Group Asks if Comprehensive Plan Is Comprehensive Enough?

A group calling themselves Preserving Our Aquifer Responsibly (POAR) is uncomfortable with the Comprehensive Utilities Plan the Village of Sister Bay will present at a public hearing Sept. 6. They feel the plan contradicts the Smart Growth plan by threatening the area’s rural character and failing to integrate conservation ideas.

Sister Bay Administrator Bob Kufrin said the plan, which the village has been working on for more than 18 months, was done to prepare the village for anticipated growth in the form of development and population in the decades to come. He said the present sewer and water utility is not equipped to provide the water pressure necessary to sustain a growing system and what is needed for adequate fire protection.

Buzz Madsen of POAR argued the plan should be for sustainability, not growth, and questioned whether that growth is as inevitable as the village believes. POAR takes issue with the population growth projections the village used in the study, which foresees the Sister Bay population growing to 1,407 by 2025. Madsen cited State Department of Administration projections that put Sister Bay’s population at 1,119 and lists Door County as one of the 10 slowest growing counties in the state.

But Kufrin said those projections aren’t the impetus for the plan. The system will only grow and dollars be spent, as needed, not in anticipation of need.

“The growth in the system is driven by change in population,” Kufrin said. “When the population reaches that level the improvements would need to be made. If that’s 10 years it’s done then, if it’s 40 years the improvements don’t happen until that time.”

In effect, this is a plan in case of, not for, growth.

Madsen and his group also fear the village is laying the groundwork for annexation by including large sections of Liberty Grove in the planning area. Kufrin has said examining areas beyond the village borders was necessary to address storm water runoff issues. This required them to look at all land that drains into the village. Dick Kaiser fears Sister Bay is “lusting after tax dollars.” Kufrin said that’s not the case.

“If at some point a property owner came forward we would consider it,” he said. “But the village is not looking for places to annex.”

Though the plan doesn’t contain details on how improvements will be paid for, Kufrin has said the goal, through ordinances, “is to have it paid for by the developer and the abutting benefiting property owners first, and minimize the costs to existing system rate payers.”

Madsen owns a large tract of DNR Managed Forest Property on Hill Road just outside of the village. He is concerned that if the system should one day need to be expanded past his land, he will be forced to cough up big dollars as a benefiting property owner to run lines 1,320 feet across his land, even though he said he has no plans to develop. In cases like this, Kaiser said, “benefited is just a nice word for affected.”

Kufrin said it’s one of the toughest aspects of planning and determining who pays and argued the village can’t rely on promises.

“We had another property in the same program who said he was never going to develop,” Kufrin said. “Then the owner sold the land to a relative to build a house on and we had to collect back taxes on it. Never is a really long time.”

Conversely, Madsen said, if 1,320 feet of sewer and water were run across his property and he had to shell out for it, it would be a great motivation to take his land out of the managed forestry program and sell.

The members of POAR take particular issue with the absence of water conservation efforts in CUPAC. Kufrin said there is nothing in the plan addressing the idea of reducing demand for water, and said it was never brought up at any of the public meetings.

“There is nothing in CUPAC about Governor Doyle’s Conserve Wisconsin program,” Madsen said. “Why not relieve pressure on the system by reducing usage? Maybe there’s not a need for a water tower if that’s done. Why not offer a rebate on taxes to homeowners or developers who install water-saving fixtures?”

Kaiser questioned the validity of the plans title.

“Managing use more effectively should be part of a comprehensive plan,” Kaiser said.

But in one of those odd quirks of public policy, the water utility actually has a reasonable excuse not to encourage lower use, which actually benefits the rate-payer’s pocketbook.

Patrick Planton is an engineer for SEH consultants working on the plan with the village. He said conservation would come into play if the village were on the verge of needing another well. In that case, if investing in a new well could be put off for 10 years or more by reducing water use 10 or 20 percent, then you might go down the route of water conservation. But he doesn’t foresee the need for a new well in the CUPAC planning horizon of 25 years, and likely not for 40 years.

“Conservation is a great idea,” Planton said. “I would never let anybody or tell anybody to waste a natural resource.”

But water utilities operate as a business, with water as their product, and conservation adversely affects that business.

“Conservation is a double-edged sword,” he said. “Utilities have fixed costs of over 80 percent, so if they pump more water than expected, their costs don’t rise much. But if water use is reduced by 20 percent, they don’t see an equivalent drop in costs. How are they going to make up the difference then? By increasing rates.”

In short, if the village as a whole conserves a significant quantity of water, rates for users will rise.

Planton said reducing water use would not address the village’s most pressing need within the utility. What Sister Bay needs, according to Planton, is increased pressure for users and fire protection as growth continues. Supply is not a problem and is not projected as one. Water conservation doesn’t help the pressure problem.

The members of POAR said they don’t believe the public was given enough opportunity to provide input in the plan, but Kufrin said public comment was solicited throughout the process.

“I strongly disagree with that argument,” Kufrin said. “We post at the library, post office, the administration building, online, and through the media. There were numerous meetings and opportunities for the public to speak. This was highly publicized. If they weren’t informed then they weren’t looking at our regular notices.”

The members of POAR believe the public should have more than one plan to choose from.

“We don’t have the solution, but we have a bunch of questions,” Kaiser said. “CUPAC is aggressive, we’re conservative. CUPAC shouldn’t be the only plan.”