After an hour-long workshop last week, the Sherburne County Board decided it wasn’t their responsibility to take the next step  to establish a Lake Improvement District (LID) for the Briggs Lake Chain.

 

Dan Merchant, Kenzie Phelps, Scott Ruiter of the Briggs Lake Chain Association (BLCA) were present to update the board on what had transpired since they first proposed the LID over a year ago.

 

Back then, they presented a proposal to have all properties around the four lakes be part of a LID to help fund projects on the Briggs Lake Chain. Although the LID would not have taxing authority, the county board could specify the funding arrangement when it established the LID. The board could decide to assess costs to benefitting properties, impose service charges, issue general obligation bonds or levy a tax on properties within the LID.

 

Last week, Merchant said the LID is necessary for four reasons: Control of aquatic invasive species (AIS), maintaining water quality, water level stabilization, and predictability and substantiality of funding. 

 

“Our inflow isn’t matching our outflow. Last year we spent $26,000.  Our 120 donors donated $11,000,” he said. 

 

A year ago in June Eurasian water milfoil was discovered on Rush Lake. “We had to get a variance to treat it. Then we surveyed the other three lakes for water milfoil that cost  us another $5,000 out-of-pocket,” said Merchant. “Expenses are rising. It won’t take long at the rate we’re going to bankrupt the lake association.”

 

A year ago, the commissioners considered all the reasons for forming a LID, but instead of moving ahead with the process, they instructed the lake association to go through the petition process to see if there was enough support.

 

Phelps said the BLCA sent letters out to all property owners on the four lakes last May and June, and held numerous meetings with lake property owners to answer any questions about the LID they could.

 

Ruiter went over the petition totals. He said on Briggs Lake 180 of 322 (55.9%) signed the petition; on Julia Lake 96 of 176 (54.5%) signed, and on Rush Lake 82 of 144 (56.9%) signed, giving those three upper lakes a 55.8% total. However on Big Elk Lake, only 57 of 221 (25.8%) signed. That meant the total number of signatures for all four lakes was about 48%.

 

“You told us to come back with support. We didn’t get the support for all four but we have signed support for the three upper lakes that are all connected,” said Phelps.

 

“The BLCA adopted a contingency plan. Our request is essentially this - for the commissioners to form a Briggs Lake Chain LID for Briggs, Julia and Rush lakes using the signatures as evidence of support.”

 

Phelps said they realize when people signed the petition they understood it was a petition for four lakes. 

 

“We don’t know how many people would have signed if it was for three lakes,” he said.

 

That was the issue the board had with the request. And that’s one of the reasons BLCA board member Jack McKelvy, who was against the LID, said the commissioners should reject the request.

 

“A year ago they came before this board asking for a LID. You said at the time thy had to get 50%-plus signatures in order to do it. They could not get it,” he said. “Now they’re asking you to make a change where you would make the decision. I’m here for some of the people on my side of the lake who opposed this completely and others who have signed and wondered what it would be if we changed to three lakes. As long at they did not get the 50% plus, it should be turned down.”

 

Keith Josewski, also a resident on the Briggs Lake Chain, said he doesn’t have a problem with having a LID but was upset over the funding process. Under the proposed LID, properties would be assessed according to market values.

 

Josewski said he and his wife just built a new home and put in a new $18,000 septic system. Yet there were a number of older homes on the lake with old sewer systems contributing to water quality problems.

 

“If this goes through the way that it’s set up, we will be paying a higher percentage than people who have these deficiencies,” he said.

 

He also felt those non-resident boaters who use the lake should also share the costs.

 

“Some of them are from Benton County, St. Cloud and all over the county,” he said. “They use the lake more than the shore owners do. Why should we fund them?”

He also felt changing the boundaries of the LID wasn’t right.

 

“Now they take Elk Lake off. That’s not what we signed up for,” he said. “We’re going to be paying more. They need to get a new vote out.”

 

Assistant County Attorney Tim Sime said the current petition isn’t valid on its own to move the process along.

 

“At this point the petition that’s out there doesn’t meet the legal threshold requirement to allow the county auditor to verify the signatures and require the board to act based on the petition,” he said.

 

Sime said the board could decide to move ahead, anyway if they felt there was enough support.

 

“You can impose a LID with conditions you design within whatever geographical boundary you see fit,” he said. 

 

Another option, said Sime, was to direct staff to get more information, for example, a questionnaire asking property owners if they supported a three-lake LID, funding options and types of projects that would be funded.

 

“It’s not a petition, but it may give the board a better idea of the extent of support,” he said.

 

Commissioner Felix Schmiesing said the decision should come from the people. The board shouldn’t circumvent the process.

 

But he was in favor of getting more information.

 

“Is it okay for us to ask our attorney and staff to  flesh out some of these things?” he asked members of the board.

 

Commissioner Bruce Anderson said he felt the BLCA should take the initiative to do the survey - not the county.

 

“I’m not in favor of staff doing this. We’re going to get dragged into this like we’re the ones doing this LID,” he said. “I don’t support it. I think it needs to go back to the lake association and the people who live on the lake.”

 

Administrator Steve Taylor said the board shouldn’t take any action that gives the perception they were taking a position on forming a LID.

 

“We don’t want to indicate one way or the other,” he said. “My suggestion is to let the LID do this, then the information can be presented to the board.”

 

The board directed the BLCA to go back and do a survey of lake residents to see if they would support a three-lake LID.

 

“Are you capable of working out that type of survey,” asked Schmiesing. 

 

“Yes, we would entertain that,” said Phelps.