Loading...
BMLM19840829BIG MUSKEGO LAKE/BASS BAY PROTECTION & REHABILIATION DISTRICT MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL MEETING HELD AUGUST 29, 1984 The meeting was called to order at 8:10 P.M. by Chairman Wayne Salentine. Also present were Lake District Commissioners Ralph • Tomczyk, Frank DeAngelis, Daniel Hilt and Mitchel Penovich. Commissioners Ed Dumke, Richard Nilsson and Eugene Gaetzke were absent. Also present were Deputy Commissioners Brent Martins, Leslie Proeber, Frank Switala, Assemblyman Raymond Moyer, Senator Lynn Adelman and recording secretary Louise Oszaki(-,wski. Chairman Wayne Salentine informed the members of the Big Muskego Lake District that there was nothing new to report on the Scott Krause detachment, it was still in court waiting the Judge's decision. The Deputy Commissioners requested that the clerk contact Attorney O'Connor and ask for a written report on the matter. The 1983 Audit was then reviewed, Chairman Salentine explained the Audit and updated the Commissioners on the financial status of the Lake District. The 1984.assessments totaled $2,700 and to date we have collected approximately $1,700 of the assessments. Assemblyman Raymond Moyer made a personal appearance to explain the "Wisconsin Scenic Urban Waterways Program" telling the commissioners and Lake District members that there was a grant available to them to improve the enviromental quality and recreational quality and recreational potential of the Fox River Watershed and that since the Big Muskego Lake was part of the Fox River Watershed the Lake District was eligible to apply for the grant in the amount of $200,000. A letter received from the Department of Natural Resources July 20, 1984 was discussed. It advised the Lake District that there was still $13,000 available for the cost -share of the Big Muskego Lake Feasibility Study but that the funds were being withheld pending establishment of an adequate access on the lake. Chairman Salentine recommended that a committee of two Lake District Commissioners and two Deputy Commissioners be formed to meet with the DNR to discuss the matter. The committee would also try to obtain more information on obta.i.ning the Waterways Grant to help improve the Big Muskego Lake by repairing Caesar's Dam. The committee formed included Commissioners Ralph Tomczyk and Frank DeAngelis, Deputy Commissioners Leslie Proeber and Frank Switala. Commissioner Frank DeAngelis reported that the Sewer Projects and Plant abandonment were on schedule and that the City should be connected with the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewer District by December 31, 1984. Deputy Commissioner Frank Switala reported on the benefits which could be obtained with a lake drawdown. Benefits were: a) increasing the depth of the lake, b) cleaning the access channels after obtaining approval from the DNR and c) clearing out the drainage ditches entering bass Bay. lie further suggested either using the Weed Cutter or having chemical treatment done to try and eliminate the weed problem on Bass Bay. Discussion took place on repairing the Dam and what action had taken place to do this repair. Nothing has been done as of thi:.; date. Chairman Salentine recommended that the repair of Caesar's Dam be put on the Public Works agenda. Estel Ell.ery suggested that Senator Adelman and Assemblyman Raymond Moyer look into what action Madison has been doing on the Dam and DNR. Deputy Commissioner Frank check with their attorney could be charged property of property on Big Muskego Swi.tala suggested that the Lake District to find out if a different assessment owners on Bass Bay compared to owners Lake. Deputy Commissioner Frank Switala reported on the Summer Newsletter from W.A.L.D. Page 2 Annual Meeting - Big Muskego Lake/Bass Bay Protection & Rehabilitation District August 29, 1984 ELECTION OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS Frank Switala moved to nominate Leslie Proeber, seconded by Brent Martins. Leslie Proeber moved to nominate Frank Switala, seconded by Brent Martins. Leslie Proeber moved to moninate Larry Erickson, seconded by Estel Ellery. Frank Switala moved to nominate Tony Tobin, seconded by Estel Ellery. Leslie Proeber moved to nominate Brent Martins, seconded by Frank Switala. Frank Switala moved to close nominations. Seconded by Leslie Proeber. Motion carried. Leslie Proeber, Frank Switala, Larry Erickson, Tony Tobin and Brent Martins were unanimously elected Deputy Commissioners, The Commissioners discussed adoption of Detachment Procedures and Guidelines. Deputy Commissioner Switala felt that the Lake District should adopt the procedures if they could modify them at later date. Mr Harold DeBack was against the adoption. Commissioner DeAngelis felt the Lake District Commissioners should not use the procedures in detaermining the detachment of Robert Kurtze because the Lake District received his detachment request some time ago. Deputy Commissioner Brent Martins moved to adopt "Guidelines and Procedures for Detachment.' Seconded by Deputy Commissioner Leslie Proeber. Upon a vote of the members of the Lake District and were in favor and one opposed, Mr. Harold Deback. The Detachment Procedures and Guidelines were adopted. ROBERT KURTZE DETACHMENT REQUEST DATED JULY 28, 1984 Commissioner De Angelis felt Mr. Kurtze should have an access to the lake. If the commissioners would like him to be included in the District he should be granted an access. Deputy Commissioner Leslie Proeber said that there were accesses at Sobek's and various other establishments along the Lake and that even though there was a slight charge for launching a boat the DNR had reviewed . the charges and they were within reason. Commissioner DeAngelis moved to detach Robert Kurtze .from the Big Muskego Lake District for the following reasons: a) he has no public access around his property, b) he has no view of the lake but that he did live within the watershed of the lake. Seconded by Commissioner Penovich. Mr. Kurtze stated that he received no benefit from the lake because of no public access which he could use without paying a charge. Upon a vote Commissioners Tomczyk and Hilt voted no. Commissioners DeAngelis and Penovich voted yes for detachment. Since there was a tie vote Chairman Salenting voted no. Detachment was denied for the Robert Kurtze property. The commissioners did not adopt a 1985 Budget because it was felt the the $2,7 0 collected in 1984 was sufficient for 1985 expenses. 10 The minutes of the Annual Meeting held August 23, 1983 were read and approved. i Vouchers were presented in the amount of $385.71. Commissioner Tomczyk moved to pay vouchers. Seconded by Commissioner DeAngelis. Motion carried unanimously. Other matters which were discussed were that Deputy Commissioner Leslie Proeber suggested that he could obtain an auditor which would audit the 1984 books for no charge. Chairman Salentine said that when the Agreement came before the Commissioners for an Auditing Firm they would discuss the matter. Mr. Estel Ellery requested that the Lake District meet with Field 0 Officer Schumacher from the DNR about public accesses. Deputy Commissioner Frank Switala moved to adjourn the Annual Meeting Seconded by Deputy Commissioner Brent Martins. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted Charlotte L. Stewart, City Clerk s 0 At its Annual Meeting of August 29, 1984, the Board of Commissioners of the Big Muskego Lake/Bass Bay Protection and Rehabilitation District adopted the follwing Procedures and Guidelines for the consideration of detachment petitions: DETACHMENT PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES 1. PETITION. An owner seeking detachment from the District pursuant to Section 33.33(3), Wis. Stats. shall file with the Board a PETITION FOR DETACHMENT setting forth: a. The Legal description, tax parcel number and street address of the property sought to be detached; b. The name(s) and address(es) of the owner(s) of record; C. A clear and complete statement explaining why the property is not benefited by continued inclusion in the district. (See CRITERIA set out in Section 6 below) 2. NOTICE. Detachment petitions may be considered at any meeting of the Board of Commissioners so long as the petitioner has been given at least ten (10) days' notice that the petition will be considered at that time. 3. HEARING. Petitions shall be heard and considered by the Board in the following manner: a. The petitioner, or a representative designated in writing by the petitioner, may first present testimony and evidence that the subject property is not benefited by continued inclusion in the district. b. The Board may then question the petitioner or representative regarding any aspect of the petition, testimony and/or evidence and on any other point relevant to whether or not the property is benefited by continued inclusion in the district. c. Any interested person may then • provide additional testimony and evidence to the Board relevant to whether or not the property is benefited by continued inclusion in the District. The Board may question any such interested person and, upon leave of the Chair, the petitioner may respond to any testimony and evidence provided. d. The Board shall then, considering the testimony and evidence before it together with any other facts and information of which it may take appropriate notice, make a determination that the property will or will not be benefited by continued inclusion in the District. e. If the Board determines that the property is not benefited by continued inclusion in the District, it shall grant the petition for detachment. If the Board determines that the property is benefited by continued inclusion in the District, it shall deny the petition for detachment. 4. DECISION. The decision of the Board shall set forth a brief summary of the basis for the petition; the testimony and evidence received; the chief points of discussion; the findings of the Board regarding benefit (or lack thereof) of continued inclusion in the District; and, its decision granting or denying the petition. 5. RECORD. An electronic record shall be made of oral detachment proceedings. Access to such record shall be afforded to any interested person who may duplicate, transcribe or otherwise make reasonable use thereof. In no case, unless so ordered by a Court with proper jurisdiction, shall the Board be required to transcribe said record or provide a transcript of said record to any person. r ' 6. CRITERIA. In reaching its determination as to whether the subject property is benefited by • continued inclusion in the District, the Board shall consider: a. The physical characteristics of the property; b. Its use (residential, commercial, recreational, etc.); c. Its location relative to the lake; d. Its relationship to the lake in terms of whether: (1) It is riparian; (2) It has private access rights to the lake; (3) It is proximate to public access to the lake; (4) It is within view of the lake; and, (5) It is within the watershed of the lake. e. Whether the value of the property would 'be enhanced if the lake were to be in reasonably clean, attractive and usable condition. f. Whether the value of the property would be diminished if the lake were to be in a degraded condition. g. Any other factors relevant to whether the property is benefited by continued inclusion in the District. ADOPTED 29th DAY OF AUGUST, 1984. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Big Muskego Lake/Bass Bay Protection and Rehabilitation District