Draft report on lake district public hearing answers some questions
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
By LeAnn R. Ralph
MENOMONIE — A draft report on the public hearing for the proposed Tainter Lake Rehabilitation District presented to the Dunn County Planning, Resources and Development Committee answers some of the questions posed at the public hearing.
The PR&D committee held a public hearing on the proposed lake district August 9, and a draft of the report was included in the packet for a meeting held August 23.
The draft report is included on the agenda for the PR&D committee’s September 13 meeting as well, and the committee is expected to present the final report to the Dunn County Board at the county board’s October 19 meeting.
According to state law, the PR&D committee has three months from the time of the public hearing to submit the final report to the county board, and the county board must make a decision on whether to form the lake district within six months of the public hearing.
To stay within the deadline, the county board is expected to make a decision on the lake district at the county board’s January 18, 2023, meeting.
Any aggrieved person can petition for a judicial review of the county board’s decision to form a lake district or to deny forming a lake district.
The petition for judicial review must be submitted no more than 30 days after the county board issues the order to approve or deny.
Next steps
In addition to the timeline for submitting the report and the Dunn County Board making a decision on whether to form a lake district, the draft report states that according to Chapter 33 of Wisconsin state statutes, the county board must determine that four criteria have been met in order to form a lake district.
The criteria include whether the petition to form a lake district has been signed by the required number of property owners in the proposed lake district; whether the proposed district is necessary; whether public health, comfort, convenience, necessity or public welfare will be promoted by establishing a lake district; and whether the property to be included in the district will benefit from establishing a lake district.
If the Dunn County Board finds that the conditions have not been met, then the county board must declare the board’s findings by order and must deny the petition.
If the Dunn County Board finds the conditions have been met, the county board, by order, must declare the district organized, give it a corporate name and establish the boundaries, the draft report states.
The county board must also appoint four of the initial five lake district board commissioners.
The initial board of commissioners must consist of three owners of land within the lake district appointed by the county board, and one of the property owners must be a resident of the district; one person appointed by the county board must be a member of the Dunn County Land Conservation Committee; one member must be appointed by the governing body of the township having the largest assessed value of property in the district.
The Town of Tainter would be the township with the most assessed property value in the proposed lake district.
The town board must appoint the commissioner from the township within 30 days of the Dunn County Board’s order.
According to state law, except for the commissioner from the land conservation committee and the commissioner from the township, the terms of the initial board of commissioners expire at the first annual meeting of the lake district, according to the draft report.
Absentee voting
One question posed at the public hearing was whether residents in the lake district had to be physically present to vote at the annual meeting or whether there was some provision for absentee voting.
The concern was that many people living in the lake district might be gone at certain times of the year, either to spend the winter in a warmer climate, gone on vacation or gone for purposes of employment.
According to the draft report, state law does not have a provision for absentee voting.
Wisconsin Statute Chapter 33.30(2)(b) states, “No absentee ballots or proxies are permitted at the annual meeting.”
The prohibition for absentee ballots at the annual meeting applies for special meetings as well under Wisconsin Statute 33.305(4), the draft report notes.
Quorum
Another question at the public hearing was whether a quorum of property owners was necessary for a lake district to levy property taxes.
The draft report states that nothing has been found in state law suggesting a minimum number of eligible voters must be present for the lake district to approve an annual budget or a property tax levy to support the annual budget.
State law under Chapter 33.28(3) does, however, require three board commissioners as a quorum to transact business.
Spending
One question at the public hearing pertained to whether there is a way for Dunn County to limit lake district spending, especially for administrative costs.
The draft report states nothing has been found in state law suggesting the county has the authority to limit the spending of a lake district.
Wisconsin State Statute 33.26 says, “the district shall be a body corporate with the powers of a municipal corporation for the purposes of carrying out this chapter.”
Special assessments
Another question focused on whether a lake district can levy a special assessment on property in the district in addition to the general property tax levy.
The draft report says that Wisconsin state statute 33.32 allows special assessments as an exercise of the police powers that lake districts possess, and Chapter 33.32(1) outlines the manner in which the authority can be exercised.
According to state statute, after a plan for work is approved at either an annual meeting or a special meeting of the residents in the lake district, “the commissioners shall then apportion the special assessment within the district, other than state or federal lands, on a reasonable basis. In apportioning the special assessment the commissioners shall examine each parcel and determine the benefits to each parcel from the project, considering such factors as size, proximity to the lake and present and potential use of the parcel, including applicable zoning regulations. After benefits to each parcel are determined, assessment shall be made in an aggregate amount equal to the cost to the district of the project. Such assessments shall be made in accordance with s. 66.0703, so far as it is applicable and not in conflict with this subchapter.”
Valuation and tax levy
Another question focused on the current average valuation of property within the lake district, the current average tax levy and the maximum increase to the average property in the lake district.
The draft report states that $2.50 per $1,000 of valuation is the maximum mill rate that can be charged in a lake district.
The draft report goes on to say there does not appear to be a cap in state statutes on special assessments.
Wisconsin Statute Chapter 33.31(3) also requires the lake district to levy a property tax “without limitation as to the rate or amount on all taxable property within the district,” if the district finances as outlined in Chapter 33.31, according to the draft report.
Using the 2022 tax assessments, the average property in the proposed lake district is valued at $209,485 and the median property value is $195,600. The values include property currently assessed at zero dollars, which includes property owned by governmental bodies, along with properties recently split that have not yet been assessed, according to the draft report.
The state of Wisconsin, Dunn County and three of the townships in the proposed lake district own property.
According to the draft report, 753 parcels are in private ownership; Dunn County owns 14 parcels; the Town of Tainter owns four parcels; the Town of Menomonie owns one parcel; and the Town of Sherman owns one parcel.
Without the properties that are assessed at zero, the average property value in the proposed lake district is valued at $219,717 and the median value is $204,400, the draft report states.
The maximum tax increase allowed each year by state law would range from $489 to $549, based on the maximum mill rate of $2.50 per $1,000 of property value.
The maximum mill rate can be exceeded if the lake district incurs debt through the powers to finance included in Wisconsin state statute 33.31, and it also does not appear that the special assessments allowed under state statute have any cap beyond the cost of the work to create the special assessment as outlined in state statutes under Chapter 66.0703, the draft report states.
Ordinances
Another question was whether lake districts can approve ordinances or other laws.
According to the draft report, under Chapter 33 of state statutes, the power to create ordinances or other rules and laws does not appear to be part of state law.
In subchapters of Chapter 33, language is included that allows the board of commissioners to establish rules and to propose regulations to the county board, but the subchapters pertain specifically to the Dane County Lakes and Watershed Commission and the Southeastern Wisconsin Fox River Commission.
The draft report goes on to say that it is unlikely the powers to establish rules and to propose regulations to the county board would be granted to the proposed lake district for Tainter Lake.
If a lake district is formed, and the board of commissioners wants to attempt to create ordinances, the board of commissioners should consult with Dunn County Corporation Counsel, according to the draft report.
Collaboration
Members of the PR&D committee wanted to know what other lake districts in Wisconsin are doing.
As of August 16, 2022, five county land and water conservation departments have shared some insight with Dunn County Land and Water Conservation, according to the draft report.
The collaboration between the county departments and the lake districts is variable. Some lake districts are almost entirely self-sufficient with several having their own full-time staff. Others work closely with county land and water conservation on projects and advice for grant applications. Others fall in the middle and use their land and water conservation divisions as resources for information but conduct projects and do their own grant writing independently, according to the draft report.
The draft report notes that more information is still being gathered from other counties.
Funding
The five land and water conservation divisions that have responded to Dunn County so far have mill rates for property taxes in the lake districts ranging from 97 cents per $1,000 of property value to $1.30 per $1,000 of property value. The general fees range from $50 to $500, according to the draft report.
One county official who responded said that their lake district has a larger annual budget than the county’s land and water conservation division.
The work being done in the responses received by Dunn County is related to aquatic plant management and control of invasive species, along with some work to minimize shoreline erosion.
The lake districts tend to view success differently. For some, success is a lack of complaints from landowners and compliance with state law, according to the draft report.
Dunn County Land and Water Conservation is still in the process of gathering information from other counties and will include additional information in the next draft of the report, the draft report states.
