Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCounty Board of Supervisors - Minutes - 4/16/2013 363 Minutes of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors’ Meeting Of April 16, 2013 – 6:00 p.m. Bayfield County Board Room, Courthouse, Washburn, Wisconsin The monthly meeting of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors was called to order by Chairman Miller at 6:00 p.m. Roll call was taken by Bayfield County Clerk, Scott Fibert as follows: Pocernich-present; Schultz-present; Williams-present; Bichanich- present; Miller-present; Crandall-present; Rondeau-present; Meyers-present; Bussey- present; Jardine-present: Maki-preent; Kittleson-present; Bennett-present; Total 13: 13 present, 0 absent. A quorum was present to conduct business. The following were also present for the meeting: County Administrator, Mark Abeles-Allison; Deputy County Clerk, Dawn M. Bellile; Mary Motiff, Kay Cederberg, Clerk of Circuit Court; Paul Susienka, Bayfield County Sheriff; numerous Bayfield County Sheriff’s Department employees; Hope McLeod, Reporter for the Ashland Daily Press, and community residents. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all in attendance. 1. Motion Regarding Minutes of March 19, 2013 Bayfield County Board of Supervisors’ Meeting. A motion was made by Rondeau/Kittleson to adopt the Minutes of March 19, 2013 Bayfield County Board of Supervisors’ Meeting. Corrections were noted by Supervisor Schultz consisting of the following: On page 23, should read “tourism departments” not directors; and on the bottom of the page speaking of the 28 people who were at the stakeholders meeting, 60% of them were paid by a taxing entity. The motion carried. 2. Public Comment: Miller informed the audience that the Board will listen to public comment, and will the person speaking, please write down their name and address, and limit their comments to 3 minutes as per the usual. David Renz, Sr., - Employee of the Bayfield County Highway Department, stated that he is very dissatisfied with what’s going on in Bayfield County. A letter that had been written to the Board had only 1 response from the Board, and that letter contained detrimental name calling and what have you. He reminded the Board that in the Personnel Policy and Procedures Manual, specifically on Page 52, it states that harassment is unlawful…..and that Bayfield County will go after name callers. He feels it is a slap in the face from the Board itself to allow its own Board members to call names of its employees. He handed out the letter for the Board to see and it was placed on file. He asked the Board, “you wonder why morale is so low?” It is low, because your own committees are stacked. You have 3 Board members who specifically do not like Unions, so when votes take place, you will have 5 people, 3 of which will never be in favor of anything for the employees and our problems will never get to the full Board. They lose before they even get started. He spoke of the $250 clothing allowance, where the employees wanted enough money to buy new boots, which must be steel toed. They have been accused of wearing their work clothes at home. He showed a pair of boots from work – which were 364 worn. He then asked why when the employees were given their 2% increase in pay it only went to March 2nd. Why wasn’t it retroactive as in past years? You made the employees sign the Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual to be in place on January 1st, why not pay increases as well. What is fair is fair. He thanked the Board for their time. Ned Zuelsdorff, of the American Birkebeiner, gave a brief wrap-up of the 2013 Birkebeiner Ski Race. He stated that there were approximately 10,300 skiers this year, which is an all-time record. It was a difficult race as we received 8-10” of snow prior to the race. We had to have groomers literally plow snow off the trail because we had too much. He then reported that 2 weeks later, we did the Fat Bike Birkie which they hope to have again next year. This can be done if the snow is very hard otherwise this race does tear up the trails. This race also let us know that mountain bikes and trail bikes should not be allowed on the trails prior to the Birkie for this reason. We are hosting the annual meeting of this group at Lakewoods and are expecting about 50 delegates. The last time we hosted the group was in 1997 so this is very exciting. Sawyer County is kicking off an effort to discuss ways to use Birkie trails all year long. The goal of this group is to better market our area as being more of a destination. Ned also announced that I mid-May he will be retiring and becoming one of the trail crew. He looks forward continuing work with Bayfield County and Forest Administrator, Jason Bodine. Bill Kurtz, 19 year Bayfield County Sheriff’s Dept. Employee. Kurtz spoke on behalf of the jailers who are being excluded from WERC because they are not law enforcement, for the reason that they can’t be law enforcement because they don’t carry guns. He simply put it; you can’t carry guns in the jail. Kurtz pointed out that even if he has made an arrest, he has to put his gun away; he either leaves it in his squad or checks it in. The Sheriff, City Police, even the FBI, cannot carry gun in the jail. For this reason, the argument that jailers don’t qualify doesn’t hold water. The other fact stated was that 51% of duties do not include law enforcement. Kurtz stated that even in his line of work, there are times when he himself doesn’t make an arrest. Does that mean he isn’t law enforcement? He might be doing paperwork, then he doesn’t follow law enforcement either. The job is of jailers is not dangerous? If you were spit in the face, which this person was, we’re talking full blown… This is disgusting, it can go in the jailers’ eyes, nose, and mouth; not knowing what disease he might have, this is indeed dangerous. The jailer had every right to file charges but didn’t as he didn’t want the person staying longer due to this kind of conduct. Kurtz used a scenario of being a mechanic. They all work on cars, some specialize in transmission, brakes, carburetors, all mechanics. We, as part of the Sheriff’s Department, are all mechanics, we work in different parts of the department to work like a car. We need to give them what the jailers what they deserve, what they are owed. He believes they have the worst end of the job; he turns in the prisoner and can walk away – they are left to take care of them. Al Pitts, WPPA business agent. Co-mingled unit. He spoke that the jailers are under the same labor contract. He stated that in the past, we have been able to bargain many contracts with Bayfield County successfully. WPPA has not been an impediment rather we have been a partner in trying to help the employees and management. Recently, Act 10 passed. We, WPPA, have made many attempts to acquire a contract and have been 365 continually refused. Administration has taken the approach that law enforcement is not in protected services and should be excluded from the contract. We have just heard testimony on how one particular situation worked. They were and should be in protected placement. A claim has been filed with the WERC, however, he will withdraw if we can negotiate with corrections and deputies to keep them in the WPPA. Bayfield County has told WPPA it is illegal, this is untrue as there are a number of counties that have kept their jailers in the protected part of the WRS. WRS has a 40/65 clause, which he explained. We are asking for the right to bargain with the collective bargaining agreement that expired on Dec. 12, 2012. He would be happy to answer any questions. Steve Krewson, a Bayfield County Jailer, is representing himself. On April 29th, he asked everyone to take a special moment to remember dedicated employees. Krewson gave some incidences of fallen deputies and jailers and how they died, while on the job protecting those in our jails. One particular case was an inmate who beat a jailer to death with an iron bed post trying to escape. 20 years ago this fall, he stated he was asked why he wanted to become a jailer. He stated that his answer is the same now as it was 20 years ago: to serve my country and community, and to give back to them. He then quoted the law enforcement code of ethics and thanked the Board for listening to him. 3. Presentation of 2012 Clerk of Circuit Court Annual Report. Kay Cederberg, Clerk of Circuit Court, was present to distribute her report. Cederberg stated that as she had done last year, she would like to distribute her report a month early for the Board to review and to then come back next month to discuss together. She also stated that Judge Anderson could not be present this evening as he is still in Madison, but that he would also like to be present with the report is discussed. The Board was in consensus that this is a good idea since there is a lot of information to divulge. 4. Motion to Move into Closed Session. A motion was made by Rondeau/Kittleson to move into Closed Session pursuant to §19.85(1) (g) conferring with legal counsel for the governmental body who is rendering oral or written advice concerning strategy to be adopted by the body with respect to litigation in which it is or is likely to become involved. Supervisor Bussey opened discussion by stating that he didn’t see the need to move into closed session. The topic of discussion is concerning the jailers, WPPA, and WERC. Everyone here this evening knows what the subject is all about. Further discussion took place and Chairman . Chairman Miller disagreed with Supervisor Bussey. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Schultz-yes; Williams-yes; Bichanich-no; Miller-yes; Crandall-no; Rondeau- yes; Meyers-no; Bussey-no; Jardine-no; Maki-no; Kittleson-yes; Bennett-yes; Pocernich-no. Total: 13; 6 yes, 7 no. The motion passed and the meeting will remain in open session. (a) Closed Session Minutes. These will be forwarded to next meeting for its Closed Session. 366 (b) Reclassification Procedures. Linda Coleman, attorney from Spears & Carlson, Bayfield County’s corporation counsel, was present to explain and provide their legal opinion as it relates to the reclassification procedure. Coleman stated that in their opinion, the job of reclassification is a duty that has been delegated to the Personnel Committee. The full Board in that ordinance, does not hear what Personnel Committee is hearing. The Board can amend the ordinance to take on the power to hear reclassification requests or to get suggestions, however, currently this is not how the ordinance reads. Discussion took place on how the procedures work and Board members felt that this should not be the case. The issue of the jailers is something that should be heard by the full Board. Discussion took place on the jailers’ classification by ETF. Classification by ETF is not discretionary, It is not something that changes simply by a vote. Change must be made by employee assessment of job duties. Once complete, the county through its ETf agent, reports the status of the employees. Regardless if we want them classified or not, do they fall under law enforcement. Clearly ETF can be changed if the duties have changed or if a prior classification was incorrect, either active law enforcement or not. The jailers have to be 51% law enforcement in order to report changes to ETF. We may have reported this to ETF incorrectly in the past. An appeal is presently before the ETF board appealing their reclassification. ETF is going to render a decision but we don’t know when. That decision will provide guidance for this county in any decisions. It isn’t just Bayfield County there are numerous counties involved with this situation. As a practical point, we may be spinning our wheels, creating a mess versus waiting for ETF to give us their decision. Discussion took place among the Board regarding how this went to the Oversight Committee, which is the Sheriff’s Committee, and it was stated there that they wanted the jailers left in protective placement. It then went to the Personnel Committee who voted to remove the jailers from protective placement based on the McRobers Report and legal opinion. Discussion also took place on who did the independent assessment of the jailers’ duties. According to the analysis done, 51% of the jailers’ duties did not include law enforcement. Supervisor Bussey read the ordinance as it is now written. The reclassification process is for employees who want to individually move up in rank in their individual offices. A whole group of individuals is not asking to be reclassed. Bussey disagreed with other Board members stating that he didn’t believe that the Personnel Committee had studied this for several months. He stated that there was not hearing, no fact finding by personnel; Mr. McRoberts’ report was never given to the Personnel Committee or to the full Board. We reported a reclassification that wasn’t accurately determined. This remains a decision to be made by the full Board. The Board needs to take into account Attorney Coleman’s comments. The Board has not given up this delegation to the Personnel Committee. A lengthy discussion took place between Bussey and Coleman. Supervisors went back and forth in a very lengthy discussion on what was said and not said at the Personnel Committee meeting and how they each felt as it related to the structure of law enforcement and where jailers should be placed. Board members expressed that they wanted this topic put on the agenda the month prior, but it was 367 Chairman Miller’s decision to take it off. The same board members stated that a topic such as this should require the decision of the full Board. A motion was made by Bussey/Maki to put this item on the next County Board Agenda for fact finding to make a determination as to whether or not the jailers are protected for purposes of WRS, ETF and collective bargaining and for the full Board to vote on. A very lengthy discussion took place on this on whether Supervisor Bussey’s motion would be referred to a committee or if Board can be voted on, or if Chairman Miller could find it out of order. Chairman Miller stated that they got a second opinion, and just because it says what the other Supervisors don’t want to hear, doesn’t make it wrong. Supervisor Bussey and Attorney Coleman cited 2 provisions §3.4.2 “during a meeting…..” and §”any matter known to chairperson…” Bussey stated we have an ordinance that states the Board of Supervisors has the right to put items on the agenda and Chairman Miller can rule them out as an agenda item, however, the Board can appeal. Discussion on who brought the reclassification forward in the first place. Abeles-Allison stated it was discussed at a Personnel Committee meeting and it was Personnel who brought it forward. Further discussion back and forth among Supervisors as to why the Board was not told what was going on, the fact that this item was not taken up by the Transition Committee but rather the Personnel Committee, and that the item was added to the Personnel Committee agenda a few days prior to the meeting. Some Supervisors did not believe this item was studied to death and that decisions were made without all of the facts. Discussion on waiting until the decision of the appeal is brought forward. We have no power to change the reclassification back. If the Board took contrary action, the County Clerk signs on that these employees are not protected employees, yet the Board says that they are. Who do you answer to? It was also made known that during all of this discussion, Supervisor Bichanich, has not participated in this discussion as his daughter is a jailer, however, his daughter does not live with him, is not a dependent, and does not live in his supervisory district. Again, further discussion about the fact that there is an argument to be made. A decision should not have been made without adequate fact finding. There is a possibility that there hasn’t been enough facts to support the decision the Personnel Committee made. Mr. McRoberts’ report is highly relevant. Who reviewed this report to make this decision? For the last 20 years the jailers have been in protective placement and now they shouldn’t be? Discussion on the fact that the Sheriff’s Committee voted to send this to the full Board, but 3 votes on the Personnel Committee changed that vote and the rest of the Board is left without even being able to hear the matter. This is wrong and an unfair situation. Chairman Miller ruled Bussey’s motion out of order, stating that a reclass goes to the Personnel Committee. A motion was made by Bussey/Maki to appeal this decision as he interrupts the ruling differently. Discussion on who would do the fact finding……it would be nice to see the report of Mr. McRoberts. Is it possible to have him here in person to answer questions we may 368 have? We would like to hear from the jailers and the Sheriff…….listen to advice of counsel, the full Board has to make final decision. The following votes took place: The Vote on Chair’s ruling: Supervisors should vote “yes” to uphold the Chair’s ruling, “no” to not sustain the Chair’s ruling. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Williams-no; Bichanich-no; Miller-yes; Crandall-no; Rondeau-yes; Meyers-no; Bussey-no; Jardine-no; Maki-no; Kittleson-yes; Bennett-no; Pocernich-no; Schultz- yes. Total: 13; 4 yes, 9 no. Motion passed to override Chair’s ruling. Next, vote on Supervisor Bussey’s motion to put on the next County Board Agenda. Discussion took place as to how the motion read and a possible amendment. A motion was made by Jardine/Schultz to amend motion that after the fact finding, do not make a decision to ETF. Further discussion took place. The Board would like a copy of the McRoberts Report and would like this person present at the next Board meeting in May. Discussion regarding Supervisor Bichanich voting. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Bichanich-no; Miller-yes; Crandall-no; Rondeau-yes; Meyers-no; Bussey-no; Jardine-yes; Maki-no; Kittleson-yes; Bennett-yes; Pocernich-no; Schultz-yes; Williams-yes. Total: 13; 6 yes, 7 no. The amendment was defeated. Now, vote on original motion: A roll call vote was taken as follows: Miller- no; Crandall-yes; Rondeau-no; Meyers-yes; Bussey-yes; Jardine-no; Maki-yes; Kittleson-no; Bennett-yes; Pocernich-yes; Schultz-no; Williams-yes; Bichanich-yes. Total: 13; 8 yes, 5 no. The motion carried. The Board took a short recess. 5. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2013-19, Regarding 2013 Budget Amendments and Reorganization of Tourism, Forestry & Fair Departments as it Relates to Duties and Staffing Levels. Abeles-Allison explained stating this was heard at the last Board meeting where it was postponed until tonight by majority vote of Board. This Resolution addresses both the Forestry and Fair Departments as far as their operations. This would allow for a new forester to take care of trails. The Fair employee would move from 50% to 80%, and the tourism employee would focus on items related strictly to tourism. Explanations were given for each of the concerns addressed in each of the departments. Discussion took place on the job duties, income from the forest and grant dollars. Discussion on the amount of work this person will have. Abeles-Allison explained that this resolution is for the 2013 budget, and that there is no change in support staff for Tourism. If something changes, the Board has the discretion to make changes in the budget. We really need to maintain our fulltime support staff in 2014, the Board can do this. This person is currently a full-time employee, where will the 2nd half of her job come from? Suppose there isn’t enough work in tourism and county wants to move her into a different position? What happens then? Several Board members thought his idea was bad. This is bad. Discussion took place on the 3rd paragraph of the Resolution, which was worded that Bayfield County “guarantees” a position. It was suggested that this sentence be removed from the Resolution. 369 The Board dispensed with the reading of the Resolution, which reads as follows: WHEREAS, The Tourism, Forestry, Fair and Executive Committees have reviewed proposals regarding re-organization of their departments as it relates to duties and responsibilities; including moving oversight of the County Trail System from Tourism to the Forestry Department; and WHEREAS the proposal includes a reorganization of Fair and Tourism to allow for more time to be spent on tourism activities effective June 1, 2013; and WHEREAS the proposal includes staffing modifications including: Increase staffing of Forestry by 1 FTE, Increase Fair Staff by .3 FTE, and Reduce support staff in Tourism after 12 months from 1.0 FTE to .5FTE, while also guarantee all existing staff full time employment; and WHEREAS, the reorganization requires modification of the 2013 budget to reflect the change in staffing and associated costs across departments; and WHEREAS, Contingency Funds are available to cover the additional costs associated with the reorganization; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors, meeting this 16th day of April, 2013 approve the following budget amendments to the 2013 budget: FORESTRY BUDGET June-December, 2013 Increase Decrease 100-34-56121-50121 FULL TIME $ 27,413.80 50151 FICA $ 2,097.16 50152 CO SHARE RETIREMENT $ 1,823.02 50154 HEALTH $ 10,409.15 50156 HRA $ 6,300.00 50155 LIFE $ 15.00 50396 CLOTHING ALLOWANCE $ 270.00 50332 MILEAGE $ 4,750.00 50325 REGISTRATION FEES & TUITION $ 500.00 50335 MEALS $ 75.00 50336 LODGING $ 250.00 50340 OPERATING SUPPLIES $ 500.00 50214 DATA PROCESSING $ 1,350.00 430-34-57100-50810 Capital Equipment $ 5,000.00 (computer, desk) FAIR BUDGET Support Increase from 50 to 80% June-December, 2013 100-23-55461-50121 Full Time $ 5,555.00 100-23-55461-50151 FICA $ 425.00 370 100-23-55461-50152 CO Share Retirement $ 369.00 100-23-55461-50154 Health Insurance $ 1,157.00 100-00-51410-50000 Contingency $ 68,259.13 Grant Accounts From Tourism to Forestry 100-23-43572 STATE GRANT-SNOWMOBILE TRAILS $ 231,148.00 100-23-43575 STATE GRANT-ATV TRAILS $ 121,730.00 100-23-55442-50240 SNOWMOBILE REPAIR & MAINTENANCE $ 231,148.00 100-23-55443-50240 ATV REPAIR & MAINTENANCE $ 120,230.00 100-23-55443-50510 INSURANCE $ 1,500.00 100-34-43572 STATE GRANT-SNOWMOBILE TRAILS $ 231,148.00 100-34-43575 STATE GRANT-ATV TRAILS $ 121,730.00 100-34-55442-50240 SNOWMOBILE REPAIR & MAINTENANCE $ 231,148.00 100-34-55443-50240 ATV REPAIR & MAINTENANCE $ 120,230.00 100-34-55443-50510 INSURANCE $ 1,500.00 TOTAL $ 774,015.13 $ 774,015.13 By Action of the BAYFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Shawn W. Miller, Chair A motion was made by Bussey/Crandall to adopt Bayfield County Resolution No. 2013-19, 2013 Budget Amendments and Reorganization of Tourism, Forestry & Fair Departments as it Relates to Duties and Staffing Levels. Discussion. A motion was made by Pocernich/Schultz made a motion to amend the 3rd paragraph of the Resolution, eliminating the words, “while also guarantee all existing staff full-time employment.” Discussion took place. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Crandall-yes; Rondeau-yes; Meyers-yes; Bussey-yes; Jardine-yes; Maki- yes; Kittleson-yes; Bennett-no; Pocernich-yes; Schultz-yes; Williams-yes; Bichanich- yes; Miller-yes. Total: 13; 12 yes, 1 no. The motion carried. The then voted on the original motion to adopt Resolution No. 2013-19: A roll call vote was taken as follows: Rondeau-yes; Meyers-yes; Bussey-yes; Jardine-yes; Maki-yes; Kittleson-yes; Bennett-no; Pocernich-yes; Schultz-yes; Williams-no; Bichanich-yes; Miller-yes; Crandall-yes. Total: 13; 11 yes, 2 no. The motion carried. 371 6. Bayfield County Amendatory Ordinance No. 2013-05, Regarding Forestry and Parks Department Budget Amendment. Abeles-Allison explained that this Amendatory Ordinance modifies the existing Ordinance with title and department changes. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Ordinance, which reads as follow: The Bayfield County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: That the Bayfield County Ordinance, adopted June 1, 1976, be and the same, is hereby amended as follows: WHEREAS, Wisconsin Statutes §59.03(2) provides that, except as elsewhere specifically provided in the statutes, the board of any county is vested with all powers of a local, legislative and administrative character; and WHEREAS, Wisconsin Statutes §59.02(2) permits the enactment of ordinances by the County Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, Section 2-2-3, Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin, authorizes County Board committees or individual supervisors to introduce proposed ordinances; and WHEREAS, it is deemed to be in the best interest of the County of Bayfield that the Code of Ordinances, be modified and amended in the manner hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors does hereby ordain as follows: Sec. 1-2-4 (d) With respect to the Bayfield County Snowmobile Business Sign Ordinance (Section 10-2-4), the Bayfield County Tourism and Recreation Directo r Forestry & Parks Director Administrator or any employee of the Bayfield County Department of Tourism and Recreation Forestry & Parks designated by said Director Administrator. (e) With respect to the Bayfield County Park Ordinance (Section 12-1-1), the Tourism and Recreation Director, his/her designated employees, the Bayfield County Forest Administrator, and Bayfield County Foresters. 2-3-6 Forestry and Parks Committee Add (b)(11) Work with the Forestry and Parks Administrator in the development of and budgets for the Snowmobile and ATV programs. Sec. 2-3-14 Tourism and Recreation Committee. (a) Composition. The Tourism and Recreation Committee shall be comprised as prescribed by Section 2-3-14(b). (b) Duties. The Tourism and Recreation Committee shall: (1) Supervise the County Tourism and Recreation Department. (2) Work with the County Tourism and Recreation Director in the development each year of a plan and budget establishing what the County expects the Department to accomplish each year with respect 372 to promoting and advertising the recreational opportunities in Bayfield County. (3) Work with the County Tourism and Recreation Director in the development of and budgets for the Wisconsin Conservation Corps, Snowmobile and ATV programs. Sec. 10-2-4 Snowmobile Business Sign Regulations. (b) Permit Required. No person shall erect or maintain any business advertising sign on any snowmobile trail constituting a part of the Bayfield County Snowmobile Trail System without first obtaining a permit from the Bayfield County Tourism and Recreation Forestry & Parks Director Administrator. A person shall be eligible for such a permit only if the person or his/her business is a local snowmobile club sponsor or supporter, or a Class A associate member of the Bayfield County Snowmobile Alliance. The Director may seek input from the Bayfield County Snowmobile Alliance in de- mining whether an application for a permit should be granted. If a sign is to be placed on a trail located on national forest land, a permit from the U.S. Forest Service will also be required, and if a sign is to be placed on a trail located on private land, permission from the private land owner will also be required. (e) Sign Size and Material. Signs shall be of material authorized by the Bayfield County Tourism and Recreation Forestry & Parks Administrator and have a white legend on a brown background. They shall be rectangular in shape and 12" X 30" in size. Sign letters shall be capital block letters 3" in height and directional arrows shall be the same size. Title 10, Chapter 2, Motor Vehicles & Traffic Revised 01-01-02 Title 10-Chapter 2-Page 3 (f) Removal of Noncomplying Signs. Any sign placed on a trail within the Bayfield County Snowmobile Trail System which is not in compliance with this Section shall be removed under the direction of the Bayfield County Tourism and Recreation Forestry & Parks Administrator. (h) Enforcement. This Section may be enforced by the Bayfield County Sheriff and his/her deputies and by employees of the Bayfield County Tourism and Recreation Forestry & Parks Department designated by the Bayfield County Tourism and Recreation Director Forestry & Parks Administrator, and citations for violations of this Section may be issued by said persons pursuant to the Bayfield County Citation Ordinance. 12-1-5 (d) Operation of Vehicles (14) The Bayfield County Board of Supervisors or Tourism & Recreation Forestry & Parks Committee may rescind operation of ATV’s or snowmobiles on any County Trail System or portion thereof, with appropriate notice being given to the public. 373 (f) Authorizations Prior authorizations, required by the terms of this ordinance, may be granted by the Tourism & Recreation Forestry & Parks Department. Section 2. Except as specifically modified and amended by this ordinance, the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin, shall remain in force and effect exactly as originally adopted and previously amended. All ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent with or in contravention of the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 3. SEVERABILITY. If a court of competent jurisdiction adjudges any section, clause, provision, or portion of this ordinance unconstitutional or invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby. Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Bayfield on the 16th day of April, 2013. A motion was made by Schultz/Bichanich to adopt Bayfield County Amendatory Ordinance No. 2013-05, Regarding Forestry and Parks Department Budget Amendment. The motion carried. 7. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2013-20, Regarding Forestry & Parks Department Budget Amendment. Abeles-Allison explained that the 1% fund was adopted about 4 years ago. Forest Administrator, Jason Bodine, further explained the content of the Resolution. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Resolution, which reads as follows: WHEREAS, in 2009 the Forestry Committee approved a policy designating 1% of Gross County Timber Sale revenues for town road repair when revenues exceed 101% of budget; WHEREAS, the funds shall be placed in a line item within the Forestry Budget to be used for Town Road Maintenance on town roads that provide access to County Forest land within the township, at the discretion of the county forestry department; WHEREAS, the balance of funds in the account will be limited to no more than $40,000. WHEREAS, Towns with County Forest Land within their boundaries will submit proposals for road projects to the County Forestry and Parks Administrator and Forestry and Parks Committee for consideration of funding. WHEREAS, county timber sales exceeded 101% of budget in 2012, 1% totals $26,967.56; WHEREAS, expense line 100-34-56129-50241 was budgeted at $26,000 based upon estimated year end stumpage revenues. 374 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors, meeting this 16th day of April, 2013 approve the following budget amendment to the 2013 Forestry and Parks Department (100-34) budget: Increase Revenue line 100-34-49301 by $967.56 authorizing the use of fund balance for the Town Road Maintenance account. Increase Expense line 100-34-56129-50241 by $967.56 for the Town Road Maintenance account. By Action of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors Shawn W. Miller, Chairman A motion was made by Rondeau/Bichanich to adopt Bayfield County Resolution No. 2013-20 Regarding Forestry & Parks Department Budget Amendment. Discussion how the towns receive their funding. It was explained that they have to have County land within their individual townships to qualify. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Meyers-yes; Bussey-yes; Jardine-yes; Maki- yes; Kittleson-yes; Bennett-yes; Pocernich-yes; Schultz-yes; Williams-yes; Bichanich-yes; Miller-yes; Crandall-yes; Rondeau-yes. Total: 13; 13 yes, 0 no. The motion carried. 8. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2013-21, Request to Amend the Bayfield County Land & Water Conservation 2013 Budget. Supervisor Schultz stated that at their last meeting, it was indicated that they were getting 100% funding, and wanted to make the Board aware of this. Discussion took place on what happens if the funding doesn’t come through, are we obligated? Dufford is very diligent in looking for grants and at trying to keep the levy low for his department. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Resolution, which reads as follows: WHEREAS, the Bayfield County Land & Water Conservation Department requests that their 2013 budget be amended as follows to reflect actual amounts at the beginning of the year through the Grant(s), Cost-Share and Cooperative Agreement(s); WHEREAS, adjustments to our 2013 budget are requested to reflect our actual beginning balances versus what was projected earlier in 2012. The Net Total of the Revenue/Expense amendment is $51,882.38. This is a result of the addition of some new grant funds and the timing that reimbursements were received. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors, meeting this 16th day of April, 2013 approve the following budget amendments to reflect Grant(s), Cost-Share and Cooperative Agreement(s) actuals: Increase revenue account 100-28-43272 by $114,200. Increase revenue account 100-28-43273-001 by $14,136.74. Reduce revenue account 100-28-43273-002 by $115.00. 375 Reduce revenue account 100-28-43273-003 by $4,875. Reduce revenue account 100-28-43274-101 by $12,010. Increase revenue account 100-28-43588 by $9,914. Increase revenue account 100-28-43589 by $44,671.64. Increase revenue account 100-28-43590-101 by $1,450. Increase revenue account 100-28-43590-104 by $8,000. Increase revenue account 100-28-43591 by $25,410. Reduce revenue account 100-28-46825 by $8,500. Increase revenue account 100-28-48203 by $3,800. Reduce revenue account 100-28-48900 by $144,200. Increase expense account 100-28-56104-50290 by $114,200. (NFWF/FWS) Increase expense account 100-28-56140-50290 by $14,136.74. (NCWMA #1 – Cont Srv) Increase expense account 100-28-56140-50530 by $3,800. (NCWMA #1 - Rent) Reduce expense account 100-28-56141-50290 by $115.00. (RAC) Reduce expense account 100-28-56102-50290 by $4,875. (BOAT WASHER) Reduce expense account 100-28-56103-50290 by $12,010. (FWS 703) Increase expense account 100-28-56101-50111 by $4,414. (DATCP GPR) Increase expense account 100-28-56101-50121 by $3,500. (DATCP GPR) Increase expense account 100-28-56101-50122 by $2,000. (DATCP GPR) Increase expense account 100-28-56101-50291 by $44,671.64. (DATCP C/S &SEG) Increase expense account 100-28-56113-50290 by $1,450. (CBCW #3) Increase expense account 100-28-56131-50290 by $8,000. (DNR CBCW) Increase expense account 100-28-56203-50290 by $25,410. (AIS #3) Reduce expense account 100-28-56101-50290 by $8,500 (NC Agmt) Reduce expense account 100-28-56101-50299 by $144,200 By Action of the BAYFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Shawn W. Miller, Chair A motion was made by Jardine/Rondeau to adopt Bayfield County Resolution No. 2013-21, Request to Amend the Bayfield County Land & Water Conservation 2013 Budget. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Bussey-yes; Jardine-yes; Maki-yes; Kittleson-yes; Bennett-yes; Pocernich-yes; Schultz-yes; Williams-yes; Bichanich-yes; Miller-yes; Crandall-yes; Rondeau-yes; Meyers-yes. Total: 13; 13 yes, 0 no. The motion carried. 9. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2013-22, Establishing an Agricultural Enterprise Area Within Portions of Bayfield County. Abeles-Allison explained that this offers some income tax credits for large projects. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Resolution, which reads as follows: WHEREAS, the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection is accepting petitions for the designation of Agricultural Enterprise Areas (AEA) throughout the State of Wisconsin; and 376 WHEREAS, agriculture is an important component of the Bayfield County economy, landscape; and rural character; and WHEREAS, Bayfield County has consistently supported the agricultural industry; and WHEREAS, the Bayfield County Comprehensive Plan identifies a goal of preserving the County’s agricultural land base to protect the County’s aesthetics, rural character, and agricultural heritage for future generations; and WHEREAS, Bayfield County believes that establishment of an Agricultural Enterprise Area will further protect agricultural land and enhance the local agricultural economy; and WHEREAS, Bayfield County has determined, based on petitioner support and meetings where Agricultural Enterprise Areas were discussed, that there is public support for the AEA; and WHEREAS, agriculture is an important land use in Bayfield County and worthy of preservation and support. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Bayfield County Board hereby supports the establishment of the Fields, Waters, and Woods AEA within Bayfield County. By Action of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors Shawn W. Miller, Chairman A motion was made by Bichanich/Crandall to adopt Bayfield County Resolution No. 2013-22, Establishing an Agricultural Enterprise Area Within Portions of Bayfield County. The motion carried. 10. Bayfield County Amendatory Ordinance No. 2013-06, Amending Chapter 2, Secton 2-2-7, Governing Rules: Regarding County Board Meeting Rules for Remote Participation at Meetings. Abeles-Allison explained that Roberts Rules of Order, specifically states that you cannot participate remotely. The Executive Committee discussed this extensively and felt that if a Board Supervisors would like to participate remotely we should have rules set up on how to do this. The proposed Amendatory Ordinance is what is being proposed for remote meetings. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Ordinance, which reads as follows: The Bayfield County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: That the Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance, adopted June 1, 1976, be and the same, is hereby amended as follows: WHEREAS, Wisconsin Statutes §59.03(2) provides that, except as elsewhere specifically provided in the statutes, the board of any county is vested with all powers of a local, legislative and administrative character; and WHEREAS, Wisconsin Statutes §59.02(2) permits the enactment of ordinances by the County Board of Supervisors; and 377 WHEREAS, Section 2-2-3, Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin, authorizes County Board committees or individual supervisors to introduce proposed ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors recognizes that remote attendance, such as teleconferencing should only be used when warranted by circumstance, not just for convenience; WHEREAS, the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors feels strongly that closed sessions of meetings require confidentiality and that remote attendance at a closed session cannot be guaranteed; WHEREAS, the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors board also recognizes that the public's right to monitor proceedings must not be compromised; WHEREAS, it is deemed to be in the best interest of the County of Bayfield that the Code of Ordinances, be modified and amended in the manner hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. To amend Section 2-2-7, Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin, by adding the following language to the ordinance: Section 2-2-7, Governing Rules. Add: (a) (1) Board members attending meetings remotely shall be considered part of the quorum and be allowed to vote in open session provided they are in attendance for an entire agenda item before they vote; (2) Board members may not attend closed session portions of meetings remotely; (3) Board members attending remotely shall be entitled to compensation for participation provided they attend the entire meeting, however, they shall not be entitled to mileage reimbursement. Section 2. Except as specifically modified and amended by this ordinance, the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin, shall remain in force and effect exactly as originally adopted and previously amended. All ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent with or in contravention of the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 3. SEVERABILITY. If a court of competent jurisdiction adjudges any section, clause, provision, or portion of this ordinance unconstitutional or invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby. Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Bayfield on the 16th day of April, 2013. 378 By Action of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors Shawn W. Miller, Chairman A motion was made by Jardine/Rondeau to adopt Bayfield County Amendatory Ordinance No. 2013-06, Amending Chapter 2, Secton 20207, Governing Rules: Regarding County Board Meeting Rules for Remote Participation at Meetings. Discussion took place as to whether or not the Supervisors calls in or if the Chair calls the Supervisor. The motion carried. 11. Report of the Bayfield County Planning & Zoning Committee Regarding the Rezone of 2 Parcels in the Town of Eileen from Agricultural One to Commercial. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Report, which reads as follows: REPORT OF THE BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE TO: The County Board of Supervisors of Bayfield County on the hearing of petitions to amend the Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Committee of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors, having held a public hearing pursuant to Section 59.69(5)(e), Wisconsin Statutes; notice thereof having been given as provided by law; and having been duly informed of the facts pertinent to the following changes; hereby recommends the following action on said petition: The Zoning of Bayfield County 20-acre parcel (ID# 04-020-2-47-05-10-1-04-000-10000), described as: the West Half (W ½) of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SE¼ NE ¼) and an approximate 20-acre parcel (ID# 04-01-020-2-47-05-10-4-01-000-10000), described as: the West Half (W ½) of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (NE¼ SE ¼), lying North (N) of Highway 137 all in Section Ten (10), Township Forty-Seven (47), Range Five (5),Town of Eileen be changed to Agricultural-One (Ag-1) from Commercial (C). The Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee recommendation is: Be Approved Date: March 21, 2013 BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMITTEE Kenneth Jardine, Shawn Miller, Neil Schultz A motion was made by Jardine/Rondeau to receive and place the Report of the Bayfield County Planning & Zoning Committee Regarding the Rezone of 2 Parcels in the Town of Eileen from Agricultural One to Commercial. Discussion took place. The motion carried. 379 12. Bayfield County Zoning Amendatory Ordinance No. 2013-07, Regarding the Rezone of 2 Parcels in the Town of Eileen from Agricultural One to Commercial. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Ordinance, which reads as follows: The Bayfield County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: That the Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance, adopted June 1, 1976, be and the same, is hereby amended as follows: The Zoning of Bayfield County 20-acre parcel (ID# 04-020-2-47-05-10-1-04-000-10000), described as: the West Half (W ½) of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SE¼ NE ¼) and an approximate 20-acre parcel (ID# 04-01-020-2-47-05-10-4-01-000-10000), described as: the West Half (W ½) of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (NE¼ SE ¼), lying North (N) of Highway 137 all in Section Ten (10), Township Forty-Seven (47), Range Five (5),Town of Eileen is changed to Agricultural-One (Ag-1) from Commercial (C). By Action of the BAYFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Attested to by: Shawn W. Miller, Bayfield County Chair A motion was made by Rondeau/Bichanich to adopt Bayfield County Zoning Amendatory Ordinance No. 2013-07 Regarding the Rezone of 2 Parcels in the Town of Eileen from Agricultural One to Commercial. Discussion. The motion carried. 13. Administrator’s Report: a) May 7th Budget Planning Session. Abeles-Allison informed the Board that on May 7th, the Board will begin its 2014 budget planning session. We are going to do something different this year; a survey first to department heads then to the public for input. It is hopeful that this will determine critical issues for the Board to consider. b) June 13th – DOT Planning Meeting. This will be a follow-up to Superior Days. The Wisconsin Counties Association is planning a meeting with the DOT office and is looking at the date of June 13 from 12 Noon to 3 p.m. for Douglas, Iron Bayfield and Ashland Counties to meet at the Visitor’s Center. We will talk about critical issues of our area. 14. Supervisors’ Reports: a) Update on County Administrator’s Contract. Chairman Miller informed the Board that the Executive Committee voted to extend Abeles-Allison’s contract for three (3) years and to give him an increase of 2% like all of the other employees. It was asked why 380 Mark is being contracted with, shouldn’t he be paid like all of the other employees? Why do we have an employment agreement with him and not the other employees? It was stated because this was the terms of the initial agreement. Maybe the terms should be looked at. Supervisor Bussey looked up State Statute §759.18 regarding removal of administrator….the County Board has the authority to remove. Any other contract provided otherwise, the Statute would still prevail. He also stated that he didn’t believe the Executive Committee had the authority to approve the contract. Shouldn’t the County Board get a copy of this? County Clerk, Fibert stated that in 2001, it was the full Board’s decision to let the Executive Committee decide on this. Supervisor Pocernich stated that he would like to see Committee Chair have committee reports at the County Board meeting so that we know what is going on. Under an agenda item, list committee reports. He would also like to see the Board review the ordinances now in place. Placing items on the agenda, the Chair does not necessarily have the right to take items off. Supervisor Schultz asked if agendas go to all Board members and it was responded with a “yes” they do. Supervisor Maki asked for the Board to work together to get the harmony back. b) Supervisor Kittleson reported that the Scenic By-Way Ribbon Cutting is at 4 pm on Thursday, April 28th. There being no further business to come before the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors, Chairman Miller adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Scott S. Fibert, Bayfield County Clerk SSF/dmb