BURNETT COUNTY STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
THE LODGE AT CROOKED LAKE - BOARD ROOM
24271 STATE RD. #35/#70
SIREN, WI
JUNE 2, 2005

Members present: Larry Main, Phil Lindeman, Jerry Pardun, Eldon Freese, and Mary Falk

Members absent: Norm Bickford, Ro Endresen, Ed Peterson, and Dave Alderman

Others present: Mike Kornmann, Al Arnold

Press: Todd Beckman

CALL TO ORDER:

Larry Main called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Board Room at The Lodge at Crooked Lake on June 2, 2005.

APPROVAL OF MAY 26, 2005 MEETING MINUTES:

Motion made by Eldon Freese and seconded by Larry Main. Motion carried.

ISSUE IDENTIFICATION (Cont.)

The group went over issues having more than one solution which had been discussed up at the last meeting:

· How do we creatively deal with increasing inmate population?
· How can we enhance the business potential for agriculture?
· How do we deal with ag-land conversion?
· How do we deal with private forestland conversion?
· How do we promote appropriate business development?
· How do we manage the County's long range financial health?

How do we identify common goals with the St. Croix Tribe?

· Could be long-term issue with new programs to be put in place?
· How do we identify common goals between Tribe and County?
· There are definite cultural differences.
· Develop communication skills.
· Are there two issues involved here?
· Tribe is largest employer in the County.
· We should expand our relationship with the Tribe.
· Common goals - water/sewer, unincorporated village, trust land housing, casino
· There is a circle of people that should express common goals, implement, and identify common goals.

How do we communicate better with the public?

· People sense "closed group."
· New members should know history of committee.
· Suggestions were made for a quarterly informal one-half hour meeting with an open discussion with Board member to Board member communication.
· Must keep public updated, otherwise people assume negativism.
· Committee reports would be helpful.

How do we plan for future development and replacement of county facilities?

· Infrastructure and SWOT analysis were discussed.
· The Government Center was used as an example - where do we get the money for improvements?
· How can we plan for future development such as bridges, trails, airport, land control, permanent facilities, county facilities, highway building, zoning, budgeting for long-range planning.
· It was agreed that this was a very broad issue.

How do we prepare, support, and plan for tourism?

· It was suggested that County plan a large-scale tourist campground.
· We have to be able to accommodate tourism growth, i.e. lodging, building businesses as all feed on one another to grow.
· The proposed bike trail/birding trail was brought up.
· We should complement tourism in a healthy way.
· There are many opportunities for tourism in this County.
· Resorts are difficult to maintain and not generally considered a moneymaking enterprise.
· Our population increases to ~40,000 people every weekend.
· Do we want to encourage tourism?
· We have a problem with unplanned influx of people.
· Recreational vehicles should be channeled so that they aren't destructive.
· Our roads are being maintained for people that pass through area to travel to Spooner, Hayward, and Superior.
· Marketing tools should be used via County web site.
· We are budgeted $50,000 a year for tourism.
· Should have tourism network.
· It was emphasized that secondary homeowners should NOT be considered tourists, there are differences.

· Tourists are seasonal.
· The secondary homeowners' guests in the form of family and friends are considered tourists.
· The secondary homeowners have negatively affected resort business.
· Tourists are overnighters and day-trippers that don't pay property taxes.
· The term "tourist" can be confusing.
· Not everyone likes tourists.
· Tourists pay sales tax.
· Tourists don't have a "voice."
· Tourism is year-round.

· We should have two different plans - one for secondary homeowners and one for tourists.
· Many secondary homeowners are turning into permanent residents.
· There are more off-lake seasonal homes being built.
· The ease of portable communication has brought more people to the area to work from their homes in Burnett County.
· Western Wisconsin people have noted there is not enough to do in this area, as opposed to eastern Wisconsin.
· Secondary homeowners have little input on tax issues and should have a voice in the community.
· We should open up communication with the weekenders.

Zoning

Is it an issue or a tool?
Zoning is dysfunctional.
Comprehensive planning should be in place by 2010.
Do we need to be dictated by a plan?
What's in the plan?
Plan could be initiated.

Water Quality/Natural Resources

· Definition of "water" was discussed.
· Is the word "water" all-inclusive or restricted to lakes?
· Water should be its own issue and not linked with natural resources.
· Concern with water quantity as well as quality
· Water, lakes, and rivers are part of natural resources.
· Mercury contamination was brought up. Is contamination coming from Canada or northern Minnesota?
· Natural resources very broad issue.
· Need for trees, swamps, and wetlands, for cleaner water. Cattail swamp was pointed out as a way to cleanse water and has been implemented for clean-up in other parts of the United States.

How do we protect our natural resources?

· A step-by-step procedure can also be a circular procedure and issues reframed into sub groups at a later date.
· Developed lakes versus undeveloped lakes.
· Water is our biggest resource.
· Greatest natural resource is people.
· Land use plan
· Shoreline restoration
· Mining and gravel pits
· The quality of life in Burnett County was discussed and all agreed that people should not be allowed change the quality of the life we enjoy.
· It was acknowledged that protecting our water quality is of the utmost importance. Groundwater is equally important.
· Trees and water should be addressed separately as they both offer challenges.
· This issue should be general at this point and focus at a later date.

How do we enforce the Zoning code for controlling junk cars

· How can we enforce zoning code for controlling junk cars?
· Situation is bleak.
· Zoning does not enforce laws.
· Salvage yards are not included if they are not in full view and comply with the rules, i.e. 100 feet from the road.
· The issue here is enforcement of law.
· Why can't we enforce zoning codes for controlling junk cars?
· It affects tourism in that it's an eyesore.
· Is it possible to bring in a steel recycler or is it not in the budget?
· The potential danger of hydraulic fluids seeping into soil was mentioned
· The presence of rats in junked cars.
· This is a definite health hazard with financial consequences.
· People just do not want to deal with confronting people on issue of junk cars.
· We should be telling the townships to clean up these eyesores.
· Subject of junk cars comes up repeatedly at town meetings.

How do we provide for the fair and ethical treatment and control of animals and protection of people?

· Why do we license dogs? The money for a dog license goes to pay for possible dog damage.
· Property and health protection
· Much false political information
· Taxation funded less than 10%
· Need responsible people and facilities.
· At what level should we handle the issue?

Worked through all issues and summarized them. Mike asked that group prioritize issues at the next meeting and develop strategies. We will go through an exercise at the next meeting to cover this prioritization.

FUTURE MEETINGS

Mike will schedule the last few community meetings. Promotion and advertisement was advised to generate attendance at these meetings.

Committee meetings were scheduled for:
June 30, 2005, 9:00 a.m.-noon at the Lodge
Tentative date: July 14, 2005, 9:00 a.m.-noon at the Lodge.

Meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.