[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6277386,"mediaKeyId","2655419-c1a44f63e845cd670798035405ff0a7c","parentId",2655419,"title","Committee sends tax-deed ordinance back for clarification after Supreme Court-driven rule changes","audioSeconds",1078,"startMs",3000000,"endMs",4078000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2655419-c1a44f63e845cd670798035405ff0a7c&start=3000&end=4078","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2655419-c1a44f63e845cd670798035405ff0a7c/thumbnail_3000000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6277386/Sawyer-County/Wisconsin/Committee-sends-tax-deed-ordinance-back-for-clarification-after-Supreme-Court-driven-rule-changes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6277386-6f9a3b0111196fd4f87367873ae5e74e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771131423&Signature=DXWrErwKyZtHXKcrwH2m62J8ko6SBtaITcbRcp-z4pRep65uXiu28OdOtX6CPwZExyz5SI~xyYEjsb29lwBkICGxiQyagz2i5DCV2qxUZyvtwBbp8W6rHW0M7Nd858cMgiMqLNxDmcjeli4UMsB97VIkYHz~FTGi-~aTMFW6azIqQ0v65shLYapvGSNSSoNa6DDwqm3hwHO56TUo~DT1kukrwKKQqQBbWJvaJKGLdF6wHMxqiEdbfg9fiBMAayrbgsyXjQQlvk1yimwB4PSHM4iMmydRU1WpK3X29N1CDu0vqzNCm6CKFd6DMOGc5eJtaa19CJOutXiYXu~UOYzDhQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Sawyer County, WI","date","2025-03-14T16:41:29Z","article","The Sawyer County Land, Water and Forest Resources Committee returned a proposed tax-deed ordinance to staff for clarification and explicit inclusion of a three-year acquisition timeframe after a staff presentation that cited recent court and state-law changes affecting tax-deed sales.

The committee’s review followed a presentation by staff explaining how the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County changed whether counties may retain sale proceeds above back taxes and how the state subsequently passed legislation that requires counties to make a reasonable attempt to locate prior owners and provide a repurchase right in some cases. Committee members heard that counties statewide are updating ordinances to incorporate those statutory requirements.

County staff summarized the ordinance’s main procedural points as currently drafted: within 20 days of acquiring a tax deed the county must notify the former owner by certified or registered mail that they may be entitled to proceeds from a future sale; the county must determine an appraised value within 120 days of acquisition; owner-occupied single-family residences have a statutorily required repurchase right with specified timelines; the county must publish availability for sale after 240 days of acquisition (180 days for properties acquired on or after Jan. 1, 2026) either via a class 1 notice or by listing with a licensed real estate broker on a multiple listing service; and the treasurer must attempt to return any proceeds to the former owner or follow Wisconsin Stat. §59.66 procedures for unclaimed funds.

Staff also told the committee a class-action filing had been made recently that seeks recovery of proceeds counties previously retained. The presenter summarized the effect: “Previously when the county sold the tax deed property ... the county was able to retain those funds, and the county is no longer able to do that, or at least you have to make an attempt to track down the prior owner, and return those funds to that individual.”

Committee members asked whether appraised values should be set by a certified appraiser or by treasurer staff using fair-market data; staff said either approach is allowed but many counties use internal valuation to avoid appraisal costs. The treasurer confirmed the county historically waited five years to acquire tax deed properties but staff recommended aligning the ordinance with state statute and a three-year acquisition timeline. One committee member moved to have staff add the three-year acquisition timeframe explicitly in the ordinance before bringing it back; a second was made and the motion carried on a voice vote.

The committee did not adopt the ordinance at this meeting; staff will revise the draft to insert the three-year timeline and return the ordinance for further committee review.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Land Water and Forest Resources 2025 03 12","oneSentenceSummary","Following discussion of Tyler v. Hennepin County and new state laws, the Sawyer County Land, Water and Forest Resources Committee voted to send a proposed tax-deed ordinance back to staff so the document explicitly states the county’s desired three-year acquisition timeframe and clarifies repurchase and sale procedures required by state law.","taxTitle","Sawyer County, Wisconsin","taxId",73055,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6277389,"Committee recommends keeping Callahan–Mud Lake district boundaries after mixed public comment",1696,107000,1803000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2655419-c1a44f63e845cd670798035405ff0a7c&start=107&end=1803","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2655419-c1a44f63e845cd670798035405ff0a7c/thumbnail_107000.jpg","/articles/6277389/Sawyer-County/Wisconsin/Committee-recommends-keeping-CallahanMud-Lake-district-boundaries-after-mixed-public-comment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6277389-b933cbbac10c01728961f0c3c6611fdd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771131423&Signature=RE3zHbfDRUKPX93klhMN9kNf~qhib~tivml1McF8-Fs2DdDkPvyJ65d2rRlWmpbh3NSoRKbmONBnY2HSrS1in8YokBceWzlnm3vZWD8dK4oeeHLH2XdOdXybHFwlXFr7319MfYTxoGsfS4dBtWWfOzcmxusl0G~SzRRLObX-NkeRQVB1h2KinSD5XAbzYOnNHjPNdJr8Hdbmu0TPRNSw4XEd-0k85sXwRRjJ625jpmXVVOLGEO3FVO083iaLdP8s1l3iCwO7B319n4jF0V1aLJZCJTlMxF~8~7BQ~wIjSUBckFMwzDhOrAcNDOQHWrB~ZtsBF5a2UkgfWxCsQCZ3~A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a meeting of the Sawyer County Land, Water and Forest Resources Committee, members voted to forward the existing petition boundaries for a proposed Callahan and Mud Lake district to the Sawyer County Board, despite multiple public objections from property owners who said they lack lake access and would face higher taxes.

The issue matters because inclusion in a lake district can authorize special assessments and ongoing property taxes to fund lake projects such as dam maintenance and water-quality work. Several speakers told the committee they were surprised to find their parcels included and asked to be removed from the proposed district.

David Wegener, a full-time resident at 11123 West Chief River Road, said his parcel is “completely landlocked from the lake” and that he has “absolutely 0 access” yet was included in the district. He said he and other neighbors did not sign the petition and were not notified of the district process. Lynn Amundsen, representing the Callahan Mud Lake Association and the Exploratory Dam Committee, asked the committee to consider the association’s December 6, 2024 letter and cited “Wisconsin statute 33” in arguing that properties that “could reasonably be considered part of a lake community benefit” and therefore should be included. Rhonda Isold, whose frontage is on the Chief River, told the committee the association had “overextended their proposed boundaries” and said inclusion could cause property taxes to rise by “over 30%,” adding that the county board has “the absolute right to remove properties from the proposed district under Wisconsin state statutes.”

Some commenters and committee members framed the question differently. Martin Hansen urged the committee not to change boundaries contained in a petition, saying “Lake Districts are designed to be autonomous and do not need county oversight.” Several committee members and other speakers reviewed GIS maps on screen and discussed which parcels shown in red had requested removal. Staff clarified that lake districts and petition organizers can also modify boundaries after formation and that counties may remove properties, though the process is governed by statute and by the petition mechanics.

After discussion, one committee member moved to recommend the petition’s submitted boundaries and forward that recommendation to the Sawyer County Board. A second was made and the motion carried on a voice vote.

The matter now goes to the full County Board for final consideration; the committee’s action is a recommendation only.

Votes at a glance: The committee voted to recommend the existing Callahan and Mud Lake petition boundaries to the County Board; the motion carried on a voice vote with all members present voting “aye.”","After multiple residents sought removal from a proposed Callahan and Mud Lake district, the Sawyer County Land, Water and Forest Resources Committee reviewed maps and public testimony and voted to recommend the petition’s existing boundaries to the County Board.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee sends tax-deed ordinance back for clarification after Supreme Court-driven rule changes

Committee recommends keeping Callahan–Mud Lake district boundaries after mixed public comment