefferson
x
Town of Monroe
Adopted Plan
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
April 18, 2006
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Town of York
Page 191
7.6
Green County
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONSHIPS
Table 7.4 analyzes the relationships of Green County communities with other units of
government.
Table 7.4 Analysis of Existing Intergovernmental Relationships
Jurisdiction
City of Monroe
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Jefferson
Town of Sylvester
Units of Government
Adjacent Local Governments
School Districts
Green County
GC UWEX
SWWRPC
WIDNR
WIDOT
WIDOA
School Districts
Green County
GC UWEX
SWWRPC
WIDNR
WIDOT
WIDOA
School Districts
Green County
GC UWEX
SWWRPC
WIDNR
WIDOT
WIDOA
WI & So. Railroad
School Districts
Green County
GC UWEX
SWWRPC
WIDNR
WIDOT
WIDOA
Satisfactory /
Unsatisfactory
Comments
All Satisfactory
Depends on department (Green County & WIDNR)
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Somewhat Sat.
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Somewhat Sat.
All Satisfactory
except the City of
Monroe.
School District: No linkage between school district
and Town
WIDNR: Getting Better
WIDNR: Hard to work with.
WI & So Railroad: Resolve issue w/ HWY 11/81
crossing.
City of Monroe: Airport/Land Use Conflicts
All Units of Government Satisfactory, No Comments
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
Town of Adams
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of Washington
Town of York
No Comments
x
Town of Exeter
x
Town of New Glarus
x
x
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 192
Green County
7.6.1 EXISTING CONFLICTS AND SOLUTIONS
Only the Town of Brooklyn listed any major conflicts between their jurisdiction and the
listed neighboring community. The fact that only one community identified problems
speaks well for local government in Green County.
Table 7.5 Existing Intergovernmental Conflicts
Jurisdiction
Town of Brooklyn
With Whom
Conflict Issues
Voting Issues
Voting Issues
Voting Issues & EMS / Fire Service
EMS / Fire Service
Town of Montrose
Village of Belleville
Village of Brooklyn
Town of Exeter
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Decatur
City of Brodhead
x
Town of Exeter
City of Monroe
x
Town of Jefferson
Town of Adams
x
Town of Jordan
Town of Cadiz
x
Town of Monroe
Town of Clarno
x
x
x
x
x
Town of New Glarus
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
x
x
x
x
Town of York
7.6.2 POTENTIAL CONFLICTS AND SOLUTIONS
Green County community planning commissions indicated in Table 7.6 some potential
conflicts between their jurisdiction and the listed neighboring community.
Table 7.6 Potential Intergovernmental Conflicts
Jurisdiction
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Jefferson
Town of Sylvester
With Whom
Possible Cooperating Services
Village of Brooklyn
City of Monroe
Land Use Issues
Replacement of road/bridge on Bagley Road
Airport
x
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
x
Town of Decatur
City of Monroe
x
Town of Exeter
Town of Adams
x
Town of Jordan
Town of Cadiz
x
Town of Monroe
Town of Clarno
7.7
x
x
x
x
Town of New Glarus
Town of Washington
x
x
x
x
Town of York
ADDITIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION IDEAS
The Intergovernmental Cooperation Element Guide published by the Wisconsin
Department of Administration provides several ideas for cooperation including the
following listed below. These are only ideas to consider. (Note: the following ideas
were taken directly from the Intergovernmental Cooperation Guide.)
Voluntary Assistance. Your community, or another, could voluntarily agree to provide
a service to your neighbors because doing so makes economic sense and improves
service levels.
Trading Services. Your community and another could agree to exchange services. You
could exchange the use of different pieces of equipment, equipment for labor, or labor for
labor.
Renting Equipment. Your community could rent equipment to, or from, neighboring
communities and other governmental units. Renting equipment can make sense for both
communities – the community renting gets the use of equipment without having to buy it,
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 193
Green County
and the community renting out the equipment earns income from the equipment rather
than having it sit idle.
Contracting. Your community could contract with another community or jurisdiction to
provide a service. For example, you could contract with an adjacent town or village to
provide police and fire protection, or you could contract with the county for a service in
addition to that already routinely provided by the county sheriff’s department.
Routine County Services. Some services are already paid for through taxes and fees.
Examples are police protection services from the county sheriff’s department, county
zoning, county public health services, and county parks. Your Intergovernmental
Cooperation Element could identify areas where improvements are needed and could
recommend ways to cooperatively address them.
Sharing Municipal Staff. Your community could share staff with neighboring
communities and other jurisdictions – both municipal employees and independently
contracted professionals. You could share a building inspector, assessor, planner,
engineer, zoning administrator, clerk, etc.
Consolidating Services. Your community could agree with one or more other
communities or governmental units to provide a service together.
Joint Use of a Facility. Your community could use a public facility along with other
jurisdictions. The facility could be jointly owned or one jurisdiction could rent space
from another.
Special Purpose Districts. Special purpose districts are created to provide a particular
service, unlike municipalities that provide many different types of services. Like
municipalities, special purpose districts are separate and legally independent entities.
Joint Purchase and Ownership of Equipment. Your community could agree with
other jurisdictions to jointly purchase and own equipment such as pothole patching
machines, mowers, rollers, snowplows, street sweepers, etc.
Cooperative Purchasing. Cooperative purchasing, or procurement, is where
jurisdictions purchase supplies and equipment together to gain more favorable prices.
7.7.1 MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY AGREEMENT
As Green County communities continue to grow, they may need to consider some type of
boundary agreements. Municipal boundaries can be altered in a number of ways
including the following:
Annexation
Annexation is the process of transferring parcels of land from unincorporated areas to
adjacent cities or villages. More detailed information on annexation can be obtained
from Wisconsin State Statute Sections 66.0217-66.0223.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 194
Green County
Detachment
Detachment is the process by which territory is detached from one jurisdiction and
transferred to another. Essentially detachment is the opposite of annexation. More
detailed information on detachment can be obtained from Wisconsin State Statute
Sections 66.0227 and 62.075.
Incorporation
Incorporation is the process of creating a new village or city from unincorporated
territory. More detailed information on incorporation can be obtained from Wisconsin
State Statute Sections 66.0201-66.0215.
Consolidation
Consolidation is the process by which a town, village, or city joins together with another
town, village, or city to form one jurisdiction. More detailed information on
incorporation can be obtained from Wisconsin State Statute Section 66.0229.
Intergovernmental Agreements
Intergovernmental Agreements provide communities with a different type of approach
because it is proactive rather than reactive. There are two types of intergovernmental
agreements that can be formed including cooperative boundary agreements and
stipulations and orders. More detailed information on intergovernmental agreements can
be obtained from Wisconsin State Statute 66.0307 (Cooperative Boundary Agreements)
and 66.0225 (Stipulations and Orders).
7.8
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS
There are a number of state agencies and programs to assist communities with
intergovernmental projects. Below are brief descriptions of various agencies and
programs. Contact information has been provided for each agency.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS – WI DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
The Wisconsin Land Council was created to
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS –
gather and analyze land use and planning
WIDOA
related information, coordinate high priority
101 E. Wilson St.
Madison, WI 53702
state initiatives including the development
of a Wisconsin land information system and
http://www.doa.state.wi.us/dhir/
provide recommendations to the Governor
for improvements to the existing statewide
planning framework. The Council is
dedicated to identifying ways to enhance and facilitate planning efforts of Wisconsin’s
local governments and to improve the coordination and cooperation of state agencies in
their land use activities.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 195
Green County
WISCONSIN TOWNS ASSOCIATION
Wisconsin Towns Association (WTA) is a non-profit,
WISCONSIN TOWNS
non-partisan statewide organization created under s.
ASSOCIATION
60.23(14) of the Wisconsin Statutes to protect the
W7686 County Road MMM
interests of the state's 1,264 towns and to improve town
Shawano, WI 54166-6086
government. In 2002 WTA celebrated it's 55th year of
Phone: 715-526-3157
service to town governments and the state's 1.6 million
Fax: 715-524-3917
town residents. The association is organized into six
districts and is headquartered in Shawano. WTA relies
http://www.wisctowns.com/
on regular district meetings, an annual statewide
convention, publications, participation in cooperative training programs and other means
to support the goal of keeping grassroots government strong and efficient in Wisconsin.
LEAGUE OF WISCONSIN MUNICIPALITIES
The League of Wisconsin Municipalities is a not-forprofit association of municipalities. First established in
1898, the League acts as an information clearinghouse,
lobbying organization and legal resource for Wisconsin
municipalities. Its membership consists of 386 villages
and all of the 190 cities in the state.
WISCONSIN COUNTIES ASSOCIATION
WCA is an association of county governments
assembled for the purpose of serving and representing
counties. The direction of this organization is one that
is determined by the membership and the WCA Board
of Directors consistent with the parameters set forth by
the WCA Constitution. The organization’s strength
remains with the dedicated county-elected official.
LEAGUE OF WISCONSIN
MUNICIPALITIES
202 State Street, Suite 300
Phone: 608-267-2380
http://www.lwm-info.org/
WISCONSIN COUNTIES
ASSOCIATION
22 E. Mifflin St., Suite 900
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: 608-663-7188
Fax: 608-663-7189
http://www.wicounties.org/
SOUTHWESTERN WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING
COMMISSION
The SWWRPC is the area-wide planning and
SWWPRC
development agency serving the five counties of Grant,
719 Pioneer Tower
Green, Iowa, Lafayette, and Richland. It was created in
One University Plaza
1970, formed by executive order of the governor.
Platteville, WI 53818
Wisconsin statutes specify that regional planning
commissions are to provide intergovernmental planning
Phone: 608-342-1214
Fax: 608-342-1220
and coordination for the physical, social, and economic
development of the region. Under Wisconsin law,
http://www.swwrpc.org/
RPC's have the following functions:
x They may conduct all types of research studies;
collect and analyze data; prepare maps, charts and tables, and conduct necessary
studies.
x They may make and adopt plans for the physical, social, and economic
development of the region.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 196
x
x
Green County
They may publish and advertise their purposes, objectives, and findings, and may
distribute reports thereon.
They may provide advisory services on planning problems to the local
governmental units within the region and to other public and private agencies in
matters relative to its functions and objectives.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 197
Land Use
Green County
8.0 LAND USE
8.1
CHAPTER SUMMARY
Land use is often one of the more controversial issues confronting communities. In many
instances, communities were originally platted and land use decisions were made with
little regard to natural limitations on development or the interests of the community as a
whole. Today, with better knowledge of these limitations, communities have the
opportunity to make more intelligent choices as to where future development should
occur. Instead of working with a clean slate, however, communities must contend with
existing uses and how new development might affect or be affected by them.
The purpose of this chapter is to analyze how land in Green County is currently being
used, and what constraints to development exist in these areas. This chapter will also
discuss the future land use needs in Green County. Based on the information in this
chapter, and preceding chapters, a set of goals and policies was developed to help guide
the land use decisions in Green County over the next 20 years.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 198
Land Use
Green County
Wisconsin State Statute 66.1001(2)(h)
(h) Land Use
A compilation of objectives, policies, goals, maps and programs to guide the future
development and redevelopment of public and private property. The element shall contain a
listing of the amount, type, intensity and net density of existing uses of land in the local
governmental unit, such as agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial and other public
and private uses. The element shall analyze trends in the supply, demand and price of land,
opportunities for redevelopment and existing and potential land-use conflicts. The element
shall contain projections, based on the background information specified in par. (a), for 20
years, in 5-year increments, of future residential, agricultural, commercial and industrial land
uses including the assumptions of net densities or other spatial assumptions upon which the
projections are based. The element shall also include a series of maps that shows current
land uses and future land uses that indicate productive agricultural soils, natural limitations for
building site development, floodplains, wetlands and other environmentally sensitive lands,
the boundaries of areas to which services of public utilities and community facilities, as those
terms are used in par. (d), will be provided in the future, consistent with the timetable
described in par. (d), and the general location of future land uses by net density or other
classifications.
8.2
GOALS
Planning Goals were established which are more general in nature. The following are
Land Use Goals. Since the land use element is a compilation of all other elements of this
plan all fourteen Smart Growth Planning Goals are listed.
1. Promotion of the redevelopment of lands with existing infrastructure and public
services and the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing residential,
commercial and industrial structures.
2. Encouragement of neighborhood designs that support a range of transportation
choices.
3. Protection of natural areas, including wetlands, wildlife habitats, lakes,
woodlands, open spaces and groundwater resources.
4. Protection of economically productive areas, including farmland and forests.
5. Encouragement of land-uses, densities and regulations that promote efficient
development patterns and relatively low municipal, state governmental and utility
costs.
6. Preservation of cultural, historic and archaeological sites.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 199
Land Use
Green County
7. Encouragement of coordination and cooperation among nearby units of
government.
8. Building of community identity by revitalizing main streets and enforcing design
standards.
9. Providing an adequate supply of affordable housing for individuals of all income
levels throughout each community.
10. Providing adequate infrastructure and public services and an adequate supply of
11. Promoting the expansion or stabilization of the current economic base and the
creation of a range of employment opportunities at the state, regional and local
levels.
12. Balancing individual property rights with community interests and goals.
13. Planning and development of land uses that create or preserve varied and unique
urban and rural communities.
14. Providing an integrated, efficient and economical transportation system that
affords mobility, convenience and safety and that meets the needs of all citizens,
including transit-dependent and disabled citizens.
8.3
OBJECTIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are Land Use objectives and policies recommendations that support the
above goals and will guide land use decisions in Green County over the next 20 years.
included since they did not participate in the Green County multi-jurisdictional
comprehensive planning project.
The Land Use Resource Worksheet asked questions pertaining to land use, helping
jurisdictions select and develop their particular policy statements. Tables 8.1a through
8.1zz lists the various land use policies selected by each jurisdiction. The jurisdictions
listed beneath each policy indicate those including that policy in their plans. Note that
the Villages of Belleville, Brooklyn, Albany, and the Town of Albany are not included
since they did not participate in the Green County multi-jurisdictional comprehensive
planning project. However, the Town of Albany completed their Comprehensive Plan in
2002. In order for the County’s Plan to be in compliance, the Town of Albany’s policies
are included. See Tables 8.1aaa through 8.1ggg.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 200
Land Use
Green County
Table 8.1.a Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Rural residential development must meet the goals of the Community Vision.
x
x
x
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
Town of York
Table 8.1b Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Protect and maintain agricultural lands and woodlands from encroachment and avoid
development that would alter its character or vision for the future.
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Jordan
x
x
x
Town of Monroe
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Table 8.1c Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Building placement and lot layout should be designed to provide a functional relationship
to the site's topography, existing vegetation, and other natural features. Natural land
features should be recognized and integrated into the site design to minimize their
disruption. (The conservation of mature plant species, hedgerows, prairies/oak savannas,
and woodlots should be encouraged to preserve the rural character of the community.*)
x
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Sylvester*
Table 8.1d Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Assure that the pace of development does not exceed the capacity of utilities, roads, and
community facilities.
x
x
x
x
x
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Washington
Table 8.1e Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Ensure that the pace of development does not exceed the capacity of utilities, roads, and
community facilities by requiring detailed neighborhood development plans and phasing
plans prior to zoning, platting, and development of subdivisions.
x
Table 8.1f Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Support land uses, densities and regulations that result in efficient development patterns.
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
x
x
x
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
x
x
Table 8.1g Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Where possible the fragmentation of tracts of farmland should be avoided.
x
x
x
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
x
x
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 8.1h Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Recognize the critical role that farmland/agricultural land*, open space, historical
architecture, scenic vistas, landscapes/land and riverscapes*, natural resources and
designated features, scenic roads, streams, and archeological, and cultural features play
in defining and enhancing the community’s distinctive rural character and natural
landscape.
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Adopted Plan
x
x
x
x
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Decatur
Town of Jordan
April 18, 2006
x
x
x
Town of Monroe
Town of Washington
Page 201
Land Use
Green County
Table 8.1i Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
For all new development in the community, surface water run-off shall be minimized and
detained on site if possible or practicable. If it is not possible to detain water on site, down
stream improvements to the channel may be required of the developer to prevent flooding
caused by the project. The natural state of watercourses, swales, floodways, wetlands, or
right-of-way should be maintained as nearly as possible.
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Cadiz
x
x
x
Town of Clarno
Town of Sylvester
x
x
x
Town of Washington
Table 8.1j Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Recognize that steep and /or wooded slopes and flat valley bottoms are extremely
sensitive environmental features that are vital in maintaining wildlife in the community.
Development including roadways, driveways, and buildings on steep slopes should be
avoided to minimize soil erosion, disruption of important wildlife habitat (and to keep
maintenance costs for foundations, roads, utilities, and waste disposal systems to a
minimum*).
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of Monroe*
Town of Washington
Table 8.1k Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Restrict location of future development from areas shown to be unsafe or unsuitable for
development due to natural hazards, contamination, access, or incompatibility problems.
x
x
x
x
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Clarno
Town of Monroe
x
x
x
Town of Washington
Table 8.1l Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Recognize that sensitive environmental features such as lowlands, floodplains, wetlands,
and steep slopes are extremely important in helping to define the distinctive character and
scenic beauty of the community.
x
x
x
x
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Monroe
x
x
x
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Table 8.1m Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Protect agricultural facilities and livestock operations that exist in the jurisdiction from
encroachment by incompatible uses. (Care should be taken to insure that development
occurs on the least productive soils.*)
x
x
x
Town of Adams
Town of York*
Table 8.1n Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Restrict/Encourage* commercial activities to develop in existing commercial locations
where public roads/facilities and services have capacity to accommodate high volumes of
traffic, parking, and other public needs.
x
x
Town of Brooklyn
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 202
Land Use
Green County
Table 8.1o Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Maintain the small-town (rural*) character of the jurisdiction by avoiding developments
that would alter its character.
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Brooklyn
x
x
x
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
x
x
Town of Sylvester*
Town of Washington
Table 8.1p Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Support land uses that result in the protection of valued resources and recognize existing
physical limitations.
x
x
x
x
Town of Brooklyn
Town of Monroe
Town of Washington
Table 8.1q Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage commercial activities to develop in existing commercial locations where public
roads/facilities and services have capacity to accommodate high volumes of traffic,
parking and other public needs.
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
x
x
x
Town of Monroe
Town of Sylvester
x
x
x
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 8.1r Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage development in areas where adequate utilities and community services exist of
can be provided in a cost efficient manner.
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Cadiz
x
x
x
Town of Jordan
Town of Monroe
x
x
x
Table 8.1s Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Development including roadways, driveways and buildings on steep slopes, lowlands,
floodplains, and wetlands should be avoided to minimize soil erosion, disruption of
important wildlife habitats and to keep maintenance costs for foundations, roads, utilities
and water disposal system to a minimum.
x
x
Town of Cadiz
Table 8.1t Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Recognize that active agricultural lands need to be protected from encroachment of
incompatible uses to limit fragmentation of large tracts of crop fields.
x
x
Town of Cadiz
Town of Jordan
Table 8.1u Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Consider adopting a local sign ordinance to help preserve the visual quality of the
community.
x
Town of Cadiz
Table 8.1v Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
The community will require all proposed public recreational development to conform to all
of the policies in the Comprehensive Plan, particularly those aimed at protecting the
agricultural character and farm vitality of the community.
x
x
x
Town of Cadiz
Town of Clarno
Town of Washington
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 203
Land Use
Green County
Table 8.1w Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Restrict/Discourage* non-residential development from residential subdivisions.
x
x
Town of Clarno
Table 8.1x Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Existing vegetation should be recognized in the site design process. The conservation of
mature plant species, hedgerows, prairies/oak savannas, and woodlots should be
encouraged to preserve the rural character of the community.
x
x
x
Town of Clarno
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Table 8.1y Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Restrict development to environmentally areas where roads and utilities can
accommodate growth.
x
Town of Decatur
Table 8.1z Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the preservation of the family farm and farmland in the community by
controlling the number of animal units to 300
x
Town of Decatur
Table 8.1aa Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the in-fill development of vacant land in existing subdivisions.
x
x
Town of Decatur
Town of Sylvester
Table 8.1bb Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Discourage the heavy industrial and commercial business in the community.
x
x
Town of Decatur
Town of Sylvester
Table 8.1cc Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Lot size for new construction to be not less than one acre and not more than two acres
with a density of no more than one house per forty acres.
x
Town of Jefferson
Table 8.1dd Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Existing parcels of less than 40 acres to be exempted the density requirements in that they
may have one division for new construction. A pre-existing house destroyed may be
replaced.
x
Town of Jefferson
Table 8.1ee Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
The town will require impact fees on new construction as deemed necessary for town
accommodation of increased use of roads, schools, parks, utilities and services.
x
Town of Jefferson
Table 8.1ff Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Owners of properties adjacent to proposed new development sites will be notified by the
town.
x
Town of Jefferson
Table 8.1gg Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Developments within a one-mile radius of the survey markers by the United States Post
Office in Juda will be exempt from the density limitations of one house per forty acres.
x
Town of Jefferson
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 204
Land Use
Green County
Table 8.1hh Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Ensure to the greatest extent possible that all future development proposals or
redevelopment enhances the overall quality of life in the community.
x
x
x
City of Monroe
Town of Washington
Table 8.1ii Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Recognize that while flat valley bottoms are often the most desirable areas for new
development, theses areas frequently contain highly productive and irreplaceable
agricultural soils. Therefore, care must be taken to ensure that development occurs on
neighboring areas and the least productive valley soils.
x
x
City of Monroe
Town of Washington
Table 8.1jj Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the use of conservation neighborhood design strategies for rural residential
development in appropriate areas and where consistent with community wishes.
x
x
Town of Washington
Town of York
Table 8.1kk Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Support the mixing of compatible, complimentary uses in close proximity to one another,
such as small-scale neighborhood retail and service uses close to residential
neighborhoods, if in accordance with community wishes.
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
Town of Washington
Table 8.1ll Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Plan for a sufficient supply of developable land for a range of different uses, in areas,
types, and densities consistent with the community’s wishes and service requirements.
x
City of Brodhead
Table 8.1mm Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the preservation of green space and environmentally sensitive areas.
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
Town of Jordan
x
x
x
Town of Washington
Table 8.1nn Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
In the community, surface water run-off shall be minimized and detained on site if possible
or practicable. If it is not possible to detain water on site, down stream improvements to
the channel may be required of the developer to prevent flooding caused by the project.
The natural state of watercourses, swales, floodways, wetlands, or right-of-way should be
maintained as nearly as possible.
x
Table 8.1nn Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Construction practices that will protect surface water quality from siltation and pollution
shall be required. This includes minimizing soil erosion both during and after
construction.
x
x
City of Monroe
Table 8.1oo Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Maintain a sign ordinance to help preserve the visual quality of the community.
x
City of Monroe
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 205
Land Use
Green County
Table 8.1pp Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Establish process by which land purchaser should meet with Planning Commission prior
to land transfer to discuss:
x Educating them on Country living.
x Discuss Township regulations / rules.
x Discuss Rural Code of Conduct.
x Give purchaser copies of various ordinances.
x
Table 8.1qq Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Develop criteria for landowners regarding Township Planning policies:
x Give above information to existing landowners also.
x Protect and maintain active agricultural lands and forestry in the community as
this land use helps realize the vision for the future.
x To the extent possible the fragmentation of large tracts of farmland should be
avoided.
x
Table 8.1rr Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Require detailed neighborhood development plans and phasing plans prior to zoning,
platting, and development of planned residential areas.
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Adams
x
x
x
Town of Decatur
Town of Washington
x
x
Table 8.1ss Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage infill development and redevelopment on lands that are vacant, blighted, or
underutilized.
x
x
x
x
City of Brodhead
City of Monroe
Town of Sylvester
Town of Washington
Table 8.1tt Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Protect agricultural land and forestry as they help us realize the vision for the future.
x
Town of Cadiz
Table 8.1uu Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Protect agricultural and forest lands as this will help maintain a rural, small-town
character.
x
Town of Decatur
Table 8.1vv Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
The fragmentation of farmland will be discouraged.
x
Town of Decatur
Table 8.1ww Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
To control density, 1 lot split per 40 acres of original property with a maximum lot size of 2
acres (e.g. 200 = 5 lots). All lots should be clustered as much as possible.
x
Town of Monroe
Table 8.1xx Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Preserve agricultural fields in the community from encroachment by incompatible
development (limit fragmentation of crop fields).
x
Town of Sylvester
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 206
Land Use
Green County
Table 8.1yy Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Sensitive environmental features, such as streams, steep slopes, wetlands, flood plains,
should be protected from erosion, to minimize disruption of wildlife habitat, and surface
water run-off.
x
Town of York
Table 8.1zz Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
A sign ordinance shall be enforced to help preserve the visual quality of the community.
x
Note: The Town of Exeter has a Land Division and Subdivision Regulation document, Ordinance No. 0007-27A. Please refer to this document for specific policies and regulations regarding land use, land
division, and subdivision. Refer back to Chapters 1-7, as many of the policies listed in those chapters also
relate to land use.
Note: The Town of New Glarus has a Land Division and Subdivision Code document, Chapter 15
(031208). Please refer to this document for specific policies and regulations regarding land use, land
division, and subdivision. Refer back to Chapters 1-7, as many of the policies listed in those chapters also
relate to land use.
Comprehensive Plan.
Table 8.1aaa Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Ensure that housing development occur in a fashion consistent with existing land uses
and in a manner suitable with existing surroundings.
Table 8.1bbb Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Balance town goals for future land use and development in a cooperative effort with the
village when planning for development of the village fringe area.
Table 8.1ccc Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
The town will supplement its open space by preserving large tracts of agricultural land
when possible
Table 8.1ddd Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Promote land uses, densities, and regulations that result in efficient development patterns
(traffic, public services, sewer, water, other).
Table 8.1eee Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Promote land uses, densities, and regulations that result in the protection of valued
resources and recognize existing physical limitations (prime farmland, slope, woodlands,
water, other).
Table 8.1fff Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Minimize development in areas which are likely to be required to meet transportation
needs in the future.
Table 8.1ggg Land Use Policies by Jurisdiction
Promote connected developments.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 207
Land Use
8.4
Green County
EXISTING LAND USES
The following table approximates the amount of land in each of the major classifications
for Green County. Refer to Maps 8.2 in the Land Use Chapter Attachments for land use
maps for all participating Towns in Green County (For land use maps for each Green
County Village/City and the Town of Albany, refer to each jurisdiction’s comprehensive
plan). Currently the dominant land use in Green County is agriculture. Refer to each
community’s Comprehensive Plan for specific land use information.
Table 8.2 Green County Land Use - 2004
Classification
Residential
Commercial
Manufacturing
Agricultural
Undeveloped (formerly
Swamp/Waste)
AG-Forest
Forest
Other (Federal, State, County,
School, Cemetery)
Real Estate Totals
Green County
Parcel
Count
12,155
1,328
105
9,872
Green County
Land Area
(Acres)
15,325
1,914
595
284,542
Green County
Percent of Land
Area
4%
1%
0%
82%
5,345
20,150
6%
281
2,588
281
20,594
0%
6%
2,073
4,295
1%
33,747
347,696
100%
(Source: WI Department of Revenue, 2004 Statement of Assessments)
Figure 8.1 Percent of Land Area
Residential
1%
Commercial
4%
1%
Manufacturing
82%
6%
Agricultural
Undeveloped (formerly
Swamp/Waste)
AG-Forest
6%
Forest
Other (Federal, State, County,
School, Cemetery)
Agriculture – Agricultural land includes land producing a crop (including Christmas
trees or ginseng), agricultural forest (forested lands contiguous with agricultural land),
supports livestock, or is eligible for enrollment in specific federal agricultural programs.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 208
Land Use
Green County
Residential - Residential land includes any land with a residential home that does not fall
into the agricultural land classification.
Commercial – Commercial land refers to any parcel that has a retail business or
professional business establishment on it, but does not include industrial properties. This
may be a convenience store, car wash, bank, grocery store, tavern, etc.
Manufacturing – Manufacturing land refers to business and industry that is engaged in
processing, manufacturing, packaging, treatment, or fabrication of materials and
products.
Forested – Forested land includes production forests and WI-DNR-MFL.
Undeveloped – This land classification refers to areas that were formerly classified as
swamp/waste. It includes bogs, marshes, lowlands brush land, and uncultivated land
zoned as shore land and shown to be wetland.
Other – Remaining land types that do not fall into the above categories, including
federal, state, and county lands, school property, and cemeteries.
8.4.1 EXISTING PARCEL ANALYSIS
The following table indicates the amount of parcels, as of 2004, in Green County by 5acre and 40-acre increments. The analysis does not take into account contiguous or
noncontiguous parcels owned by the same person(s). Therefore, it is possible that a
parcel in the 0-4 acre class is owned by a person who also has another parcel of land 20acres in size either contiguous or noncontiguous to the smaller parcel. Refer to each
community’s Comprehensive Plan for specific parcel information.
Table 8.3 Parcel Counts in Green County by 40-Acre Increments
(Excludes incorporated areas)
Parcels
0-4 acres
5-9 acres
10-14 acres
15-19 acres
20-24 acres
25-29 acres
30-34 acres
35-39 acres
40 acres
Count
14,682
2,283
1,135
705
869
435
566
1,000
3,886
(Source: 2004 Green County Treasurer)
8.5
LAND USE TRENDS
8.5.1 LAND SUPPLY
Tables 8.4 to 8.7 display the recent developments in land use classification and value for
Green County for the last 25, 15, 5, and the current year, respectively. The information is
from the WI Department of Revenue. Caution should be used as the WI-DOR has
periodically switched how they have reported certain land classifications over the years.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 209
Land Use
Green County
In addition, technological advances have allowed the WI-DOR to better identify land.
These changes can account for some land classifications not having a value in one year
but than having one in another year. In addition, local assessors have changed over time,
which can account for some difference in the methods by which data was reported. Refer
to each community’s Comprehensive Plan for specific land use information.
Table 8.4 Green County Land Use Assessment Statistics - 1979
Classification
Residential
Commercial
Manufacturing
Agricultural
Undeveloped
(formerly
Swamp/Waste)
AG-Forest
Forest
Other (Federal, State,
County, School, etc.)
Real Estate Totals
Green
County
Parcel
Count
Green
County
Total
Acres
4,049
871
97
325,114
Green
County
Percent of
Land Area
(Acres)
1.1%
0.2%
0.0%
90.7%
1,993
146
34
7,047
Green
County
Aggregate
Assessment
$24,717,754
$2,880,515
$2,737,900
$157,886,554
Green
County
Equalized
Value
Assessment
$59,483,050
$7,128,300
$34,109,600
$341,154,000
1,228
15,363
4.3%
$2,577,234
$144,800
943
140
11,126
1,692
3.1%
0.5%
$1,855,872
$501,240
$8,297,600
$0
0
0
0.0%
$0
$0
11,531
358,312
100.0%
$193,157,069
$450,317,350
Green
County
Aggregate
Assessment
(Source: WI Department of Revenue, 1979 Statistical Report of Property Values)
Table 8.5 Green County Land Use Assessment Statistics - 1989
Classification
Residential
Commercial
Manufacturing
Agricultural
Undeveloped
(formerly
Swamp/Waste)
AG-Forest
Forest
Real Estate Totals
Green
County
Parcel
Count
Green
County
Total
Acres
6,376
980
160
293,140
Green
County
Percent of
Land Area
(Acres)
2%
0%
0%
89%
$83,951,200
$10,417,231
$4,316,400
$251,261,864
Green
County
Equalized
Value
Assessment
$99,623,500
$12,478,000
$4,661,500
$268,519,300
2,524
187
32
7,970
1,379
8,540
3%
$611,083
$388,500
0
2,205
0
18,835
0%
6%
$0
$4,224,802
$0
$5,063,500
0
0
0%
$0
$0
14,297
328,031
100%
$354,782,580
$390,734,300
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 210
Land Use
Green County
Table 8.6 Green County Land Use Assessment Statistics – 1999
Classification
Residential
Commercial
Manufacturing
Agricultural
Undeveloped
(formerly
Swamp/Waste)
AG-Forest
Forest
Real Estate Totals
Green
County
Parcel
Count
Green
County
Total
Acres
Green County
Aggregate
Assessment
11,554
1,346
Green
County
Percent of
Land Area
(Acres)
4%
0%
10,519
1,216
$768,299,637
$180,049,908
$895,281,000
$206,238,700
100
565
0%
$37,511,800
$41,074,100
8,358
277,918
84%
$165,915,246
$202,574,800
3,856
12,100
4%
$3,347,118
$8,286,500
2,592
NA
21,925
NA
7%
NA
$9,889,963
NA
$13,808,500
NA
1,987
4,202
1%
$122,973,328
$157,223,400
28,628
329,610
100%
$1,287,987,000
$1,524,487,000
Green County
Equalized
Value
Assessment
Table 8.7 Green County Land Use Assessment Statistics – 2004
Classification
Residential
Commercial
Manufacturing
Agricultural
Undeveloped
(formerly
Swamp/Waste)
AG-Forest
Forest
Real Estate Totals
Green
County
Parcel
Count
Green
County
Total
Acres
15,325
1,914
595
284,542
Green
County
Percent of
Land Area
(Acres)
4%
1%
0%
82%
12,155
1,328
105
9,872
Green County
Aggregate
Assessment
$1,245,980,310
$227,844,950,
$51,297,300
$50,885,250
$1,367,250,900
$255,259,600
$55,173,800
$54,364,500
5,345
20,150
6%
$8,621,420
$10,057,400
281
2,588
281
20,594
0%
6%
$1,229,300
$22,444,200
$1,600,900
$30,698,600
2,073
4,295
1%
$193,409,820
$220,414,300
33,747
347,696
100%
$1,801,712,550
$1,994,820,000
Green County
Equalized
Value
Assessment
Aggregate Asset Value – This is the dollar amount assigned to taxable real and personal
property by the local assessor for the purpose of taxation. Assessed value is called a
primary assessment because a levy is applied directly against it to determine the tax due.
Accurate assessed values ensure fairness between properties within the taxing
jurisdiction. The law allows each municipality to be within 10% of market value
(equalized value), provided there is equity between the taxpayers of the municipality.
(Source: 2005 Guide for Property Owners, WI DOR)
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 211
Land Use
Green County
Equalized Value Assessment – This is the estimated value of all taxable real and
personal property in each taxation district. The value represents market value (most
probable selling price), except for agricultural property, which is based on its use (ability
to generate agricultural income) and agricultural forest and undeveloped lands, which are
based on 50% of their full, fair market value. Since assessors in different taxing districts
value property at different percentages of market value, equalized values ensure fairness
between municipalities. The equalized values are used for apportioning county property
taxes, public school taxes, vocational school taxes, and for distributing property tax relief.
In summary, equalized values are not only used to distribute the state levy among the
counties, but also the equalized values distribute each county’s levy among the
municipalities in that county. The WI-DOR determines the equalized value. (Source:
2005 Guide for Property Owners, WI-DOR)
8.5.2 LAND DEMAND
Historically, the demand for land throughout Green County has occurred around the cities
and villages. More recently, land demand has been highest in unincorporated areas in the
County’s northern towns and villages, as Green County has begun absorbing
development pressure from the City of Madison and Dane County. Greater demand for
land has also occurred along the unincorporated eastern edge of Green County, most
likely a result of pressure from the City of Janesville. (Refer back to Map 4.1 and 4.2 in
the Housing Chapter Attachments for maps displaying the percent increase in housing
units over the last 30 and 10 years respectfully) It is expected that demand for land will
continue to occur in the northern and eastern parts of Green County and around major
transportation corridors such as State Hwys. 69 and 11. It is also expected that most of
this demand will be for residential purposes. Map 8.1, in the Land Use Chapter
Attachments, displays the concentration of new residences in Green County from 2001 to
2004 (reported from the Green County Zoning and Land Use 2004 Annual Report). The
map is similar to that of 4.2 (Housing Changes 1990-2000).
8.5.3 NEW HOME VALUES
The table below details the average value of new homes constructed in Green County
during 2002 through 2004. The value of new homes constructed continues to be highest
in the northern and eastern portions of Green County. This trend is consistent where the
most development pressure is found.
Table 8.8 Average Value of New Homes Constructed in Green County 2002-2004
Town
2002
Average
Value
Adams
Albany
Brooklyn
Cadiz
Clarno
Decatur
Exeter
Jefferson
Jordan
$134,136
$99,771
$175,099
$111,617
$193,743
$130,333
$167,441
$100,975
$152,525
Adopted Plan
2002
Percent of
County
Average
107%
79%
139%
89%
154%
104%
133%
80%
121%
2003
Average
Value
$135,520
$114,180
$178,214
$151,429
$116,483
$143,788
$150,296
$121,000
$206,250
April 18, 2006
2003
Percent of
County
Average
86%
73%
114%
97%
74%
92%
96%
77%
132%
2004
Average
Value
$214,200
$143,131
$236,213
$80,000
$148,863
$179,900
$184,861
$147,000
$179,500
2004
Percent of
County
Average
127%
85%
140%
47%
88%
106%
109%
87%
106%
Page 212
Land Use
Green County
Table 8.8 (cont.) Average Value of New Homes Constructed in Green County 2002-2004
Town
Monroe
Mt. Pleasant
New Glarus
Spring Grove
Sylvester
Washington
York
County
Average
$123,926
$82,885
$199,013
$116,885
$177,417
$154,300
$145,275
2002
Percent of
County
Average
98%
66%
158%
93%
141%
123%
115%
$125,852
100%
2002
Average
Value
$204,250
$145,437
$208,031
$132,000
$196,911
$155,421
$149,551
2003
Percent of
County
Average
130%
93%
133%
84%
126%
99%
95%
$150,912
$145,250
$217,226
$168,744
$192,056
$138,375
$176,716
2004
Percent of
County
Average
89%
86%
129%
100%
114%
82%
105%
$156,818
100%
$168,934
100%
2003
Average
Value
2004
Average
Value
(Source: Green County Zoning and Land Use Annual Report)
8.6
FUTURE LAND USE
To adequately plan for future growth, a community must be aware of what its future
needs will be in terms of additional land. The projection of land use needed is based
upon several factors, including historical community growth trends, population forecasts,
anticipated economic and land use trends, and several assumptions. Forecasting is an
inexact process. Since a number of outside factors affect the rate of growth of a
community, assumptions and the resulting forecasts can only be used as a flexible tool for
charting future courses of action. Given the above limitations, a simple method of
forecasting will be used to assess future land needs. Table 8.9 below identifies how the
land area has changed per classification over the last 25, 15, and 5 years respectfully.
Table 8.9 Percent Change in Land Area, per Land Use Classification for Green County over the last 25, 15, and 5 years
Classification
Residential
Commercial
Manufacturing
Agricultural
Undeveloped
(formerly
Swamp/Waste)
AG-Forest
Forest
Green County
25 Year (79-04)
Percent Change in
Land Area
278.5%
119.7%
513.4%
-12.5%
Green County
15 Year (89-04)
Percent Change in
Land Area
140.4%
95.3%
271.9%
-2.9%
Green County
5 Year (99-04)
Percent Change in
Land Area
32.6%
42.2%
5.3%
2.4%
31.2%
-97.5%
1117.1%
135.9%
NA
9.3%
66.5%
-98.7%
NA
NA
NA
2.2%
(Source: WI Department of Revenue Report on Property Values)
The method SWWRPC used to estimate the future land needs was to look at the percent
change in land uses from 1979 to 2004. Assuming that growth will continue as in the
past, the percent changes in land use can be used to forecast the amount of land needed in
the future for each classification. For the purposes of this plan, the five-year percent
change in land area (99-04) will be used to forecast the amount of land needed five years
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 213
Land Use
Green County
from now, or in 2010. Likewise, the 15-year percent change in land area (89-04) will be
used to forecast the amount of land needed 15 years from now, or in 2020. Similarly, the
25-year percent change in land area (79-04) will be used to forecast the amount of land
needed 25 years from now, or in 2030.
As noted in section 8.5.1 Land Supply, caution should be use as the WI-DOR has
periodically switched the way that they have reported certain land classifications over the
years. These changes can make it difficult to forecast the future land needs of the
community. For example, it is unlikely that the Undeveloped land classification will
continue to grow at past rates. Much of the reason for the lack of growth of this category
is due to better advancement in the methods by which these lands could be identified.
However, it is unlikely that these undeveloped areas in a community will continue to
grow. The number of Undeveloped acres in 2004 was held at a constant for the next 30
years. For similar reasons the Ag-Forest, Forest, and Other land use classifications were
held constant from their 2004 values. In reality, these three land use classifications will
probably decrease as they are converted into developed land. Refer to each community’s
Comprehensive Plan for specific future land use information.
Table 8.10 Forecasted future land area needed per Land Use Classification for Green County for 2010, 2020, and 2030.
Classification
Residential
Commercial
Manufacturing
Agricultural
Undeveloped
(formerly
Swamp/Waste)
AG-Forest
Forest
Green County
2010 Forecasted
Land Area (acres)
20,327
2,722
627
284,542-
Green County
2020 Forecasted
Land Area (acres)
36,834
3,738
2,213
276,196-
Green County
2030 Forecasted
Land Area (acres)
58,003
4,206
3,650
249,033-
20,15028120,594-
20,15028120,594-
20,15028120,594-
4,295+
4,295+
4,295+
(Source: WI Department of Revenue Report on Property Values, & SWWRPC)
8.6.1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Maps 8.3, in the Land Use Chapter Attachments, display the Proposed Development
Areas for the participating Towns (For proposed development maps for each Green
County Village/City and the Town of Albany, refer to each jurisdiction’s comprehensive
plan). Most towns have not chosen to designate any proposed land uses on a map at the
time of completion of their plan. Instead, the towns will rely on the goals and policies
contained in their comprehensive plan, along with town and County ordinances, to guide
the location of future land uses.
8.6.2 DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS
Development should only take place in suitable areas, which is determined by a number
of criteria, including:
x A community’s vision statement
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 214
Land Use
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Green County
Land use goals and policies
Surrounding uses
Special requirements of the proposed development
The ability to provide utility and community services to the area
Transportation and economic development factors
Cultural resource constraints
Various physical constraints.
The following is a review of the physical development limitations discussed and
presented in Chapter 3 Agricultural, Natural, and Cultural Resources.
8.6.2.1 FARMLAND POTENTIAL
A review of Map 3.1.1 Soil Classifications shows the location of Prime Soils (Class 1 &
2) and State Soils (Class 3) in Green County. Prime Soils is land that is best suited for
producing animal feed, food, forage, fiber and oilseed crops. State Soils is land of
statewide importance for the production of food, animal feed, fiber, forage and oilseed
crops.
8.6.2.2 DEPTH TO WATER TABLE/FLOOD HAZARDS
A review of Map 3.2.1 Water Resources, Map 3.2.2 Depth to Water Table, and Map 3.2.3
FEMA Floodplain reveal development limitations associated with water resources.
Because of the potential for flooding, and the problems associated with wet soils, these
areas should be precluded from development.
8.6.2.3 SLOPE LIMITATIONS
A review of Map 3.2.8 Slopes reveals areas in Green County where development
limitations occur due to steep slopes. Slope is an important limitation to consider since it
is a measure of how steep land is. Problems for development are usually associated with
areas having little or no slope (due to potential drainage problems) and areas with
extreme slope (because of erosion and other factors). In general, areas with slopes under
12% but greater than 0% are best suited for development.
8.6.2.4 SEPTIC LIMITATIONS
A review of Map 3.2.9 Septic Limitations reveals areas in Green County where
development limitations occur due to the inability to install septic systems. The
engineering interpretations in the soil survey indicate the degree to which sub-grade
materials are influenced by surface drainage, depth of frost penetrations, and other
factors. The limitations apply to domestic sewage disposal systems, primarily filter fields
and seepage beds. How well a sewage disposal system functions depends largely on the
rate at which effluent from the tank moves into and through the soil. If permeability is
moderately slow, sewage effluent is likely to flow along the surface of the soil. If
permeability is moderately rapid or rapid, effluent is likely to flow into the aquifer.
Detailed testing at specific site locations may reveal pockets with fewer restrictions than
indicated.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 215
Land Use
Green County
8.6.2.5 DEPTH TO BEDROCK
A review of Map 3.2.10 Depth to Bedrock reveals areas in Green County where
development limitations occur due to the depth to the bedrock. The depth to bedrock is
an important factor that influences other limitations such as those pertaining to septic
tanks and building foundations. Bedrock that is too close to the surface not only hampers
the absorption of surface water by the soil, but it poses an obstacle to construction.
8.6.2.6 THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES/RECREATION
RESOURCES/ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDORS
A review of Map 3.2.5 Threatened & Endangered Species, Map 3.2.6 Natural &
Recreational Resources, and Map 3.2.7 Environmental Corridors, reveals areas in the
Green County where other development limitations may occur.
8.6.3 OPPORTUNITIES FOR REDEVELOPMENT
Programs through the state of Wisconsin can often make it financially feasible for the
owners or a municipality to remediate contaminations on a Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks (LUST) or Environmental Repair (ERP) site and prepare the site for
redevelopment.
Refer to the Economic Development Chapter 6 section 6.6.3 for a list of Environmentally
Contaminated Sites in Green County. The WI-DNR Bureau for Remediation and
Redevelopment maintains the list. The database lists contaminated lands and sites and
includes the following: spills, leaks, Superfund sites, and other contaminated sites that
have been reported to the WI-DNR or otherwise discovered.
8.6.4 EXISTING & POTENTIAL LAND USE CONFLICTS
There are a variety of land uses that can potentially cause land use conflicts. There are
two common acronyms used to describe land use conflicts – NIMBY’s (Not In My Back
Yard) and LULU’s (Locally Unwanted Land Uses). One of the most common
occurrences, especially in a rural
Potential Land Use Conflicts
setting, is the presence of non-farm
x
Landfills or Waste Facilities
x
Jails or Prisons
populations near agricultural
x
Halfway Houses or Group Homes
operations. The presence of small
x
Airports, Highways, Rail Lines
rural lots can create an adverse
x
Low Income Housing
influence on the continued operation
x
Strip Malls and Shopping Centers
x
“Cell” Towers, Electrical Transmission Lines
of an agriculture enterprise. The issue
x
Wind Farms
of rural-urban conflict can arise when
x
Large Livestock Operations
there is no separation between
x
Industrial or Manufacturing Operations
incompatible uses. Land use conflicts
may arise in such situations through noise, odor, farm chemicals, light, visual amenity,
dogs, stock damage and weed infestation, lack of understanding, and lack of
communication to name a few. However, as the box on the right suggests, conflicts can
arise from more than just agriculture/residential situations.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 216
Land Use
8.4
Green County
LAND USE AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS
There are a number of state agencies and programs to assist communities with land use
projects. Below are brief descriptions of various agencies and programs. Contact
information has been provided for each agency. To find out more specific information or
which program best fits your needs, contact the agency directly.
CENTER FOR LAND USE EDUCATION (CLUE)
The Center for Land Use Education is a joint
CENTER FOR LAND USE
venture of Cooperative Extension and the
EDUCATION
College of Natural Resources at the University
University of Wisconsin – Stevens
of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. The Center for
Point – CNR
Land Use Education uses a team-based
800 Reserve St.
approach to accomplish its dual missions in
campus based undergraduate and graduate
Phone: 715-346-2386
education and Extension outreach teaching
related to:
http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/landcenter
x land use planning,
x plan and ordinance administration,
x project impact and regional trends
analysis and
x public involvement in local land use policy development.
WISCONSIN LAND COUNCIL – WI DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
The Wisconsin Land Council was created to gather and analyze land use and planning
related information, coordinate high priority state initiatives including the development of
a Wisconsin land information system and provide recommendations to the Governor for
improvements to the existing statewide planning
WISCONSIN LAND COUNCIL –
framework. The Council is dedicated to
WIDOA
identifying ways to enhance and facilitate
planning efforts of Wisconsin’s local
17 South Fairchild
th
governments and to improve the coordination
7 Floor
Madison, WI 53703
and cooperation of state agencies in their land
use activities.
http://www.wisconsinplanners.org
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 217
Land Use
Green County
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
The UW-Madison’s department of Urban Planning can provide research and
outreach services to area communities. The University also has the Land
Information & Computer Graphics Facility (LICGF). The overall mission of the
LICGF is to provide research, training, and outreach in the use of land and
geographic information systems (LIS/GIS). Their mission focuses on land record
modernization, land and natural resource management applications, and the use of
information for land-use decision-making.
UW-MADISON DEPARTMENT
OF URBAN PLANNING
UW Land Information &
Computer Graphics Facility
925 Bascom Mall Room 110
Music Hall
500 Babcock Drive
Rm. B102
Madison, WI 53706
Phone: 608-262-1004
Phone: 608-263-5534
http;//www.wisc.edu/urpl
http;//www.lic.wisc.edu
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 218
Land Use
Green County
LAND USE
CHAPTER ATTACHMENTS
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 219
Implementation
Green County
9.0 IMPLEMENTATION
9.1
CHAPTER SUMMARY
Comprehensive Plans are comprised of nine elements (Issues and Opportunities,
Housing, Transportation, Utilities and Community Facilities, Agricultural, Natural, and
Cultural Resources, Economic Development, Intergovernmental Cooperation, Land Use,
and Implementation). Each element has policy statements, which contribute to the
overall Plan, supporting a jurisdiction’s vision and goals. Policy statements tell the
jurisdiction “yes” or “no” to development. Ordinances tell “how”.
The purpose of this Chapter is to explain how the comprehensive plan will be utilized to
guide future growth and development in Green County. As change is inevitable, the plan
may need to be amended to appropriately reflect major changes. Section 9.4 will review
how each section of the comprehensive plan elements interrelate and how the plan will be
monitored and evaluated. The final part of this chapter is a discussion on how the plan is
updated.
Wisconsin State Statute 66.1001(2)(i)
(i) Implementation.
A compilation of programs and specific actions to be completed in a stated sequence,
including proposed changes to any applicable zoning ordinances, official maps, sign
regulations, erosion and storm water control ordinances, historic preservation
ordinances, site plan regulations, design review ordinances, building codes,
mechanical codes, housing codes, sanitary codes or subdivision ordinances, to
implement the objectives, policies, plans and programs contained in pars. (a) to (h).
The element shall describe how each of the elements of the comprehensive plan will
be integrated and made consistent with the other elements of the comprehensive
plan, and shall include a mechanism to measure the local governmental unit's
progress toward achieving all aspects of the comprehensive plan. The element shall
include a process for updating the comprehensive plan. A comprehensive plan under
this subsection shall be updated no less than once every 10 years.
9.2
VISION STATEMENT
The following is the vision statement of Green County (also found in Chapter 1, Section
1.8). It serves as the overall guide for decision making in Green County.
In the year 2024, we envision that in Green County we are
x
Protecting our environmental resources to maintain a high quality of life for
future generations;
x
Preserving our natural features through protection of our scenic vistas and open
spaces in the rural landscape;
x
Promoting the well-being of our citizens through effective public safety and
various human services;
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 220
Implementation
Green County
x
Coordinating orderly commercial and industrial development by encouraging
business activity close to urban areas and services;
x
Advocating rural and urban economic development to ensure adequate and
diverse local employment opportunities;
x
Maintaining our agricultural base through preserving productive farmland and
supporting the agri-business community;
x
Supporting tourism, recreational activities and preservation of historical sites,
by emphasizing our ethnic heritage and diverse cultures;
x
Providing housing opportunities for everyone through coordinated, orderly,
planned new residential development;
x
Maintaining a quality, safe, efficient and scenic transportation system of roads,
rail and air;
x
Encouraging open communication, respect and working relationships between
all governmental entities within the county to promote a spirit of cooperation;
and
x
Operating as a progressive county using governance wisely for the benefit and
maintenance of landowners’ rights, balanced with responsible land use.
9.3
GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are Implementation goals, objectives and policies recommendations
supporting the goals, objectives, policies and programs specified in the previous eight
chapters and will guide implementation of this comprehensive plan in Green County over
the next 20 years. These policies are common to all participating Green County
communities. Note that the Villages of Belleville, Brooklyn, Albany, and the Town of
Albany are not included since they did not participate. However, the Town of Albany
completed their Comprehensive Plan in 2002. In order for the County’s Plan to be in
compliance, the Town of Albany’s policies are included. See Tables 9.1a through 9.1p.
x
Comply with and enforce the 14 Planning Goals and the Policies and
Programs outlined in this Comprehensive Plan.
x
Enforce local ordinances to support the vision as noted in Section 9.2.
x
Comply with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations.
x
Amend the local comprehensive plan and local ordinances only after careful
evaluation of existing conditions and potential impacts.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 221
Implementation
x
Green County
Update the local Comprehensive Plan at a minimum of every ten years as
required by Wisconsin State Statute 66.1001.
Comprehensive Plan.
Table 9.1a Implementation Policies by Jurisdiction
The Town of Albany’s Comprehensive Plan will be a living/working document. As new
issues arise methods for incorporating them into the plan will be followed so that the plan
remains current with changing community needs. At a minimum the Comprehensive Plan
shall be updated once every ten (10) years as required by law.
Table 9.1b Implementation Policies by Jurisdiction
When considering new development proposals, full consideration of farmable land and
prime farmland soils should be undertaken in the decision making process.
Table 9.1c Implementation Policies by Jurisdiction
Fully consider the impacts of new development on all natural resources the land division
and development review process including the potential impacts to:
x Water quality
x Habitat and reproduction
x Ecosystems
x Movement corridors
x Endangered and threatened species
x Aesthetic values
Table 9.1d Implementation Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage Green County to create and budget for an active countywide conservation
easement acquisition program.
Table 9.1e Implementation Policies by Jurisdiction
Ensure that operations are sited properly through the land divisions review process and
the driveway permitting process.
Table 9.1f Implementation Policies by Jurisdiction
Encourage the wise use of development lands by advocating the sue of development
concepts such as cluster development techniques and Conservation design.
Table 9.1g Implementation Policies by Jurisdiction
Aggressively pursue payment of delinquent property taxes to pressure owners of
abandoned or underused property to sell.
Table 9.1h Implementation Policies by Jurisdiction
New development lot sizes and location shall be consistent with town development
regulation policies and the town’s future land use map.
Table 9.1i Implementation Policies by Jurisdiction
The town will preserve and supplement its natural resource lands/preserve/open lands –
special use by steering development away from these designated areas as defined on the
town’s future land use map.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 222
Implementation
Green County
Table 9.1j Implementation Policies by Jurisdiction
Ensure that development standards and ordinances are consistent with land use policies
contained within the Comprehensive Plan.
Table 9.1k Implementation Policies by Jurisdiction
Allow new development types to occur only within the character descriptions as described
within the seven zones and as illustrated in the future land use map.
Table 9.1l Implementation Policies by Jurisdiction
Review and incorporate the findings of the “developable land” analysis when making
decisions on new development proposals.
Table 9.1m Implementation Policies by Jurisdiction
Review and incorporate the findings of the “traditional rural acreage” mapping analysis
when making decisions on new development proposals.
Table 9.1n Implementation Policies by Jurisdiction
Avoid flag lots on arterial streets and collectors to ensure appropriate spacing between
driveways.
Table 9.1o Implementation Policies by Jurisdiction
Provide residential properties access within developments, not on arterials.
Table 9.1p Implementation Policies by Jurisdiction
Take into consideration the budgetary and operational issues and capacities of the public
school system when considering the allowance of new development within the town.
9.4
LOCAL ORDINANCE AND REGULATIONS
The intent of local ordinances and regulations is to control land development within the
County. By carefully applying these local ordinances and regulations, Green County
jurisdictions will be accomplishing goals and policies of their comprehensive plan.
Enforcement of such ordinances and regulations serves an important function by ensuring
orderly growth and development. Green County and its unincorporated areas will
continue to use the Green County Zoning Ordinance as the primary tool of enforcement.
Refer to each jurisdiction’s clerk for a list of all of the current ordinances and regulations
specific to that community.
9.5
CONSISTENCY AMONG PLAN ELEMENTS
As required by Wisconsin State Statute 66.1001 all elements included in this plan are
consistent with one another and no known conflicts exist. If there is a question regarding
a decision that is not clearly conveyed in the details of this plan, than the decision should
be based on the intent of the vision statement. All nine elements included in this plan
work to achieve the desired future for Green County.
9.6
PLAN ADOPTION
The first official action required to implement the Green County Comprehensive Plan is
official adoption of the plan by the local Plan Commission. Once the local Plan
Commission recommends the plan by resolution, the County Board of Supervisors then
needs to adopt the comprehensive plan by ordinance as required by State Statute 66.1001.
After the plan is adopted by ordinance, it then becomes the official tool for future
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 223
Implementation
Green County
development over the next 20 years. The plan is designed to guide development in a
consistent manner.
9.7
PLAN AMENDMENTS
The Green County Board of Supervisors can amend the Comprehensive Plan at any time.
Amendments would be any changes to plan text or maps. Amendments may be
necessary due to changes in County policies, programs, or services, as well as changes in
state or federal laws. An amendment may also be needed due to unique proposals
presented to the County. Proposed amendments should be channeled through the local
Plan Commission and then final action should occur at the County Board. However,
amendments should be done with extreme caution. They should not be made simply to
avoid local planning pressure.
9.8
PLAN UPDATES
As required by Wisconsin State Statute, the comprehensive plan needs to be updated at
least once every ten years. An update is different from an amendment, as an update is a
major revision of multiple plan sections including maps. The plan was originally written
based on variables that are ever changing and future direction might be inaccurately
predicted. A plan update should include public involvement, as well as an official public
hearing.
9.9
MEASURING PROGRESS
The success of this comprehensive plan will be measured by the extent to which Green
County achieves its vision of the future by following the goals, objectives, policies, and
programs outlined in the plan. Only time will tell if the County will be able to judge the
effectiveness of this comprehensive plan.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 224
Implementation
Green County
9.10 RURAL RESIDENTIAL SITING CRITERIA
The criteria below in Table 9.2a must be met in order to comply with both the Green
County Comprehensive Plan and the participating jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plans.
County criteria are standard throughout the County in all participating towns.
Table 9.2a Green County Rural Residential Siting Criteria
Complies
Does Not
Comply

Adopted Plan
Green County Criteria
1. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan
Development must be in accordance with Green County Goals &
Policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Compliance with County Ordinances
Development must be in accordance with Green County Ordinances.
3. Septic System Requirement
Required space to accommodate a septic system and back up system
– unless connected to a municipal system.
4. Private Well
Required space to accommodate a well – unless connected to a
municipal system; adequate sizing (requiring evidence of a DNR well
permit); type of water conservation techniques will be used in
business.
5. Access / Driveway Approval
Written approval from the respective town stating a driveway access
would be permitted to this site.
6. Floodplain
Rezone must conform to any state and federal floodplain standards.
7. Shoreland & Wetland
Rezone must conform to any state or local shoreland and wetland
standards.
8. Use Must Comply With District
The proposed uses comply with uses in requested or existing zoning
district; lot configuration, etc.
9. Compliance Town Criteria
The request must comply with the minimum number of town standards
required in the corresponding table below.
April 18, 2006
Page 225
Implementation
Green County
9.11 NON-RESIDENTIAL SITING CRITERIA
The criteria below in Table 9.2b must be met in order to comply with both the Green
County Comprehensive Plan and the participating jurisdiction’s Comprehensive Plans.
County criteria are standard throughout the County in all participating towns.
Table 9.2b Green County Non-Residential Siting Criteria
Complies
Does Not
Comply

Green County Criteria
1. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan
Development must be in accordance with Green County Goals &
Policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Compliance with County Ordinances
Development must be in accordance with Green County Ordinances.
3. Septic System Requirement
Required space to accommodate a septic system and back up system
– unless connected to a municipal system.
4. Private Well
Required space to accommodate a well – unless connected to a
municipal system; adequate sizing (requiring evidence of an
Environment Impact Study if necessary); type of water conservation
techniques will be used in business.
5. Access / Driveway Approval
Written approval by the highway authority and the respective town
stating a driveway access would be permitted to this site.
6. Floodplain
(Rezone must conform to any state and federal floodplain standards)
7. Shoreland & Wetland
(Rezone must conform to any state or local shoreland and wetland
standards)
8. Use Must Comply With District
(The proposed uses comply with uses in requested or existing zoning
district; lot configuration, etc)
9. Social impacts
(Traffic patterns; compatibility with surrounding land use; potential
ancillary development.)
10. Compliance Town Criteria
The request must comply with the minimum number of town standards
required in the corresponding table below.
9.12 IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
When a development proposal comes forward, the Comprehensive Plan must be reviewed
first to find out if the development meets the jurisdiction’s specific Plan criteria, goals,
and polices (as identified in the County Comprehensive Plan). If the proposal complies
with the Town Plan’s criteria, the Green County Zoning Ordinance should then be
consulted in conjunction with individual Town Ordinances, to determine the specific
requirements and standards for development.
Below is a reference to the location of the policies in the comprehensive plans for each
participating jurisdiction. In addition, Chapter 9.12 of each community’s comprehensive
plan has a summary of the all the policies of their comprehensive plan, as well as
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 226
Implementation
Green County
information regarding implementation actions, key groups of implementation, and the
timeframe for implementation.
Refer to Chapter1, Section 1.3, for Green County’s participating jurisdiction Issues and
Opportunities Element policies. All participating jurisdictions in the Green County
Comprehensive Planning process have the same three policies. For Vision Statements of
participating jurisdictions, refer to Chapter 1, Section 1.8 of each plan.
Refer to Chapter2, Section 2.3 for Green County’s participating jurisdictions Utilities
and Community Facilities Element policies.
Refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.1.3 for Green County’s participating jurisdictions
Agricultural Resources Element policies.
Refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.2.3 for Green County’s participating jurisdictions Natural
Resource Element policies.
Refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.3.3 for Green County’s participating jurisdictions Cultural
Resource Element policies.
Refer to Chapter 4, Section 4.3 for Green County’s participating jurisdictions Housing
Element policies.
Refer to Chapter 5, Section 5.3 for Green County’s participating jurisdictions
Transportation Element policies.
Refer to Chapter 6, Section 6.3 for Green County’s participating jurisdictions Economic
Development Element policies.
Intergovernmental Cooperation Element policies.
Refer to Chapter 8, Section 8.3 for Green County’s participating jurisdictions Land Use
Element policies.
Implementation Element policies. All participating jurisdictions in the Green County
Comprehensive Planning process have the same five policies.
Adopted Plan
April 18, 2006
Page 227
SPECIES and/or
NATURAL COMMUNITY
T1N
T2N
T3N
T4N
R6E
Aquatic
Terrestrial
R7E
Both
R8E
Township
Occurrences
Water
Management
Units
R9E
State
Natural Area
Animal
Dry Cliff Dry cliff 1976
Cedar Glade Cedar glade 1977
Dry Prairie Dry prairie 1987
Moist Cliff Moist cliff 1976
Mesic Prairie Mesic prairie 1976
Dry-mesic Prairie Dry-mesic prairie 1985
Southern Dry Forest Southern dry forest 1976
Southern Mesic Forest Southern mesic forest 1984
Southern Dry-mesic Forest Southern dry-mesic forest 1985
Natural Communities
Map generated using NHI data from: 06/14/2004
Copyright 2003, WDNR-Bureau of Endangered Resources
This map may not be reproduced without prior written permission.
This map represents the known occurrences of rare species and natural communities that have
been recorded in the Wisconsin Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI). Colored sections indicate the
presence of one or more occurrences within that section. Hatched townships indicate one or
more occurrences reported only at the township level. The date following the names above
notes the most recent year the occurrence was recorded in the county.
Wet Prairie Wet prairie 1976
Floodplain Forest Floodplain forest 1976
Southern Sedge Meadow Southern sedge meadow 1976
Natural Communities
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 1976
Vasey Rush Juncus vaseyi 1956
Glade Mallow Napaea dioica 1994
Whip Nutrush Scleria triglomerata 1950
Pink Milkwort Polygala incarnata 1992
Spreading Chervil Chaerophyllum procumbens 1993
Roundfruit St. John's-wort Hypericum sphaerocarpum 1972
Small White Lady's-slipper Cypripedium candidum 1930
Northern Yellow Lady's-slipper Cypripedium parviflorum var. makasin 1930
Plants
Wafer-ash Ptelea trifoliata 1972
Glade Fern Diplazium pycnocarpon 1932
Marbleseed Onosmodium molle 1996
Kitten Tails Besseya bullii 1992
Slender Sedge Carex gracilescens 1861
Snowy Campion Silene nivea 1958
Wild Hyacinth Camassia scilloides 1951
Hill's Thistle Cirsium hillii 2001
Prairie Turnip Pediomelum esculentum 2001
Yellow Gentian Gentiana alba 2001
Flodman Thistle Cirsium flodmanii 1947
Nodding Pogonia Triphora trianthophora 1996
Prairie Parsley Polytaenia nuttallii 1987
Broad Beech Fern Phegopteris hexagonoptera 1961
Prairie Milkweed Asclepias sullivantii 1958
Richardson Sedge Carex richardsonii 1995
American Gromwell Lithospermum latifolium 1972
Reflexed Trillium Trillium recurvatum 1993
American Fever-few Parthenium integrifolium 2001
Roundstem Foxglove Agalinis gattingeri 1973
Short's Rock-cress Arabis shortii 1973
Wilcox Panic Grass Panicum wilcoxianum 1968
Clustered Broomrape Orobanche fasciculata 1938
Prairie Bush-clover Lespedeza leptostachya 2002
Yellow Giant Hyssop Agastache nepetoides 1991
Purple Meadow-parsnip Thaspium trifoliatum var. flavum 1986
Large Roundleaf Orchid Platanthera orbiculata 1972
One-flowered Broomrape Orobanche uniflora 1970
Pale-purple Coneflower Echinacea pallida 1996
Rough Rattlesnake-root Prenanthes aspera 1997
Prairie False-dandelion Nothocalais cuspidata 1933
Prairie Indian Plantain Cacalia tuberosa 1998
Nodding Rattlesnake-root Prenanthes crepidinea 1956
Sweet-scented Indian-plantain Cacalia suaveolens 1995
Plants
Barn Owl Tyto alba 1982
Bird Rookery Bird rookery 2001
Prairie Vole Microtus ochrogaster 1998
Ottoe Skipper Hesperia ottoe 1996
Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea 1996
Newman's Brocade Meropleon ambifuscum 1995
Regal Fritillary Speyeria idalia 2000
Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda 1998
Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus 1982
Ornate Box Turtle Terrapene ornata 1988
Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum 1986
Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens 1997
Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis 1998
Leonard's Pawnee Skipper Hesperia leonardus pawnee 1978
Short-winged Grasshopper Dichromorpha viridis 1999
Whitney's Underwing Moth Catocala whitneyi 1994
Abbreviated Underwing Moth Catocala abbreviatella 1994
TERRESTRIAL OCCURRENCES
Animal
Buckhorn Tritogonia verrucosa 1993
Gravel Chub Erimystax x-punctatus 1987
Silver Chub Macrhybopsis storeriana 1974
American Eel Anguilla rostrata 1974
Least Darter Etheostoma microperca 1974
Ozark Minnow Notropis nubilus 1976
Redside Dace Clinostomus elongatus 2002
Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 1976
Pallid Shiner Notropis amnis
Redfin Shiner Lythrurus umbratilis 1974
River Redhorse Moxostoma carinatum 1974
Slender Madtom Noturus exilis 1976
Plains Clubtail Gomphurus externus 1989
Elusive Clubtail Stylurus notatus 1992
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias 2001
Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 1997
Blanding's Turtle Emydoidea blandingii 2001
Starhead Topminnow Fundulus dispar 1983
Silphium Borer Moth Papaipema silphii 1996
A Brush-legged Mayfly Homoeoneuria ammophila 1992
Russet-tipped Clubtail Stylurus plagiatus 1992
A Common Burrower Mayfly Pentagenia vittigera 1991
Blanchard's Cricket Frog Acris crepitans blanchardi 1988
Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake Sistrurus catenatus catenatus 1982
AQUATIC OCCURRENCES
Green County
prohibited, is the sole responsibility of the user. WisDOT expressly disclaims all liability regarding fitness of use of the information for other than official WisDOT business.
The information contained in this data set and information produced from this dataset were created for the official use of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). Any other use while not
MAP 5.2: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC - Green County
MAP 5.3 ACCESS CONTROL - District 1
Map 5.4: Bicycling Conditions Assessment with
Planned State Highway Priority Corridors and Key Linkages
Green County
2
RD.
BENSON
RD.
SMITH
RD.
KRAUSE
RD.
CONDON RD.
Norweg
ia
RACE RD
PRAIRIE RD.
GOLF COURSERD.
PRAIRIE RD.
RD.
TENEYCK
RD.
RD.
RD.
G
GIESE
RD.
RD.
RD.
Cr.
PRESTON
TOWN
Oakley
K
GERBER RD.
CENTER
RD.
PEDEE RD.
ROCK HILL RD.
RD.
MOHNS- CLARK
RD.
LINE
Tyrone
RD.
G
HARTMAN
MILL
HOOSIER RD.
S
OAKLEY
STATE
MT.
RD.
SHANGHI
UNION
S
RD.
RD.
N MILL
SPRING CRK. RD.
RD.
RD
RD.
RD.
RD.
T
g
rin
Sp
HOPE
RD.
T
11
BRODHEAD
AIRPORT RD.
RD.
DECATUR-SYLVESTER
PARK
CRAZY
HORSE
LA
RD.
SPOERRY
BAGLEY
EP
RD OR
T
.
MCDERMONT
NT
ENGLISH
PEEBLES RD.
TIN
EM
E
SE
TT
L
EDMUNDS RD.
FIELDER RD.
RD.
CAN RD.
RD.
RD
PFEUTI
KESSLER LA
RD.
GROVE
3 Kilometers
RD
RD.
HAFEN RD
5 Miles
ST JOHN
81
K
BRUNKOW
CORNER
FIVE
FR
E
1
4
104
Brodhead
HAUSER RD.
JORDAN RD
RD.
E
RD.
KADERLY
THEILER
RD.
GG
PRESTON RD.
JORDAN
TWIN
HUMMER RD.
FAIRFIELD RD
3
WICT
TENEYCK
RD.
Scale
2
CONSERVATION
TRUMPY
a
Jud
NORTON
North
1
F
Juda
CENTER
Br.
BORCHARDT
ST
GIESE
Twin
Grove
P
Urban Escape Routes
RD.
IDIG
FRE
Cr.
RD.
KELLY
RD.
RD.
SILVER
SCHNEEBERGER
RECHSTEINER
RD.
OK
.
S
TOWN
K
Grove
BAUMAN
RD.
TROW
RD.
SILVER
RD.
RD.
BALLS MILLS
MILLS RD.
BALLS
MOHNS RD.
H
SC IGH
HO
OL MI
LL
SAMSON RD
RD.
RD.
Cr.
n
DECATUR
Br.
ERB
RAHBERGER
RD.
d
n
hla
RD
.
Cr.
RD.
.
Cr
Tw
in
GLENWAY RD
RD.
FREI RD
LEGLER
RD.
HOOK
SANDY
BOUL RD.
SILVER
SPEICH RD.
LADWIG
PRIEN RD.
RD.
SHORT LA
HILTBRAND
LA
SS
Decatur
L.
F
PINNOW
RD.
Bicycle Touring Trails
0
S
KS
RD.
Bicyclists Prohibited or Not Recommended
Potential Local Bicycle Route Connections
Cr.
s
earle
S
High Volume; Undesirable Conditions
Planned State Highway Bikeways Priorities
and Linkages
RD.
RD
Highways with Wider Paved Shoulders
with Higher Volumes
0
RIEMER
RUFI LA
Moderate Conditions for Bicycling
Major Urban Streets
HEIN RD.
FF
SS
Best Conditions for Bicycling
4 Lane
Cr
.
Story
RD.
SCHILT
WIC
T
RIVER RD.
RD.
STATZ RD
RD
S DUTCH
HOLLOW
MEYERS RD.
MON - SYL TOWN RD
HADDINGER
JEFFREY
SCHINDLER
RD.
RD.
RD.
DE BRUIN
LA
TN LINE RD
F
OK
WOELFLE
RD.
i ttle
S
Town Roads
2 Lane
HUGHES RD.
CHRISTEN
TUNNEL RD
RD.
FELDT
RD.
DUTCH HOLLOW
FELDT RD
RICHLAND RD
AS
M
RD.
CLARNO
WICT
N.
RD.
CARTER RD.
c
Ri
L
RD.
S.
WOETRICH
TOWNS RD.
TRAIL RD
E MIDDLE JUDA RD
BLUMER RD.
RD.
CLARNO
Clarno
RD.
CENTER
TOWN
BETHEL
P
BLUFF RD.
MARSHALL
CEMETERY RD
RD.
GUTZMER
WICT
US
RD
BLOOM LA
RD.
BETHEL
RD.
Richland
RD.
Cr
.
RD.
RD.
RD.
Cr.
ARGUE
Ward
N
RD.
WETTACH
RD.
COLD SPRINGS RD
ABELS
RD
RD.
AEBLY
YOUTH CABIN
RD.
RD.
RUFFNACHT
RD
RD.
STEINER
HONEY CREEK
DEPPELER
.
RD
VALLEY VIEW RD.
RD.
HAMMERLY
PIERCE
WASHINGTON
CENTER
RD
.
RD.
RD.
RD.
B
69
WOODMAN
ULLOM
RD.
RD.
ALLEN
RD.
HK
MELVIN
RD.
RD.
ATKINSON
RD.
DECATURALBANY
OLIVER RD.
GREENBUSH
81
TSCHUDT
RD.
RD.
RD.
RD.
.
Cr
RD.
WILLIAMS
MINGS
ADVANCE
RD.
W. RIVER
RD.
RD.
Spri
ng
P
E.
KUNDERT
ey
RD.
MONTGOMERY
GER
DIN
HAD
CLARK
Cr.
MIDDLE JUDA
E
59
TOWNS
11
RD.
BUMP
Sylvester
STAUFFACHER
RD
RADIO LA
K
LE
YVIL
BABLER RD
Ho
RD.
FIGI RD.
n
RD.
Martintown
RD.
HK
RD.
W
B
SHU
R.
HALE RD.
ELT
RT
BA D.
R
WOLFE
RD.
HUDSON
M
ALLEN
RD.
SCHLAPPI RD.
WEST
BIDLINGMALER
ULLOM RD.
RD.
RD.
LAWVER
STUBBE
RD.
RD.
RD.
MELLENBERGER
MILLER RD
RD.
GREEN VALLEY
RD
W.
INDIES
RD.
RD.
KREBS
NURSERY
HONEY CREEK
RD.
DILL
RD.
MELVIN
B
ZIMMERMAN
COPLIEN RD
Albany
F
RD.
LINCICUM
GREENBUSH
KK
FRANKLIN
59
59
RD.
SYLVESTER RD
SCHUTT LA
Albany
L.
RD.
RD.
RD.
Cr.
DUNPHY RD
MT. HOPE
B
DOLAN LA
N HIAWATHA
ULLOM RD
STEINER
Jordan
PINE TREE
RD.
CADIZ
Skin SPRINGS
ner RD.
VALLEY RD.
SMOCK
S HIAWATHA
JO
R
LOOP RD.
DUNCAN
S JORDAN WIOTA RD
RD.
.
tonica
W.
PLACE RD
BENKERT
N. KLONDIKE RD.
NC
CDr.A
RD.
RIDGE
D
DAVIS
RD.
Peca
CENTER
CH
UR
CH
RUFER RD
D
.
R
EN
T
ER
TROTTER RD
N JORDAN WIOTA RD
HILL
R
PILZ RD.
BUTTS
RD.
HANEY
WEISS LA
11
Monroe
FF
E
R.
RD.
EVERSON RD
104
PECKHAM
RD.
RD.
STATE
ZURFLUH
n
Alle
R.
.
Zander L.
N
KELLER
RD.
AREA
M
DR
S
SHALLER RD
AIL
TR
VALLEY RD.
POND VIEW
RD
PATTERSON RD
SPRINGS REC.
Browntown
FOX
VALLEY
K
BROWNTOWNCADIZ
MM
11
OC
WALD RD.
ugar
RD.
RK
PA
E RD
M
SM
RD.
X
E
Sugar
RIDG
RN
HO
CK
BU
Smock
.
Cr
DUTCH
HOLLOW
RD
BURKHALTER
N
Cr.
RD.
GROVE RD.
69
RD.
ILIFF
RD.
ER
VALLEY
LI
NO
RW
EG
IAN
RD
.
EE
PURITON
WITT
T
FER
GOEP
RD.
SMOCK
EG
Y
LOOP
RD.
VO
A
RD.
81
FALK RD.
RD.
COON CRK.
D
ROUND
H
AT
AW
HI
.
RD
DOG
HOLLOW
.
RD.
D
GILBERTSON
SULZER
RD
ALLISON
RD.
CENTER RD.
IN
DE
LARG
AN
TOWNLINE RD
ER
HARPER
RD.
N
R
C
C
RIV
F
Cr.
Y RD.
HOLLOWA
BUEHLER
ROTHENBUEHLER
RD.
RD
RD.
RD.
VOGEL
S. KLONDIKE
M
Y
RD.
RD.
HORAN
C
EE
KRU
EGE
RD.
ELMER
Attica
IV
OL
RD.
Jordan
Center
Monticello
WYTENWYLER
ROBY RD.
RD.
RD.
C
E
RD.
ZWEIFEL
RD.
RD.
RD.
KEEGAN
LEW
IS
RD.
DOYLE
NYE
GUTZMER
RD.
TUCKER
J
W
LLO
HO
MCGRATH
LN
CC
D
AN
GH
.
RD
EN O
TE RD
R AN
RD
X
D
RIN
BrC .N J
M
IN
KSK
Braezels
RD.
rgy
Bu
LA
YAUN LA
KEMPEER LA
LN.
LITTLE
SUGAR
RD.
RD.
LA
WALNUT RD.
EY
ISL
FAIR
VIE
RD W
.
LOVELAND
RD
RD.
RD.
RD.
RD.
YARWOOD
FREIDIG RD.
BURR OAK LA
BUC
81
SUNSET
SKINNER
HOLLOW
RAT
RD.
STUDER
RD.
UFKEN LA
CHURCH
RD.
LOCUST
Bk
.
C
RD
GROSSEN
RD.
CROSSING
TH
WIR
.
LN
RD.
RD
.
A&W
DALY LA
RD.
OLD MA
DISON
RD.
VA
RD LLE
Y
.
HU
ST
AD
POPU
LA
GROV R
E RD.
RD.
POS
TVIL
LE
Cr
.
PO
ST
V
R ILL
D E
.
CR
K.
HER
TY
DOU
G
Cr.
.
RD
HEFTY RD.
H
AY
HANSON
LN.
RD.
LOYALTY
RD.
TYVAND
.
HOLLOW
TRUPKE LA
MES
LN.
HER
RD
ILL
GO
UL
BIGGS
RD.
EXETER
RD.
39
N
RD.
IN
E
RD.
KE
104
RD.
KING
RD.
G
KIN
l
Gil
RD.
E
IF
DL
IL D .
R
OC
K
ie
EXETER CROSSING
C
HIGH POINT
YL
92
AMIDON
ATTICA
C
EDELWEISS
RD.
N
BEH
RD.
Sugar
VIEW RD.
Sugar
SK
RD
PINE
VALLEY RD.
Little
fty
AIRPORT
PERNOT LA
BUOL
EL
RD.
92
RD.
NN
TU
69
He
Br.
Dayton
A
SR.D
SL
MAN
Cr.
D
W
SUGAR
W
S.
ED
Prair
RD
IFE
DL D.
WIL R
E.
PU
DD
L
Cr.
RD.
THO
N
CH
DIS
RIDGE
RD
.
PRAIRIE
TUTTLE
LA
ARGUE RD.
RD.
ALPINE
MORTENSEN
CC
Exeter
NN
HEFTY
IE
AIR
N.
Dougherty
TAG
RD.
OW .
AD RD
ME LEY
L
VA
N
LN.
Cr.
DIVIDING
RIDGE RD.
J
W.
PUDDLEDOCK
RD.
HILT
ON
fty
DIVIDING
W. POINT
RD.
PR
ITE
OAK
RD.
LN.
IN
TE
RD
WH
He
RD.
H
Hefty
FREI
W
QUARRY
LS
HO
V&
ER
BR MEA
OO DO
KR W
D.
Br.
New
Glarus
RD.
LA
W
KUBLY RD.
LE
Y
92
RD.
FAHEY
TOLLEFSON
RD.
NEW GLARUS WOODS
N.
GR
OV
E
J
A
GR PPL
E
RDOVE
.
BIG
GS
RD .
A
H
ERS
FARM
A
RD.
G
VIN
RD
D&H RD
MA
RT
Y
RD
.
DEAN LA
STREIFF
LA
TY LA
MAR
Postville
N
DUR
ST
RV
AL
RD.
DH
O
LE
GL
E
J
LE
TVIL
POS RD.
SO
IA
M LA
R
JE
C
LN.
39
H
RD.
OW
A
NER
ZENT
N
SO
GE A
L
YANKEE
SY
KLAS
TER
LA
SAW
MILL
ON
HOLL
Erickson
RD.
PIONEER
Belleville
R
KE
VIC
.
RD
.
Cr
S
ER
EM D .
R
ER
PRIMROSE
CENTER RD
LA
tle
Lit
RK
YO
SYSE LA
ill
YORK LA
UR
MA
TITUS LN
.
69
U
O
MINERT LA
H
m
Saw
HUSTAD LA
J
ER
DG .
BA RD
SID
E
LA
NY
SY LA
H KLAS
CEN
T
YE
KE
C
BU
SU
N
KU
EN
RD ZI
.
RD
PRUDEN
LA
RD.
RD
.
RD
US
PA
DRAMMEN VALLEY
39
78
LEE
VALLEY
RD
YOR
K VA
LL
RD . E Y
Brooklyn
78
RD.
T
Map 5.5: Bicycling Conditions
Green County
prohibited, is the sole responsibility of the user. WisDOT expressly disclaims all liability regarding fitness of use of the information for other than official WisDOT business.
The information contained in this data set and information produced from this dataset were created for the official use of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). Any other use while not
MAP 5.6: PAVEMENT RATING - Green County

GREEN COUNTY

Transcription

Similar documents

Postcard - Where Entrepreneurship and Business Opportunties

17th CAPE TOWN Jazz-fest-2016-JHB

The W o rld`s Largest Fo od Fig ht

Plus | Brooklyn Balı Amsterdam hina Whistler Australia

Reston Town Center Milestones of the Development

KIDZTOWN NEWS_AUGUST 14th

Density Syndicate Cape Town, South Africa

Fanano - The City of Stone Sculpture

Cedar Park_Press release 05_14

Town Center at Sterling