Enhanced wake ordinance fails in St. Germain

With several area towns either adopting or in the process of consideration of some type of enhanced wake ordinance in recent years, the St. Germain town board last week voted during its April 14 meeting by a narrow margin to reject an ordinance which would regulate the use of enhanced-wake boats on lakes within the municipality.

For the past several months, the St. Germain Lakes Committee and its ad-hoc subcommittee chaired by town supervisor Patric Niggemeier worked to prepare a draft ordinance in response to public demand for some type of regulation.  

The draft was discussed by the town board during two previous meetings but the matter never came to a vote and the future of the ordinance was uncertain as of the last week in March.

Presiding over his final regular meeting as town chairman, Tom Christensen opened discussion regarding the draft ordinance again during the April 14 meeting. 

“There was a recommendation that came through the ad-hoc committee to the lakes committee and then to the board and we never did take action on it,” he said. “We did talk about it but we didn’t take action on it so it’s on the agenda tonight to have action taken.”

Christensen was in the midst of making a motion to approve the changes subject to a public hearing when Bob Schell, a member of the lakes committee, asked him to allow comments from the audience.

What followed was more than 30 minutes of discussion featuring input from residents and lakefront-property owners expressing opinions on the subject; roughly half of those who spoke were opposed and half in favor of adopting the changes.

Many cited statistics which were often in conflict with others cited by the opposite side of the argument.  Much of the subject matter had been discussed multiple times in committee and town board meetings since last year.

Most who spoke cited concerns about the enforceability of the proposed ordinance changes.

Following input from the audience, town supervisor Brian Cooper read a statement.

‘Not a reason’

“The idea that the town should enact an ordinance knowing full well that it’s not enforceable to the extent it needs to be to be effective when there’s a violation,” Cooper began. “The fact that 30-plus ordinances have been passed is not a reason, in my opinion, to move forward with this ordinance draft. We have 30-plus ordinances and I bet in most cases the topic of enforcement was brought up with the exceptions of areas already having local enforcement like a constable, police department, etc.”

Cooper said during consideration of various ordinances over the years, he was sure the question regarding enforcement was brought up.

“In every instance, the answer is the same; not the sheriff’s office, not the DNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources),” he said. “We should have every ordinance we adopt be clear and concise and enforceable. Most of our ordinances refer to specific state statutes. That gives the town the statutory authority to adopt that ordinance.”

Since the state of Wisconsin has no statute that addresses enhanced wakes, Cooper said, there’s no specific state statute referred to “that gives the town statutory authorization to adopt this ordinance, which is the reason why neither the sheriff’s office nor the DNR will enforce this.”

“It is of the utmost importance that our town ordinances are clear, concise and enforceable,” he said. “In the near future, I will be requesting the town board to review our ordinances that appear to have enforcement issues and to take any actions it deems appropriate, including — but not limited to — having a town constable or St. Germain police department.”

Cooper said that would enable enforcement of any of the town’s local ordinances, except for its chapter 1 zoning, which falls under the duties of the zoning administrator.

“We could rescind unenforceable ordinances, either in whole or in part,” he said. “I’m not in favor of this ordinance for those reasons.”

“If tonight this vote should fail, what am I going to go back to the lakes committee with?” Niggemeier asked. “At one board meeting, we suggested that Brian make an ordinance without forfeitures and in the following meeting, you (Christensen) brought up recommendations for just signs at boat landings that are the (individual lake) districts’ responsibility. My question is: if this should fail, what am I going back to my committee with?”

“I would say both of those ideas would be worthwhile to take back,” Christensen replied. “And maybe they’ll have some other ideas for you based on this idea.”

“I’ve received numerous emails in favor of the ordinance as it’s presented tonight,” said town supervisor Jim Swenson. “So in that sense, I’d like to see it go to a public hearing. Words of encouragement to not use a certain lake with a wake-enhanced boat? That’s fine and dandy but how are you going to stop that person from going on? So, yes: enforcement needs to be there but I think we need to hear from everyone rather than just the folks here in the room. We need to hear from the whole town and open it to a public hearing.”

“I wasn’t against the topic at all but I want everyone to understand that sitting up here, what we have to think about is the legality of it and the enforcement,” town supervisor Kalisa Mortag said. “How do we keep it safe?  How do we educate people? What’s best for the town? What’s best for the lakes? There’s a million things to think about and it’s hard to think about all of those things.”

She said she agrees that something is needed. 

“At the last several meetings, I’ve been trying to help make suggestions to come up with a compromise and keep moving it forward, because we need to work some things out,” Mortag said. “Honestly, I’m a little frustrated because we’ve been asking for some adjustments and I haven’t seen one yet ... because I do want something for you guys but I don’t feel like this is the right answer.” 

She acknowledged there has been a lot of time put into the issue “but when I look at the big picture, it’s just not there yet.”

“We haven’t thought of everything and we never will think of everything,” Mortag said. “I don’t disagree with this but I wanted to see more ideas.”

Motion failure

Christensen made a motion to adopt the changes specific to the use of fins or ballast tanks and/or bags to enhance a boat’s wake, where such artificially-enhanced wakes would be prohibited on all town lakes except for Little Saint Germain Lake, which would have no restrictions, and Big Saint Germain Lake, which would permit such wakes in certain areas and at certain depths.

His motion failed by a margin of 3-2.

Christensen and Swenson voted in favor; Cooper, Niggemeier and Mortag voted against. 

The board did vote in favor of three changes to the town’s boating ordinance, all of which are subject to a public hearing.

The first change would be to place speed restrictions (on all motorized watercraft) in the southeast bay of Moon Lake in order to establish a no-wake zone in aid of shoreline protection.

Christensen said the change was requested by the Moon Lake District and will be executed in conjunction with the DNR.

That motion passed unanimously.

The second change pertained to raising the forfeiture involved in any infraction of the town’s existing boating ordinance.

“This was driven by the ad-hoc (enhanced-wake) committee,” Christensen said. “Right now, you’re looking at — what is it, $100 for a first (offense)?” Niggemeier explained. “This adds more incentive to maybe start following our enforceable aquatic ordinances with a $500 (fine) for a first offense and $1,000 for a second offense ... this would pertain to the entire chapter.”

That motion passed by a margin of 4-to-1, with Mortag casting the lone dissenting vote. 

The final changes were clerical and grammatical in nature — essentially corrections to the existing ordinance — and the vote to approve was unanimous.