A recently constructed gazebo and “Pocket Park” have become the source of contention in Michigamme. The Michigamme Township Board voted in July to investigate the sale of the small portion of lakefront property on the corner of Max and Lake streets to an adjoining land owner. (Journal photo by Lisa Bowers)

MICHIGAMME — The proposed sale of a small sliver of property in Michigamme Township has some residents up in arms.

The Michigamme Township Board during a July 8 meeting voted to “investigate” the sale of the lakefront property, which measures about 65-feet-long by 25-feet-wide and is also home to a small gazebo built with a Central Upper Peninsula Planning and Development Regional Commission grant in 2016.

The parcel borders Lake Michigamme on the corner of Max and Lake streets, and is listed on a Marquette County plat map as part of Lake Street.

Township Supervisor William Seppanen, in a phone interview Thursday, said if the segment can be sold the adjacent landowner would have lakefront access, increasing his property value and the amount of property tax the township could collect.

“One of the reasons why I even had a positive thought of investigating the sale is because he (the adjacent landowner) was going to build a new home in Michigamme,” Seppanen said. “And the property would go on the tax roll as lakefront property.”

He said the motion to investigate the sale in July included a stipulation that if the landowner did not build on his existing parcel within five years of the proposed sale, the lakefront access would revert to the township.

Some opposed to the action say the township is abandoning a park, which benefits the public at large, in favor of a private property owner, while others are concerned the public will no longer have access to the lake in that location.

Jerry Roach, chairman of the Michigamme Downtown Development Authority, said even though new construction would increase the taxable value of the property, selling public lakefront access does not make economic sense.

“I was quite taken aback when the board agreed to do this. I never thought this was possible. We are looking to block the sale of the park,” he said. “It is an essential part of the downtown area of Michigamme. It is the only place in the DDA area that is available to the public, both tourists and people who live here.”

Roach is part of a core group of about a half dozen residents opposed to the sale who are working to increase awareness of the board’s actions with regard to the property.

They have regularly attended township board meetings since July, launched an informal petition that garnered 85 signatures and recently sent out a privately funded flier to all residents entitled “Save our Michigamme Pocket Park.”

“Members of the (township) board have claimed that the park is not a park,” the flier states. “This assertion is being used to justify selling the park without seeking approval from registered voters.”

Roach said during the Thursday interview that the parcel is also referred to as a pocket park in both DDA and township board minutes around the time of the CUPPAD grant and gazebo construction, a fact that could not be independently confirmed prior to press time.

The parcel is listed in the township’s 2019 recreation plan as the “Gazebo Park” but is not mentioned in the township’s 2015 master plan recreation inventory.

Seppanen contends the small tract of land has never been platted, nor officially registered in any other way as a park.

“It has never been a pocket park according to the (Marquette County) Register of Deeds,” Seppanen said.

Michigamme resident John McBride said he supports the township because the parcel lacks certain elements that are common in a park setting.

“… There is no parking, no bathrooms, no beach, no signs stating ‘swim at your own risk,’ and I have observed no children swimming (in) the last decade of living in town,” McBride said. “The goal of the DDA is economic development and our efforts should be to complete the already approved west end handicap boat ramp where there is a beautiful sandy beach with a (pier) in need of repair.”

Other concerns registered by those opposed to the sale include the location of the property in a platted road right-of-way and possible interference with the Michigamme-Spurr Volunteer Fire Department as there is a ramp that allows fire tanker trucks to access the lake to replenish water.

“We are trying to be respectful and trying to get the board to see our point of view. I can’t see where it was beneficial if it were sold away,” Roach said. “We are trying to get them (the township board) to have a public hearing and have a bidding process instead of a private sale. Our issue is not with the property owner, our issue was with the township board not wanting to hear our viewpoint.”

Seppanen said the township is in the early stages of the process.

“We are not even anywhere close to being complete. There is no parcel number for this property,” Seppanen said. “We are seeking the advice of a land attorney to see what can be done. What I understand right now is we would have to get it surveyed. We’ll probably have to go to circuit court, and we would have to get the property assessed. I assume once all the information is gathered and all the details are correct there will be a public hearing.”

The transaction is made even more complex if it is a public road right-of-way.

By state law, ownership of any road or road right-of-way within a Michigan township falls to the county road commission.

The county board of road commissioners has the ability to “relinquish jurisdiction or absolutely abandon and discontinue” any county road by resolution with a majority vote, according to the Highways and Private Roads Act of 1909.

The township board would have first priority to obtain the property according to the act, but different rules apply if the portion of the county road “borders on, crosses, is adjacent to, or ends at a lake or the general course of a stream and the proposed action would result in the loss of public access,” the document states, in which case the Michigan Department of Transportation and the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy would need to be notified by the county road commission.

Seppanen said expenses incurred in the sale, such as court costs and fees for assessing and surveying would be built into the price of the parcel, which must be offered at fair market value but is not required to be sold on bids.

“We are not trying to do anything illegal and there is nothing that is not above board,” Seppanen said. “This all came up because a resident asked if he bought the adjoining lot if this could be part of it.”

Lisa Bowers can be reached at 906-228-2500, ext. 242. Her email address is lbowers@miningjournal.net.