County Board - Regular Meeting

here.

Okay, it's 7 o'clock. Let's begin the meeting. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. PLEASE BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. ROLL CALL OF SUPERVISORS. I'M HITTING IT. IS IT WORKING?

NO.

I've hit it 50 times. Oh, so it has to be mine.

Yep.

Just mark it. Can you just mark it, or do I have to get the... Where is yours?

Where's your desk?

My desk? It's down there. Where is my desk? Your desk is down here. It's right here. It's here. Oh, well, are you here?

We marked yours.

Okay, all right, everyone's here. Okay, except, except Supervisor Kirby and Chair Nordegin.

Because he pushed it.

It was right here. Okay, let's see. We have YIG students, quite a few tonight as a matter of fact, wow. We have Bruno Gonzalez, Kyle Prince, Samuel Sheen, John Schiller, Caleb Fleege, Sophia Myers, Rebecca Waite, Sri Shmarami, Natasha Dirks, and Luca Vito. Thank you for coming, welcome. All right, let's see, today, or tonight, we have some citizen comments. Do we have any citizen comments this evening? Citizen comments. Okay, well, come up to the podium there and say your name, state your name and your address, please.

Hi, good evening. My name is Dan McKinney. I live at 25301 121st Street in Trever, now Salem Lakes, Wisconsin. I live on Rock Lake and tonight we're appealing to the board to approve us a district. Now imagine a county where everybody paid taxes voluntarily. Imagine a county where everybody did their own thing, and if they felt like paying taxes, that's fine, and if they didn't, imagine if they decided their own, everybody decided their own policies and did whatever they want. Well, without a Lake District, that's where we stand as far as taking care of Rock Lake. Now imagine people from outside the county trying to disenfranchise people who live within the county. that's the situation we have we're trying to get an association where everybody works together for the good of rock lake so like the county where everybody paid their taxes voluntarily We do not have the resources to take care of Rock Lake as best we can. So we've had a majority of the riparian right fund owners vote or appeal, petition the county to form a district. And so that's why we're here tonight, with hope that you will help us form a district so that we can take care of the lake the best way we can. Thank you very much for your attention.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Marilyn McKinney and thank you for listening to our comments about Rock Lake and our concern. We have lived on the lake 14 years and in those 14 years we've seen our beautiful lake become more and more infested with weeds. As the lake study we just read recently done through our Rock Lake Restoration Association, the lake has currently about 42% invasive species. The other issue is happening, our cattails are growing on the south side of the lake, and they're infringing on making the lake smaller. It's not a real big lake. So anyways, that's another issue. concern. In my opinion, our lake is like a living thing. It needs to be cared for, not any different than our bodies, our pets, our yards. If left uncared for, they can be taken over by diseases, which is what we're seeing with the invasive species. And that's why we need to have the funds to take care of it so we can do lake studies, which costs currently about $7,000 every five years, which gives us important information, allows us to get permits, and it also gives us a study on the health of the lake. If we continue to ignore the weeds, they die, as you would guess, every year. In winter, they'll die, and then they turn to muck. And that makes our lake shallower and shallower. One of my big concerns is there is a channel, and I believe you have a picture of it, that was given to you of our channel. And it has become less and less navigable as year after year weeds die and turn into a muck, making it shallower and shallower. If we ignore our channel, from my research, it can eventually become completely unnavigable if left unmanaged. One neighbor recently commented to me that it looks like one could actually walk across the top of the weeds. They're that thick on the channel, coming out of the channel. The channel, I believe, is an integral part of the lake. And it is where the water flows out to the dam or where. So its care needs to be addressed. I'm a real estate agent. My other concern is about the investment that lakefront owners have made to live on a lake. And we built our home 14 years ago. And I think it's important for the value of your home that you're not living on a weed-infested lake. People buy a home because they want to have a beach. They want to get in the lake. They don't want to be going through all kinds of weeds. Lastly, I want to say to neighbors here tonight that don't live on the lake, you will not be taxed. Only the lake owners will be, so you won't bear the cost and the responsibility. We are willing to invest our resources to care for beautiful Rock Lake. This will be to your advantage to be able to enjoy a healthier lake and see your home values continue to be stable and even increase. Thank you.

Thank you.

Rick Provenzano, 12531 Rock Lake Road. I've lived on Rock Lake about 21 years. Last year, well, maybe, I'm not sure when it was, there was a meeting in Antioch, no, Salem Lakes, off Antioch Road. And there was a committee there, and there were a lot more people that voiced whether they wanted a tax district or not, or whether they wanted chemicals or not. I've been involved with the association from the get-go. I donated some money for plant surveys. I'm no longer a participant in that association. I still feel there's time in other ways to deal with this weed problem or other issues. The thing that bothers me probably most about the tax district is at the prior meeting, somebody from... Twin Lakes said, hey, their whole town's a tax district, and so their whole town is paying for the lakes and being taxed, obviously. Now, maybe some people say the only ones that are gonna be impacted by the tax district are the people on a lake. That's true, that's me. I prefer to avoid a lifetime tax, and hopefully we could resolve some other issues we have in different ways first. I'm not a naysayer on everything. But also, we could deal with hypotheticals and think of this, think of that. How about think of this, let's say all your houses are connected by property line to the greatest theater in the world. And you want your property values to go up. So guess what? You're gonna go ahead and you're gonna pay taxes for all the improvements that are made on this theater, but everybody around gets to use it. And that's fine. But you think it's shared response. When I looked in the tax districts for lakes in Wisconsin, they generally said a mile within a lake. And that's because everybody's real estate values appreciate somewhat. If you can have your kids go over and play at the park or at the beach or go fish a clean lake. And our lake is very clean. And the weeds are at the edge. And they're grown through muck. And the muck in that lake, by topography maps, has been there since 1956. Topography maps show the bottom of the lake muck. The bottom line is when you get past that weed edge, you are in beautiful, clean water. Partially spring-fed throughout the lake. Fishing's good. I haven't been that lucky this year, but I went with my neighbor. He was lucky this morning. He's more of an early bird. So I'm probably not in favor of the tax district, especially because it's going to be put on just the people who are on the lake. And granted, we may appreciate our values because we're on the lake, but people in the neighborhood also. And if you take the Twin Lakes idea, and if the guy at the last meeting was correct, and they are a whole lake district, then that's a shared burden and it's a lesser cost to everyone. They all got skin in the game. So I would like that to be a consideration. And lastly, I think there are several people that may not be able to attend, but I think if you go by the last meeting, there was some good debate and good discussion, and the board decided I'm not officially like you guys, but whether they table it or they're bringing it to this level, but I still think the same amount of people are interested in not having a tax district as having one. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. I appreciate the time. Thank you.

Anybody else?

Good evening. My name is Eric Nielsen. I'm a property owner at 12403 Rock Lake Road in Trever. I've been a riparian property owner there since 2002 along with the rest of my family. I'm here to voice my total objection to the formation of a tax district. I wanna focus on just a few points that are above and beyond what I included in the letter that was sent to you yesterday. And so I hope you had a chance to review it. First off, regarding the necessity of a tax district. First, I wanna be very clear that this is not a environmental problem like has been represented in the petitioner's letter that you received, I think on August 8th. This is a normal, very healthy lake. It's 45 acres. It's roughly 25 feet deep, going to 33 feet deep, of which approximately three-quarters or 75% of it is totally open, clear water. Yes, there is normal aquatic plant life around the perimeter of it, which... very clearly is a combination of native species as well as invasive species. What you see in most of the pictures is water lilies. Water lilies are a native species. These are not something that can be removed or extracted other than the normal DNR-allowed 30-foot lane. So people that are complaining about weeds are really talking about the majority of plant life there, which is the water lilies, which are native. In terms of the necessity for specifically a tax district to deal with whatever is there, there's other ways to deal with it. There's individual property owner responsibility. If they want a navigation lane, as I do, you can pay for it yourself. There's also chances for neighbors to work collaboratively to contract with a service to come in and do that if they have their own interest in mind to have navigation lanes. And then similarly there's associations which are not formal tax districts but are voluntary members that want to contribute to the health of the lake just as has been done in the past at Rock Lake. The other thing that keeps coming up here is, is this in the matter of public interest? Well, the reality here is that I think that's the wrong question. The reality is, is the public interested in doing something with Rock Lake? And the fact that it's just a handful of property owners, I'm not sure if it's 25 or whatever it is, that are interested in doing it, tells me that There's no interest from the Village of St. William Lakes, which has three fully public access properties on the lake plus the Weir area. And then there's three major subdivisions within walking distance around the lake that have roughly 250 homes involved. Nobody from these areas has expressed concerns about the quality of the lake. Nobody in these areas have expressed interest in supporting the maintenance of it. So it's really coming down to activity driven by specific owners that are concerned about their property values and having access to the lake from their properties. So please keep that in mind when we talk about whether or not this is really a necessity and is it really in the public interest when the public is not interested in supporting this. The last comment I want to make is that through this whole activity, input has been given to the petitioners to follow the guidance from the Planning and Development Committee, but also to use the people of the lakes, how to organize lake organizations. This is a great book, great guide to facilitate the formation of any type of lake organization. If you go through and read it, there's some really good operating principles in there in terms of how you Communicate a governance model, how you communicate the mission, how you compete, are you going to do the short and long-term goals, how you have budget and spending scenarios, and talk about property tax implications. None of this has been done in a full and constructive way through any of the two petitioning processes that the petitioners have gone through. So I just ask that you keep this in mind that there is no fundamental necessity. There is no interest in public support for this. And the process that we have taken to get here has been less than transparent and often and many times has held many misrepresentations. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else? Anybody else?

My name is Karen Elin, and I live at 12052 255 Avenue, Traver, Wisconsin. I thought there was a list, so I didn't know if I had to go in the list name, you know, and who was... I do not live directly on Rock Lake. I live a house or two up from the lake. I've lived there 43 years. I spend almost every summer day in the lake, head down, face in. I swim across the lake. I play with my family in the lake. And the lake is lovely. It's clear. Aquatic plants are not weeds as spoken by the last person. Lily pads are not aquatic invasive species. I do volunteer for the citizen lake monitoring part of the DNR and it's a really wonderful program where they've trained me to check the clarity, to look at aquatic invasive, check the temperatures every three feet all throughout the summer. And if you look at the clarity of Rock Lake, our history is really, really good. So any of the supporting data from some of the information that was sent to you on Friday about, you know, we should have a lake district so we can take care of the clarity, that job is already being done and it is not a problem. So I would hope that you would follow the recommendations of the planning board to, you know, reject this tax district, at least at this time in history. This is not the time to form a taxing body to take care of the lake. Maybe in the future sometime. I feel that the riparians who want this just... would like to see their lanes cleared with tax money from other people. I'm sure they love the lake as much as I do. But I ask you not to recommend a tax body at this time and thank you very much. Anybody else?

My name is Kim Micklin. I live at 25123 121st Street. I've lived on Rock Lake for 42 years, and I've watched the decline from a clean lake that was great for swimming and fishing to a weed-infested, E. coli-ridden lake. that swimmers and fishermen have abandoned. An avid fisherman in the area told me this spring, the word is out, don't fish in Rock Lake. The most recent E. coli level sample showed that Rock Lake had the highest E. coli in the area. very, very close to a warning advisory. Rock Lake was once a source of pride. Now it's an embarrassment. A lake district is needed. Rock Lake needs to be saved. I thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Anybody else?

Anybody? Okay.

Good evening. My name's John Grage. I live at 12529 Rock Lake Road. I've been there, my wife and I, for about 11 years now. We use it as a weekend vacation, year-round home. And we bought, you know, we bought the property and we brought, you know, we were attracted to the lake. And I'm for some program, some kind of a plan to do something. You know, we've worked with Dave Hoke, oh, there he is, you know, for the last 10 years. And it's always been a grassroots effort. It's always been, you know, are you going to join the association this year? Are you going to pay your dues? We've had 10 people join, 15 people join. And we've always, and the weeds have gotten worse, and we've always tried to deal with a cutter, and then we had a dash, a diver-assisted harvest machine, and that would break down, and then for months you wouldn't be able to harvest. And I have one of the longest runs from my pier to get out to that 30-foot drop. When you get to the 30-foot drop, everything is great, but I have to basically paddle my boat out through the weeds, through the woolly pads and I don't know which ones are invasive or which ones are native, but there's just a lot, a lot there. And when we used to have a cutter, we would cut for hours and we'd have piles of just, you know, vegetation that we cut. It would take weeks before it would, you know, dry out and then, you know, it would shrink and then you could burn it. which is probably not the greatest thing for the environment either, burning all of that. But, you know, again, we've done it with, you know, a handful of people, a handful of members. They vary from year to year. Our budget varies from year to year. It's not stable. As an association, you know, we're not able to get state grants where we would be able to get that if we were a Lake District. And, you know, I don't know all the ins and outs of a Lake District, what it looks like, how it's formed. But from what I've read, you'll have a governing body. elected body, elected people, you know, in the best interest of the lake. And, you know, they'll look at spending the money as wisely as they can. They'll apply for grants. And we could do things more of a, you know, a concerted effort where we're working together and we don't have to worry about one person. You know, I've been part of local organizations before, and it's always like one or two people that have to drive it. You know, and in this case, it's been Dave for the last 10 years. Dave's been driving this with a few other people. And, you know, when those people get tired of it or they're burned out or they just can't do it anymore, you know, then it just kind of falls apart. But if you have a lake district, you have an elected body, you have people that are, you know, elected in, they roll in, they roll out, you've got money coming in from the state, I think you're just in a much better position just to manage the lake. I mean, you know, the people that are against it, they have valid concerns. And I think the people that are for it have valid reasons for it too. So I'm not saying either side is right or wrong, but I think from my perspective is we need to do something just better than what we've been doing where we can take advantage of state funding and then we can just have an elected board and some group that's gonna be there for years just kind of managing the lake for the good of everyone. So that's it, thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else? Anybody else?

My name is Johan Elen, 12052 255 Avenue in Trever. I am not a riparian. I can see the lake, but can't touch it from my property. I've been there for over 40 years and I'm not ashamed of Rock Lake. I'm seeing the same lake that I saw 40 years ago. My children look forward to coming to use the lake they grew up on. And now my grandchildren are coming and they look forward to coming and enjoying the beauty of Rock Lake. Rock Lake has plants around the perimeter. You can look at it as a fishbowl. As soon as the water gets deep enough, there are no plants. The entire center of the lake, as previously mentioned, is crystal clear and beautiful and deep. A lot of swimmers come out. I'm one of them. When you're out in the deep water past the weeds, you don't encounter weeds. You don't encounter speedboats. You don't encounter any of those things that so many other lakes have. Rock Lake is a pure gem, and it needs to be protected. And I believe that as far as the lake filling in, if you go back and look at survey maps from the 40s or 50s, they show the lake depth as the same as it is now. I know because I put the anchor out there and it's still there. The lake is over 30 feet deep as a fishbowl. There's a lot of acreage that doesn't have the plants. And I'm afraid that if we start getting government intervention with funds, we're going to start seeing unnecessary movement on the lake. If all the plants are around the perimeter, And all the homeowners that are on the water want to clear away their plants. How much percentage of the plant life that makes the lake healthy, which you can look at the study that SewerPak just did. They said that the lake is lovely. It has a high content of good plants and some rare plants. How much of that can you remove without affecting the bio life of the lake itself? I'm afraid that Rock Lake is too precious and fragile to be messing with without some really deep study, and I don't believe that the organization that's applying Has met that criteria and I've been at the meetings that have happened to date and I hope that the full board accepts the Decision that was forwarded by the PNZ Because I believe that it was the right decision Thank you very much Anyone else

Robert Pluta, 12303 Rock Lake Road, Trever, Wisconsin. I hope you were able to read my opposition letter that I sent in yesterday morning. Also another one in the original meeting in March. I'd like to thank the committee and all the board members for their depth of research into this unnecessary district. I'd just like to add a few points in opposition to this district. Number one, the public health will not be achieved by putting herbicides into the lake as the petitioners intend to do. Herbicides do not eliminate invasive species and the WDNR has documentation that this is true. Still, many lake districts still apply herbicides yearly, wasting task funds and disturbing water clarity as a result. Plants are important to the lake health. Number two, it is not necessary to create 30-foot lanes to private properties using tax funds. You can do this by yourself. You can hire somebody. We don't need to make a tax district to have a path to everybody's peer. The amount of labor and cost into this would be crazy for this small of a district proposed. Number three, A tax district would force all properties included to have unnecessary liability placed onto their property. Such a liability is something I don't want. There's no way I want to sign up for somebody using some machine and causing some injury, and I'm automatically forced into this. Number four, E. coli is caused by fecal matter, not plants. It's from geese. So I'm just going to close with that. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else? Okay, citizen comments are closed. I don't have any particular announcements myself other than I'm not chair of Nordigian. So I don't have anything to say in particular. So why don't we move to supervisor reports? Are there any supervisor reports?

Let's see, where are you? First one. I'm not seeing it. Where are you? On the left.

No, because he's... Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to discharge the legislative committee from further consideration of my ordinance to amend MCKC 2.133A and we put up an export meeting agenda.

Okay, we have a motion on the floor to discharge the resolution requiring seven members for all standing committees. That was brought up in the legislative committee earlier this week. It did not pass. I think it was two, three, the vote. So we have that on the floor. Is there a second? Second. Okay, we do have a second. Supervisor Lux? Okay, we can discuss this. Any discussion? Okay, go ahead.

Thank you. Okay. The reason I brought in this resolution or ordinance, whatever, is because I believe what's going on right now, it's not fair to the constituents of Kenosha County. As we all know, the Kenosha County Board consists of 23 county board supervisors. Fourteen of us are in the city limits. And we are supposed to be on committees. It should be equal representation to all or as much as we can. But as of now, nine supervisors in the city limits are only on one committee. The rest of the supervisors outside of the city limits, there is nobody on one committee. There are two committees, three committees, and one supervisor is on four committees. I don't believe, forget, it's not fair for the supervisor either, but really it's not fair for the people, the city of Kenosha or any member of the Kenosha County. And we went through, I spoke quite on land over at the committee level. I'm not going to do that right now until it's needed, but just the fact that the people that don't get an equal representation should be just enough to change it and not having people on four committees or whatever. For right now, that's all I'm going to say.

Okay. Yeah, basically the discussion right now is what we're going to be talking about is whether we want to take this up at the next meeting. We're not going to be voting on this now because it would require, it's an ordinance and a rule change, it would require two readings anyway. The discussion now is in regard to this particular resolution is whether we want to bring it up as a board, as a body in the next meeting. So any other questions? Discussion or comments, questions? Okay, yes. Yes, Supervisor Tagliapietro.

When this came before committee, I was pretty embattled on this issue. I agree with Chairman Nuttow that there is a disparity in representation with SEM supervisors in this board. My concern and the reason that I voted against that committee is it seemed to me as a permanent change to a temporary problem. The more I've learned about this, the more I've understood that this is not a permanent change, can be adjusted. I would support a full discussion on this issue after learning more. However, I really think the issue at hand is not the ability of the chairman to make decisions for how many members are on committees, but the equal representation of our entire community on our committees. So I would be supporting this conversation.

Okay. Thank you. Supervisor Geertsen. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not gonna favor the motion to put this on the next county board agenda and override the proceedings of our legislative committee. So I'll be voting against it. And if you do a little research into the work that our chairman did, He did a pretty good job of setting our committees. You can see that the optimal size for a committee is three to five. We had all of these arguments laid out in committee when the committee made the decision not to favor this policy. Decision-making bottlenecks occur when committees are larger. Accountability declines as members assume others will do the work. Larger groups break into cliques, creating gridlock. Committee members become passive and hide behind active members. Meetings get longer as more people speak, reducing meeting time for active members, and larger committees cost more. So there is a cost between one to $2,000 by having the larger committees. So the advantages of the larger committees are far outweighed by the disadvantage. And we keep hanging the hat on bringing this back on the representation of the community. Well, the community voted for this 23-member county board. This county board then elected the chairman. The chairman set the committees. That's where the representation of the 170,000 people that live in Kenosha County. That's where the representation occurred. And we did a good job of it. So actually going back and reworking the committees and removing this from the initial decision of our chairman, our leader, actually goes contrary to due representation. So again, I will not favor this. I think the legislative committee did a good job in their deliberations, and with that I yield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Okay, thank you. Supervisor Kerro, did you have something to say?

I did, thank you, Chairman Franco. I just wanted to highlight a couple of organizations that in the past month performed very well on the national stage from out in the western part of the county. We have, the first of one is a club that's not part of the high school but associated with the Belmont High School. Oh. The reason why I clicked this was for supervisor comments, and then he called on me.

I will allow it. Continue. No, it's fine.

I will wait until this is over. Okay.

Is there any other discussion, questions, comments? No? Okay. Roll call. We'll take a vote. Is this the right one? Is that, that's mine? Okay, I got mine. Simple majority.

So I'm sorry, so if you want to bring this forward to the board at a future meeting, vote aye. If you do not want that, vote nay.

But see, that's probably, you need to get yours.

That's mine.

Is it? Yeah, that's mine.

Is it on now? No. No.

Oh, no it didn't.

Oh, there it goes.

It's 11.

11, so that passes then. No. No, it doesn't? It fails. Okay. All right, so the motion fails. No, no, no.

No, the motion passes 11-10.

Oh, it passes. 11, yes.

11 is...

Sorry.

Yes, it's 11-10.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. 11 is more than 10. Yes, you're right. You're right. She told me. Yes, the resolution passes. The motion passes. Okay. So, let's see. Let's... Supervisor Carroll, go ahead.

If there are, yeah. So back to supervisor reports, sorry for the deviation there. So as I was saying, we've got a couple of organizations that compete on the national stage, and they performed very well in the last month. One of those organizations is a scholastic clay target program organization, the Wilmot Shooting Club, another organization that participates as a central school, but I wanted to focus just on the national champion. So one of the members did very well and is the national champion for the clay, sporting clays. And so that's quite an honor to come from from a small town of Wilmot and to compete on a national stage and to become the national champion in his classification for varsity. Another organization that recently participated in the national competition is the Twin Lakes Aquanauts. They're a water ski show. They're a non-profit and an all-volunteer organization. and they were just named as the national champions for Division I for the water ski competition. So they've done very well, and both of these organizations take a tremendous amount of effort by volunteers, and it's all from the local community, so I just wanted to recognize them.

Thank you, Supervisor. Let's see here.

Supervisor Pollack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tomorrow at Brookside Center, they're having their annual picnic starting at 1030 to 130. There'll be residents and family members grilling out food and games for kids and things like that. And I know that Supervisor Gertzen and I sit on the Board of Trustees representing the County Board, but also if any of you could attend as well, it would be greatly appreciated representing the County Board at Brookside, such a pivotal and important part of our community that the county supports. So if you could attend, that would be great. I realize it's during the middle of the day and it's short notice, but just make that announcement. Thank you, Supervisor. Any other Supervisor reports?

Supervisor Belsky. I just wanted to remind everybody I put a pamphlet on your desk and also for youth and governance. We have our 50th anniversary celebration between the partnership of Kenosha County Parks and Kemper Center Inc. It kicks off at 9 a.m. with a really high-end car show. We're also going to have Tesla there. Tesla is coming up from Illinois, so we'll have some cars. My understanding is you're able to test drive as well. And we'll also have... a bottle of the badge for bus vehicle and we'll let children 16 and under decide who that winner is going to be. We also have the market with expanded hours. We have Anderson Arts Center which is open with the quilting show. Durkee Mansion will be open for tours and then we go into the cake cutting of 50 years County Executive Kirkman will be there Kemper Center Inc's founder Penny Palmer Enroth will be there and we'll have other dignitaries we understand that the county fair is going on, but if you could all make time just to come over for at least the cutting of the cake, we'd appreciate it. We have two awesome bands that are going to be playing that night. One of them, Southbound, was up at the Wisconsin State Fair, and then we will end it with fireworks at 9 o'clock. So we hope that you can come out and help celebrate this wonderful partnership that's been 50 years in the making. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else? Supervisor reports? Doesn't look like it.

Okay, so supervisor reports are closed. County board appointments?

County board chairman appointment number three, Daniel Gashke to serve on the Kenosha Joint Services Board.

Refer to Judiciary and Law Enforcement Committee.

County Executive Appointments, number 14, Tim Stocker to serve on the Kenosha County Library System Board.

Refer to Finance Administration Committee.

15, David Lux to serve on the Racine Kenosha Community Action Agency Board.

Refer to Human Services Committee.

16, Guida Brown to serve on the Racine Kenosha Community Action Agency Board.

Refer to Human Services Committee.

17, Sergeant Christopher Hanna to serve on the Kenosha County Land Information Council.

Refer to Planning, Development, and Extension Education Committee.

18, Annette Flynn to serve on the Kenosha County Commission on Aging and Disability Services.

Refer to Human Services Committee.

19, Dave Tarzon to serve on Kenosha County Human Services Board.

Refer to Human Services Committee.

New Business, Resolution 36 from the Human Services Committee, a resolution to approve the appointment of Robert Swanson to serve as Director of Division of Veterans Services. This passed unanimously at committee.

Supervisor Stocker? Move Resolution 36. Moved by Supervisor Stocker, seconded by Supervisor Robinson. Supervisor Stocker?

As noted, this passed.

Should be on.

As noted, the resolution passed our committee unanimously, and we would love it for you to join us in that. And Robert Swanson is here if you have any questions for him.

Thank you. Any discussion? Any discussion? Do I have a motion? Oh, I'm sorry. Any discussion? No? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, motion carries.

Resolution 37 from the Finance and Administration Committee, a resolution authorizing and providing for the sale and issuance of not to exceed $22,750,000 general obligation promissory notes series 2026A and all related details. This passed unanimously at committee.

Supervisor Gertson. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. I swear it's on. Thank you. There we go. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move Resolution 37.

Moved by Supervisor Gertson, seconded by Supervisor Nudo. Supervisor Gertzen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These are the bonds that we sold today in the market to fund the 2026 budget. We exceeded all of the metrics in our planning run. We initially planned on issuing 22.75 million in principle, and what we ended up issuing was 22.5 million. The true interest cost in the planning run was 3.66 and the actual sale came in at a true interest cost of 3.3405. I should repeat or mention that the winning bid was Oppenheimer out of Philadelphia. We had 10 bids. It was a very competitive bid. We expect debt service to go up $993,000, which is better than the planning run, which exceeded a million. And as part of this process, many of you know, and a notice was sent out by the executive's office that we retained our AAA bond rating. So it was approved in finance committee today, and I would request the board to support this important resolution, and also request a roll call vote.

Okay, thank you. Any discussion? No? All those in favor? Roll call.

This passes unanimously with 21 supervisors voting yes. Resolution 38 from the Legislative Committee, a resolution urging the state of Wisconsin to provide sustainable, flexible funding for the local public health departments. This passed unanimously at committee.

Supervisor Morrissey. Moved by Supervisor Morrissey, second by Supervisor Colonna. Supervisor Morrissey.

I can defer to Supervisor Decker. It's her resolution, but it's asking the state of Wisconsin to come up with long-term funding for the health departments. We'd ask for your support.

Okay, thank you. Any discussion? No, okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, motion carries.

Resolution 39 from the Legislative Committee, a resolution urging the Wisconsin legislator to amend Wisconsin Statute 961.55 to expand the definition of forfeiture expenses to include drug treatment, diversion, prevention, and law enforcement program costs. This passed unanimously at committee.

Supervisor Morrissey. Moved by Supervisor Morrissey, seconded by Supervisor Tagliapietro. Supervisor Morrissey.

As the clerk read, this just is asking the definitions to be expanded for forfeiture expenses for the 50% allocation from this expense that would include services that are provided by the health department, the sheriff's department, and other county functions. So to expand the definitions to allow for those fundings to include those organizations. We'd ask for your support.

Okay. Any questions? I actually have a statement where I'd like to say something. So I'm going to pass the gavel here to Supervisor Nudo. Just a point of clarification to address an issue that came up in the legislative committee. I talked to Corp. Counsel and he assured me that in no way this resolution implies that money will be diverted from the common school fund. Only 50% of the forfeiture proceeds can be used by the county and the other 50% must be deposited in the school fund as state constitution requires. In fact, the county of Milwaukee is being sued right now for diverting funds for other county priorities. So, to ensure that the language clearly reflects that fact, that this can't be done, may I make a friendly amendment. I would move to amend two words in the resolution. I would like to delete the words asubstantial, it's the last word of line 34, I believe, and the first word of line 35, and replace it with the words the 50%. the being the last word replacing a, and 50% replacing substantial. So it's clear that that money will not be diverted. I know it's not going to be. I know that wasn't the intent of the resolution, but I just wanted to make sure that the language was clear before we send it off to the state. That's all.

Okay.

Mike, there is a motion on the floor to amend the resolution, and with a second by Supervisor Belsky. And, Amanda, could you read what the amendment says, please?

Here's the language here.

Okay, we'll let Amanda do it. Okay.

Read.

Okay, so we're adding it to line 33?

Yes, I guess it's 33 and 34.

Okay, so we're adding to the end of line 33 and then the beginning of 34 to say a substantial allocation?

No, it's 34 and 35, actually.

Okay, all right.

I'm not adding. Oh, you're changing it. I'm deleting a substantial and then adding the 50%.

Okay, so taking away a substantial allocation and adding the 50%.

Okay, everybody's clear with what the amendment says? Any discussion? Any questions? Supervisor Tagliapietra?

and easy to support, but doesn't it say in line 31 already pretty clearly that this was in the 50% limit? It does.

Do I have the floor? Yes, you do.

It does. And this is probably a little overkill. I just wanted to make sure that 50% is in there. That's all because it said the other 50% in several lines before what we can keep. Just wanted to clarify. Yeah.

Okay. Anybody else? All in favor to the amendment? Aye. Opposed? Yeah, I see that. Okay, and the regional motion with the amendment. Okay. Any discussion? No discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. And I'm gonna pass the gavel back to the chairman. Thank you. All right.

Resolution 40 from the Legislative Committee A RESOLUTION RELATING TO CONSUMER LENDING REFORM AND PREDATORY LENDING PROTECTIONS. THIS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY AT COMMITTEE.

SUPERVISOR MORRISSEY. MOVE RESOLUTION 40. MOVED BY SUPERVISOR MORRISSEY SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR TARZAN. SUPERVISOR MORRISSEY.

So as you may recall, there was a gentleman that came before the county board a few meetings ago and brought up the issue of payday lending and predatory lending practices. There has been a effort for many years on behalf of financial institutions, credit unions, banks. There's even a federal stipulation that the maximum interest rate can be 36%. Unfortunately, there are organizations in this city, this county, this state that charge anywhere from 300 to 900% interest. Personally, I'm aware of an individual that has a 454% loan. I have seen pay stubs from 600. This is a significant issue in the resolution from Supervisor Decker and myself. It outlines that there were some bills in front of the legislature last year. They didn't make it for a final vote. This is a huge burden on the citizens of Kenosha County, and it is a very taxing thing that people cannot get out of this debt. So in this resolution, we asked the county board to support that. The biggest one to me in here is that we strongly support the establishing of a 36% maximum interest, which I still think is extremely high, but that is what the federal has, and that is what is in those legislations. But predatory lending in these organizations a drain on the community. Unfortunately, they're used by a lot of people, but think about that. You have 454% interest, or the average is 599% interest from these organizations. So I hope you support this, and I hope that you contact all of the state legislators when this gets back in front of them. Thank you.

Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay, what's next?

hopes are resolution forty one from the planning development and extension education committee a resolution regarding randy t and gail al new home living trust owner matt new home agent request an amendment to the adopted land use map for kenosha county twenty thirty five map fifty four of the comprehensive plan from farmland protection SEC and non farmland wetland to farmland protection suburban density residential SEC and non farmed wetland in the town of Brighton this passed unanimously at committee supervisor gray Thank you, I move resolution 41 move by supervisor gray seconded by supervisor Meadows supervisor gray

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a change in the land use map to allow for construction of a new residence where a residence formerly sat, and it had been approved by the Town of Brighton.

Thank you. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay, motion carries.

Resolution 42, from the Planning, Development, and Extension Education Committee, a resolution to approve the formation of a Rock Lake Management District. This failed at committee one to five. Supervisor Brookhouse voting aye. Supervisors Brown, Decker, Geertsen, Carroll, and Robinson voting nay. And Supervisor Meadows was excused.

Supervisor Brown.

Move resolution 42.

Move by Supervisor Brown, seconded by Supervisor Robinson. Supervisor Brown, I understand that an attorney is going to present the petition?

No. No. I did all this work.

Oh, okay. But there is an attorney presenting. Yeah, okay. Yeah, go ahead. There's going to be an attorney petition report right after you.

Okay, thank you. So this was the second time that the Planning, Development, and Extension Education Committee voted down a Rock Lake Management District in as many years. The first time we did not support it because a non-Raparian landowner who owns eight acres was included as part of the 51% of lands within the proposed district and because the weir, or the channel, was not included. The Village of Salem Lakes then made that landowner a riparian by deeding access to the lake, vastly changing the 51% of lands required. And so in March, PDEC was again asked to support the Rock Lake Management District, and again, PDEC voted it down because of the following. First, the 33 landowners who were credited with supporting the Lake District were not all in favor. In fact, four of the 33 signers communicated with the PDOT committee that they didn't support the Lake District and had signed the petition believing that they were signing to receive more information, not to support the Lake District. That means that the 51% of homeowners needed to support the Lake District was not met. At least 32 were needed, but only 29 were in support. The requirement of 51% of the land supporting the Lake District was met, but that's because of the outsized new riparian's lake access. This brings up the second and gravest concern, at least in my mind. The petition was, at best, confusing, and at worst, misleading. As we know, petitions are required to have specific information so that a signer understands what is being signed. The Rock Lake Management District petition did not include clear elements, leading to at least four signers expressing their opposition to the Lake District to the Planning, Development, and Extension Education Committee. Further, land owned by Salem Lakes was not included in the 51% of lands, and no budget was included, meaning that if the Lake District was approved, the board could tax at any level they determined reasonable. The petition did not make clear the necessity of the proposed district, seeing that it did not address that the public health, comfort, convenience, nor public welfare would be promoted, especially given the fact that over 51% of the riparians were not in favor of the Lake District. For these reasons, PDAC voted no on the Rock Lake Management District, and I ask you to do the same. Thank you. Thank you.

Now is there a, yes, go ahead.

Yes. I'm Jane Landretti. I'm counsel for the petitioner in this matter. With me is Dave Hoke, the petitioner, and we really appreciate the chance to address the concerns of the committee. I have an environmental and land use practice with Stafford Rosenbaum focusing on water issues, and so in that capacity I've had a lot of chances to read Chapter 33, which is the chapter that that the board is now charged with implementing here. I'd like to introduce Dave Hoke. I think it's really exciting for this lake when there's somebody who is willing to go through the process. It's an enormous undertaking for a concerned citizen, as Dave Hoke has done here. But I've drafted a letter that's in your packet. I hope you've had a chance to read it, and I hope it's helpful. as you seek to go through the, oh sorry, as we seek to go through the chapter 33 process, which is what the county board is asked to apply to the petition here. So my goal is to just make sure you all feel comfortable that everything happened here that was according to the statute. So I'll just talk through that statutory process at a very high level, because I know I already wrote you a letter about it. The committee's role was to hold the public hearing. We thank the committee members for doing that. I think the committee gave a report that balances that there were people in favor and opposed to this. And absolutely reasonable people can disagree as to how we should address the problems at the lake, as you heard in the array of public comments tonight. But to the extent that there's reluctance, it's largely based on unanswered questions. You know, people understandably want to know what will the budget be? What treatment methods will the Lake District use? What species should we treat for? And it's totally understandable that as leaders, we want to have answers to those questions. But nobody has answers to the questions that can only be answered by a future governing body that would be the Lake District. So the committee has identified really good questions and the same is true with the comments that you heard tonight. There are really important unanswered questions to be addressed here. So now it's up to the county board to look at the record and make findings. Did this petition comply with chapter 33? That's what the statute asks you to decide. And it's a really simple question. The petition met the threshold signature requirement. The Lake District is necessary. The public health, comfort, and welfare will be promoted by establishing a Lake District the statute asks you to establish the boundaries it could be as Mr. Hoke has presented them and then also as the county board you get to decide if you want to change the name of the lake district from what appeared so we think that we easily met the number of signatures and happy to address any questions or concerns that you heard on that just a note under chapter thirty three signatures are presumptively valid Also, I think a really important point to the comments from the committee or to the report from the committee is that the petition in Chapter 33 asks for a bare bones petition. And I understand the reluctance to have a bare bones petition that is very broad. Certainly, in many other contexts, I draft lots of petitions where we have to put very specific findings in the petition. But here, Chapter 33 is very different than many other petitions and many other statutory examples of petitions. It just asks you to put the name, to put the necessity, to put that the public health, comfort, convenience, and necessity or public welfare will be promoted, and to show the boundaries of the district. I think that's really important that we look at chapter 33 for what should go in the petition, because the petition sets the boundaries of what is fair game for the public hearing. So if the petitioner, who's a great guy, but he's just a guy, he's not a governing body, if he sets those boundaries for what appears in a petition in a narrow way, he's already limited the scope of the hearing. And Chapter 33 is designed so that the petition comes first, and then we have a public hearing that invites all issues. Mr. Hoke can't speak to what concerns members of the public might have. That's what the public hearing is for, and that's what the committee, we appreciate, heard, pros and cons. on all sides, but it was really important that he was not specific in prescribing what the necessity of the Lake District was. That is what the statute leaves to this governing body, to look at all of the evidence and then make those findings. So insofar as it's a bare bones petition, yes it was, and that's by design of Chapter 33. You see evidence in the record of public welfare and necessity. Again, lots of unanswered questions about how we should address those issues. We heard DNR testify in support of the Lake District, sewer pack in favor of the Lake District. Interestingly, SewerPak's support 10 years ago, you know, SewerPak said, well, maybe sometime in the future we should think about a lake district. But as time has gone on, they have gotten stronger and stronger such that their most recent report issued this year called it a high priority because there are no other processes in place that can solve these problems and answer these questions. So as you heard, members of the public have lots of, you know, reasonable people can disagree about how we should do those things. You as a county board don't have to make those tough decisions. That's what the Lake District can do. These are tricky decisions. How do, which, Which nuisance plants do we address? Which ones are desirable? They're complex issues that balance lots of issues and lots of interest, excuse me. I can tell you too that there are still checks and balances in place when there's a Lake District. We've got Craig Helker from the DNR who can tell you, DNR still applies a lot of scrutiny to the aquatic plant management plans that Lake Districts propose. Lake Districts will have to go through all the same approval processes with DNR as would anyone else. But at least then there's a democratic process to give people on all sides a voice. You know, besides the DNR permit approvals, it's just like any other governing body. It goes through bidding requirements, public meetings, open records requirements, all of those things that we know are important for governmental bodies to do. So our ask is that this easily meets the standards if we look at Chapter 33 and what's required for a petition. And most importantly there is no evidence in the record of any other way to answer these questions There's just not an alternative process that has worked at this lake and the concerned citizens here have poured their heart and soul into this but they they cannot they cannot answer those questions how what will the budget be all of those things that that people want them to answer they cannot answer those questions before those questions can have an answer that has to happen from the lake district uh so i'm going to ask dave hoke here to make just some comments in summary as the petitioner uh please speak into the microphone

Are we gonna allow this, or is this true? I assume that the petitioner would be the lawyer. When I was told it's the petitioner, I assumed it would just be the lawyer speaking. Mr.

What's his name?

Hogue. Hogue is a private citizen. I know he has a vested interest in discussing it, but it's true. He could have mentioned his, said his comments during citizen comments, so I'm going to not allow it. Okay, so as you're saying, I'm not allowed to. Discussion?

Decker's first.

Who's, who's Decker? Decker, maybe. Supervisor Decker.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. I am asking you tonight to vote no on the formation of the Rock Lake Management District. Let me be very clear at the outset. I care about Rock Lake. I want Rock Lake to be healthy. I want its property owners to have a beautiful, safe, and usable lake for generations to come. But caring about Rock Lake does not mean that we should automatically create another unit of government simply because someone believes it's the best solution. Our responsibility as county board supervisors is to look at the facts, ask the difficult questions, and make sure that when we create a governmental entity with the authority to levy taxes and spend public money, we know exactly what we are creating, why we are creating it, what it will cost, and how it will operate. And I believe there are still too many unanswered questions, and they were not answered in the public hearing. I want to remind everyone of what happened when this matter came before our Planning and Development and Extension Education Committee. On March 11th, the committee heard testimony from both supporters and opponents of the proposed district. There were legitimate concerns raised about the petition, the signature gathering process, the proposed boundaries, the potential use of chemicals, the future budget, taxation, and whether the district was necessary. The official committee report states that opponents questioned whether people signing the petition fully understood what they were signing, questioned how the boundaries were established, questioned what the district's budget would be and how high taxes could go, and questioned whether the district was necessary at all. Those aren't trivial questions. Those are exactly the questions we are supposed to ask before creating a new taxing governmental entity. During that meeting, I specifically raised concerns about whether the petition met the requirements of Wisconsin State Statute 33.25. The statute isn't merely a suggestion. The petition is supposed to explain the necessity of the district, explain how the district will promote public health, comfort, convenience, necessity, or public welfare, and explain how the land included in the district will benefit from its creation. And the committee's official report ultimately agreed with those concerns. The committee found that the petition relied on conclusory statements rather than providing the information required by the statute. It specifically found that the petition failed to adequately explain the necessity of the district, how it would promote the public health and welfare, and how the affected properties would benefit. The committee also expressed concerns about the process used to collect the signatures and whether all signatories were fully aware of what they were signing. I believe a petition should have the information required by statute on the top of every page of the petition so there is no confusion of what people are signing. If you look at the submitted petition, it does not look like any petition I have signed in the past. and then something very important happened. The committee voted five to one against approving the formation of the district. Supervisors Brown, Decker, Geertsen, Carrow, and Robinson voted against it, and only Supervisor Brookhouse voted in favor. That vote wasn't because the committee didn't care about Rock Lake. It was because there were legitimate questions that had not been adequately answered. Now we are being asked to move forward, but I believe we need to ask ourselves, have those fundamental questions been answered, or have we simply rewritten the findings and moved the process forward? Because creating a Lake District is not a symbolic vote. A Lake District is a governmental entity. It can raise money through taxation and assessments, enter contracts, acquire property, incur obligations, and conduct its own governmental affairs. Kenosha County itself explains that lake districts are governmental entities created to undertake lake protection and rehabilitation programs. Once we create it, we don't get to pretend it's not government. And we shouldn't create government without clearly defined need and a clearly defined plan. I also remain concerned about the dam, weir, and channel. When I asked about that during our committee discussion, the answer was that the proposed district intended to maintain the channel, but the weir slash dam would need to be monitored and that the district would need to address it. But even then, there was a question about who owns the dam. The proposed district would potentially have to work with the Village of Salem Lakes to determine maintenance responsibilities. That is not a minor detail. Before we create a government entity and potentially give it responsibilities involving infrastructure, water levels, and maintenance, shouldn't we know who owns that infrastructure, who is responsible for it, what it will cost, and what legal obligations the district will assume? I think we should. There is also the issue of money. Supporters have emphasized that the district's members would ultimately have a say in the budget. That is true, but it doesn't eliminate the question of what we are creating tonight. We are being asked to establish the governmental structure first and work out many of the details afterward. I don't believe that's the right order. We should know the plan before we create the government that will implement it. the county's own hearing record shows that residents express concerns on how high taxes could go and what the proposed budget would be those concerns deserve more than assurance that future members will decide and i want to address another argument that i know will be made tonight but the lake has invasive species something needs to be done I don't dispute that Rock Lake has aquatic vegetation issues. The testimony before the committee cited Eurasian water milfoil and curly leaf pondweed, as well as cattails and lily pads. But identifying a problem does not automatically prove that the proposed solution is necessary. The Wisconsin DNR's own lake information identifies Rock Lake as a 44-acre lake with a maximum depth of 33 feet. The question before us isn't whether Rock Lake should be cared for. The question is whether creating this particular government entity with this particular structure and these particular unanswered questions is the appropriate solution. I believe the answer tonight should be no. And voting no doesn't mean doing nothing. If the residents of Rock Lake believe a Lake District is necessary, they can continue working together, refine their proposal, establish a clear and detailed management plan, resolve the questions about the dam and channel, clearly define the boundaries and financial structure, and make absolutely certain that every person being asked to sign understands what they are supporting. Then they can come back to us with a proposal that answers those questions. That's not obstruction, that's responsible government. We have an obligation to the people of Kenosha County to be careful when we create new governmental entities and new taxing authorities. We should not vote yes simply because the intentions are good. Good intentions are not enough. We need clear statutory compliance, a clearly demonstrated necessity, a defined purpose, a responsible financial plan, clearly established responsibilities, and confidence that the people affected understand exactly what they are being asked to create. When this proposal came before our committee, five members, including me, concluding those requirements had not been met. The official committee report documented those concerns and recommended that the county board find the petition legally insufficient. I have not seen enough tonight to change my fundamental concerns. I am asking my fellow supervisors, don't vote against Rock Lake. Vote against creating a government entity before we have adequately demonstrated that is necessary. Vote against moving forward when significant questions remain unanswered. Vote for accountability. Vote for transparency. Vote for making sure that when Kenosha County creates a new governmental body, we know exactly what that body is going to do, who is responsible for doing it, and how much it is going to cost. And if the proponents can come back with a proposal that answers those questions, I'm willing to listen. But tonight, I believe the responsible vote is no. Thank you.

Thank you. Supervisor Belsky?

Thank you, Vice Chair Finico. Before I begin, I would like to request that this complete written statement be received and filed as part of the official record for Resolution 42. I want to explain clearly to everyone why I will be voting no tonight. Under Wisconsin Statute 33.26 subsection three, this board must independently determine that the proposed district is necessary, that its establishment will promote the public health, comfort, convenience, necessity, or public welfare, and that the property included in the district will benefit. Those are findings that this board must be able to support based upon the committee report and the evidence presented to us. They should not be treated as automatic conclusions merely because the signature threshold was met. I appreciate Corporation Council's explanation today concerning the timing, the transition between county boards, the use of the 2021 Silver Lake Resolution as a template, and the possibility of appointing commissioners at a later meeting. That explanation provides helpful procedural background. However, it does not resolve several substantive and legal concerns that I raised before tonight's meeting. First, the committee report and the resolution before us directly contradict one another, in my view. The Planning, Development, and Extension Education Committee voted one to five against approving the district. Its written report recommends that the county board find that the petition should not be granted. Yet the resolution before us states that the committee found that the district is necessary that it will promote the public health and welfare and that the included lands will benefit. The resolution then asks this board to accept and adopt the committee's report and findings as our own. Those are not the findings contained in the committee's actual report. I understand that the resolution was drafted as an approval vehicle so the full board can make the ultimate decision. Nevertheless, the board should not be asked to adopt statements as committee findings when the committee rejected those statements by a vote of one to five. Second, the resolution states that it was submitted on March 17th. The committee report was completed and submitted to the county board on June 2nd. However, the matter was not placed before us for action until August 18th. I accept Corporation Council's explanation that the spring election and transition to a new board complicated the timing, but those circumstances do not resolve the effect of delay on our ability to conduct a careful review. The fact that the statutory deadline is approaching should not require supervisors to make affirmative findings without sufficient information. We received Corporation Council's response to our questions on the day of the vote, today, and several important questions remain unanswered. Third and most important to me, the ownership, condition, responsibility, and potential liability associated with the dam and outlet channel remain unresolved. The committee report expressly states that there is a question concerning the current ownership of the dam. It also states that the proposed district would need to address the dam and would likely work with the village concerning its maintenance. The petitioner's attorney states that whether the future district would seek control of the dam is a decision that cannot yet be made. Since preparing my remarks, I reviewed the available public records. Wisconsin's DNR dam database identifies Linda Valentine as the private owner of Rock Lake Dam. However, the same record lists the dam's legal status as not clear. Kenosha County's parcel mapping does not identify a separately assessed parcel or owner for the outlet channel at the dam location. In addition, the petition's legal description expressly accepts the Rock Lake Outlet parcels in Rock Lake Highlands without identifying their owner. Therefore, we have a name in a government database, but we do not have a verified title establishing ownership of either the dam structure or the channel. The owner of the dam structure and the owner of the channel bed may not be the same. Neither ownership question has been conclusively established in the record before this board. I understand that creating the district would not by itself automatically transfer ownership of the dam to the district or to the county. but that does not make these unanswered questions unimportant. Before voting to create a new governmental entity with taxing, borrowing, and property acquisition authority, I believe we should know who legally owns the dam, who legally owns the outlet channel, who is identified as the responsible party on any applicable DNR records or permits, what does the DNR designation of not clear mean regarding the dam's legal status, What is the dam's present condition? What inspections, maintenance, or repairs are anticipated? What could those obligations cost? Is the proposed district expected to acquire, operate, repair, replace, or help finance the dam or outlet channel? If the district cannot afford the necessary work, could the village or county later be asked to provide funding or assistance or assume responsibility? I'm not claiming that county taxpayers are automatically liable. I am saying that I have not been given enough information to determine where the responsibility and financial exposure could ultimately fall. The dam and outlet channel are not peripheral issues. They relate directly to the water levels, lake management, safety, maintenance, and the work that a future district may be expected to undertake. The future district will decide is not a sufficient answer for me when we are being asked to create that tax district tonight. Fourth, questions remain concerning the Village of Salem Lakes resolution. The attached village resolution was adopted in August 2024 and refers to the petition and proposed district boundaries existing at that time. The petition before us was filed in February 2026. The committee report does not state that the village formally approved the specific 2026 boundaries. It states that based upon the 2024 resolution and information from a village trustee, the village approved the concept of including village territory in a proposed district. I'm not alleging that the village opposes the present district. I'm saying that the formal confirmation that the village approved the territory and boundaries contained in the 2026 petition would remove an unnecessary legal question. Fifth, questions remain concerning sewer pack plan and evidentiary record. I have not received clear confirmation as to whether the February 2026 sewer pack aquatic plant management plan is final or remains a draft, whether the complete plan was formally made part of the board's evidentiary record, and which findings and recommendations the board is being asked to rely upon. I also have not seen sufficient evidence explaining why the existing lake association, available grant funding, cooperative efforts with the village, or less consequential alternatives are inadequate. The environmental concerns involving Rock Lake may be real and deserving of attention, but the existence of lake management concerns does not automatically establish the creation of this particular governmental and taxing district is necessary. Six, the resolution has no legal note attached. Even though this is an unusual statutory proceeding involving conflicting findings, municipal boundaries, the creation of a new body, corporate future appointments, and a required statutory order. Corporation Council's attendance at the committee hearing and today's explanatory email are helpful, but they are not a substitute for a written legal analysis attached to the resolution that reconciles these issues for the entire board and the public. Finally, Corporation Counsel has advised that if this resolution fails, his office will later draft an order reflecting the Board's decision. Wisconsin Statute 33.26 requires the Board, if it does not make the necessary affirmative findings, to issue an order declaring its findings and denying the petition. I remain concerned about voting first and receiving the actual denial order and findings afterward. The board should know what findings will constitute its statutory decision and whether the completed order will return to the board for review and approval. These concerns are not a criticism of the residents who worked on the petition and they are not a statement that Rock Lake does not deserve protection. They are concerns about governance, accountability, financial exposure and the board's responsibility to make defensible findings before creating a new governmental entity with municipal and taxing powers. I cannot make the required affirmative findings based on the record presently before me. Too many significant questions, particularly those involving the dam and outlet channel remain unanswered. For those reasons, I will vote no on resolution 42, and I'm asking you to do the same. I again request that this complete statement be received and filed as part of the official record for this agenda item. Thank you.

Supervisor Stocker.

Thank you, Chairman. When I read this resolution, this was my first response. This is too much opportunity for government overreach, and that's really come to light as we've continued discussing it. We have a thin majority forcing a large minority to pay for their desires. That just seems unsustainable to me. The people involved in this have already voted by their lack of being in part of the volunteer system. So they've already rejected this in my mind. And so therefore I'm gonna vote no. Thank you.

Supervisor Robinson.

Thank you. I first became aware of this issue in August of 2024 at the PDEC meeting when they first came requesting the Rock Lake District. There were people from the proposed district in support, and there were people there against it. There were questions about who was actually supporting the creation of the district. One claim was that 85% of the people at a particular meeting were in support. But that was not all the owners around the lake, just a subset of people in attendance at a meeting. The original map of August of 2024 did not include the property owners by the channel or the weir. We on the committee pointed out that a lake district that did not include the weir or the channel made no sense, and that those properties needed to be included, and that the responsibility for ownership and maintenance of the weir should be explored. We tabled the request. We told the applicant to follow the legal requirements regarding signatures and petitions, including showing the purpose of the district, show that the required numbers of owners signed in support, show the necessity of the district, show how it promotes the public health, convenience, comfort, and welfare of the people in the district, and how the properties are benefited. We encouraged him to follow what is suggested in People of the Lakes, a guide for Wisconsin lake organizations put out by UW-Stevens Point Extension, or get state support through the Wisconsin Lake Support Program. We were trying to help him understand the process, and we were encouraging him to follow the guidance In March 2026, PDEC held another meeting where this was on the agenda. Many people spoke in favor of the district and many others spoke against it. This time, we were told that enough people had supported the petition to take action. But the petitions themselves were simply pages with signatures and dates. This is not just bare bones. This is simply a contact list. And that was part of the problem. There were people saying that they had signed this document thinking it was the sign-in sheet for the meeting. They did not understand that it was a legal contract in essence. There was no paragraph or sentence at the top of each page saying what is legally required to be on the page. What is the purpose of the district? A description of the necessity. Why should it be established? Instead, on various other pages, not on every page, but on some pages, there was simply a line saying it is necessary. There was no information on each page of how this would promote the public health convenience, comfort, and welfare of the people in the district. Instead, there was a sentence saying it would promote blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. There was nothing about how the properties are benefited. It said it will be benefited. Again, Supervisor Brown and Supervisor Decker have explained how the numbers of signatures as far as a percentage of the whole may or may not be accurate. I pointed out at the PDEC meeting in March that the guideline we encouraged the petitioner to follow stated that State Statute 33 said that there must be a verification of signature on every page by the petitioner. We all have that on our pages when we go to get our nomination signatures. There is no certification or signature by the petitioner on the pages that were presented to our county clerk. Her signature is on all pages. Along with her notarization, the pages were presented to her. But his signature certifying that he had obtained the signatures is not on each page. If the petitioner had a paragraph at the top of each page stating what the undersigned supported and someone didn't understand, thinking it was simply a sign-in sheet, then that would be on the individual. If there's nothing on the page and there's allegations about convenient placement of paperwork and general confusion, then that's on the petitioner. The pages legally don't follow what is required. In August of 2024, we encouraged the petitioner to have well-publicized meetings with his neighbors to discuss and even get quotes on various methods of dealing with ongoing maintenance and lake improvements. There were questions about chemical remediation. Should the milfoil be cut? Should water lilies be left to improve the water quality or not? People want to know. People want to discuss. People should discuss. People also needed to understand what the costs were going to be. We are being asked to create a taxing district and approve it without the property owners having any idea of what they are signing up for. The idea of doing that made little sense to me and it made little sense to others on the committee. We encouraged the petitioner to contact the Village of Salem Lakes to find out more about the weir, find out who is responsible for maintenance. Since 12 years ago, there was some work done by a governmental entity. The ownership and responsibility must be decided and determined before we make a decision about a taxing district because that is a consequential decision. At the meeting in 2026, none of these items had been done. For all the above reasons, I did not support the establishment of the Rock Lake District in March, and I again will not support it tonight. Taxpayers rely on us to ask the hard questions and not just pass questions along to be dealt with at a later date. I encourage you to vote no tonight.

Thank you. Supervisor Gashke.

Thank you Vice Chair Franco. I just wanted to say that although I did not serve on PDEC during this process, I was both Chair and Vice Chair of PDEC from 2020 to 2024 and during my time on that committee we did approve some lake districts and so i'm familiar with the process uh... and so i just wanted to say that i i trust our county professionals uh... andy buehler and his team uh... to help guide uh... throughout this process i trust our county professionals like attorney cardamon and his team to help provide legal advice uh... i trust my colleagues uh... that are on this uh... that that were on this committee at the time of the decision uh... I trust the process, and I have not heard anything tonight that would make me go against the decision that they made in the committee. That being said, in the spirit of openness and transparency, I would respectfully ask Vice Chair Franco to allow Mr. Holk to speak tonight. Perhaps just give him a couple of minutes as the petitioner to share his perspective. Should he have spoken during citizens' comments, that may have been the case, but he evidently was under the impression that he would have the chance to speak now. So I would respectfully ask the Vice Chair to allow him to speak. That being said, in the spirit of humor and levity, full disclosure, I did push my button before my colleague's lengthy statements tonight. but i still would request that we as a board consider hearing a couple of minutes from the petitioner well right now we have someone else who's on the board so uh supervisor gray

thank you chair franco um you know tonight we're being asked to approve a taxing body and and that allows for self-government which is really the essence of democracy and and i fully support that not only generally but particularly for a lake district many of you know that i spend my professional career dealing with lake districts and i will tell you that i've seen some remarkable results when a functional lake district is pulled together and can develop a plan and move forward together. It takes a lot of work, and I applaud the efforts thus far to get this off the ground, but I sense that there's still a lot of work left to do. So I'll be voting no. I won't be supporting this resolution, but I would encourage the residents of the lake to continue to try to form their Lake District because it is inevitable that type of cohesion and teamwork is going to be necessary to keep the lake pristine and a great place to live. Thank you.

Supervisor Nudo.

Thank you. I just have a few questions. One is true for the chair for Corporation Council. Is that a time of the essence to for the board to act on this resolution or do we have time?

The statute indicates that the board is supposed to issue an order one way or another within six months of the public hearings. The public hearing was in March, so we have time, but not a great deal of it.

Okay, which goes to follow up question on that. If we knew that kind of the time was of the essence, again, why did we wait till the last minute to bring this up to the board? Why didn't we do it before? We had plenty of time to do it, but that was not done. So I don't know if you can answer that question or anybody can answer that question. uh just for instance uh the last board meeting i believe it was uh the fourth or something like that was canceled because we didn't have anything on the agenda i mean this was something that was pressing and we should have it maybe then that will give us a little time to see What's going on to understand it? One of the things is that it's a little bit a lot of talking for chapter 33 and with some legal explanation Sorry, I'm dumb, but I don't understand the legal thing on that and I believe it was a little bit different for what the attorney for Seder and what our corporation counsel said. Could you tell me which one is right, which one is wrong? You know, the legal portion of it. Because I believe she was saying, sorry, I forgot the name, but she was saying something that chapter 33, if I understood right, you guys met all the requirements for chapter 33. Now we're saying, our attorney's saying that we did not meet those, so could you explain that? Or if it was misunderstood, please tell me that I didn't misunderstand.

I'll defer to Attorney Landrady in a moment. I will make it clear I've made no rulings or opinions whether the petition meets the legal requirements. That is a termination, I believe, for the committee and by extension the board. Okay. I will leave it at that for the moment.

Okay. Thank you.

Do you want to hear from Attorney Landrady? Is it okay?

Yeah. Thank you.

for that question. I've been chomping at the bit to answer that question because I did hear in the committee report and from some of the committee members a characterization of Chapter 33 that I do appreciate the chance to clarify. The petition does not require the petitioner to describe the reasons that the Lake District is necessary. Again, Chapter 33 defers to the county board to look at all the evidence and to make those findings as to the reason of necessity. This is what makes chapter 33 very different than other petition examples that you see in other chapters of the statute. It just says, and I'm reading from 3325, the contents, the petitions shall set forth, the name, the necessity that the public health comfort, convenience, necessity, or public welfare will be promoted, and the boundaries. That's very different than other chapters where you see a petition asking to describe the nature and how the person is aggrieved and all of the reasons that are very fair in other kinds of petitions. But that's not what Chapter 33 requires, and this board is asked and tasked with applying Chapter 33. Thank you.

And if I may then postscript that, my take on it is I believe that I agree with Attorney Landretti as far as the requirements of the petition. Having said that, I think it then is incumbent on the committee and the board to determine whether in their collective wisdom the additional information beyond the petition that has been adduced during the public hearing as well as anything said this evening is sufficient for them to find that those requirements have been met.

Thank you. Okay with that I mean I had probably but I'm not going to ask all the questions otherwise we're going to be here all night. However I want to express my disappointment, or whatever you want to call it, with this not coming to the board prior to tonight, where everybody could have had a chance to find out what was going on, ask all the questions, and not to come in at the last minute. And it seems like it's happening more and more that we push everything to the last minute, and then we're going to have to react on it. I did talk to a couple people today and yesterday that were on the committees before. By the way, there was not even close to a quorum. And I asked them what happened at the committee levels before. I appreciated all the work that they did, or very diligent work, questions asked. And even though I was very disappointed that it did not come to the board and we could ask all the... Question that we had I'm sure somebody else is gonna have questions, too however for now I'm gonna go along with the community decided at that point and I'm gonna agree with the committee recommendation.

Thank you Supervisor Tavia Petra

I'll be short. I think most things have been covered, but at the interest of seeing this go through, I do believe that this is brought to our board with great integrity and great intention for making the lake a better place. I do, however, have a lot of experience in dealing with tax and incremental districts. I've created several. I've served on many boards. And the one piece of information that I believe is absolutely necessary for any citizen to agree is at least a initial budget or maximum mill rate. It is not reasonable to expect any citizen to sign up for something that does not have a cap on how much money they will be contributing. And despite this meeting, the legal definition of Chapter 33, there's a reason it must come before our board, and that's for us to make those decisions for the people we represent, so I will be voting no.

Thank you. Supervisor Grady.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've had quite an interesting go-around this evening. A little bit unorthodox and some good dissertation on both sides, but I would just move to call the question.

Second. Okay, we have a motion on the floor to call the question, and we have a second. All those in favor of calling the question? Is this a two-thirds? And it's a roll call, okay. This is calling the question, which means we're voting on cutting off discussion, debate. What is that? 16 to call the question? All right, so we've cut off debate. All right. I'm gonna move to a vote then. Roll call? Okay. All those in favor of the resolution at hand, vote yes. Wait, can you, pardon?

Oh, okay, go ahead, go ahead.

By virtue of the way the resolution is written and because it's generally considered poor parliamentary form to be trying to vote on something in the negative, if you are in favor.

I'm sorry, I thought I turned it off.

I apologize. Because of the way the resolution is drafted and because it is generally considered poor parliamentary form to be voting on something in the negative, A vote yes would be to be in favor of creating the management district. A vote no would be a vote opposed to creating the management district.

Thank you.

Belsky.

The vote is zero to 21, so the resolution fails.

Okay.

ordinance one reading ordinance nine from the planning development and extension education committee an ordinance regarding randy t and gail l new home living trust owner matt new home agent requesting a rezoning from a1 agricultural preservation district to a1 agricultural preservation district R2 Suburban Single Family Residential District, C1 Lowland Resource Conservancy District, and PUD Planned Unit Development Overlay District in the town of Brighton. This passed unanimously at committee.

Supervisor Gray. Move ordinance 9. Moved by Supervisor Gray, seconded by Supervisor Lux. Supervisor Gray.

Thank you, Chairman. This is a rezone to allow for the home construction referenced in Resolution 41 we passed earlier. We ask for your support.

Okay. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion carries.

Ordinance 10 from the Planning, Development, and Extension Education Committee, an ordinance regarding Randy T. and Gail L. Newholm Living Trust owner Matt Newholm, agent, requests an amendment to the adopted land use plan map for Kenosha County. 2035, map 54 of the comprehensive plan from Farmland Protection, sec and non-farmed wetland to farmland protection suburban density residential sec and non-farmed wetland in the town of brighton this passed unanimously at committee uh supervisor gray move ordinance 10 move by supervisor gray seconded by supervisor colonna supervisor gray thank you chairman this is to accept the land use map noted in the previous ordinance ask for your support any discussion

All those in favor, say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

Ordinance first reading to required. Ordinance 11 from the Legislative Committee. An ordinance to amend MCKC 2.13 sub 3 sub C related to standing committee assignments. Communications. Communication 32. Communication from the Judiciary and Law Enforcement Committee. A resolution to approve the regular cabaret license. Packard Enterprises doing business as Great Lakes Dragway at 18411 First Street in the town of Paris.

Refer to Judiciary and Law Enforcement Committee.

Communication 33, communication from the Judiciary and Law Enforcement Committee, a resolution to approve the probationary cabaret license for Lafferty's Pub, LLC, 4410 200th Ave, Town of Paris.

Refer to Judiciary and Law Enforcement Committee.

34, communications from Andy M. Buehler regarding future items scheduled before the Planning, Development, and Extension Education Committee.

Receive and file.

Claims. Claim eight, Holly Robinson, property damage.

Refer to Corp Council.

Claim nine, James Lustig, property damage.

Refer to Corp Council.

Approval of the July 21st, 2026 minutes by Supervisor Gashke.

Supervisor Gashke.

Thank you, Vice Chair. I move the July 21st minutes.

Second. Seconded by, I think that was Supervisor Decker? Yeah. Okay. Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right. Hold on. Slow down. Who was that moved by? Oh, Supervisor. No, I said Supervisor Grady. See, that's why I wanted to slow down. Moved by Supervisor Grady, seconded by Supervisor Morrissey.