Goguac Lake Board

Goguac Lake Board Public Hearing City Hall Commission Chambers - Room 301 10 N. Division St. City Hall Battle Creek, Michigan Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:00 PM Present: John Avery, Jeff Domenico, Christine Kosmowski, Kathy-Sue Dunn Absent: Gerardyne Drozdowski Others: Nelson Karre, Ken Kohs, Steve Hudson, Vicki Houser, Alicia Sackett, Tony Groves Call to Order: John Avery called the Public Hearing to order at 5:00 PM Tony Groves, consultant, gave the history of the Goguac Lake Board, noting their purpose was Aquatic Weed Control, stating the project has been ongoing, in 5 year increments, noting the most recent project lasted 7 years with only a 5 year assessment. Mr. Groves stated the scope of work remains the same as the last 7 years, focusing on aquatic plant control regarding invasive plants. Mr. Groves stated letters were sent to all property owners in the Special Assessment area detailing the project and current lake information. Mr. Avery stated the Public Hearing to approve the Special Assessment roll for the Aquatic Weed Control project was held the previous year. Mr. Avery stated the assessment would include all parcels with direct or deeded lake access for an additional five years. Lastly, Mr. Avery stated the Public Hearing was to hear from property owners who feel the assessment is incorrect. Mr. Steve Hudson, City Assessor, noted that once the Board authorized the project, the Assessing department mapped all properties around the lake. He stated any parcel with water frontage or deeded access to the lake is part of the assessment. Mr. Hudson indicated commercial properties were assessed at 2 times the benefit, residential properties were assessed 1 times the benefit, condominiums were assessed at ½ the benefit and property owners with deeded access, not direct access, were assessed at ¼ the benefit. Mr. Hudson stated the City pays 15% of the budgeted cost of the weed control project. Jeff Koteles, 1146 S. 24th St, stated he does not feel his parcel should be charged the special assessment as he is not allowed access to the lake due to the Channel Association, which has locked access to the channel to only those who are members of the Channel Association. Mr. Koteles stated the Board should look for other ways to provide the funding, such as charging people who use the lake. Mr. Koteles inquired as to the access area of the channel. Mr. Karre noted Mr. Koteles’ deed may not show that he has deeded access to the lake, as the language regarding access may be in the legal description of the plat. Phil Meisterheim, 309 Lakeshore, stated he was concerned the chemicals used for weed control were harmful to the natural wildlife of the lake. Mr. Meisterheim also noted there was a lot of silt recently coming from the storm drains, asking the board if they would consider dredging the channel by his house. Mr. Avery stated the Goguac Lake Board only has the authority to implement a program for aquatic plant control. Mr. Avery stated the board would discuss possibilities regarding silt at the next meeting. 1 Mr. Groves stated the products used for plant control are regulated by the state and certified by the EPA, noting they should have no toxic impact on the frogs, fish or other wildlife. Mr. Groves stated there may be other causes for the loss of wildlife. Mr. Meisterheim questioned why the board did not consider assessing based upon lake foot frontage, not by parcel. Mr. Avery stated the Board reviewed the process that other area lake boards used while considering their special assessments, noting Goguac Lake was a little different as there were commercial and residential properties, condominiums and deeded, not direct, lake access parcels. Mr. Avery stated most lake boards assessed based upon parcels, not lake frontage or usage, as everyone has access. Mr. Meisterheim stated the access is very limited for property owners who have limited access or channel frontage. Mr. Meisterheim also stated the problem in the channel is the silt, not weed control. Mr. Groves stated dredging is very costly, requiring a lot of permits, and is generally cost prohibitive. Ms. Kosmowski stated there may be a possibility of obtaining grant funds to do the dredging. Mr. Kohs confirmed he would consult with the City Engineer regarding Mr. Meisterheim’s concerns over storm water from streets getting into the channel by Lakeshore Drive. Tom Woods, 648 Country Club Drive, handed pictures to the Committee, stating he was concerned about milkweed around the lake. Mr. Woods expressed his hope the aquatic weed control plan would be successful in removing some of the milkweed, stating he was not opposed to the special assessment Mr. Avery noted that Gardener Brothers has been collecting the weeds along the shoreline for the board. He also stated the board has tried to address the issue over last 10 years, making modifications and improvements. Ms. Dunn told Mr. Woods to contact her if he had problems with the milkweed this year and she would try to help him to have it cleaned up. Mr. Meisterheim asked to be taken off the assessment roll, stating the board should have requested at the initial hearing if the residents wanted to pay the assessment. Mr. Meisterheim stated it was not fair to approve the funding by advertising the public hearing instead of mailing notices to all property owners. Mr. Karre stated the Goguac Lake Board held a Public Hearing in June 2012 to determine the feasibility of the Aquatic Weed Control project, noting there was no resistance at that time. Mr. Karre stated the plan and the budget were approved at that time and residents opposed to the assessment now have an opportunity to appeal the assessment to the tax tribunal. Jeff Koteles inquired as to how to find information regarding his deeded access. Mr. Karre stated Mr. Koteles could work with a title company to determine his access, noting he could not recommend the board go back 12 years to investigate. Mr. Koteles stated that as he does not feel he has the benefit of lake access and he should not have to pay the assessment. Mr. Avery noted the cost of the project would be $64,000 per year. Mr. Avery declared the Public Hearing closed at 5:40 PM. 2  Goguac Lake Board City Hall Commission Chambers - Room 301 10 N. Division St. City Hall Battle Creek, Michigan Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:40 PM Present: John Avery, Jeff Domenico, Christine Kosmowski, Kathy-Sue Dunn Absent: Gerardyne Drozdowski Others: Attorney Nelson Karre, Ken Kohs, Steve Hudson, Vicki Houser, Alicia Sackett, Tony Groves Call to Order: John Avery called the Goguac Lake Board meeting to order at 5:40 PM. Goguac Lake Board Special Assessment: Mr. Hudson noted he received communications from two residents on S. Woodrow Avenue, noting they do not have deeded access or direct frontage to the lake. Mr. Hudson recommended the committee remove the two properties from the Special Assessment Roll. Motion: A motion was made by Mr. Avery, supported by Ms. Dunn, to remove parcels 6950-13-853-0 and 6950-13-858-3 from the assessment roll as they do not have deeded or direct access to Goguac Lake. All yes, none opposed, motion approved. Mr. Hudson noted that the other letters questioned the interest charges on unpaid assessments. Mr. Groves noted parcels with limited access are only charged ¼ the assessment, taking into consideration the owners do not have a view of the lake or docking rights, Ms. Dunn stated research was completed in the past to determine who has deeded access and who does not, noting it would not make sense to go back and reopen, stating the property owner should research to determine if his property is a deeded properly. Ms. Kosmowski agreed Mr. Koteles needed to research his access rights and if he was required to be a member of the Channel Association to access the lake. Mr. Groves stated it is not atypical that some residents are not aware of their access, as the access may be in the dedication of the plat, noting associations may be formed that then gate the access. Mr. Groves noted that as Mr. Koteles’ lot has deeded access, he has legal access; therefore he is subject to the special assessment Mr. Karre noted the initial meeting for the special assessment was held 2/15/2001, stating residents need to research their deeds to determine access rights, noting this board did not have authority regarding the locked gate to the channel. Mr. Koteles asked if his Commissioner could check into the issue of access. Commissioner Domenico noted it would need to be determined if the Channel Association had the right to gate the channel, thereby hindering access to the channel to property owners who have deeded access. 3 Commissioner Domenico further stated Mr. Koteles needed to determine who controls the gate to the channel, possibly Mr. Tom Kremetola could assist him with this issue. Mr. Karre noted the board did not have an obligation to research the channel access and should not delay the adoption of the special assessment roll. Mr. Hudson noted the property owners on the assessment roll all own lots that have platted access, stating that if someone is trying to stop their access, it is not within board’s authority to challenge. Mr. Karre noted that if the board adopts the special assessment roll, Mr. Koteles would need to take his protest to the tax tribunal. Motion: A motion was made by Mr. Avery, supported by Ms. Dunn, to deny Mr. Koteles’ request to be removed from the Special Assessment Roll. All yes, none opposed, motion approved. Mr. Meisterheim stated he only had channel access, and asked to be removed from the special assessment roll. Motion: A motion was made by Mr. Avery, supported by Ms. Kosmowski, to deny Mr. Meisterheim’s request to be removed from the special assessment roll as he did not give compelling reasons why his property was different from other assessed parcels. All yes, none opposed, motion approved. Mr. Karre noted each property owner may object to the special assessment at the tax tribunal. Motion: A motion was made by Ms. Dunn, supported by Mr. Domenico, to approve the special assessment roll with the removal of parcels 6950-13-853-0 and 6950-13-858-3. All yes, none opposed, motion approved. Mr. Hudson stated other property owners had expressed concerns regarding interest charges on the assessment, noting previous year assessments did not have any interest charges. Motion: A motion was made by Mr. Avery, supported by Ms. Dunn, to include zero interest on the annual special assessment. All yes, none opposed, motion approved. Motion: A motion was made by Mr. Avery, supported by Ms. Kosmowski, to approve the Plant Control plan and budget. All yes, none opposed, motion approved. Public Comment: Randy Ramsey, Calhoun County Water Resources Department, informed the committee of a petition project decided on 2 years ago regarding the ponds in the Goguac Lake area. Mr. Ramsey discussed an overflow drainage system for the ponds to overflow into Goguac Lake during possible flooding periods so as to prevent flooding of area homes. Mr. Ramsey noted the DEQ will not allow the ponds and wetlands to be drained completely, but will allow the overflow to be drained to prevent flooding. Mr. Ramsey noted the system would include a Jellyfish filter system and vortex process before discharge into the lake to remove phosphorous and debris. Mr. Ramsey noted this process should not hinder the aquatic weed control project, which was confirmed by Mr. Groves. Board Member Comments: There were no board comments. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 6:53 PM. 4