The City of Kenosha Public Works Committee voted on April 28, 2025, to defer action for three months on two separate appeals from neighboring homeowners ordered to redirect sump-pump discharge, allowing the homeowners time to obtain cost estimates and explore connection options.

The appeals were filed by Mary Peterson and by Sharon Martinez. Mary Peterson, who introduced herself at the meeting as a long-time homeowner, told the committee she has lived in her house for decades and “I have lived in my home for 59 years, and I've never had an issue with my sump pump.” Neighbor Joe Kaiser, speaking for Martinez as well, described repeated, large volumes of groundwater near the properties and said, “There's a lot of water going down the street, and it tends to cross off of the sidewalk area.”

Public works staff told the committee the city has treated recurring icing caused by basement-pump discharge as a public nuisance under a city ordinance and described options for compliance. The staff member said the ordinance offers several remedies, including redirecting discharge to the side or backyard, connecting to an existing storm inlet where feasible, or obtaining permits for a direct connection into the storm system. The staff member also said seasonal accommodations — allowing front-curb discharge in summer and requiring redirect in winter — have been used previously as amendments to orders.

Why it matters: Committee members said the two appeals raise competing concerns about public safety, property impacts and the cost and feasibility of longer-term infrastructure fixes. Staff said some properties can tie into nearby inlet structures, while others lack a conveniently located structure and would require more costly underground work. Committee members pressed for more information about the uphill drainage that contributes to volume at the two properties and about potential costs to homeowners and the city.

Discussion and actions: For the appeal filed by Mary Peterson (item 1 on the agenda), a committee member moved to defer consideration until July 2027; that motion failed after members voted against the two-year deferral. Alderman Penny Keeling then moved — and the committee seconded — to defer petition 1 for three months to allow the homeowners time to obtain cost estimates for a direct connection to the storm sewer at their own expense; that three-month deferral passed. The record does not show a roll-call tally for those voice votes.

For the Martinez appeal (item 2), staff and neighbors described greater volumes of groundwater and noted street damage extending up to about 10 feet into the roadway. Staff said that, unlike the Peterson property, the Martinez property does not have a storm structure at the property edge to make a simple connection; that increases the likely cost of a direct connection. The committee voted to defer Martinez's appeal for three months so staff and the property owner could provide more detailed information about site conditions, infrastructure impacts and cost estimates for potential remedies; the motion to defer passed on a voice vote. The transcript does not record individual yes/no tallies for that vote.

Staff guidance and homeowner options: Staff reiterated options discussed at the meeting: (1) redirect sump discharge to a rear or side yard (often the simplest solution); (2) install an on-property stormwater management feature such as a rain garden or infiltration structure (may require design work and cost); or (3) run a pipe to a nearby storm inlet and obtain the proper permits to connect directly to the storm system (potentially costly). Staff said the outlets are typically buried through the curb head and that contractors will need permits for any connection work. Staff did not provide a standard cost estimate and said actual costs would depend on site conditions.

What the record shows and what’s next: The committee explicitly separated discussion from formal action: both appeals were deferred — each for three months — for further information, with staff directed to return with site-specific details and estimated costs. Committee members asked staff to evaluate the local topography and city infrastructure impact, especially where repeated discharge appears to be undermining sidewalk and roadway surfaces. The decisions are procedural deferrals; no change to the underlying orders was recorded at this meeting.

Speakers and roles (as recorded in the meeting): Mary Peterson, homeowner/appellant; Joe Kaiser, neighbor; Sharon Martinez, homeowner/appellant; Public works staff member (identified in the transcript as “Mister Kater”); Chairperson Jack Rose, Public Works Committee (City of Kenosha); Vice Chair Dominic Ruffalo; Alderman Penny Keeling; Alderman Bill Seal; Alderman Brandy Furry; Alderman Anthony Kennedy.

Clarifying details extracted from the meeting: • City treatment of issue: staff called recurring sidewalk/roadway icing from sump discharge a public nuisance under a city ordinance. • Possible remedies: redirect to side/backyard; connect to existing storm inlet; install on-site storm features (e.g., rain garden); seasonal redirect amendments (winter vs. summer). • Permitting: contractor-permit requirement to connect to storm system. • Site distinctions: Peterson’s discharge described as intermittent spurts that reach only the near gutter; Martinez’s discharge described as continuous and heavier, reportedly causing pavement deterioration as far as 10 feet into the roadway. • Costs: no city-provided cost estimates; homeowners were asked to obtain estimates (Peterson’s deferral specifically to allow homeowners to investigate costs “at your expense” for a storm-sewer connection). • Timing: committee deferred both items for three months to return with more information.

Community relevance: The two properties are on neighboring streets in a residential neighborhood; staff said the cumulative effect of multiple sump pumps contributes to winter icing and potential damage to city sidewalks and pavement. The committee asked staff to examine both property-level solutions and potential coordinated responses to limit damage to city infrastructure.

Next steps: Public works staff will return to the committee after three months with site-specific information, cost estimates, and recommended options; no formal change to the city order was made at this meeting.