Three Lakes supervisor receives death threat

For the second time in a month, the Town Board of St. Germain spent approximately an hour in open discussion about a rumored septic field. During the board’s Dec. 11 meeting, supervisors shared — with a standing-room-only crowd and more than 40 Zoom participants — what they have learned about the rumored project and a related death-threat received by a Three Lakes business owner and town supervisor.

Discussion of a rumored septic field to be established in St. Germain began more than a month ago through person-to-person and social media channels, then found its way to a governmental forum during a November 13 meeting of the St. Germain Town Board. The topic was agendized as “”Discuss rumored septic waste disposal field”.

At that time, Supervisor Ted Ritter explained roughly 80 acres north of St. Germain on Wisconsin State Highway 155 and Found Lake Road were recently purchased by Peter Baltus. 

“He lives in Three Lakes,” Ritter said. “I believe he and/or his family own one or more of the local pumping services.”

“He’s in the septic-pumping business,” Ritter said. “At this point, there’s been nothing to substantiate that this is actually going to happen — or when.”

“The other thing I have to emphasize is that at this point, this — in my opinion — is just a rumor,” he said. “It’s probably a good rumor. It’s probably true that the owner of that land is looking to turn it into a septic field.”

“We learned about this about the same time everybody else did,” Ritter told the audience. “We heard a rumor and it spread fast.”

The Lakeland Times asked Ritter how the subject came to the attention of the board.

Ritter replied he had heard it through the clerk, and Town Clerk June Vogel added “The clerk got it from hearing a lot of people talking about it — and Facebook.”

The Times asked if anyone from the town had attempted to contact any representative of the Baltus Family’s business interests.

Ritter answered “Not that I’m aware of.”

When asked by The Times to describe the land in question, Ritter answered “It looks like 80 acres have been cleared. Stumps are still there. I don’t know if anything has gone beyond the logging. I don’t know if they’ve done anything beyond that or not, but it’s basically a stump-field at this time.” 

“It’s like a wasteland,” an unidentified person in the audience interjected. “No pun intended.”

Ritter explained to the audience he had been in touch with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regarding the situation. He also explained the tract of land in question is zoned for forestry. “Right now,” he said, “This land use is not recognized as a permitted land use in forestry, and the state is saying it doesn’t matter.”

“I have been in communication with the very people who are directly involved with the permitting of septic fields,” Ritter said. “This all falls under NR-113, DNR administrative rule. I will start right out with what you don’t want to hear: ‘Limit on local regulations: no city, village, town, or county may prohibit or regulate through zoning or any other means the disposal of septage on land if that disposal complies with this section and rules promulgated under this section.’ Our zoning would not allow this to happen, but our zoning is superseded by NR-113. So they’re basically saying that neither the town nor the county can stop this with zoning or pretty much anything else.”

“The permitting process does not seem to involve any kind of a public hearing,” he said. “It does not involve really any opportunity for town input, although anybody can email how they feel about this to anybody they want to, but I don’t know that it’s going to accomplish much.”

One unidentified audience member said “Quite honestly, I’d like to make his (Peter Baltus’) life as difficult as possible. I don’t know if there’s anything else we can do to contribute to that.”

A long discussion followed, and numerous townspeople voiced overwhelmingly-oppositional concerns about a septic field in St. Germain.

Comments from audience member Samuel Lustig enumerated many of those concerns.

“I know you tell us not to panic,” he said, “But all I’m thinking about is ‘Sell my damn house right now and move somewhere else’.” 

He told the board “If you guys could get a DNR rep in here to speak with us, or even Peter Baltus, to just come and talk to us about this so we can ask a couple of questions, it would probably help calm us down.”

After roughly 45 minutes of discussion, contact between the Town of St. Germain and the Baltus family was initiated by Ella Baltus (the daughter of Peter, and also a Three Lakes town supervisor), when she introduced herself as a Zoom attendee.

“I find it a little unprofessional we weren’t contacted before this, because I totally would have been there if I would have known a little more about this ahead of time,” she said.

“But first of all, I’ve heard a lot of false information spread in the last 45 minutes that I’m not going to get into. Second of all, I think that myself — along with Allison, my DNR rep, or Fred, the head of the DNR for this section — coming and talking to you guys would be fantastic. Because these sites exist all over Vilas County already.”

“The smell will not carry. I just think it would be best to approach this professionally, and for us to come talk to you along with the DNR. And I don’t necessarily appreciate this being put on the agenda without anyone from the town board even making the slightest effort to contact us about this. And that’s really all I have to say for tonight, so thank you.”

That November meeting ended with no action being taken and little more being accomplished than to enlighten the audience to the technicalities of NR-113.

While The Town of St. Germain did not do so, The Times contacted the Baltus family’s businesses in an attempt to dispel rumor and establish fact. Ella Baltus replied by phone. That interview took place a few days after the November St. Germain meeting, and the majority of the conversation was published by The Times on November 24.

“I’m actually on the Three Lakes Town Board,” Baltus said. “I was dumbfounded. I couldn’t imagine seeing a rumored topic on our agenda in Three Lakes. It just doesn’t seem right. When I saw that agenda, I thought ‘You’ve got to be kidding me: no one has thought to contact us?”...And they had my email. I’d been emailing them about a driveway permit for the property for probably two weeks. They could have contacted me quite easily.”

The Times asked whether it was her family’s intention to use their St. Germain property as a septic field. 

“We bought the property as an investment,” Baltus replied. “It’s 80 acres with great highway visibility. We didn’t buy it with any specific intention in mind. We have lots of ideas for the property...It is definitely a possibility that — at some point in the future — we would be looking to permit a small portion of that 80 acres for a septic field, but it would not be the whole 80.”

The Times asked if the Baltuses had begun the DNR permitting process or taken any official steps towards converting the land to a septic field.

“No; none whatsoever,” she answered. “All we’ve done is cleared the trees because we knew — no matter what we were going to do with it — we needed it to be cleared.”

“This is honestly much ado about nothing,” Baltus said.

On December 4, Baltus received an email at her town supervisor’s official address. The sender was listed as an Outlook account with the name Darrin DeYoung attached to it. The email read:

“Dear Ella, I’m writing you only as a messenger and someone who’s trying to prevent something terrible from happening.

YOUR LIFE IS IN DANGER!!!

People are coming for you, and they know where you live.

I highly suggest that you do whatever you can to mitigate the damages caused by the clear-cutting in Saint Germain and abandon your plans to apply for a septic dumping permit.

Sincerely,

A concerned resident of the beautiful Northwoods.” 

A few hours later, Baltus forwarded the threat to the entire St. Germain town board with an original email accompanying it. Baltus wrote (in part):

“A few weeks ago you ran a meeting regarding my father’s land without reaching out to us and giving us a chance to tell you our plans (of which we have no obligation to at this stage) or allow us to give you any input.

Due to this meeting, I have now received a threat to my Three Lakes Supervisor email and I am appalled. In the future, please refrain from discussing our property without contacting us first. I would say I am owed a public apology, but quite honestly, I do not want any more attention drawn to the issue because I do not want any more threats. 

You should all be ashamed of yourselves. That meeting was a complete free for all and was quite literally based on a ‘rumor’. As a member of my own town’s board, this is inexcusable. Due to your negligence I am now being threatened. 

We have not made up our mind what we are doing with the property, something that you would have known if you would have had the decency to contact us before putting our property on your agenda.” 

Following that correspondence, Baltus directed her emails to Supervisor Brian Cooper individually, who then copied them to other board members.

The following day, Baltus emailed Cooper, stating (in part):

“I am quite disgusted with the practices of your board and the headaches you have caused me. We have not made up our mind what we are doing with our land. If you would have had the common sense to ask that before putting me on your agenda, I probably could have avoided the threatening email. 

Please get the DNR in to speak about the process and safe practices of septic spreading sooner rather than later…Hopefully that will help calm people down regardless of what we choose to do. 

It is the least your board could do after doing something so incredibly unprofessional and putting a LITERAL rumor on your agenda. 

Due to the threat I received I will likely not be in attendance at any board meeting that the DNR discusses the safe practices of septic spreading. 

Please reiterate to the town that we have not made up our mind what we are doing with the property at this time. Which is the honest to goodness truth.”

Baltus emailed Cooper again the following day, December 6. She wrote:

“I also wanted to make you aware that our intended plan is housing. This is something we were trying to keep private, but after the threats, petitions, and Go Fund Me’s I felt it was better for the town and for us to just come out with it. Our planning stages are primal, and obviously when we get to the point of permitting anything we will be in touch. 

I am sorry for the headaches this has caused you, as well as the headaches it has caused me. Hopefully by publicly stating our current intent (something we both know is not required when you buy land) all of this drama can subside.”

The Times received the emails as part of an open-records request on December 8, then spoke to Three Lakes Police Chief Scott Lea regarding the threatening email.

Lea said he is aware of the email; it falls under his department’s jurisdiction; and it is an ongoing investigation, so he was limited in his comments.

“It will be our agency — at least, on the front side — but we’ll be looking for some outside assistance from another agency,” the chief said. “Sometimes, with that sort of complaint, unfortunately, they’re a little bit challenging because of the internet world…Nowadays, with spoofed email addresses, it’s really challenging with some of these sites and calls.”

Lea said “Right now, trying to determine the author of the threat — or author of the communication, I should say — would be our starting to point to determine what course of action needs to come after that…Hopefully, we can move it forward, and if nothing else, we can make people understand that you should use communications in an appropriate manner to not create fear.”

“People are responsible for their words that are threatening in nature, and they should refrain from doing that,” Lea said. “Our biggest thing is to have open dialogue and communication...With a threat complaint, it’s not necessarily about what you are saying, but about how you are making someone else feel. That’s a big part of a threat: making them feel unsafe, when maybe that isn’t even the intent.” 

Prior to the December 11 meeting in St. Germain, Ritter corresponded with the DNR regarding several issues. He requested the presence of a DNR official at a future meeting, but was told the agency will not commit to addressing a public forum regarding something which may or may not happen. Attendance would be much more likely in the event a septic-dumping permit were actually applied for at some point in the future.

He also said the DNR confirmed “The department has not yet received a land application site request for the land application of septage to this site.” 

Ritter said “Conclude from that what you wish, but at this point, the landowner has not applied for a permit to dump septage on that site.”

Ritter told those attending the most recent board meeting “While the town board — the town government — of St. Germain is restricted in its involvement in reaction to this, the town’s people are not restricted, as long as we’re not the ones who are organizing this campaign which is underway — and we definitely are not. Without speaking for the rest of the board, I applaud this movement and I would like to give a few minutes to Michael Connors…to explain…this initiative and what its ultimate goals are.”

Connors addressed the meeting via Zoom. He said “Our petition — at ‘Don’t Let St. Germain Go Waste.com’ — is only four short of 1,000 (signatures)...We’re averaging over 100 signatures a day. The Connors Family does not believe that this is only a rumor that a septic-waste dump was planned. There’s just too much evidence and public reporting to suggest the contrary. We do not trust the new owner’s words, and fear that this new rumor might be another smokescreen. Former President Ronald Reagan coined the phrase ‘Trust but verify’. With this in mind, the Connors Family will continue to be involved with the campaign ‘Don’t Let St. Germain Go To Waste’ until a legal resolution is signed by the new owners, agreeing to never again (sic) seek a septage permit for this property.”

The Times asked whether anyone had consulted an attorney to see if drafting such an agreement would be feasible, and, if so, whether it could be made legally binding.

Connors answered “Yes, we are researching it, and we do have a lawyer helping us to figure this out.”

Following Connors’ statements, the board took a few questions from the audience, then Ritter read aloud the email in which Ella Baltus said housing is the intended use of her family’s property, as well as the email containing the threat.

Audience members let out audible signs of what could be characterized as disappointment, disapproval, and disgust as Ritter read the latter.

Supervisor Kalisa Mortag said Baltus “Was, quite frankly, upset, and rightfully so, because she felt that she had received threatening emails over this topic. I can only speak for myself, but no matter what they’re doing with this property, I do not find it appropriate that she’s being threatened in emails.”

Ritter concurred. “There is no place for this,” he said. “And I don’t know who initiated it, but I hope they’re dealt with legally.” 

Samuel Lustig, who spoke during the November meeting, addressed the assembly, as well. He said “I know in her email to you, she had mentioned potentially using it for housing development. in a post that I — unfortunately — did not take a screen-shot of, hosted by Ella Baltus, she had mentioned this housing development being a low-income housing development.” 

The day after the meeting, The Times contacted Ella Baltus for clarification on several points.

Baltus said “The last time we spoke, I said I had the idea of permitting a small portion of this land (as a septic field)…I’m a businesswoman. It’s my job to have ideas on my radar. I have hundreds of ideas; that doesn’t necessarily make any of them plans. This is honestly way too premature for us to be discussing any of it. Like I said from the beginning: my family’s trust bought this property as an investment, and an avenue we are currently pursuing is housing and any plans will become public knowledge when we get to the permitting stage, but we’re not there yet.”

On-record, she reiterated that her family’s intention to use the property for housing — as stated in her email to Cooper — is accurate. 

She also reiterated that the Baltus family has not taken any official steps towards establishing a septic field, including not having applied with the DNR to do so.

The Times asked about Lustig’s claim regarding low-income housing as being the Baltus’ intention for their property. “No,” Baltus said. “That is not the housing we would be looking at.”

“When I read the threat, it was a little bit unsettling, as it would be to just about anyone,” she said. “But more than anything, it was just frustrating because that was never our plan for this property. I tried to be honest with people, and all that resulted in was me being attacked and having every word I said being picked apart and scrutinized, and being accused of being a liar.”

Even after her email to Cooper was read aloud stating her family’s intentions in writing and her desire for the information to be made public, her family’s intentions — and trustworthiness — were questioned again during the Dec. 11 meeting.

Mike Connors said “We have a very large scope to our campaign if we’re forced to continue it. It would be very simple if they just signed an agreement — a legal document — that says that they would not dump on that site. Then it would be over. But until we get that, we can’t believe what they’re saying, so we’re going to continue with our campaign.”

As the conversation approached its end, an unidentified audience member said “There were Mr. Connors’ comments about wanting something signed; I think that’s probably the best result we can hope for here. But I don’t think it’s going to happen with 30 people in a room trying to understand...I guess my question is: can the board coordinate a meeting with the owner of this property to discuss exactly what their intentions are; talk to them about what zoning violations may exist — if they do exist — and at least have that discussion, as opposed to just continue to pull at everybody’s heart-strings and getting all emotional about it — including myself. We should just have a discussion and try to get this resolved. Can the board do that?”

“I have a couple of concerns,” Christensen answered. “If one of us makes that request of them, and it is the full board, then it is an open meeting. And I’m not sure that anybody in their position would agree to coming here and sitting in the front row right there and talking to the board. So then the next choice would be to have two representatives of the board meet with them — if they’ll accept that — in a private setting, so that those concerns could be discussed. I would think the latter would be the one that would work. I would doubt that they’ll come and subject themselves, you know, that just doesn’t make sense.”

The unidentified audience member then suggested Ritter and Christensen choose a non-elected representative from the citizenry of St. Germain to be included with the proposed talks. Christensen then made a motion to do so and “to contact the Baltus family to discuss their intentions for the piece of property in question.” The motion passed unanimously.

When The Times contacted Baltus on Dec. 12, she had not yet heard from Christensen or Ritter, and was unaware of the motion. She was asked if she would be amenable to such a meeting.

“Yes, I would,” she replied. “In a private setting, yes. But I don’t think they’re getting me to show up to a town board meeting any time soon.”