Evansville voters will have referendum on lake

By GINA DUWE ( Contact )   Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2008
ADVERTISEMENT
 

PhotoVideo


Evansville's Lake Leota is now a large field of brush and weeds after it was drained in 2005. The city is considering a referendum to approve money for dredging the lakebed and restoring Lake Leota.

Evansville's Lake Leota is now a large field of brush and weeds after it was drained in 2005. The city is considering a referendum to approve money for dredging the lakebed and restoring Lake Leota.

— Evansville voters will be asked on the Nov. 4 ballot if the city should spend up to $2 million to restore the drained Lake Leota.

About a dozen residents encouraged the council to restore the lake Tuesday night before the council voted 7-0 to add the advisory referendum to the ballot. Alderman Tom Cothard was absent.

The non-binding referendum will read: “Shall the Evansville Common Council approve spending an amount not to exceed $2 million in order to restore Lake Leota?”

The project potentially would add a $73.23 tax on a $100,000 home for a 10-year bond, $59.28 for a 15-year bond or $50.20 for a 20-year bond, according to a council memo from City Administrator Dan Wietecha.

The lake, a centerpiece in the city, was drained in 2005 without a plan for its dredging. It has sat empty since.

If voters approve the restoration, however, the dredging could be done by spring. It is being put out for bids, council President Mason Braunschweig said, and the council will meet Nov. 11 to approve a bid, if that’s what the voters decide.

The council also approved these items related to the dredging:

--A contract with Daria and Declan Every to place about 200,800 cubic yards of dredged soil material on their 100 acres of farmland near the lake. The city will pay the Everys $110,000, according to the contract.

--A contract with landowner Rod Courtier for easement during the project.

--Hiring Vierbicher Associates to prepare bid documents and contract specifications for the project at a cost of no more than $10,000.

Residents provided numerous reasons to restore the lake, from its present condition harming the community’s image to providing a place for kids to fish just as older residents enjoyed when they were young.

A couple of people questioned the need for a referendum, citing previous referendums that voters approved to restore the lake. Randy Rinehart of the Save Our Lake Environment group presented the council with a list of nearly 500 signatures of residents who support the project.

Several dollar amounts have been used in the lake discussion since engineers first presented a plan in February. The latest engineer’s opinion of probable cost came in on Friday at $1.99 million.

That, however, does not include a box culvert to the northwest of the lake that would help restore the natural flow of Allen Creek into the northern part the lake. That addition, engineers said, could add up to 50 years of life on the dredging project.

Discussion Tuesday night included whether or not to add the culvert project to the referendum price tag because engineers said it would add $200,000 to $400,000.

Mayor Sandy Decker said redirecting the flow of the creek would require permits and legal paperwork with the railroad and state, which would slow down the dredging project.

Council members decided not to change the project at the last moment. A $2.4 million price tag could decrease support, some alderpersons said, and engineers said the culvert project could be done in the coming years.

View documents:

Probable cost estimates [PDF]

Memo regarding tax impact [PDF]

Agreement with landowner [PDF]







reader COMMENTS (12)
KDC
Oct 1, 2008 at 11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal

This sadly is a huge embarrassment to the town of Evansville to have let this happen. This lake used to be the heart of the park and the heart of the town. As a child growing up in Evansville, I remember learning how to ice skate on this lake, feeding the ducks and watching the wildlife, taking quiet walks around it, and having picnics next to it. Now it's an ugly eyesore. In the 70's it was dredged for a mere $25,000. Where are these astronomical numbers coming from? If you need revenue back from it- sell off the prime soil after it's dredged, open a paddle boat company to run spring, summer and fall and charge a fee for boat rentals so people can actually use it, charge for ice skating in the winter- whatever you need to do to restore it!

rlms
Sep 10, 2008 at 6:23 p.m.
Suggest removal

It is absolutely awful how much this is going to cost. I thought for a while maybe they would get the numbers down, but its the same old, same old. YIKES.. The numbers are huge. It was funny listening to them, and watching them realize they just could not do it, all at once. I think its going to be a hard thing to get passed.

jdd
Sep 10, 2008 at 5:27 p.m.
Suggest removal

I was really shocked that the numbers were played around with so much at the meeting. The amount started at 1.7 million and then was increased to 2.0 million. There was much discussion about the rest of the project (box culvert under RR tracks) and its additional cost of $200,000 to $400,000. The Council opted to not include this cost in the referendum because some felt it would change peoples decision. Your right having the true facts and costs will change peoples decision. In the end it was 2 million and the council will make the other 200,000-400,000 a seperate project that the taxpayers will be see added onto their taxes as well. Give us real details not ones you think we want to hear. What a joke. Read the writing on the referendum, "An amount NOT TO EXCEED 2 MILLION" it means nothing.

curtaincall
Sep 10, 2008 at 12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal

I believe there was a referendum in 90/92? When they could have fixed it for 200,000.00 Why the hxxx did they not fix it then? Now we are over the 2 million mark on way or another. But to me its not just how much this will add to my taxes but how about as well the upgrades to the waste water treatment plant are coming in closer to 3 million than the 2.25 million as first thought. To many projects , the economy sucks. People are unemployed. People are trying to decide food or heat? food or insurance? food or house payment? The timing is awful. If this were not to go through they can just try again later. They never should have touched it. It was never meant to be a lake, it was a mill pond. That is what its history is.

rlms
Sep 10, 2008 at 12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal

They never should have touched it , UNTIL they had the o.k. of the people of Evansville through a referendum. They should have done it over ten years ago when it could have been done at a fraction of the cost. The bank is empty they don't have the money to do it. The future of the lake is very much is question. It may be pretty to look at but at what cost? How it going to come back to us ten fold?? Its not. Even with the lake full 4 years ago, it did not bring enough to Evansville economy to cover pulling weeds, much less dredging. Are they going to start charging for looking at it? Anything they would try to charge for would mean someone would have to man the lake, and they would have to be paid. You start charging you become liable more than what they already are.

woodsman
Sep 10, 2008 at 11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal

This lake NEEDS TO BE FIXED,plain and simple. They should NEVER of drained it,without following through with a plan to restore it. Evansville is a very old & pretty town,this park was a stopping spot for many travelers,and doing some shopping on the way out. GET-ER-DUN You will get ten fold in return!

rlms
Sep 10, 2008 at 11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal

I think they will have a hard time getting this to pass. Really the ref. no may be 2 million but its going to cost a additional 650,000.00 so the total cost of this project is 2,651.000million.. WOW>>>> We will pay for it one way or another if this project goes through. So they have never got the numbers under control , its just they are putting off doing part of it until later.. IT is a very expensive project. One the city can not afford.

naturespaces
Sep 10, 2008 at 11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal

I agree with jmonty. Rosewood remembers the lake as I do. Bring back this treasure.

jmontywi
Sep 10, 2008 at 11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal

I should explain further what I think should be done.

Restore the creek and the habitat.

Clean-up park and fix the park infrastructure.
****
I believe the Evansville is dying and a lake and dam will forever be too great an expense.
****
Towns do die... just look at Union.

jmontywi
Sep 10, 2008 at 11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal

Excellent: Finally a chance to say NO.

janesvillean
Sep 10, 2008 at 10:55 a.m.
Suggest removal

As I've said, Evansville would be wise to figure out some way to develop the lake to generate revenue for its upkeep. This is NOT the only wrenching dredge-or-drain decision the village has faced -- in fact it has had several in the lake's relatively short history. The silt maintenance issue is a critical challenge for a lake in this location.

rosewood
Sep 10, 2008 at 10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal

I lived in Evansville for 30 years before moving to Janesville, I loved the historic old homes, the beautiful Lake Leota, the charm of the town. People used to boat, swim, and fish in this lake. How did this town let this happen, by keeping it up every year it wouldn't have cost as much as it will now. This is the centerpice of the town, bring back the park so everyone can start using it again. Don't destroy a landmark.

Before you post a comment, consider this:

Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy Agreement
  • Keep it clean. Comments that are obscene, vulgar or sexually oriented will be removed. Creative spelling of such terms or implied use of such language is banned, also.
  • Don't threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
  • Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
  • Harassing comments. If you are the subject of a harassing comment or personal attack by another user, do not respond in-kind.  Hit the "Suggest Removal" button on offensive comments.
  • Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
  • Do not libel anyone. Libel is writing something false about someone that damages that person's reputation.
  • Ask questions. What more do you want to know about the story?
  • Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
  • Help us get it right. If you spot a factual error or misspelling, email newsroom@gazettextra.com or call 1-800-362-6712.
  • Remember, this is our site. We set the rules, and we reserve the right to remove any comments that we deem inappropriate.

Post Comment

Commenting requires registration.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

ADVERTISEMENT