The Kenosha Public Works Committee on July 28 denied appeals from two homeowners ordered to redirect sump-pump discharge, upholding the city's compliance order and citing the municipal code that treats ongoing discharge to the public right-of-way as a potential public nuisance.

The committee upheld orders affecting Mary Peterson of 8633 Third Avenue and Sharon Martinez of 330980 Sixth Place, after hearing residents describe longstanding water flow patterns, neighborhood neighbors describe differing discharge volumes, and staff outline technical and budgetary options.

The committee's decision matters because it upholds enforcement authority under the city's code of ordinances and puts the onus on owners to make installations compliant or face the potential for city-initiated corrective work and cost recovery.

Mary Peterson told the committee she has lived at her home since 1966 and that for most of that period her sump pump’s discharge flowed to the street without incident. “I don't have a backyard. It sits in the middle,” Peterson said, describing how the yard’s pitch directs pump discharge toward the curb. Neighbors said Peterson’s pump runs rarely and typically produces a small trickle by the time it reaches the gutter, while Sharon Martinez and nearby residents described “a river constantly coming out” of Martinez's property that can freeze and create slippery conditions.

Public works staff told the committee they had examined several options to address the discharges. One concept — a small parkway collection system feeding an existing inlet at 30 Third Avenue — was estimated at about $25,000–$38,000 for both properties together. A direct connection from each property into the city's sewer main was estimated at roughly $15,000–$20,000 per property, staff said. The committee also discussed the city's ordinance (Code of Ordinances, section 5.115) that addresses nuisances and the process for determining lawful vs. unlawful sump-pump installations.

Committee members noted there are likely many similar situations across the city — staff estimated roughly 150 such installations — and emphasized limits on city resources. Several members said a practical approach is to coordinate fixes with larger street reconstruction projects, when a full roadway rebuild could include storm infrastructure and reduce individual owner costs.

Committee members and staff also pointed homeowners to an inspection grant program administered by the city's development office that may assist households meeting income thresholds. Staff described income limits roughly aligned to 80% of county median income — cited in the discussion as approximately $68,400 for a two-person household and $85,004.50 for a four-person household — and grant awards the committee said would range from a minimum of $5,000 to a maximum of $20,000.

After discussion, a motion to deny the appeals and uphold the orders was made and seconded; the committee voted in favor and the motion passed. The committee did not record a roll-call tally in the transcript beyond the chair indicating his aye vote.

The committee and staff agreed to continue looking at funding pathways and to prioritize situations where street reconstruction or larger projects can address problem discharges as part of broader work. Staff also reiterated the city's options under the ordinance: require property owners to make repairs within 30 days; perform the work and charge the owner; or incorporate correction into larger city projects and assess the owner a capped share under the city’s ordinance.