Sawyer County board approves Callahan and Mud Lake district, excludes properties that requested removal

The Sawyer County Board of Supervisors voted 8-6 to approve creation of the Callahan and Mud Lake Lake District while removing properties whose owners requested exclusion and excluding Sawyer County parcels that the board found would not be benefited by the district.

The decision followed more than an hour of public comment from property owners who said they were included in the district boundaries without adequate notice and would face higher taxes and special assessments. ‘‘Why is a group of private people trying to force me into a taxation district that could increase my property taxes by over 30% for a cause in which I do not benefit?’’ said Rhonda Isold, a Hayward-area property owner during the meeting’s public-comment period.

The matter was discussed at length in committee and at the full board. County corporation counsel Rebecca Roker told supervisors that state law requires the board to determine whether the parcels included in a district “will be benefited by the establishment of the district,” citing the statutory framework in Chapter 33 and the requirement to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. Roker urged the board to include those written findings and to appoint an initial board of commissioners as part of the order creating the district.

Supporters of the petition told the board the formation process complied with state law. ‘‘The petition in all ways complies with the requirements of chapter 33,’’ said Martin Hansen, a resident who spoke in favor of accepting the petition, citing Section 33.11’s stated goal to improve or protect public inland lakes.

Board members debated practical next steps for the dam and access to state grant funds. Several supervisors noted that the Department of Natural Resources generally expects an owner of record to be able to accept grant funds for dam repair. County staff said the Callahan dam is currently an earthen structure with culverts and that ownership questions and grant eligibility have been factors in the discussion.

The motion adopted by the board approved the district as presented while removing owners who had submitted written requests for exclusion, excluded Sawyer County parcels on the grounds the county parcels would not be benefited by the district, and approved modified findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a decision and order reflecting the board’s action. The board also appointed an initial five-member board of commissioners: Lynn Amundsen, Ray Schnepp and Holly Robbins as property-owner commissioners, named County Board Supervisor Kaye Wilson as the county’s appointee, and directed the town of Round Lake to appoint the fifth commissioner.

John Righeimer made the motion to approve the district as amended; the motion was seconded by Supervisor Buckles. The roll-call vote was 8 in favor, 6 opposed, with one supervisor absent. Voting yes were Steve Cariannon, Stacy Hessel, Marshall Savitsky, Jim Evans, Jeff Haney, John Righeimer, Ron Kinsley and Ron Buchholz. Voting no were Kaye Wilson, Tweed Schumann, Mark Hellwig, Tom Duffy, Chuck Van Etten and Dale Magnuson. Randy Newman was recorded absent. The chair announced: "8, yes; 6, no." The board later stated the motion carries.

Board members and staff noted next steps: the board must issue a formal order with the findings and conclusions modified to reflect the board’s action; the decision must be issued within the statutory timeframe tied to the public hearing (the packet stated the public hearing was held Nov. 6 and that the board must act within six months); and property owners who remain in the district but later request detachment would need to pursue detachment through the district’s processes after the district is formed.

Public-commenters raised concerns the district could impose a special assessment that becomes a lien on property for up to 10 years and that off-lake properties included in the boundary would not receive a direct benefit. Several speakers asked the board to use fairness in boundary decisions and noted they had not been notified earlier. County staff confirmed they had updated the list of owners requesting removal and that 14 property owners had submitted requests to be removed from the proposed boundary.

The board’s action creates the initial board of commissioners and starts the statutory processes that will determine how the new district may seek funding, including potential DNR grants, and whether it will levy assessments. The board also removed county-owned submerged parcels from the district.

The board’s approval does not automatically prevent future petitions or boundary changes nor does it prevent the new district’s commissioners from later proposing actions (including assessments) under Chapter 33; those would be separate proceedings handled by the district once it is formally operating.

The board’s decision concluded the agenda item and was followed by other routine business.