HomeMy WebLinkAboutCounty Board of Supervisors - Minutes - 2/28/201771
Minutes of the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors’ Meeting
February 28, 2017 – 6:00 p.m.
Bayfield County Board Room, Courthouse, Washburn, Wisconsin
The Bayfield County Board of Supervisors’ meeting was called to order by Chairman
Pocernich 6:05 pm. A roll call was taken by Scott Fibert, County Clerk, as follows:
Rondeau-present; Goodwin-present; Bussey-present; Fickbohm-present. Maki-present;
Oswald-present; Silbert-present; Pocernich-present; Strand-present; Williams-present;
Coughtry-present; Miller-present; Crandall-present; Total 13: 13 present, 0 absent. A
quorum was present to conduct business. The following were also present for this
evening’s meeting: Mark Abeles-Allison, County Administrator; Dawn M. Bellile, Deputy
County Clerk; Robert Schierman, Zoning Administrator; Kim Lawton, District Attorney;
Kay Cederberg, Clerk of Court; Brenda Spurlock, Criminal Justice Coordinator; Scottie
Sandstrom, Bayfield County Economic Development; Paul Susienka, Sheriff; Ben Dufford,
County Conservationist; Jan Victorson, Emergency Mgmt. Coordinator; and Kevin Johnson,
Veterans’ Service Officer.
1. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all in attendance.
2. A Moment of Silence was held in memory of Richard Fredericks, former
Bayfield County Sheriff.
3. Motion Regarding Minutes of January 31, 2017 Bayfield County Board of
Supervisors’ Meetings. The Board dispensed with the reading of the minutes. To see a
copy of the minutes, please visit the County’s webpage at www.bayfieldcounty.org/meetings
or contact the County Clerk’s office. A motion was made by Rondeau/Crandall to
receive and place on file the Minutes of January 31, 2017 Bayfield County Board of
Supervisors’ Meeting. The motion carried.
4. Public Comment. Chairman Pocernich reminded the audience that public
comment is for a period of 15 minutes, allowing an individual to speak for no more than 3
minutes at a time. This may also be extended longer at the Board’s discretion.
Paul Tribovich, Town of Russell Chair. Tribovich spoke in favor of Agenda Item
#7, “Rezone for Bolder Point.” He explained that this passed at the Town and Planning
Commission levels unanimously. He then read a letter to the Board from Town of Russell
Supervisor, Mark Bugher, who could not attend this evening’s meeting. Bugher’s letter
states that as a member of the Town of Russell Board of Supervisors, his support for this
development is vested in a few key principles that are important for the County Board to
consider in their deliberations. (A copy of Mr. Bugher’s letter is on file in the county
Clerk’s office).
Sam Atkins, Town of Russell. Atkins stated that he doesn’t feel the citizens of
Russell received any direction on what the development is proposing. He further discussed
the Town of Russell’s 2009 Comprehensive Plan which states that there is to be openness
72
and transparency in the planning process. Atkins stated that he believed this has clearly
not been the case with this situation. The agent has not given us anything concrete, just
proposals. How can an informed decision be made on such a vague description? This
piece of property needs to be developed with great care as this is pristine property. He
asked the Board to preserve the peoples’ rights to know what the rezones are before they
are done.
Dave Good, Clerk/Treasurer for Town of Russell spoke as a resident and a taxpayer
stating that he was in favor of this rezone. As the official custodian of records for the
Town of Russell, Good gave a background on the documents which were used to help the
town in making their decision to approve of this rezone. Good stated that this potential
rezone started in September of 2016 and much planning has been done. He believes the
Town moved properly in approving this rezone and asked the Board to do the same. (A
copy of the documents Mr. Good provided are on file in the County Clerk’s office.)
Steve Oberle, Town of Russell, voiced strong opposition for several reasons which
he stated. He also said that there have been issues in the past with Mr. Nelson when it
comes to development on lands. Oberle asked the Board to require a site plan and map
before further development is started. Oberle stated that as a former Land
Conservationist for Taylor County, he is concerned about water quality how much
electricity is going to be needed, etc. to put such a development in place. This area has
always been a peaceful place and he would like to keep it that way.
Craig Haukaas, Attorney/Broker for Bolder Point, first of all informed the Board
that Mr. Nelson doesn’t own the property, it belongs to Bolder Point. He also stated that
they asked Mr. Oberle for some assistance with this development which he declined, which
is his right to. Haukaas stated that “yes” people are asking for plans, but they don’t have
concrete plans yet. They are, however, asking for input which they aren’t receiving either.
This type of development would be good for the area providing long-term jobs, sustainable
growth and a thriving business for the area
The fifteen-minute time period was now up and the Board agreed to extend time
public comment period for a few more people.
Mark Wendling, Town of Russell, spoke on the Bolder Point rezone, stating the Town
of Russell has a vested interest in this property. While he favors development, he stated
any development must be appropriate and compatible to the community values, strategic
and long-term goals. We don’t know if this proposal will be of such as the plans have not
been given to the community. This is the last large prime pristine acreage in the Town.
This is the last opportunity to develop such a parcel with the most beautiful view of the
lake. This requested rezone is incompatible with the Land Use Map. The map is to ensure
thoughtful and strategic use of the land. The County needs to know more about what
specifically is being asked for and approved. Please do not let this rezone happen.
Ann Bowker, was on the Planning Commission, and is speaking solely for herself. In
September of 2016 when Bolder Point came to the Town for this rezone and stated they
73
were in no rush, however, each time they came, they had a different plan. The Planning
Commission didn’t feel they could act on this until they knew what they wanted to do. The
Planning Commission approved the development assuming the Plan would be in existence,
which fell through. Bowker stated that if Bolder Point doesn’t tell you what their plan is
for the property, she asked that they not approve the rezone until they show you what
they really plan to do. It is important that people know what they are getting involved in.
You should know what you are voting for before you vote.
Larry Meierotto, Supervisor, Town of Russell, Chair for the Planning Commission.
Meierotto stated he was present to let the Board know that hours and hours were spent
by the Planning Commission in putting together a plan. Right now, what is in front of you is
a zoning change. The details for a plan Bolder Point can’t come until they have the rezone
in place. The Town voted in favor of the zoning change, now it is up to the County Board to
uphold this decision.
Chairman Pocernich closed public comment. At this time, he also asked that Item 6
on the Agenda be moved to after Item 9. The Board approved this move.
5. Reports of Bayfield County Planning & Zoning Committee Regarding the
Following:
a) Bolder Point, LLC: 7 Parcels Consisting of 200-Acre Parcel Located in
Section 35, Township 51N, Range 4W, Located in the Town of Russell, Bayfield
County, WI, be changed from Forestry-One (F-1) to Residential-Recreational
Business (R-RB). The Board dispensed with the reading of the Report, which reads as
follows:
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 Super-visors,
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 Bolder Point LLC (7) parcels consisting of: 200-acre parcel (Document #
2015R-557556; #2016-565223 and #2017R-266805)
Parcel 1 is a 20-acre parcel (Tax ID# 37080), described as N½ of the NW¼ of the NE¼.
Parcel 2 is a 20-acre parcel (Tax ID# 37081), described as NW¼ of the NE¼, less N½.
Parcel 3 is a 20-acre parcel (Tax ID# 37141), described as E 330’ of the NE¼.
Parcel 4 is a 30-acre parcel (Tax ID# 37142), described as NE¼ of the NE¼, less E 330’.
Parcel 5 is a 40-acre parcel (Tax ID# 29494), described as SW¼ of the NE¼.
74
Parcel 6 is a 30-acre parcel (Tax ID# 37143), described as SE¼ of the NE¼, less E 330’.
Parcel 7 is a 40-acre parcel (Tax ID# 29496), described as NE¼ of the NW¼.
All in Section Thirty-Five (35), Township Fifty-One (51) N, Range Four (4) W, Town of
Russell, Bayfield County, WI from Forestry-One (F-1) to Residential-Recreational
Business (R-RB).
The Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee recommendation is: Be Approved
Date: February 16, 2017
BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
William Bussey, Dennis Pocernich, Brett Rondeau, Jeff Silbert, Fred Strand
Schierman explained that Bayfield County has been presented with a rezone
request which he believes is suitable for a rezone. The Town Planning Commission and
Town Board met and recommended it for a rezone. The Town Board took recommendation
to amend their future Land Use Plan. Schierman explained that when rezones are dealt
with, there is really limited discussion on them. Schierman also explained the difference
between zoning districts. If there is anything else that the developer wants to do, it will
have to come back to Planning & Zoning Committee again for further permission.
Schierman stated that he has consulted with the County’s Corporation Counsel and she
believes the rezone is consistent with the Comp Plan. Schierman stated that he himself,
also believes it is consistent with the Plan, and explained that this is the first step to
which the rezone can start. A very lengthy discussion took place.
A motion was made by Rondeau/Goodwin to receive and place on file the Report of
the Bayfield County Planning & Zoning Committee Regarding Bolder Point, LLC.
Discussion again took place, and Supervisor Maki asked if the rules could be suspended for
more comments from the Broker for Bolder Point. The motion carried with one
opposition.
b) Amendments to Sections 13-1-41 and 13-1-41A, Refilings;
Reconsiderations and Rehearings, Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, WI.
Schierman explained the purpose of amending this Section of the Code of Ordinances, is
to allow an applicant to reapply after a 3-year period of time has lapsed. The time period
involved would be 3-years which would eliminate people from coming back month after
month for just a word change. If after 3-years it is still the same and a rezone is still
wanted, it allows it to be reconsidered. Discussion on proposing an identical rezone and
how it would be substantiated. Schierman explained.
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 Super-visors,
having held a public hearing pursuant to Section 59.69(5)(e), Wisconsin Statutes;
75
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:
Section 1. Section 13-1-41(i) [Planning and Zoning Committee] of Article C
[Nonconforming Uses and Structures; Special and Conditional Uses; Environmental Impact
Analysis; Handicap-Disability Permits of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] or Title 13 [Zoning of the
Code of Ordinances], Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby created to read as follows, with
additions highlighted by the double underline feature (additions):
13-1-41(i) Refilings; Reconsiderations and Rehearings
(1) Refiling Rule. No Conditional Use Permit that has been previously acted upon by the
Committee shall be considered upon a new application unless one or more of the following
applies:
a. Thirty-Six (36) consecutive calendar months have expired from the date of
the final decisions denying the earlier application.
b. The application does not contain the original or a substantially similar
request for specific use.
c. Substantial change in the use of adjacent property has occurred since the
previous application was heard.
d. The previous application was closed without a hearing because the applicant
was not present at the time such situation/circumstance was scheduled for a
meeting and the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Committee that his or her absence was due to excusable neglect.
e. There is a claim that there should be a rehearing based upon newly
discovered evidence. A rehearing will only be granted on this basis when all
of the following apply:
1. The evidence has come to the moving party’s notice after the
initial hearing.
2. The moving party’s failure to discover the evidence earlier did not
arise from lack of diligence in seeking to discover it.
3. The evidence is material and not cumulative.
4. The new evidence would probably change the result.
(2) Reconsideration. There shall be no reconsideration of any Planning and Zoning
Committee decision approving or denying a conditional use permit except that the Planning
and Zoning Committee, by its own motion and by a simple majority vote taken at the
hearing in which a decision to grant or deny a conditional use permit is made, or at very
next meeting of the Committee, shall be sufficient to reconsider a previous decision. If
76
the Planning and Zoning Committee decides to reconsider the granting or denial of a
conditional use permit after the close of the hearing at which the original grant or denial
is voted upon, the case will be placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting/hearing
and notice given as required for an original hearing.
(3) Closure of Application. An application will be considered as heard and closed at
such time as the Committee approves or rejects an application or appeal by motion. No
subsequent request for reconsideration by the applicant shall be considered.
(4) Filing fee(s) for a refiling will not be refunded in the event the Committee or Board
decides to deny the application.
Section 2. Section 13-1-41A(e) [Planning and Zoning Committee] of Article C
[Nonconforming Uses and Structures; Special and Conditional Uses; Environmental Impact
Analysis; Handicap-Disability Permits of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] or Title 13 [Zoning of the
Code of Ordinances], Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby created to read as follows, with
additions highlighted by the double underline feature (additions):
13-1-41A(e) Refilings; Reconsiderations and Rehearings
(1) Refiling Rule. No Special Use Permit that has been previously acted upon by the
Committee shall be considered upon a new application unless one or more of the
following applies:
a. Thirty-Six (36) consecutive calendar months have expired from the date of
the final decisions denying the earlier application.
b. The application does not contain the original or a substantially similar
request for specific use.
c. Substantial change in the use of adjacent property has occurred since the
previous application was heard.
d. The previous application was closed without a hearing because the applicant
was not present at the time such situation/circumstance was scheduled for a
meeting and the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Committee that his or her absence was due to excusable neglect.
e. There is a claim that there should be a rehearing based upon newly
discovered evidence. A rehearing will only be granted on this basis when all
of the following apply:
1. The evidence has come to the moving party’s notice after the
initial hearing.
2. The moving party’s failure to discover the evidence earlier did not
arise from lack of diligence in seeking to discover it.
3. The evidence is material and not cumulative.
77
4. The new evidence would probably change the result.
(2) Reconsideration. There shall be no reconsideration of any Planning and Zoning
Committee decision approving or denying a special use permit except that the Planning and
Zoning Committee, by its own motion and by a simple majority vote taken at the hearing in
which a decision to grant or deny a special use permit is made, or at very next meeting of
the Committee, shall be sufficient to reconsider a previous decision. If the Planning and
Zoning Committee decides to reconsider the granting or denial of a special use permit
after the close of the hearing at which the original grant or denial is voted upon, the case
will be placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting/hearing and notice given as
required for an original hearing.
(3) Closure of Application. An application will be considered as heard and closed at
such time as the Committee approves or rejects an application or appeal by motion. No
subsequent request for reconsideration by the applicant shall be considered.
(4) Filing fee(s) for a refiling will not be refunded in the event the Committee or Board
decides to deny the application.
BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
William Bussey, Dennis Pocernich, Brett Rondeau, Jeff Silbert, Fred Strand
A motion was made by Bussey/Rondeau to receive and place on file the Report
of the Bayfield County Planning & Zoning Committee Regarding Amendments to
Sections 13-1-41 and 13-1-41A, Refilings; Reconsiderations and Rehearings, Code of
Ordinances, Bayfield County. The motion carried.
6. Bayfield County Amendatory Ordinance No. 2017-04, Regarding 7
Parcels Consisting of 200 Acre Parcel for Bolder Point, LLC, located in Section 35,
Township 51N, Range 4W, Located in the Town of Russell, Bayfield County, WI, be
changed from Forestry-One (F-1) to Residential-Recreational Business (R-RB). 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 Bolder Point LLC (7) parcels consisting of: 200-acre parcel (Document #
2015R-557556; #2016-565223 and #2017R-266805)
Parcel 1 is a 20-acre parcel (Tax ID# 37080), described as N½ of the NW¼ of the NE¼.
Parcel 2 is a 20-acre parcel (Tax ID# 37081), described as NW¼ of the NE¼, less N½.
Parcel 3 is a 20-acre parcel (Tax ID# 37141), described as E 330’ of the NE¼.
Parcel 4 is a 30-acre parcel (Tax ID# 37142), described as NE¼ of the NE¼, less E 330’.
78
Parcel 5 is a 40-acre parcel (Tax ID# 29494), described as SW¼ of the NE¼.
Parcel 6 is a 30-acre parcel (Tax ID# 37143), described as SE¼ of the NE¼, less E 330’.
Parcel 7 is a 40-acre parcel (Tax ID# 29496), described as NE¼ of the NW¼.
All in Section Thirty-Five (35), Township Fifty-One (51) N, Range Four (4) W, Town of
Russell, Bayfield County, WI from Forestry-One (F-1) to Residential-Recreational
Business (R-RB).
The Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Committee recommendation is: Be Approved
Date: February 16, 2017
BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
William Bussey, Dennis Pocernich, Brett Rondeau, Jeff Silbert, Fred Strand
A motion was made by Rondeau/Goodwin to adopt Bayfield County Amendatory
Ordinance No. 2017-04, Regarding 7 Parcels Consisting of 200 Acre Panel for Bolder
Point, LLC, located in Section 35, Township 51N, Range 4W, Located in the Town of
Russell, Bayfield County, WI, be changed from Forestry-One (F-1) to Residential-
Recreational Business (R-RB). Discussion about having the floor opened up again. A
motion was made by Silbert/Crandall to suspend the rules to allow Attorney Haukaas
speak to the Board. Discussion on whether this was for others to speak or only the
applicant. Clarification is that only questions would be asked by the Board to Attorney
Haukaas. The motion carried.
Supervisor Silbert stated he had lack of detail and wanted people to feel better
about the development. Haukaas informed the Board that they will be asking people to
come to Town Hall meetings. This development will be for more high-end residential
homes, with owners who maybe have home based businesses. There are 3 tiers where
homes would be clustered and the rest would be business. He is also hoping for horse
trails and a riding facility. This is as far as we have gotten. Discussion took place about a
possible airstrip and that neighbors wouldn’t be excited about it. At present, plans do not
include this. Bolder Point intends to be the developer/agent of this project. He hopes to
come back to the Planning Commission about Conditional Use Permits. They also own 3 40’s
to the North that are not RRB, they are F-1, which is where gravel pit is located. Haukaas
encouraged everyone to go to the property to take a look at it. This is truly a jewel of
the North. Any plans for this property deserve to be well thought out. Haukaas stated
that it is their hope that this will go through as effortless as possible. Discussion on what
the danger would be in waiting, and Haukaas pointed out that while they are moving
forward, out building season is short. The Planning Commission, Town Board and the Zoning
Committee have approved the rezone. Don’t we as a County Board have a right to uphold
their decisions. Discussion on the steps ahead before “shovels hit the ground.” They
want this go through with the right approvals, to get everything ready for building, but not
79
actual building. No contracts are lined up to put up buildings. They need to know what
options they have available to them.
Supervisor Bussey spoke about a possible problem in complying the statutes on
Comp Planning. In order to amend an Ordinance for a rezone, it has to be consistent with
the County’s Comp Plan. Bayfield County’s Comp Plan is from 2009. This whole area for the
development and a great area around it is zoned Forestry-Limited Residential. Schierman
has stated that Corporation Counsel says it is consistent, subject to the Town of Russell
Overlay which requires lot sizes in RRB zoning to be equivalent to F1. What is overlooked
is the great change of uses permitted in RRB zoning. Schierman pointed out that they
require Conditional Use Permits, but there are many that are not allowed in Forestry-
Limited Residential. It may be entirely appropriate for Bayfield County to amend their
Plan as we have to think about all towns. The Town amending their use plan, does not
amend the plan of Bayfield County. We would need to do this and it would be another hoop
to jump through. The Zoning Committee can make a recommendation to make a change in
the Comp Plan, the County Board would provide 30 days’ notice and then a public hearing.
This would be a delay but could be brought up again in March at the Zoning Committee
Meeting and be on the County Board Agenda again in April. It wouldn’t be that time
consuming, only a couple of months and we would be complying with the law. A very lengthy
discussed took place about other zoning issues that have come before the Board for
rezones, does that make those inappropriate? Board members expressed their concerns
that if the Town Board, Planning Commission and Bayfield Planning & Zoning Committee
have all approved the rezone; our Corporation Counsel has looked at and scrutinized the
rezone and found it to be in order for passing, then it should be passed. A call for the
question was made by Supervisor Rondeau. A roll call vote was taken as follows:
Goodwin-yes; Bussey-no; Fickbohm-no; Maki-no; Oswald-no; Silbert-yes; Pocernich-
yes; Strand-no; Williams-yes; Coughtry-yes; Miller-yes; Crandall-yes; Rondeau-yes.
Total 13: 8 yes, 5 nos, the motion carried.
Supervisor Rondeau left at 7:30 p.m.
7. Bayfield County Amendatory Ordinance 2017-05, Regarding Amendments
to Sections 13-1-41 and 13-1-41A, Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, WI. 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 Zoning Ordinance, adopted June 1, 1976, be and the same,
is hereby amended as follows:
Section 1. Section 13-1-41(i) [Planning and Zoning Committee] of Article C
[Nonconforming Uses and Structures; Special and Conditional Uses; Environmental Impact
Analysis; Handicap-Disability Permits of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] or Title 13 [Zoning of the
Code of Ordinances], Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby created to read as follows, with
additions highlighted by the double underline feature (additions):
80
13-1-41(i) Refilings; Reconsiderations and Rehearings
(1) Refiling Rule. No Conditional Use Permit that has been previously acted upon by the
Committee shall be considered upon a new application unless one or more of the following
applies:
a. Thirty-Six (36) consecutive calendar months have expired from the date of
the final decisions denying the earlier application.
b. The application does not contain the original or a substantially similar
request for specific use.
c. Substantial change in the use of adjacent property has occurred since the
previous application was heard.
d. The previous application was closed without a hearing because the applicant
was not present at the time such situation/circumstance was scheduled for a
meeting and the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Committee that his or her absence was due to excusable neglect.
e. There is a claim that there should be a rehearing based upon newly
discovered evidence. A rehearing will only be granted on this basis when all
of the following apply:
1. The evidence has come to the moving party’s notice after the initial
hearing.
2. The moving party’s failure to discover the evidence earlier did not
arise from lack of diligence in seeking to discover it.
3. The evidence is material and not cumulative.
4. The new evidence would probably change the result.
(2) Reconsideration. There shall be no reconsideration of any Planning and Zoning
Committee decision approving or denying a conditional use permit except that the Planning
and Zoning Committee, by its own motion and by a simple majority vote taken at the
hearing in which a decision to grant or deny a conditional use permit is made, or at very
next meeting of the Committee, shall be sufficient to reconsider a previous decision. If
the Planning and Zoning Committee decides to reconsider the granting or denial of a
conditional use permit after the close of the hearing at which the original grant or denial
is voted upon, the case will be placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting/hearing
and notice given as required for an original hearing.
(3) Closure of Application. An application will be considered as heard and closed at
such time as the Committee approves or rejects an application or appeal by motion. No
subsequent request for reconsideration by the applicant shall be considered.
81
(4) Filing fee(s) for a refiling will not be refunded in the event the Committee or Board
decides to deny the application.
Section 2. Section 13-1-41A(e) [Planning and Zoning Committee] of Article C
[Nonconforming Uses and Structures; Special and Conditional Uses; Environmental Impact
Analysis; Handicap-Disability Permits of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] or Title 13 [Zoning of the
Code of Ordinances], Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby created to read as follows, with
additions highlighted by the double underline feature (additions):
13-1-41A(e) Refilings; Reconsiderations and Rehearings
(1) Refiling Rule. No Special Use Permit that has been previously acted upon by the
Committee shall be considered upon a new application unless one or more of the
following applies:
a. Thirty-Six (36) consecutive calendar months have expired from the date of
the final decisions denying the earlier application.
b. The application does not contain the original or a substantially similar
request for specific use.
c. Substantial change in the use of adjacent property has occurred since the
previous application was heard.
d. The previous application was closed without a hearing because the applicant
was not present at the time such situation/circumstance was scheduled for a
meeting and the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Committee that his or her absence was due to excusable neglect.
e. There is a claim that there should be a rehearing based upon newly
discovered evidence. A rehearing will only be granted on this basis when all
of the following apply:
1. The evidence has come to the moving party’s notice after the initial
hearing.
2. The moving party’s failure to discover the evidence earlier did not
arise from lack of diligence in seeking to discover it.
3. The evidence is material and not cumulative.
4. The new evidence would probably change the result.
(2) Reconsideration. There shall be no reconsideration of any Planning and Zoning
Committee decision approving or denying a special use permit except that the Planning and
Zoning Committee, by its own motion and by a simple majority vote taken at the hearing in
which a decision to grant or deny a special use permit is made, or at very next meeting of
the Committee, shall be sufficient to reconsider a previous decision. If the Planning and
Zoning Committee decides to reconsider the granting or denial of a special use permit
after the close of the hearing at which the original grant or denial is voted upon, the case
82
will be placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting/hearing and notice given as
required for an original hearing.
(5) Closure of Application. An application will be considered as heard and closed at
such time as the Committee approves or rejects an application or appeal by motion. No
subsequent request for reconsideration by the applicant shall be considered.
(6) Filing fee(s) for a refiling will not be refunded in the event the Committee or Board
decides to deny the application.
Section 3. Except as specifically modified and amended by this ordinance, the Bayfield
County Code of Ordinance 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 4. 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 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from
and after its passage.
The Bayfield County Board of Supervisors decision is to Be Approved
By Action of the
BAYFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Attested to by:
Dennis M. Pocernich, Bayfield County Chair
A motion was made by Bussey/Silbert to adopt Bayfield County Ordinance No.
02017-05, Regarding Amendments to Section 13-1-41 and 13-1-41A, Code of
Ordinances, Bayfield County, WI. Discussion took place regarding the length of time
before one can come back for reconsideration. The motion carried.
8. Bayfield County Ordinance No. 2017-03, Amendment Creating Section
5-5, “Animal Manure Storage” in Bayfield County Ordinance, Title 5, “Public Safety.”
For purposes of discussion, a motion was made by Crandall/Strand to adopt
Bayfield County Ordinance No. 2017-03, Amendment Creating Section 5-5, “Animal
Manure Storage” in Bayfield County Ordinance, Title 5, “Public Safety.” Ben
Dufford, County Conservation, gave a powerpoint presentation to help with the history of
the need for a manure storage ordinance as well as the goings on of the CAFO Committee
over the last couple of years. Dufford explained that Bayfield County has just a little over
20 farms. The language contained in this ordinance is boiler plate language used by many
counties with a few exceptions that have to do with fees, etc. A lengthy discussion took
place on existing and new structures and different types of farming. The motion carried.
83
The Ordinance reads as follow:
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, Wisconsin Statutes §92.16 authorizes the County to enact an
ordinance requiring manure storage facilities to meet certain technical standards; and
WHEREAS, it is deemed to be in the best interest of the County of Bayfield to
create Chapter 5 “Animal Manure Storage” under Title 5 “Public Safety”, Code of
Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin; and
WHEREAS, it is deemed to be in the best interest of the County of Bayfield that
the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin, be further modified and amended in
the manner hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors does hereby ordain
as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 5 [Animal Manure Storage] of Title 5 [Public Safety] of the
Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby created to read as follows:
Chapter 5 Animal Manure Storage
Sec. 5-5-1 Animal Manure Storage Ordinance Adopted
(a) Authority and Name: This Ordinance is adopted under authority granted
by §92.16, Wis. Stats.
This Ordinance shall be known as, referred to, and may be cited as the Bayfield
County Animal Manure Storage Ordinance and is hereinafter referred to as this “Chapter.”
(b) Findings and Declaration of Policy: The Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
finds that storage of animal manure in storage facilities not meeting the technical design
and construction standards may cause pollution of the surface and ground waters of
Bayfield County, and may result in actual or potential harm to the health of County
residents and transients; to livestock, aquatic life and other animals and plants; and to the
property tax base of Bayfield County.
The Bayfield County Board of Supervisors also finds that improper management of
animal manure storage facilities, and utilization, including land application of stored animal
84
manure, may cause pollution of the ground and surface waters of Bayfield County.
The Bayfield County Board of Supervisors further finds that the technical
standards issued by the U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service and developed
with the assistance of the Interagency Standards Oversight Committee provide
effective, practical, and environmentally safe methods of storing and utilizing animal
manure.
(c) Purpose: The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate the location, design,
construction, installation, operation, alteration and use of animal manure storage facilities,
as well as abandonment and the application of manure from these facilities in order to
prevent water pollution and thereby protect the health of Bayfield County residents and
transients; prevent the spread of disease; and promote the prosperity and general welfare
of the citizens of Bayfield County. It is also intended to provide for the administration
and enforcement of this Chapter and to provide penalties for its violation.
(d) Interpretation: In their interpretation and application, the provisions of
this Chapter shall be held to be minimum requirements and shall not be deemed a limitation
or repeal of any other power granted by the Wisconsin Statutes.
(e) Severability Clause: If any section, provision, or portion of this Chapter is
ruled invalid by a court, the remainder of the Chapter shall not for that reason be
rendered ineffective.
(f) Applicability: This Chapter applies to the entire geographical areas of
Bayfield County and to all animal manure storage facilities constructed therein.
(g) Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption by
the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors, and publication.
Sec. 5-5-2 Definitions
(a) The following terms used in this Chapter have the meanings indicated:
(1) Abandonment. A livestock waste storage facility that is no longer being used
for its intended purpose and has not received any animal wastes for a period of two
consecutive years.
(2) Animal Manure. Excretion from livestock, poultry and other materials, such as
bedding, rain or other water, soil, hair, feathers, and other debris normally included in
animal manure handling operations.
(3) Animal Manure Storage Facility. Both fabricated and earthen facilities as
herein defined.
(4) Animal Unit. A unit of measure to determine the total number of single animal
types or combination of animal types, as specified in NR243, which are fed, confined,
maintained, or stabled in an animal feeding operation.
85
(5) Applicant. Any person who applies for a permit under this Chapter.
(6) Discontinuance of Use. A farming operation that has removed the livestock
units that were principally using the animal manure storage facility must empty that animal
manure storage facility within one hundred twenty (120) days or when land becomes fit
based on weather conditions and at such time as the animal manure may be utilized following
the nutrient management plan for that farm.
(7) Earthen Animal Manure Storage Facility. A structure above or below grade,
excavated or constructed of earth beams or dikes, or utilizing pits, depressions or ponds,
which may be lined with earth, nonstructural concrete, or a flexible membrane material, to
contain animal manure and associated liquids for storage for a period of thirty (30) or more
days or that has the capacity to store 5,000 cubic feet of more of animal manure.
(8) Fabricated Animal Manure Storage Facility. A concrete, steel, or otherwise
fabricated storage of animal manure with one or more walls to contain manure and
associated liquids for a period of thirty (30) or more days or that has the capacity to store
5,000 cubic feet or more of animal manure.
(9) High Ground Water Level. The higher of either the elevation to which the
soil is saturated as observed as a free water surface in an unlined hole, or the elevation to
which the soil has been seasonally or periodically saturated as indicated by soil
redoximorphic features throughout the soil profile.
(10) LWCD: Land and Water Conservation Department of Bayfield County.
(11) Nutrient Management Plan. Written plan detailing the amount, form,
placement, and timing of application of plant nutrients, including animal manure.
(12) Permit. The signed, written statement issued by the Bayfield County Land and
Water Conservation Department under this Chapter authorizing the applicant to construct,
abandon, install, enlarge, or substantially alter an animal manure storage facility and to use
or dispose of manure from the facility.
(13) Permitee. Any person to whom a permit is issued under this Chapter.
(14) Person. Any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, agency,
unincorporated association, municipal corporation, county, or State agency within Wisconsin,
the Federal government, or any combination thereof.
(15) Substantially altered. A change initiated by an owner or operator that results
in a relocation of a structure or facility or significant changes to the size, depth, or
configuration of a structure or facility including:
a. Replacement of a liner in a manure storage structure.
b. An increase in the volumetric capacity or area of a structure or facility by
86
greater than 20%.
c. A change in a structure or facility related to a change in livestock
management from one species of livestock to another such as cattle to poultry. NR
151.015(20) Wisc. Admin. Code.
(16) Technical Guide. The United States Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.)
Natural Resources Conservation Service Technical Guide, as adopted by the Bayfield County
Land and Water Conservation Committee and the Department of Land and Water
Conservation, which provides standards incorporated in this Ordinance.
(17) Technical Standard 312. “Waste Management System” A planned system in
which all necessary components are installed for managing liquid and solid waste, including
runoff from concentrated waste areas, in a manner that does not degrade air, soil, or water
resources.
(18) Technical Standard 313. “Waste Storage Facility” is a practice standard
within the Technical Guide that covers the proper location, design, construction, installation,
alteration, operation and maintenance of a manure storage facility.
(19) Technical Standard 360. “Waste Facility Closure” is a practice standard
within the Technical Guide that covers decommissioning of facilities, and/or the
rehabilitation of contaminated soil, in an environmentally safe manner, where agricultural
waste has been handled, treated, and/or stored and is no longer used for the intended
purpose.
(20) Technical Standard 590. “Nutrient Management” is a practice standard
within the Technical Guide that covers managing the amount, form, placement and timing of
plant nutrients associated with organic wastes (manure and organic by-products), commercial
fertilizers, legume crops and crop residues.
(21) Technical Standard 634. “Manure Transfer” is a practice standard within the
Technical Guide that covers the design, material types and quality, and installation of
components such as conduits, pumps, valves and other structures or devices to transfer
manure and waste from buildings and yards and other sources to storage, loading areas, crop
fields and other destinations. The standard establishes the minimum acceptable
requirements for design, construction, and operation of waste transfer system components.
(22) Temporary Manure Stack. An uncontained deposit of animal waste, placed on
an earthen, concrete, or other surface necessary to facility daily or periodic land spreading.
(23) Water Pollution. Contaminating or rendering unclean or impure the ground or
surface waters of the State, or making the same injurious to public health, harmful for
commercial or recreational use, or deleterious to fish, bird, animal, or plan life.
87
Sec. 5-5-3 Activities Subject to Regulation
(a) General Requirement. Any person who designs, constructs, installs,
reconstructs, abandons or makes changes to an animal manure storage facility resulting in
its being substantially altered; or who employs another person to do the same, on land
subject to this Chapter, shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter.
(b) Compliance with Permit Requirements. A person is in compliance with this
Chapter if he or she follows the procedures of this Chapter, receives a permit from the
LWCD before beginning activities subject to regulation under this Chapter, and complies
with the requirements of the permit.
Sec. 5-5-4 Standards
(a) Standards for Animal Manure Waste Storage Facilities. The standards for
design and construction of animal waste storage facilities are those in Standards 312
(Waste Management System) 313 (Waste Storage Facility) 360 (Closure of Waste
Impoundments) and 634 (Manure Transfer) of the USDA-NRCS Technical Guide.
(b) Standards for Nutrient Management Plan. The standards for a nutrient
management plan shall be as provided in Section IV of the Technical Guide, Standard 590,
including any and all existing and future standards amended thereto.
(c) Subsequent Modification of Standards. The standards of the Technical
Guide are adopted and by reference made a part of this Chapter as if fully set forth. Any
future amendment, revision or modification of the standards incorporated herein are made
a part of this Chapter.
(d) Human Household Wastewater Prohibited. Human household wastewater
shall not be discharged into animal manure storage facilities unless provided for through
other permitting process outside of this Chapter.
Sec. 5-5-5 Application for issuance of Permits
(a) Permit Required. Except as provided below, no person may undertake
an activity subject to this Chapter without obtaining a permit from the LWCD
prior to beginning the proposed activity.
Note: DNR and other permits may be needed for construction site erosion
control and stormwater management, floodplain and shoreland construction, and
livestock facilities with 1,000 or more animal units. [Moved from Sec. 5-5-
5.J.]
88
(b) Exception to Permit Requirements. Emergency repairs such as repairing a
broken pipe or equipment, leaking dikes, or the removal of stoppages may be performed
without a permit. If repairs will significantly alter the original design and construction of
the facility, a report shall be made to the LWCD within two (2) work days of the
emergency for a determination by the LWCD on whether a permit will be required for any
additional alteration or repair to the facility. Pre-existing waste storage facilities, except
where the facility is substantially altered, do not require a permit.
(c) Abandoning an Existing Livestock Waste Storage Facility. A permit, a fee,
and a nutrient management plan are not required to abandon an existing livestock waste
storage facility. However, a waste storage facility must be closed in compliance with
Standards 313 and 360 of the USDA Technical Guide, including any and all existing and
future standard amendments thereto, if the facility is inactive for 2 years or more.
(d) Exception to Avoid Closure. The owner or operator may avoid closure of a
facility as required under paragraph (c) by demonstrating to the county that all of the
following conditions are met:
(1) The facility is designed, constructed and maintained in accordance
with Technical Standard 313.
(2) The facility is designed to store manure for a period of time longer
than 24 months.
(3) Retention of the facility is warranted based on anticipated future
use.
(e) On-Site Investigation Required. Each application for a permit under this
Section shall require an on-site inspection prior to issuance and include a summary report
of on-site conditions. The site inspection shall be conducted by the LWCD staff.
(f) Fee. There is no fee for new storage facilities or substantially altering
manure storage facilities, however a permit is required.
(g) Animal Manure Storage Facility Plan and Nutrient Management Plan
Required. Each application for a permit under this Section shall include an animal manure
storage facility plan and nutrient management plan. The plan shall specify:
(1) The number, kinds, and weights of animals for which storage is
provided and the duration for which storage is to be provided.
Storage volume computations and the storage facility volume shall be
provided.
(2) A plan view of the facility and its location in relation to buildings
within five hundred feet (500’) and homes within one thousand feet
(1,000’) of the proposed facility. The plan view shall be
89
drawn to scale, with a scale of with a scale no smaller
than one inch equals one hundred feet (1”=100’), the
North arrow, scale of drawing, township, range and
quarter-quarter section of the proposed facility, and
location, description and elevation of temporary bench
mark.
(3) The structural details, load assumptions, design
computations computations, dimensions, cross sections,
concrete thickness, reinforcing steel to be used, and
facility elevations. The construction and material
specifications set forth in Section IV of the Technical
Guide including any and all existing and future
amendments including, but not limited to, applicable
specification for earthen fill quantities and soil types,
excavation quantities and soil types, timber and pipes.
(4) The location of any existing or proposed well within one thousand feet
(1,000’) of the facility.
(5) The soil test pit locations and soil descriptions to a depth of at least
three feet (3’) below the planned bottom of the facility. Surface
elevation of soil test pits shall be provided. Soil tests shall be done
by a certified soil tester and evaluated by the LWCD or the Bayfield
County Zoning Department.
(6) The elevation of high ground water level or bedrock if
encountered in the soil profile and the date of any such
determinations.
(7) Provisions for adequate drainage and control of runoff
to prevent pollution of surface water and ground water.
If a navigable body of water lies within five hundred
feet (500’) of the facility, the location and distance to
the body of water shall be shown.
(8) A time schedule for construction of the facility.
(9) A description of the method and materials proposed in
transferring animal manure into and from the
facility.
(10) Plans for utilization of the animal waste will follow
Standard 590 Nutrient Management of the Technical
Guide. Preliminary plans will include the amount of land
90
available for the application of waste, identification of the areas
where the waste will be used, soil types and any limitations on waste
application due to soil limitations, type and proximity of bedrock, or
water table, slope of land, and proximity to surface water.
(11) An operation and maintenance plan, operating safety provisions, and
details of the manure transfer system, including, but not limited to,
materials quality, shall be provided.
(h) Review of Application. The LWCD shall receive and review all permit
applications and shall determine if the proposed facility meets required standards set
forth in Section 5-5-4 of this Chapter. Within thirty (30) business days after receiving
the completed application, the LWCD shall inform the applicant in writing whether the
permit application is approved or disapproved. If additional information is required, the
LWCD shall notify the permit applicant. The LWCD shall have thirty (30) business days
from the receipt of the additional information in which to approve or disapprove the
application. No construction may commence without the final approval by the LWCD. If
after thirty (30) business days the LWCD has not responded, the application is considered
approved, and the applicant may go ahead with the project. If the LWCD determines
additional review of the plan is necessary by the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Department of Natural Resources, or Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
Protection and notifies the applicant of such determination within the 30 business day
time period, the time period shall be extended for an additional thirty (30) business days
(i) Permit Conditions. All permits issued under this Chapter shall be issued
subject to the following conditions and requirements:
(1) Animal manure storage facility design and construction, management,
and utilization activities shall be carried out in accordance with the
animal manure facility plan and applicable standards specified in
Section 5-5-4 of this Chapter.
(2) The permittee shall give at least two (2) business days’ notice to the
LWCD before starting any construction activity authorized by the
permit.
(3) Approval in writing must be obtained from the LWCD prior to any
modifications to the approved animal manure facility plan.
(4) The permittee and, if applicable, the contractor, shall certify in
writing that the facility was installed as planned.
(5) The LWCD staff may conduct on-site inspections before, during and
after construction.
91
Activities authorized by permit must be completed within two (2) years
from the date of issuance after which such permit shall be void.
(Permit for construction may also be subject to County Zoning
Ordinance time limitations.)
(j) Permit Revocation. The LWCD may revoke any permit issued under this
Chapter if the holder of the permit misrepresents any of the materials to be used for
constructing and /or reconstructing the animal manure facility, misrepresents the plans of
the animal manure facility, makes statements within the permit application which
misrepresent the facts, or if the holder of the permit violates any of the conditions of the
permit. The permittee shall be immediately notified of the revocation in writing giving
reason(s) for the revocation.
Sec. 5-5-6 Administration
(a) Delegation of Authority. Bayfield County Board of Supervisors hereby
designates the Bayfield County LWDC to administer and enforce this Chapter.
(b) Administrative Duties. In the administration of this Chapter, the LWCD
shall:
(1) Keep an accurate record of all permit applications, animal manure
facility plans, permits issued, inspections made, and other official
actions.
(2) Review permit applications and issue permits in accordance with
Section 5-5-5 of this Chapter.
(3) Inspect animal manure storage facility construction to ensure the
facility is being constructed according to plan specifications.
(4) Investigate complaints relating to compliance with this Chapter.
(5) Perform other duties as specified in this Chapter.
(c) Design and Construction Plan Approval. Storage facility design and
construction plans may be provided through the LWCD, cooperating members or County,
State, or Federal government agencies, and private consultants. Private consultants shall
be registered professional engineers, licensed in the State of Wisconsin. Storage facility
designs, construction plans, and specifications utilizing preapproved or prequalified
Natural Resources Conservation Service plans must be prepared by a registered
professional engineer, licensed in the State of Wisconsin. The approval of preapproved or
prequalified plans must state that plan meets the requirements of this Chapter.
Construction plans utilizing a preapproval or prequalified plan must be adapted to fit site
92
conditions making it comply with Standard 313.
(d) Inspection Authority. The LWCD is authorized to enter upon any lands
affected by this Chapter to inspect the land prior to or after permit issuance to
determine compliance with this Chapter. If permission cannot be received from the
applicant or permittee, the permit may be denied or entry by the LWCD shall be in
accordance with §92.07(14), Wis. Stats.
(e) Enforcement Authority. The LWCD is authorized to post an order
stopping work upon land which has had a permit revoked or on land in violation of this
Chapter. Notice is given by both posting upon the land where the violation occurs, one or
more copies of a poster stating the violation, and by mailing a copy of the order by
certified mail, return receipt requested, to the person whose activity is in violation of this
Chapter. The order shall specify that the activity must cease immediately and be brought
into compliance within five (5) working days. Any permit revocation or order stopping work
shall remain in effect unless retracted by the LWCD, or until the activity is brought into
compliance with this Chapter. The LWCD is authorized to refer any violation of this
Chapter or of any order stopping work issued pursuant to this Chapter to the Corporation
Counsel for commencement of further legal proceedings.
Sec. 5-5-7 Violations
(a) Any person who violates, neglects, refuses to comply with or resists the
enforcement of any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be subject to a forfeiture of
not less than $100.00 not more than $1,000.00 for each violation. A violation includes
failure to comply with any standard of this Chapter or with any condition or qualification
attached to the permit. Each day that a violation exists shall be a separate offense. The
County Conservationist may refer violations of this Chapter to Corporation Counsel for
enforcement.
(b) Enforcement of Injunctions: As a substitute for or as an addition to
forfeiture actions, Bayfield County may seek enforcement by injunction order at the suit
of the County or the owner or owners of the land within the district affected by the
regulations of this Title.
Sec. 5-5-8 Appeals from Administrative Decisions
(a) Authority. The Bayfield County Land and Water Conservation Committee shall
hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is error in an order, requirements,
decision or determination by the Land and Water Conservation Department staff in
administering this chapter.
(b) Procedure. Any appeal shall be made by written request, mailed or delivered
to the Bayfield County Land and Water Conservation Committee, c/o Land and Water
93
Conservation Department, 615 2nd Ave E, Washburn, WI 54891. The request shall state
the ground or grounds upon which it is contended that the decision should be modified or
reversed. The appeal shall be heard within sixty (60) days of the date the appeal is filed
with the LWCD. A copy of the meeting notice shall be sent to the applicant and the
appropriate Town Board. The LWCD shall transmit to the Committee all documents
constituting the record from which the appeal was taken. The Committee shall issue a
written decision regarding the appeal within sixty (60) days after the appeal hearing.
(c) Statutory Administrative Review and Certiorari. The decision of the
Bayfield County Land and Water Conservation Committee shall be subject to judicial review
if, within 30 days after the decision of the Bayfield County Land and Water Conservation
Committee, an action seeking the remedy available by certiorari is commenced, as authorized
by §59.694, Wis. Stats.
Section 2. Except as specifically modified and amended by this ordinance, the
Bayfield County Code of Ordinance 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 28th day of
February, 2017.
By Action of the
BAYFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Attested to by:
Dennis M. Pocernich, Chairman
9. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2017-12, Request to Amend the 2016
Year End Budget for the Bayfield County Veteran’s Relief Fund. Kevin Johnson,
Veteran’s Service Office, was present and gave a brief background on Relief Fund. Since
he has been here, there have been many generous donations made. The Board authorized
the donations be made to the non-lapsing fund to be used for Veteran’s relief. Last year,
we decided to focus on programs to work with the Veteran’s organization in the County.
This Resolution is basically “housekeeping” to make the 2016 budget correct. In the
future, the monies will be placed in the correct fund to prevent this from happening again.
94
The Board dispensed with the reading of the Resolution, which reads as follows:
WHEREAS, the 2016 expense budget for the Bayfield County Veteran’s Relief
Fund was approved at $1,500.00; and
WHEREAS, the actual 2016 expenses for the Bayfield County Veteran’s Relief Fund
were $5,125.00; and
WHEREAS, the 2016 revenue budget for the Bayfield County Veteran’s Relief fund
was approved for $1,500.00; and
WHEREAS, the actual 2016 revenue for the Bayfield County Veteran’s Relief Fund
was $6,040.00; and
WHEREAS, the additional revenues received will offset the additional expenses
incurred. The Veteran’s Office is requesting a budget amendment in the amount of
$3,625 to cover expenses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of
Supervisors assembled this 28th day of February, 2017, approves the following 2016
budget amendments:
Increase 2016 Veteran’s Relief Fund Expense Account:
#250-64-54704-50191 $3,625.00
Increase 2016 Veteran’s Relief Fund Revenue Account
#250-64-48500 $3,625.00
By Action of the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
Dennis M. Pocernich, Chairman
A motion was made by Oswald/Coughtry to adopt Bayfield County Resolution
No. 2017-012, Request to Amend the 2016 Year End Budget for the Bayfield County
Veteran’s Relief Fund. A roll call vote took place as follows: Bussey-yes; Fickbohm-
yes; Maki-yes; Oswald-yes; Silbert-yes; Pocernich-yes; Strand-yes; Williams-yes;
Coughtry-yes; Miller-yes; Crandall-yes; Rondeau-yes; Goodwin-yes. Total: 13; 12
yes, 0 no, 1 absent. The motion carried.
10. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2017-13, Opposing Making County
Veteran’s Service Officer Optional, Allowing Non-Veterans to fill the CVSO Position,
or Consolidating or Regionalizing County Veteran Service Offices in Wisconsin.
Johnson stated that this Resolution changes the scope and terms of a Veteran’s Service
Officer and sees these proposed changes as a major step backwards. This Resolution
would send to the State Legislation a message of their desire to oppose any efforts to
allow non-Veterans to fill the position of County Veteran’s Service Officer. It is very
95
similar to what other counties have passed and does not limit us to do what we want to do
with our Veteran’s Service.
The Board dispensed with the reading of the Resolution, which reads as follows:
WHEREAS, Wisconsin Statutes Section 45.80 requires each county to
elect/appoint a County Veterans Service Officer who is a Wisconsin resident and who
served under honorable conditions on active duty in the Armed Forces; and
WHEREAS, County Veterans Service Officers are responsible for a high
percentage of veterans’ claims at any given time at the VA Regional Office in Milwaukee;
and
WHEREAS, County Veterans Service Officers are a major stakeholder in assisting
veterans with obtaining more than $2.7 billion in VA benefits annually in Wisconsin; and
WHEREAS, County Veterans Service Officers are invaluable to all veterans but
especially elderly and disabled veterans in the local community; and
WHEREAS, County Veterans Service Officers are the only veterans’ advocates
when dealing with the VA who serve veterans’ in their local community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of
Supervisors assembled this 28th day of February, 2017, joins other counties in the state
of Wisconsin, to express their desire to the Wisconsin State Legislature to adamantly
oppose any future efforts to make County Veterans Service Officers optional; and
BE IT RESOLVED, that the county of Bayfield joins other counties in the state of
Wisconsin, to express their desire to the Wisconsin State Legislature adamantly oppose
any efforts to allow non-veterans to fill the positions of County Veterans Service
Officers; and
BE IT RESOLVED, that the county of Bayfield joins other counties in the state of
Wisconsin, to express their desire to the Wisconsin State Legislature adamantly oppose
any efforts to allow any consolidation and/or regionalization of County Veterans Service
Offices; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to all Bayfield
County’s State Senators and Assembly Representatives, to the Wisconsin Counties
Association, and to the President of the County Veterans Service Officers Association of
Wisconsin.
By Action of the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
Dennis M. Pocernich, Chairman
A motion was made by Goodwin/Williams to adopt Bayfield County Resolution
N0. 2017-13, Opposing Making County Veteran’s Service Officer Optional, Allowing
Non-Veterans to fill the CVSO Position, or Consolidating or Regionalizing County
Veteran Service Offices in Wisconsin. Discussion took place on local control and State
96
mandates. We may want to have the flexibility of putting a non-Veteran in this position.
Supervisor asked Johnson what the advantage of prior service in this position would be and
Johnson explained that it is essential to make a connection with the person across the
desk from him, either being a WWII Vet or just getting off plane yesterday. Having
similar experiences helps that a Vet to know that he is there to help him and that he can
be trusted. Johnson believes that a non-Vet would have empathy for the Vet, but doesn’t
believe a non-Vet could make that connection. Johnson stated that he believes a
Veteran/Veteran relationship is important. This Resolution send a message to the State
telling them that we don’t want them to dictate to us who we can have. The motion
carried with one opposition.
11. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2017-14, Returning CVSO Grant to a
Block Grant Format. Johnson informed the Board that the State has asked that each
County pass this Resolution and gave his reasoning for it. The Board dispensed the reading
of the Resolution, which reads as follows:
WHEREAS, the Wisconsin County Veterans Service Office has operated as a block-
grant for CVSO salary supplement since legislative inception in 1973, to attract and retain
CVSO talent, and as a means to fund improvements to CVSO Veteran’s services in the
county; and
WHEREAS, the 2015 Wisconsin Biennium Budget restructured this long-standing
CVSO Grant block payment structure to a reimbursement only payment structure, and has
resulted in a very cumbersome program that no longer allows salary supplementation, and
contains complicated rules of eligible reimbursable costs, which together now create fiscal
constraints on Wisconsin counties that benefitted from the previous block grant payment
structure.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County of Bayfield joins other
counties in the State of Wisconsin, to express their desire to the Wisconsin State
Legislature to have the County Veterans Service Office Grant returned to the original
1973 intent to be used for supplementing the salary of County Veterans Service Officers
in order to attract and retain talented personnel in those positions and used to fund
improvement of services to veterans and their dependents; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
assembled this 28th day of February, 2017, does hereby request of the State Legislature
that the CVSO Grant be structured in a block-grant structure requiring only the
signatures of the current CVSO and County Executive, County Administrator or County
Board Chairman as verification of compliance; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to all of
Bayfield County’s State Senators and Assembly Representatives, to the Wisconsin
Counties Association, and to the President of the Wisconsin County Veterans Service
Officer Association.
97
By Action of the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
Dennis M. Pocernich, Chairman
A motion was made by Strand/Maki to adopt Bayfield County Resolution No.
2017-14, Returning CVSO Grant to a Block Grant Format. The motion carried.
12. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2017-15, 2016 Budget Amendments for
the Offices of District Attorney, Maintenance, Clerk of Circuit Court, Register of
Deeds, Land Records and Motor Pool. Abeles-Allison explained that this Resolution is
taking care of business in the departments where they either went over their budget or
had excess revenue collected. A few of the Department heads were present to explain
what took in each of their offices. The Board dispensed with the reading of the
Resolution, which reads as follows:
WHEREAS, a change of pay levels in the Register of Deed’s Office during 2016
resulted in additional wages; and
WHEREAS, contractual services for imaging of documents in the Register of Deeds
office exceeded the number of images anticipated in 2016; and
WHEREAS, costs for printing & duplication (copier) were not included in the 2016
Register of Deeds budget; and
WHEREAS, additional revenue was collected in 2016 for Real Estate Transfer Fees
in the Register of Deeds Office. These fees offset the additional expenses that were
incurred; and
WHEREAS, the Wisconsin Land Information Program (WLIP) allocated more
revenues in 2016 than anticipated. These revenues offset additional WLIP related
expenses; and
WHEREAS, WLIP related expenses for contracted services, staffing, software
maintenance, and GPS equipment were incurred as a result of the additional WLIP funding
allocation; and
WHEREAS, court Fees receipted in 2016 exceeded the budgeted projection; and
WHEREAS, the cost for legal fees related to court appointed attorneys exceeded
budgeted expenses in 2016; and
WHEREAS, repair and Maintenance and contractual services costs exceeded
budgeted expenses due to unanticipated repairs to electronic controls; and
WHEREAS, utility costs exceeded budgeted figures; and
WHEREAS, a change of pay levels in the Maintenance Department during 2016
resulted in additional wages. Contingency funds were allocated for this expense; and
98
WHEREAS, the maintenance department is not a revenue generating department,
requiring the use of contingency and fund balance for budget expense overages; and
WHEREAS, the District Attorney Office exceeded budgeted expenditures in
postage and office supply expenditures; and
WHEREAS, the District Attorney Office brought in addition revenues exceeding
additional expenditures; and
WHEREAS, Repair and maintenance costs exceeded budget in the 2016 motor pool
fund; and
WHEREAS, additional interdepartmental mileage revenues exceeded budget, and
offset the additional repair and maintenance costs; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of
Supervisors assembled this 28th day of February, 2017, does hereby authorize that the
2016 Budget Be Amended as Follows:
Register of Deed’s Office:
Increase Real Estate Transfer Revenue 100-15-41230 $4,490
Increase PT Wage Expense 100-15-51711-50122 $2,949
Increase Contractual Services 100-15-51711-50290 $954
Increase Printing & Duplication 100-15-51711-50313 $587
Land Records:
Increase WLIP Grant Revenue 100-13-43516 $25,000
Increase WLIP Grant Revenue 100-13-43513 $38,808
Increase Land Sales 100-13-48302 $16,705
Increase Software Maintenance 100-13-51741-50397 $ 575
Increase Professional Services 100-13-51742-50210 $60,040
Increase Printing & Duplication 100-13-51531-50313 $15,538
Increase Capital Equipment 100-13-51742-50810 $ 4,360
Clerk of Court:
Increase Court Fee Revenue 100-02-46142 $12,548
Increase Fund Balance Applied 100 00 49301 $10,587
Increase Criminal Legal Fee Expense 100-02-581221-50212-003 $18,058
Increase Legal Fees Guardianship 100-02-581221-50212-001 $5,077
Courthouse Maintenance:
Increase Fund Balance Applied 100-00-49301 $9,696
Decrease Contingency Fund 100-00-51410-50000 $6,890
Increase Repair and Maintenance 100-14-51601-50240 $5,702
Increase Utilities 100-14-51601-50220 $1,802
Increase Contractual Services 100-14-51601-50290 $2,192
Increase Department Head Wages 100-14-51601-50111 $6,890
99
District Attorney
Increase All Other Revenue 100-08-48900 $1775
Increase Postage 100 08 51311 50311 $1306
Increase Office Supplies 100 08 51311 50310 $469
County Motor Pool
Increase interdepartmental mileage revenues 720-72-47411 $13,347
Increase repair and maintenance supplies 720-72-51415-50350 $13,347
By Action of the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
Dennis M. Pocernich, Chairman
A motion was made by Bussey/Goodwin to adopt Bayfield County Resolution No.
2017-15, 2016 Budget Amendments for the Offices of District Attorney,
Maintenance, Clerk of Circuit Court, Register of Deeds, Land Records and Motor
Pool. A brief discussion took place as to why this comes to the Board after the year has
ended. Abeles-Allison explained that you never know how the budget is going to end, you
have gains and losses, this puts the revenues and expenses in their proper place. A roll
call vote was taken as follows: Fickbohm-yes; Maki-yes; Oswald-yes; Silbert-yes;
Pocernich-yes; Strand-yes; Williams-yes; Coughtry-yes; Miller-yes; Crandall-yes;
Rondeau-absent; Goodwin-yes; Bussey-yes. Total: 13; 12 yes, 0 no, 1 absent, the
motion carried.
13. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2017-17, 2016 Emergency Management
Budget Amendments. Victorson was present and reported to the Board that this past
2016 was a “heck of a year” with all of the storms that happened. These amendments are
in relation to that. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Resolution, which reads
as follows:
WHEREAS, the Emergency Management Office had several unanticipated expenses
in 2016, including payments to AT&T for the 9-1-1 network, repairs/maintenance to radio
equipment, maintenance contract for 9-1-1 equipment and additional tower rental for radio
infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, there was not an offsetting increase in revenue in the Emergency
Management office, requiring the use of fund balance for budget expense overages.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of
Supervisors assembled this 28th day of February, 2017, do hereby authorize that the 2016
Budget Be Amended as Follows:
Emergency Management
Increase Fund Balance Applied 100-00-49301 $65,484
100
Increase Telephone (911) 100-18-52501-50225 $33,739
Increase Repair & Maintenance 100-18-52501-50240 $10,084
Increase Contractual Services 100-18-52501-50290 $14,215
Increase Rental Radio Towers 100-18-52501-50531 $ 7,446
By Action of the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
Dennis M. Pocernich, Chairman
A motion was made by Silbert/Williams to adopt Bayfield County Resolution No.
2017-17, 2016 Emergency Management Budget Amendments. Discussion took place
about getting funds back from AT &T in 2017. Victorson reported that the first batch of
FEMO checks have arrived and they are making progress with the others. A roll call vote
was taken as follows: Maki-yes; Oswald-yes; Silbert-yes; Pocernich-yes; Strand-
yes; Williams-yes; Coughtry-yes; Miller-yes; Crandall-yes; Rondeau-absent;
Goodwin-yes; Bussey-yes; Fickbohm-yes. Total: 13; 12 yes, 0 no, 1 absent. The
motion carried.
14. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2017-16, Authorization to Apply for
Grant Funding Through the U.S. Department of Justice for a Mental Health Grant.
Supervisor Oswald excused himself from discussion of this since he is working on this
through his place of employment. Spurlock explained that this is an implementation grant
through the Dept. of Justice working quicker and better for people with a mental illness.
Bayfield County would be lead with Sawyer and Ashland Counties participating as well.
This would be in partnership with NorthLakes. Discussion took place on what our chances
are to be awarded such a grant.
The Board dispensed with the reading of the Resolution, which reads as follows:
WHEREAS, Bayfield County has an active Criminal Justice Council; and
WHEREAS, Bayfield County joined the National Association of Counties Stepping
Up Initiative, focused on addressing individuals with mental illnesses in the jail; and
WHEREAS, an opportunity with a US Department of Justice Grant addressing
individuals with mental illness or co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders
who come into contact with the justice system has come up; and
WHEREAS, this is a two year grant for three counties to collaborate on planning,
targeting and establishing best practices for those with mental illnesses; and
WHEREAS, application for this is due on April 1 and NorthLakes Community Clinic
will be assisting with the grant writing; and
WHEREAS, Brenda Spurlock would assist with writing and oversight of the grant
and serve as the director of this project for Bayfield County.
101
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of
Supervisors assembled this 28th day of February, 2017, hereby authorizes Bayfield County
to apply for this grant and be the fiscal manager for the project.
By Action of the
Bayfield County Board of Supervisors
Dennis M. Pocernich, Chairman
A motion was made by Crandall/Goodwin to adopt Bayfield County Resolution
No. 2017-16, Authorization to Apply for Grant Funding Through the U.S.
Department of Justice for a Mental Health Grant. The motion carried.
15. Appointment and Confirmation of Elaine Kopp to the Bayfield County
Board of Health. Supervisor Strand updated the Board of Kopp’s background and
qualifications for this appointment. A motion was made by Crandall/Williams to confirm
the appointment of Elaine Kopp to the Bayfield County Board of Health. The motion
carried.
16. A motion was made by Miller/Maki to move in and out of
Executive/Closed Session pursuant to §19.85(1)(e), deliberating or negotiating the
purchasing of public properties, the investing of public funds, or conducting other
specified public business, whenever competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed
session; and (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. The motion carried.
A motion was made by Crandall/Coughtry to move out of Executive/Closed
Session. The motion carried.
17. Administrator’s Report:
a) Upcoming meeting updates:
March 28th 6:00 pm – This will be a meeting with the Red Cliff Tribe.
April 18th will be the date the Security and Space Study will be
presented. This presentation will take at least an hour. It was
suggested to meet with these people at 5:00 pm, prior to the
meeting time. The Board did not want this, but rather, they wanted
this group to meet with the Board at the 6:00 pm, the regular
meeting time. Materials will be forthcoming to the Board on their
findings.
May 30th – 6:00 pm – regular meeting
b) Ethics Board Update: Jeremy Oswald, Jim Crandall, Brett Rondeau, Billie
Hoopman make up this Board. This Board will be meeting twice a year. At
the next meeting, the topic of conflicts of interest will be discussed.
102
c) Northern Lights Update. Abeles-Allison reported that Bayfield County is
planning on meeting with accountants and auditors for Northern Lights and
making a presentation to us within the next 30-60 days. Discussions will
take place on what Northern Lights is able to pay in the future. We are
looking at a variety of options. The current situation is that Northern
Lights is unable to make their payments. They borrowed money to make
their last payment. They have been unable to get the 3rd party financing
that they were hoping for, however, they are still looking. The Board discus-
sed other options that may be available to both parties. Supervisors Maki
and Silbert have been attending the Northern Lights Board meetings. Maki
stated that he feels it is important for the County to stay involved.
Discussion took place on several issues, options and possible solutions.
We need to find out more and help both us and Northern Lights to find
solutions.
d) Superior Days. Supervisor Strand updated the Board that this event has
been shortened to only 1½ days. He spoke with different representatives;
discussed payment in lieu of taxes; discussed funding that comes from State
property taxes. It has been stated that the Governor is going to do away
with State property taxes. Water quality issues along with shoreland
zoning regarding animal waste was discussed. 911 funding was also
discussion. This year 20 youth from Ashland and Bayfield counites were
present. There was a better attitude this year than last year.
18. Supervisors’ Reports: It was mentioned that it would be nice for the Board
to see the screen in front of the Board. The Chair, Administrator, and Clerk sit higher
and they can’t see around. Discussion has taken place about moving things around and a
more diligent effort will be made to find a solution.
There being no further action to come before the Bayfield County Board of
Supervisors, Chairman Pocernich adjourned the meeting at 9:09 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Scott S. Fibert
Bayfield County Clerk
SSF/dmb