Farms continue to have an ….

Farms continue to have an easement for motorized access across the top of the dam.

The proposed land swap was met with a cool reception from committee members and county staff.

“The county does not need the land,” said county attorney Ruth Ann Koch. She said the county owns the dam and has permanent easement access.

“From the county’s perspective acquiring the land doesn’t enhance anything for us. Legally as the dam owner we don’t need to own that property,” she said, noting there was also nothing prohibiting the county from going through with the requested deal.

County forest administrator Jake Walcisak said he did not think it was necessary and that it wouldn’t be beneficial to the county to acquire the land describing the land under the dam as being something the county didn’t need or require. It was noted that the county would maintain liability if the dam were to fail.

“Anybody can sue anybody for anything,” Mayer said, noting there was a stigma attached to having land that has a dam on it. “We want to remove any and all possibility of that,” he said.

He said it was the family’s intent all along to deed the land under the dam to the county and have an easement across the top for access.

According to Walcisak, the DNR is opposed to having unregulated access across the dam for vehicle use because the potential damage this could cause in wearing away the ground cover on top of the dam and increasing the chances of the dam overtopping. He said the county routinely gets dinged on inspections of the Camp 8 dam due to ATVs riding over it.

Mayer noted that he spoke with the engineers of the dam and was told it was able to withstand up to 10,000 pounds. Committee member Gary Beadles said that when conditions were dry or frozen he didn’t oppose people being able to go over it.

“We have been using it in that fashion for 70 years. We have been taking good care of it,” Mayer said, noting they welcome any restrictions that would give peace of mind and improve comfort level.

“You are making fools of us,” Mayer said of the county committee. He said Mayer Farms has cooperated all through the process including when there was confusion early on with the easement. He said they made it clear their intent was to have an easement over the dam.

“When you wanted something we granted it to you. We want the same courtesy and respect,” he said.

Walcisak said that one of the things that was new was the request for Taylor County to give more than two acres of land to Mayer Farms. He said that wasn’t present in previous discussions. He said the discussions were that when the dam design was known the county would entertain an easement and ownership agreement. He noted that the county and the Mayers had the final plans for the dam since spring of 2020 and that they are just raising issues now weeks before the dam work is scheduled to begin.

Mayer said the interest in the additional parcel was due in part to them completing a forest management plan for their parcel to develop it for game birds habitat. He noted that in the parcel in question, the county had not really done any management of it. “We would like to just take better care of it,” he said, noting it would also put the land on the tax base.

Walcisak raised concern about the county potential setting a precedent for receiving land that they don’t need and don’t desire and that other landowners would attempt the same thing.

He gave the example of the berms existing at the north end of the lake which have long been a point of contention with the DNR saying they were natural landscape and not part of the dam structure. Walcisak warned about setting a precedent that could have much higher impact to the county.

For Walcisak, the county’s sole commitment was to consider taking the land and that the county has considered it and done their due diligence and has passed on it in the past, but did not make any motions formalizing that.

Mayer said he wanted the county board to be men and women of their word suggesting the county entered into the agreement for the easement under false pretenses. “Have we ever declined a request from you? Have we ever been noncooperative? I think you would find the answer would be no,” Mayer said.

In regard to the easement access, Walcisak noted that anyone has the right to walk over the dam to access the county owned-land and that the adjacent landowners for dams always have this access. He said the county also routinely grants special permits to access for equipment with restrictions based on the landscape. These could be done without an access easement agreement.

Under general parliamentary procedure, the rules used to run most meetings, it is not considered necessary to make a motion to deny something, it would simply not happen unless there was a motion made for it. However, in this case, Walcisak suggested it would be a good idea to have a vote to have it recorded in the meeting minutes.

Committee member Rollie Thums moved and Jim Geabauer seconded a motion to deny the requested land trade. It carried unanimously.

Gebauer moved and Scott Mildbrand seconded a motion to deny motorized access over the top of the dam. The motion passed 3-2 with Beadles and Myron Brooks in favor of allowing limited access.

Brooks moved and Thums seconded a motion to acquire the land under the dam as engineered with the attorney to include language to make sure the county is just getting the land under the engineered dam structure, with the county get it surveyed. That motion passed unanimously.

In related dam business, committee members met in closed session with Koch regarding negotiating over a settlement to the dispute with Ayres Associates dating from the engineers not meeting a grant deadline in 2020. Coming out of the closed session Walcisak said the county was very close to reaching a settlement with the engineering firm.

In other business, committee members:

  Awarded timber sale bids totaling $171,202 for the four timber sale projects let out this spring. Smola Enteprises was the high bidder on three of the four projects with Lakeland Forestry the high bidder on the other.

According to Walcisak, there were six bidders on Tract 1-23 which had a minimum bid of $35,933.50 and ultimately sold for $63,7787.75 to Smola.

On tract 2-23, a 74-acre harvest, Lakeland Forestry was the highest of the seven bids received. The minimum bid was $31,395 and it went to the high bidder at a price of $56,247.

Smola Enterprises was the only bidder on tracts 3-23 and 4-23. The 60-acre harvest had a minimum bid of $29,985.50 and it went for $48,645.60. The final sixacre tract 4-23 went for the minimum bid amount of $2,531.60.

  Approved one year extensions for sales 688 and 695 due to access issues for winter harvest areas and limited pulpwood markets for price.

  Received an update on the status of wildlife health in Taylor County and noting that despite the length of the winter, overall, local wildlife survived it well.

  Received an update that construction would begin after July 4 at both Chelsea Dam and Camp 8 dam with Chelsea to be lowered six inches during construction while Camp 8 would go from the current 14-acre impoundment to the previous stream bed. While the lake level is low, local sportsman groups will be making improvement for fish habitat and a fishing pier.

  Approved following a closed session, purchasing land within the forest boundaries that had been offered to the county from a private landowner. The purchase is contingent on approval by the full county board and receiving Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant funds which will pay for half the purchase cost. The land in question is currently enrolled in the managed forest land state program and the local governments will actually receive more revenue from it as part of the county forest than what they receive under the MFL program for taxes.