Sawyer County committee forwards Callahan/Mud Lake district report to county board after public comment and legal review

The Sawyer County Land, Water and Forest Resources Committee voted to forward the staff report and recommended findings on the proposed Callahan/Mud Lake inland lake protection and rehabilitation district to the Sawyer County Board and approved the legal findings required under Wisconsin statutes.

The committee voted to remove one parcel from the proposed district boundaries (the Randall B. Armsbury Jr. property on 11051 West South Shore Road) and to forward the report dated 12/19/24, along with conclusions of law and recommended decision language, to the county board for final determination.

The petition, filed with the county clerk on Oct. 11, 2024, and the public hearing held Nov. 6, 2024, were described in the committee packet and in the report reviewed by county counsel Rebecca Roker. Roker told the committee the report “memorializes the comments that were made at the public hearing in November, and goes through the statutory elements that are required to be met for the creation of the Lake District.” She advised the panel that the committee should adopt findings of fact and conclusions of law to create a robust written record to pass to the county board.

Members of the public who addressed the committee reiterated both support for and opposition to forming a lake district. Repeated points from residents included disagreement over which parcels were included, concerns about potential tax impacts, and whether the Lake Association provided adequate notice and information about costs.

“Please note, I really don't want my taxes raised, but having a lake is a much higher priority for me,” said Dave Tenner, a member of the Lake Association Dam Committee, urging support for a district formation that he said would improve coordination among the county, town and other stakeholders.

Opponents pressed the committee on technical and boundary issues. “No private organization should have the ability to raise my taxes by higher than 30% or more for any reason,” said Rhonda Isolde, who urged the committee to dismiss the petition or remove properties she said were improperly included. Several speakers asked the county to confirm which petition signatures were valid and how many signatures had been excluded for cause.

County staff reported an interactive map and packet materials showing petition signers, removal requests and recommended boundary adjustments. The committee removed the parcel noted above after staff pointed out a discrepancy between the parcel description and the boundary sketch in the petition. The committee then approved forwarding the report and the committee's findings and conclusions to the county board for its consideration before the statutory deadline.

County counsel and staff also explained the practical changes that occur if a lake district is created. Roker explained that a district becomes a municipal entity with taxing authority and its own board: after creation, the newly formed district’s board would be the primary forum for complaints and governance. She noted that the county’s role becomes limited after establishment, and that the county board will have to appoint an initial district board of commissioners as required by statute.

The committee’s motions recorded a unanimous voice vote in favor of removing the single parcel from the proposed boundary, approving the report dated 12/19/24, and forwarding the findings, conclusions and recommended decision to the County Board.

The county board will receive the committee’s report and the recommended findings when it considers whether to create the district and to adopt the statutory remedies and initial board appointments discussed by counsel.