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