County Board - Regular Meeting

the people who want to make public comments give it to elizabeth right there in front of you all right i'm going to call the meeting of the county board to order and if the clerk would make a call roll do the roll call

Supervisors Nielsen and price are excused this evening. We are still awaiting supervisor and Hopkins and everyone else is in the chambers.

Thank you testimony to give an opening prayer this morning in every meeting. So, if we could all stand in for a moment of silence and reflective on the day's work. Now, the pledge, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands 1 nation under God. Indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Item number 4. is public comments pursuant to Section 271 of the Racine County Code of Ordinance. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of three minutes. Vice Chairman Meyer here will be giving you 15 or 30 seconds before your minutes are up. And we'll start with Dave Albee. Thank you.

Dave 5, 940 North River Bay road, Waterford, Wisconsin, 50 year resident of the community. Very active my wife and I raising 2 daughters, their schools, their 6 grandchildren going there currently. We have lived on the waterway on the Fox river. Since 1976, so it's been a long time many stories I could share with you about the quality of our water. But 1 of the things I really wanted to highlight is we loved it so much that we bought some land in downtown Waterford in the village. And built docs on the Fox of our restaurant and family owned restaurant. We started working on that project about 15 years ago. With the belief that the waterway that we enjoyed back in the 70s 80s 90s as we go forward would stay intact. And we have. 24 boat slips out in the front of the restaurant. We listen to a lot of our riparians. They're coming in all the time for lunch or dinner. We've met a lot of great people up and down the water. And I could meet with you all privately about some of the current issues. But if you take a boat ride, if you've had the pleasure of going up and down the water, what we enjoyed when we were 30 years old, water skiing on the river, boating, A lot of those areas now are so filled in with silt and weeds that we're unable to go into the back bays. A lot of the Boya Park areas, Island View, Elm Island areas are so filled in that once upon a time, four feet of water is now less than a foot. So we know we've had issues developing and a lot of it since 2008 with the floods in Waukesha washed a lot of that silt down from the uh from the dam there in Waukesha so the floods in 08 really did create even additional issues for us but we've had talk about dredging we've had talk about drawdowns for a long time And now we're at a final position here with a new board at the WWMD to really help us see that through. And we're hoping to have your support in approving any dollars available. So I'd be more than happy to answer any questions if anybody has any about. Docs on the Fox, by the way, complimentary ice cubes anytime you come out.

Grant Horne.

Grant Horne, 5826 North River Bay Road, Waterford, Wisconsin. I've been a resident on the waterway since 2015. My wife and my child live there. We enjoy recreating on the waterway. When we first moved to our area, we could look clear across our bay. and see nothing but water for many residents that's no longer the case and the heavy amount of sediment filled with phosphorus which came from sources which may have been farm fields may have been fertilizer who knows you know where it all came from but as dave alluded to much of it during the 2008 flooding have led to our waterway being taken over by invasive weeds. The Water District has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars treating those weeds. It's effective for three years. Those hundreds of thousands of dollars are putting chemicals on our waterway. I think we would all agree we'd rather not put chemicals on the waterway. Rather, we remove chemicals from the waterway. Chemicals that include phosphorus. Phosphorus is a primary ingredient in a lot of fertilizers. That phosphorus is thick in the soil, the loose soil that is filling up our waterway. As we remove that through this project, we will remove the ability for those weeds to grow. If you look around our waterway and you see hard bottoms or sandy bottoms, clay bottoms, gravel bottoms, these weeds don't grow. These weeds grow in the sediment that is rich with phosphorus. It's the goal of this project to remove that. The DNR, if you are familiar with the words TMDL, has been working for awhile on a project to reduce the maximum amount of phosphorus that our water sewer districts can discharge into the waterway. This project will effectively remove hundreds of thousands of pounds of phosphorus. As we remove that phosphorus, we can also give those credits to some of our water treatment districts in the form of trading. That's important for our treatment facilities that have to spend money here in this county to meet those strict standards of the new TMDL limits. I highly suggest, I implore you to please support this project. I'm not as accomplished as my friend, Dave Alicey. I haven't been out here this long, but I'm highly invested in our waterway. I own three properties on this waterway. I pay money to Racine County every year for not only property taxes, but also for licenses to operate those properties. And people come here to stay at those properties because they come to stay on a beautiful waterway. Please help us to keep Waterford Waterway beautiful. Thank you.

Trisha Hansen.

I wrote my comments down because I tend to get passionate and forget things. So I have copies if anyone wants them. Dear Chairman Kramer and members of the County Board, you know me. You know who I am and you know that I'm a conservative when it comes to spending. It's a rare budget that I bring to you that has extra spending in that aren't absolutely necessary. And 2027 is going to be no different. But I'm a lake user. I have been my whole life. I'm really lucky. and now I'm a riparian owner. My favorite pastime is to be on the Waterford Waterway Management District. And each year, thousands of people enjoy this same waterway because I'm there and I see them, residents and non-residents alike. And it's a gem because it's one of the free waterways in our county. You can access it for free. And I came here on May 26 to give you somewhat of a heads up as to what I wanted you to think about before tonight. And earlier this year, the Waterford Management District made this request to you for a million dollars. And Chairman Cramer brought this request forward to FHR on May 20th. It was $750,000 in the request. And Chairman Cramer wasn't there to explain why. And we heard it had something to do with overages from the Horlick Dam project, but no details. However, I'm asking you today to amend that motion to amend FHR's motion for $600,000, and I'll get to that number in a minute, and to grant the entire million that's left in the Monsanto Fund. Ask yourselves, what are the differences between these two water management districts? I have a whole list of them in my letter, but I'm not going to go into them because I have three minutes. I know what my closing argument means. There are differences in the projects. We already spend countless dollars every year to fund the Fisher Park. and its amenities. It never runs in the black. So the county already supplements the town of Burlington there. We can't tell you how many people use our waterway because nobody gets charged to put their boat on our waterway. And it's not just Tichigan Lake we're talking about here, a finite amount of people in a finite space. We're talking about the Fox River. There's 21 miles of Fox River between Waukesha and Kenosha and Racine County. We improve the waterway for Waterford, for Rochester, the city and town of Burlington. We provide a wider variety of uses. I dare you to paddle a kayak around midday on a weekend on Browns Lake, but you can do that on the Fox River because we have a conservancy for natural wildlife. We also have more extensive fishing and more extensive hunting because of the variety of our waterway and the length. And when this issue came up with County Executive Roanhouse about how to spend Monsanto funds, that was a difficult time for Racine County. It was the summer of 2024 and we were all grieving. I participated in some discussions about the budget and the two things I said we had to give up that day for the ice rink, which I didn't like doing, but it was true, and the water for, excuse me, the Burlington request for dredging money. That didn't get included in the budget that was ultimately presented by the cabinet and the county executive. In that very year, on January 16th of 24, you all accepted $2.1 million from the Monsanto settlement. On April 4th, you allocated $400,000 towards the Horlick Dam demolition. Nobody mentioned, I listened to all these meetings today. Nobody mentioned the Monsanto money that was to be used for water. On July 23rd, you voted to appropriate $32.5 million in borrowing for Reef Point Marina, and in that plan are cleaning up water tanks, or gas tanks, excuse me. Nobody mentioned $2.1 in Monsanto money that the county could have used. And on September 10th, this very board then approved the $1.1 million to Burlington. On April 4th, the Horlick Dam was a unanimous vote, and not one member at the time asked about alternate funding. On July 23rd, no staff member, no board member, nobody asked about money from Monsanto, even though you'd all just approved taking it. And again, on September 10th, it was Supervisor Trottier who brought the motion to Brown's Lake, and his comments were, I have nothing but praise for the importance of our lakes. Why can't we make that same offer to Waterford? Now he says the Monsanto money is left too lean. Too lean for what? It never had a plan. There was much discussion about saving it and using it for the interest for projects every year and how that was a bad idea and we should spend it to get the most bang for our buck.

30 seconds, please.

Supervisor Miller commented that day on what a valuable resource Browns Lake was and his childhood memories of going there. I have the same. of going to the Waterford Waterway Management District. Supervisor Eckman, who's no longer with us on this board, at that time wanted to use levy funds to support the Burlington Dredging Project. I would never ask you to do that today. Since then, I'm sorry, and Supervisor Wishaw encouraged everyone to vote yes for the Burlington Project at 1.1 million. Since then we've passed the sales tax and at the 20th, May 20th meeting, I believe we were told that we've exceeded our revenues exceeded expectations for this year and maybe next year. I'm sorry time I'm asking you to consider all these factors tonight. My letter is here. I apologize. You didn't have it sooner. I've been putting out fires all day. But I'm asking you to restore the $1M that was the request from Waterford and to fund improvement of this waterways for not only the benefit of Racine County residents to keep our property values and keep this precious resource we have for everyone to enjoy.

Thank you. Brett machete.

Hello, Brett Matchke, 6730 Irma Lane, Waterford, Wisconsin. I've had a home on the waterway for 19 years now, not as long as Dave, but a long time and have enjoyed. My wife and I have decided to make our home in Waterford on Tichigan Lake in the Fox River because of its natural beauty, recreational opportunities and the new characteristics of this waterway. We could have chosen other lakes in southeastern Wisconsin, but this community and the waterways stood out to us. Over the past several years, however, sediment accumulation has significantly impacted many areas of the waterway. The sediment has contributed to a spread of invasive aquatic vegetation, reduced water quality, limiting recreation, and diminishing the beauty that the residents and visitors have enjoyed for generations. While many of the residents understand the need to invest in maintaining and restoring the waterways, the financial burden of addressing these issues should not fall solely upon the property owners who live there. Many of our residents are retirees and families already facing rising costs in nearly every aspect of daily life. Additional assessments create a real hardship for them. The settlement funds received by the county present a unique opportunity to help us address the problem that affects not only the waterfront property owners, but the broader community, That's what our way has and excuse me over the past several years. However. Phones are great when I can use them properly. Um. I do think it's an opportunity that. This this county has a. A resource that is widely widely used. By a lot of members of this county and others around it and, um. This is an opportunity to help restore that property, um, and the waterway. And I would urge you to utilize those funds and to, uh. Honor the request that was made prior to me. Restore the 1Million dollars please. Thank you.

And I'm Jesse.

My name is Adam Jaske, 459 Woodfield Circle, Waterford, Wisconsin. I first want to start by saying thank you to Chairman Kramer and all of you county board members for taking this issue seriously and contemplating the decision this evening. I currently serve as the president of the village of Waterford, and I am here tonight on behalf of almost 6,000 residents that chose to live in Waterford. because of the water. Water is in our name after all. So I think it is only important that we focus on the quality of our water. I represent far fewer repairing owners than the town of Waterford, but I pride myself on the bigger picture, kind of a one Waterford, the greater Waterford area. We have almost 12,000 individuals that live in our community. and the big reason they are there is the quality of life and the quality of the waterway in our area has drastically diminished and has not been taken care of and approached the correct way my children enjoy the waterway they fish in the waterway it is one of the most pristine and probably underrated fishing areas in the entire state of wisconsin much less southeastern wisconsin I kind of have a little bit of a different angle here. I am not a riparian owner. I live on a modest little lot in the village of Waterford, but I understand the value of taking care of our waterways, and we need to be serious about addressing this issue. We have phenomenal leadership in the town of Waterford, the village of Waterford, and on the WWMD. There has been a reset in that leadership the last year, and these communities have been working together, something they historically have not done well. We are going to continue to do that no matter the amount that is awarded, if any amount. We need to lead by showing we can work together and make hard decisions. And I know this is a hard decision for all of you. I ask that any amount you consider is greatly appreciated. I ask you to consider the initial ask of $1 million. Myself and leadership at the town and leadership on WWMD are working at an expedient pace behind the scenes to work on ways to make our waterway even more inclusive to all the residents in the greater Waterford area. There are many residents that don't have access to the water for a variety of reasons, and we want to try to improve that. The amount that you would award would only help in achieving that. 30 seconds I will close and saying again. I am here as the president of the village of Waterford and title. But I'm truly here as a resident of the village of Waterford, a resident resident of the greater Waterford area. And a resident of Racine County, and I feel that we have a grand opportunity tonight here with your leadership to do the right thing and restore the ask to 1Million dollars to help this project go forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Luke Francis. Prince Swan.

Good evening. I'm Luke Francois at 5853 Riverside Road in Waterford, Wisconsin. Chairman, members of the board, thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I'm here about the resolution that's before you, the Waterford Waterway dredging project that's funded from the Monsanto settlement budget. And I'm asking you to fully fund this project on its merits. Let's start with what this money is for. The Monsanto settlement exists to remediate water quality. to restore clarity to waters that are degraded. The test for every dollar should be simple. Does it improve water clarity? Dredging does. Removing decades of accumulated sediment and nutrients is the most direct way to restore depth, flow, and clarity of the water. A dam does not. An empowerment trap sentiment, it warms the water, it slows the circulation, the very conditions that feed algae and cloud a lake. Spend clarity dollars on a dam and we spend against the purpose of the fund. Now consider who this serves. The Waterford Waterway Management District is a chartered unit of government managing over 1,100 acres. Tishigan Lake, the Fox River, Buena Lake, Waterford Lake, representing more than 1,000 riparian owners. When considering the Horlick Dam on public benefit per dollar, this is not even a close call. So, why did this request fall from the 1Million to 600,000, 750,000 dollars? Not because the need shrink not because the cost changed. It fell because of the pressure to redirect the money toward the. It fell because a project that has already received support. Was given a decision driven by politics rather than stewardship. And here's the risk to the board. the moment that we decide that water clarity fund can pay for whatever water adjacent project we've erased the restriction and every future fund's purpose becomes negotiable when a donor an auditor or resident asks why settlement money meant for water quality paid for a dam there is no good answer the defensible choice is to honor the purpose i'm not saying the horlick dam has no value I'm saying this fund isn't the right source for it. If the Board wants to support the Horlick Dam, do it with a fund whose purpose fits. And the Monsanto money, do the one job it was set aside to do. Thank you.

Thank you. Tom Makowski?

Good evening, Chairman and Board. I'm Tom Radchikowski, 6751 North Tichigan Road, Waterford, Wisconsin. I'm also the chairman of the Waterford Waterway Management District and a town supervisor in the town of Waterford. I live on the waterway. My wife and I have been out there since 2016. I can attest to what you're hearing from the other people that are here tonight about the criticality of the situation. for our waterway. I'm here to ask for a partnership. This is a big project. It was alluded to earlier that the Waterford Waterway Management District has been trying to crack the nut and address this critical concern for years, largely on its own by itself. That cannot happen. in order to accomplish a project of this magnitude it requires partnership from different entities that have a stake in the game and Racine County in my opinion is one of those I am here as chairman of the Waterford Waterway Management District seeking your partnership contribution support to improve our county and one of the critical environmental resources and economic engines of that county.

I'm not asking you to do it alone.

We're working with the Town of Waterford. As Adam just said, we're working with the Village of Waterford. We're working with the Wisconsin DNR. All of them critical stakeholders in preserving What was once as Mr Alice, he said, and absolutely pristine and beautiful. Ecological and recreational environment. It's still heavily used. It still is 1 of those key areas in the county. The drives economic growth and development and influx of dollars into this county. It is a gem, but it's in trouble. And we're looking for help to save it. And I believe that you have the opportunity tonight to make a decision that shows Racine County's stake in this partnership. And I ask you to please do that.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any further comments? Okay, seeing none. We're gonna move on to item number five. And this is an overview of the Wisconsin Open Meeting Law by Sarah Kidd from the Corp Council.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman members of the board. Thank you for having me for those of you. I haven't met yet. My name is Sarah kid. I'm an attorney in the office of Corporation Council. I've been practicing for about 13 years and about 8 of those have been with Racine County. And I understand Andy Phillips gave kind of a general overview of some of the operations of county government at a recent meeting. Tonight's discussion is a little bit more limited specifically focused on open meetings law. There should be a 2 page handout in your materials for this evening and we'll kind of focus on that structure. Feel free to interrupt me at any point if you have questions or want clarification on something. So, as you likely already know, the open meetings law in the state of Wisconsin is contained in chapter 19 and the declaration of policy sets forth a very clear expectation that the public is entitled to the fullest and most complete information regarding the affairs of government as is compatible with the conduct of government business. And when you dig into the statutory language, when you look more into what is contained in chapter 19, That really provides clarity as to what the requirements are to comply with that mandate. And so open meetings law applies in certain circumstances, as, you know, and that exists where there is a governmental body. That definition has to be met. There's a meeting that definition also has to be met and the meeting is held in open session and the statutes define each of those 3 terms. So those are kind of the operative analysis when you're looking at open meetings law. And the requirement for open meetings law, those are set forth on your packet, but those include advanced public notice of a meeting and that is specified. It has to be a minimum of 24 hours public notice. And the notice must reasonably inform the public of the time of the meeting, the place of the meeting, the date of the meeting and the subject matter. And when you look to about halfway through the 1st page, I think there's a question that often comes up about how detailed does that notice need to be in terms of the meeting subject to meet the requirement. And the courts have opined on that. There's not necessarily a hard and fast rule, but the question is, is the notice reasonable under the circumstances for the subject that's being discussed? And so the question is, is going to be the operative question is, does the public have meaningful notice and a meaningful opportunity to participate and understand what is actually going to be discussed by the board or subcommittee. Um, the 2nd requirement is that all business is conducted in open session unless there's an exemption that applies and allows the meeting to be held in closed session and the requirements that exist for when closed session can be conducted. So, when members of the public may be excluded from a discussion being held by a government body are both specified by statute and very limited. And so, if there was, as, you know, if there was a closed session to be held, that would need to be noticed on the agenda for the meeting. It would need to specify the subject that was going to be discussed in closed session in terms of the type of the item of business and the board or the committee or board would need to go through the exact sub section at the time that the closed session is being entered. And then finally, meetings are required to be held in places reasonably accessible to members of the public and shall be open again, unless there's an exception that applies. And so I'd like to walk through briefly kind of the definitions of governmental body meeting. and some of the quorum language. So governmental bodies are specified by statute. That definition is included on the paperwork. But I think the takeaway when you're looking at a governmental body is it's very broad. So it can include the board, subcommittees, committees that are created as kind of subsidiaries of that. It talks about councils, departments, public body corporate, and they can be created in any different manner. And so when you look at how the Body that that issue was created that can be by the Constitution. By statute by county ordinance rule or order and and when you're analyzing whether something meets the definition of governmental body, you're erring always on the side of public access that we want a right of public access a right of public notice. And I think that's reflected in the definition, right? That governmental body governmental body is defined pretty broadly. So, the next question is what constitutes a meeting and there's a definition that's set forth. It's a combination of language from statute and there's something called the showers test, which came from language specified by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. So that's a 2 part test that you're going to analyze. The 1st is whether there is a purpose to engage in governmental business. And the 2nd, part of the test is whether the number of members present is sufficient to determine the course of action. And a couple of follow up considerations when you're analyzing that showers test. So there is a rebuttable presumption that if more than one half, one half or more of the members of the governmental body are present, the meeting is presumed to be for purposes of exercising the responsibilities delegated to that body. Keep in mind also right in the world where people are communicating by text by phone appearing virtually communicating by email by video meetings. I mean, truly there are endless possibilities for how people are engaging with each other meeting as it meets. The statutory definition is not limited to in person contact. So. You can run a foul essentially of open meetings law requirements. Even if you're not necessarily in person with someone, um, and so the, the cautionary language is included there. Um, and then when you're thinking about the number of members present, so you may think, well, if there's not a quorum present. There's no possibility of violation of an open meetings law, or there's no possibility that the requirements of open meetings law would be implicated. And that's not the way that it plays out as you have probably heard both of negative forums and walking forums. So a negative quorum is when there is the presence of a number of members that is less than a quorum or less than half of the body at issue. But in that particular circumstance, that number, even though it's a smaller number, would be sufficient to determine an outcome on something that would be before that body. Which I know is a mouthful, but essentially consider if the board or subcommittee had something that required a vote of a super majority or some higher amount of votes. And you had a membership number that was smaller, but would be sufficient to defeat it. So you're not looking at a. Membership that would be sufficient to support it likely, but that would be sufficient to defeat it. Um, more commonly seen, or more commonly probably talked about as a walking quorum. And so you may think again, if there is no, um. You know, group of people, for example, that's sufficient to be a quorum in 1 place. There's no possibility of implicating open meetings law. And again, a walking quorum can really defeat that idea. A walking quorum exists when. uh there's a series of meetings or series of communications between multiple members of a body of a government body that ultimately determines the outcome that's a kind of critical factor is that the outcome is determined or there's an agreement to take a specific course of action and that because you have meeting a and b and c that are conducted on multiple occasions that that is in effect a quorum of the members of the body without notice of the meeting And so then, after you've analyzed the definitions, I think the question is, well, what if there is a violation, right? What if the, the open meetings lie is not strictly complied with what's the risk both to the county to you as an individual supervisor and potentially to the action that the county is taken. And in my opinion, I think the penalties are potentially significant. So the 1st is chapter 19 does contemplate a monetary fee for. Um, an individual found who is a member of the governmental body found to have violated the meeting. Um, and so the monetary fee is not necessarily significant on its face, but certainly a loss of public trust and public confidence in the process is a significant, um. Uh, risk and penalty that the county board or the county may see, um. 2nd, courts may choose. So, if you saw a lawsuit filed as a result of an open meetings violation, a court may choose to invalidate action taken at that meeting or by that body. If the court found that the interest in upholding the public, the public interest in upholding the open meetings law was greater than the interest in allowing the action to take that was continued. So, a risk, for example, would be that the court may have authority to invalidate a contract entered by a body if that was in violation of an open meetings law. And if you consider, for example, the county would enter a contract. take action on that, you know, if there's a monetary cost associated with that, that's later invalidated, that would obviously be a significant risk and a litigation position for the county. And finally, if you did see a lawsuit that resulted as a result of open meetings violation, the county or the named party may be assessed attorney's fees, damages or other costs. So, again, monetary fees. Um, recent case law included a case out of the city of Marinette. They were, um, considering litigation related to and had several sessions. I believe it was 2 that were held in closed session. They notice noted the closed session as being related to ongoing litigation and potential negotiations. And the core ultimately found that the language they went through was perfunctory in nature. Um, and not sufficient to meet that strict test for a closed session. And so the court found that that was a violation, um. By the city and did award costs assessed against the city. And so now that you've heard the entire open meeting statute in Chapter 19, if you have questions about that, where do you go? Our office is certainly happy to be a resource. Welcome to call, step in, come talk with us. The County Officials Handbook, which is put out by the Wisconsin Counties Association, I suspect you're familiar with that. That also discusses open meetings law and the requirements. And finally, the Wisconsin Department of Justice is a great resource. So they have both an open meetings page that kind of walks through some of the general requirements, Um, and an open meetings compliance guide that sets forth in significant detail, uh, kind of the process and analysis for open meetings. So happy to answer any questions if you have them.

Any questions.

Thank you.

All right. Item number 6. Capital project status update the reef point Marina. Hello. How are you tonight?

Hi, thank you for having me. Thank you. Appreciate it. Good evening everyone. Thank you for allowing me to speak about the progress that the project is undergoing at Reef Point Marina. As many of, you know, the project represents 1 of the most significant waterfront. Infrastructure investments that the county has undertaken, and 1 of the largest Marina. revitalization projects underway currently in Wisconsin. Over the last several years, Orsini County has made a commitment to preserving and modernizing one of the most valuable waterfront assets. Tonight, I'm excited to share that we are beginning to see that vision come to life. The progress achieved over the last several months has been substantial, highly visible, and incredibly encouraging. Tonight, I will provide updates on construction progress, project budget, the recently awarded boating infrastructure grants, fuel dock construction, future phasing, and what voters in Racine County can expect moving forward next year.

Thank you.

The replay and revitalization project remains a 32 and a half million approved investment and we're seeing counties waterfront infrastructure. The project continues to remain on budget, which is a tremendous accomplishment considering the volatility. We have seen in construction, pricing, steel costs, electrical equipment costs and labor costs over the last several years. 1 of the biggest pieces of good news since our last update is that Racine county was recently awarded the 1.28Million dollar grant through the Wisconsin voting infrastructure program. This award helps bring additional outside funding into Racine county and further validates the importance of this project on both regional and statewide level. Current construction activities remain focused on the eastern basin of the marina and include dock installation, utility infrastructure, fuel system installation, and completion of the new field dock building. The project continues to be led by Racine County, professionally managed by F3 Marina, engineered by Edgewater Resources, and constructed by McMullen and Pitts, along with several local subcontractors. This drone video just shows a great, uh, version of, I mean.

Our instance.

Just a tidbit of what the current construction does look like. Imagine nice water sounds and birds chirping in the background as you watch this.

Yeah.

Piling's being pounded probably from the last video. So as you're coming in from the lakeside, obviously the first point of interest is the new fuel dock house, which is gorgeous. It's right there. It's perfect for boaters to see the perfect location for boaters to pull into and be provided with that high level of customer service and high speed fuel. And just a quick bird's eye view. So you have the full fuel dock located to the west. You have our large, those are 60 foot docks, 55 foot docks. They're currently installing the under the dock utility for the slip side pump out system. And currently they are making remarkably quick progress on the docks. So boaters are excited. Public should be excited. We're hearing all great things. Next slide. So progress to date. So major accomplishments include O, N, and X-DOC are complete. All ADA gangways have been installed. Landside underground utilities are completed. Mechanical systems installed throughout the DOT network. Fuel dock building exterior substantially completed. The exterior of the building is lakeside blue, which matches the rest of the buildings at Reef Point Marina with a nice copper roof. These are all major milestones that represent a tremendous amount of work completed over a relatively short period of time. Currently, construction crews are focused now on completing the finger pier installation on TDOC and UDOC, working on the new fuel system installation, working on just completing the interior finishes of the new fuel dock house. Pedestal connections, so the boats can have power utilities and then installing the railing system, which will go north to south on the East concrete walkway. VDoc is scheduled to be delivered during the week of June 22nd. And truly the pace of progress has been excellent and we continue moving forward toward completion of the remaining phase 1 improvements. Big grant, we were just made aware that repoint Marina did receive a big grant funding that we did apply for. This is extremely exciting. There were multiple, multiple entities and projects that went in to try to achieve this awarding bid and. We received it, which does further represent that this is a huge project in the state of Wisconsin, and it is very known as the gem on Lake Michigan. And truly, it just demonstrates a confidence in the revitalization project, and it reinforces that Repoint Marina is important as a regional boating destination. At this time at 3 Marina and water resources is recommending, though, that these grant funds just remain with the overall project budget. Truly. It is a bonus as we have discussed and it is an additional that can be taken off the 32 and a half million. Over the top, because it is being put into the funding, but truly with given ongoing ups and downs and construction material pricing, particularly steel, electrical equipment and other specialty marine infrastructure. Components maintaining these funds within the project help strengthen our contingency position and provides flexibility as future phases move forward. Our goal always remains and continue will to. Maintain the highest quality Marina possible while protecting the county's investment. Fuel dock building. The fuel dock building continues to be one of the most visible and exciting milestones of the revitalization project. Today, the exterior of the building is substantially complete. Interior painting is underway. Finished work is underway as well. Utility connections continue to progress and fuel system installation is actively underway. We remain on track for a targeted substantial completion date for the entire fuel dock system for September 1st. Once operational, the facility will serve as a primary hub for fueling and voting services. It will also feature high speed, modern feeling equipment, improved operational efficiency, enhanced customer service capabilities and 24 hour accessible restroom facilities. The building will significantly improve the overall boating experience every point right now. If you get any three takeaways from this project update, are we on schedule? Yes. Are we on budget? Yes. We're actually under budget by almost $100,000 within phase one, which is very important. Phase one includes the biggest slips, which includes the most power. Currently, we're moving from 204 service to 480 service to power the big boys. We have 150-foot yachts that want to come to Reef Point Marina, and we currently can't power them. These decks won't. And we have call after phone call of voters coming from Chicago, coming from Grand Haven, coming from Bay Harbor. They're coming, and they are so excited about the revitalization and the improvements that Reef Point Marina is undergoing, not only because of the services and amenities that the marina provides, but also what the downtown or scene community provides as well within walking distance of numerous restaurant shops, we are truly a destination on Lake Michigan and they come from afar. But now we can finally accommodate their needs too. We'll have the power, we'll have the slip side pump out, we'll have the services that can really take these boats, which will continue making us a landmark and a gem on Lake Michigan. So, budget update, as I had alluded, we are under budget. We're looking at about 86,000 dollars under the approved 32 and a half million dollar budget with and that's not including the 1.2 that we were awarded for the big grant. So we're moving forward efficiently and effectively and under budget. What does 2027 look like. So, looking at planning for future phases is already underway during the winter of 2026 and early 2027. we anticipate we energy is completing all of their utility improvements necessary to support future phases. Construction mobilization is expected to begin March 2027, or as soon as weather and ice conditions permit initial efforts will focus on the northern half of the West side of the Marina. Throughout 2027, construction activities will continue while we maintain marina operations and minimize impacts to annual slope holders. The objective is to maintain momentum while continuing to improve infrastructure and customer service. So, looking at the newly approved phasing, this has been actively reviewed multiple times by F3 Marina, Edgewater Resources, McMullen & Pitts, and looking at the red that is phase 1, we are currently under construction. So the entire east side of the marina will be complete for the April 1st, 2027 boating season, which we're very excited about. The green section will be phase 2, which will include the existing fuel dock, removing that, completely redoing those docks, which dock A includes our 80-foot slips, which we already have filled. We very much need those larger slips in play. And then the third purple phase will be the remaining phase, which everything will be then ready and fully operational for the boating season of 2029. Next steps completing the field doc building interior, completing the rest of the docs in the northeastern corner of the harbor, continuing the fuel system installation and commissioning. Completing the railing installation, coordinating future, we energies, utility improvements. Preparing construction staging and phasing plans for future phases, and then renting every slip possible. Uh, the progress achieved over the last several months has been remarkable. Truly. We are beginning to see the long term vision for reflight Marina become a reality and we appreciate we're seeing counties continue to support as we deliver a world class Marina for future generations.

Questions any questions. Supervisors core.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the fine presentation. Just 1 question. Um, maybe it's been out here, but I just missed it. Perhaps the 32.5Million dollar budget that you have with us invested that much money into this. Wonderful operation when we have to come up with more.

Nichols and dimes, we will never go over that 32 and a half million. We have value engineered the was that your question? I'm sorry.

Well, come on, let me hear what you have.

We have value engineered. So due to the tariffs and due to the higher costs of raw materials, steel and everything else, fuel costs that are affecting everything, everything is continuing to increase in price. And we have been forced to value engineer a few different components and reduce the scope of a few different items, but never taking away from border amenities and services. We still will always ensure that we deliver a world-class marina, but stay within budget. know that for sure but what i mean is is this going to be a 10 year before we have to do anything else this is a looking at the longevity of this marina this will be a 25 to 30 year marina that's what i want to hear thank you very much and the i do want to add in there the pro formas that we do we have put together to include putting away a lump sum every year to then redo this in 25 years okay thanks thank you appreciate it supervisor spencer

Thank you. Hey, congratulations. Thank you. That's excellent. So my questions are, what does the 2026 season look like? With the construction, with everything going on, are people there? Are boats there?

We are 96% occupied right now.

96%.

And people are extremely excited about seeing the progress underway. We constantly say, pardon our dust, because truly we're ripping out sidewalks. We're running utilities on the east side. but we are fully up and operational. So even the East bath house, which you have to navigate a little bit creatively to get to is still up and operational and kept clean at all times. So they're currently fueled up, excuse me, finger peers and docs are being delivered to the East parking lot. So the East parking lot has, Reduced in size for those borders to park in, but everybody understands very much value of the production. It's we're currently under active construction and we've been creative in remaining the slip fees and can keeping them consistent throughout construction to help offset that little bit of dust.

Great. Thank you. My other question is, would we be able to tour as a group come October or whenever the fuel.

building is you know like maybe every year through each phase i would love to have you whenever you would like to truly seeing the construction site under active construction which is monday through friday and they start at sunup basically their guys arrive on site at seven and they start pounding pilings quarter eight eight o'clock and they work until five or six it would be really great for you guys to see them while underway so i welcome any time Great. Thank you. Thank you.

Supervisor.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Carrie, thank you very much. Um, awesome job and, um. My question, how will the larger slips. Benefit the Marina and help us. Hey, our debt off quicker.

The larger slips in the marina have larger vessels in them, which in turn, they have higher fuel sales. They pay larger slip fees, have higher fuel sales, and usually have more people on their boats because they entertain, they bring family on. They're utilizing their boats more and they're there more often on the weekends. They're. Entertaining so truly we have done studies where we've looked at the size of slip and the amount of money that they spend not only within the Marina store, but we've done surveys to those same borders and we have found that. For the most part, on average, boaters that have vessels 40 feet or larger are spending more money within the local community and are paying higher split fees, which in turn then it's less labor for us to maintain because it's less boats because the boats are larger, but taking up the same square footage. So it's less labor, less costs, but they're paying more. So it will in turn then we'll be able to pay off the debt quicker.

Beautiful. So just an analogy from the past and the present as far as the amount of slips for large boats yesterday and larger boats today. What's the unit count?

We started with Reef Point Marine was built with 921 slips. Okay. And maybe 200 of those were over 45 feet. Looking at the future design, we will end with 601 slips and 2,500 linear feet of dock. And 50% of them are over 40 feet.

Great.

Thank you. Thank you.

Any further questions? Well, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your time and let me know.

Item number 7 reading of the minutes of the previous meeting, which is automatically waived unless requested by a majority of the members present. Seeing none number 8 resolutions and ordinances referred to committee.

Resolution number 2026-11 by individual supervisors in support of the elimination of birth expense debts in Racine County child support cases and authorizing the cessation of efforts by the Office of Child Support Services to collect birth cost recovery debts was referred to the Health and Human Development Committee.

Item number nine, introduction of resolutions and ordinances for first reading and referral.

Ordinance number 2026-13 by Finance and Human Resources Committee, amending the Racine County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Article 5, Division 2, Departments, Section 2-276, Human Services. Resolution number 2026-14 by Finance and Human Resources Committee, authorizing a memorandum of understanding with the continuum... Continuum of care for the city and county of Racine, homelessness and housing alliance of Racine County, designating Racine County is the collaborative applicant to effectively plan and manage coordinated homeless assistance resources, acceptance and transfer of US Department of housing and urban development funding allocated for the Racine continuum. Of care in an amount, not less than 200,000 dollars and creation of 1 FTE continuation continuum of care coordinator position. Resolution number 2026 dash 15 by finance and human resources committee, authorizing and temporary agreement with the build of Yorkville for police services for a revenue total 4000. 716 dollars and resolution number 2026 dash 16 by finance and human resources committee authorizing the creation of 1 FTE crisis supervisor 45 effective June 26, 2026 and transfer of 60,154 dollars within the human services 2026 budget.

I remember 10 communications and claims.

1 moment.

Number one, public comment from Joshua Cook.

Item number one was received and filed in the county clerk's office.

Number two, Racine County Facilities Management Notable Project Status Report for the month of May, 2026. Item number 2 is referred to public works parks and facilities committee number 3 notice of the preliminary determination to conditionally approve a long term care license initial application and notice of intent to issue a long term care license for a closed solid and hazardous waste landfill facility at Kestrel Hawk landfills, 1969, Oaks road, Racine, Wisconsin, 53406 from the Department of natural resources. Number 4, adoption of amendments to rules chapter 13 surface water and storm water from the Milwaukee metropolitan storage district. Number 5, resolutions requesting Wisconsin counties association lobby state legislature and governor on legislation for greater local control for Wisconsin counties related to renewable energy from Trump below and Sawyer counties. 6. Notification and proposed withdrawal from coverage under registration permit for 25 MIN 123 from the State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 7. Resolution setting forth and adopting the relocation order of the Village of Union Grove affecting property located within the village located at 1400 8th Avenue, 814 High Street, and 830 High Street related to the 8th Avenue High Street road reconstruction project from the Village of Union Grove. And number 8, notice for public comment regarding our 670 feasibility and plan of operation report for landfill license number 0572 from.

Items number 3 through 8 refer to the economic development and land use planning committee.

Item number 9 is a claim against the county number 10 as a foreclosure of 10 and 11 are foreclosures and items number 12 through. 33 are notifications from the United States Bankruptcy Court.

So, items number 9 to 33, I refer to the finance and human resources committee and Corporation Council.

Are there any requests for copies supervisor? We're shocked.

Thank you. Mr. chair. I'd like a copy of number 5. 6 and 9, please surprise of course.

Thank you. Mr. chairman. I would request copies of 3 through 8 to please.

Supervisor McReynolds.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Copies of three through nine please.

Supervisor Hoffman. Supervisor Spencer. Supervisor Rossi. Supervisor Osterman.

358 please.

Supervisor Shakur.

3 and 5, 3 and 5, thank you. Mr. Chairman.

Supervisor 3, 4, 6, please.

Supervisor, thank you.

Mr. Chairman 3, 5 and 8.

Supervisor Coleman.

8 and 9 please.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman 5, 7 and 9 please.

Supervisor Miller, thank you.

3 and 8 please.

Now we'll take 389 please.

Supervisor Spencer, could you add number 8 to mine please? Thank you.

Is there any other requests out there? Seeing that we'll move on.

Communications from the county executive report number 2026 dash 21, but county executive making a recommendation for an appointment to the Racine board of harbor commissioners was referred to the public works parks and facilities committee.

Supervisor Rossi, thank you chairman. We have not taken that 1 up. We're going to get up Thursday.

Okay.

Report number 2026 dash 23 by county executive making an appointment to the Racine county traffic safety commission. This was referred to the government services committee.

Supervisor.

Thank you so much government services did mean thank you. Vice chair for facilitating that meeting, but it was passed. This is a position to be filled to fill a vacancy. This is Kim Parsons, a 35 year. uh employee to racine county she brings uh quite a bit of institutional knowledge and she'll be great asset for the traffic commission so with that i move to approve there's a motion to approve this any questions or comments all in favor say aye opposed motion carried

Number 12 communications from the county board chair.

That would be report number 2026 dash 20 by county board chairman, making a reappointment to the Racine county ethics board. This was referred to the executive committee.

So we haven't met. So we're going to be calling an executive committee meeting. Right now, and this is for Frank from. Uh, he's, uh, he's, he's being reappointed to the. He's a member, he's current, his term in Racine County Board will expire. This year, and he's a valuable member of the board. So we're going to be appointing him for another 3 years.

Mr. Chairman, I would move that the committee recommend confirmation to the county board. Second.

Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye.

Mr. Chairman now that the committee has made a recommendation, I would move that the board make confirm the appointment.

Motion's been made and seconded.

Is there any comments or questions? All in favor say aye. Motion's carried.

Mr. Chairman?

Yes.

I guess I would ask permission from the chair and the committee, Public Works, since the appointment under review is one of our own members, Perhaps we could expedite that tonight by recommendation from the. Public works committee, but I defer if you don't want to do that, but. If we know who it is, so.

I will say that, um, I was totally planning to defer that. So I don't have it in front of me right now. So if I could get a leg up on that 1. Thank you, Supervisor Miller. All right, then we will, with the approval of the chair and the rest of the body, I'd like to call a meeting of the Public Works Committee. All right. Well, we are now in order. Public Works Committee, we have item number 2020, report 2026-21, a report by the County Executive making a recommendation for an appointment to the Racing Board of Harbor Commissioners. And this would be our very own Melissa Caprillion, So if anyone has any questions, speak now or forever hold your peace. All right, looking for a motion then. Motion to approve is submitted. We have a motion to approve by Supervisor Horwath, and then we'll give that one to, second is Weatherston. Discussion? All right, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? You guys have it so passed, we're adjourned.

All righty, so we're going to take up 2026 21. that would be the appointment of supervisor probably into the scene her board of harbor commissioners move to confirm. Motion has been made and seconded any questions or comments. Seeing none. All in favor say, aye.

Opposed motion carried. Congratulations supervisor.

Standing committee reports containing recommendations on items referred.

There are no reports.

2nd, reading a resolution and ordinances.

We have nothing under the majority vote category, but we do have a 2 thirds. That would be resolution number 2026 dash 12 by finance and human resources committee, authorizing the project with Waterford. Waterway management district for a draw down dredging project and transfer of 600,000 dollars within the Monsanto settlement 2026 budget.

Second.

Motion's been made and seconded. Vice Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As stated earlier, we do have an opportunity to work with the Waterford Uh, waterway management district, uh, for a partnership of 600,000 dollars from them and use of the money from the Monsanto settlement. Um, I believe we have a few people here that would like to give us a brief presentation or a reminder of some of the presentation that was given to the finance and human resources committee. Um, if. You are acceptable, we could have Tom Matowski Luke. Franchois and grant horn speak for a few minutes is going to get a quick recap. In regards to their project.

Great, thank you for the opportunity again. Chairman of the water referred waterway management district. I'm here with my colleagues from the board of the grant horn, who is chairman of our ecosystem restoration committee and Luke friends who is our treasurer. We'll collaborate and move through these slides relatively quickly. So, if we could get the next slide again, you heard most of what I'm going to ask here share with you is that the has a shared vision to work collaboratively with Racine county, the town of Waterford, the village of Waterford and the Wisconsin to restore the Waterford waterway to its prior pristine condition. It's an opportunity. It's going to take a partnership in my belief in my opinion. It will not happen without that partnership. The value of this waterway to the community is significant. You've heard from others here tonight in that regard. Next slide please. This is our request. The total project is estimated to be 6Million dollars. This is a multi year draw down dredging project that will happen in stages variable based upon weather conditions and conditions being conducive to executing the project. But we're looking to get started this year. Key deliverables being significant sentiment removal from the waterway. Restoring that waterway to its past habitat to improve waterway depth for boating and recreation, fishing and environmental habitat for wildlife. Significantly, the outcomes being to safeguard the tourism revenue in this area of the county, which is significant, specifically preserving the significant property values of over a 1000 riparian owners on this waterway. and preserving the regional recreation beauty that this provides the entire area and Racine County in general. Next slide please. Um, real quickly over 1100 acres. Home to the tissue and wildlife area of 1500, some acres designated by the DNR over a 1000 repairing owners on the waterway for restaurants, other businesses, such as marinas, Airbnb's short term rentals. There is significant economic value to this area of the county and it is a protected area by the army core of engineers. Next slide please quick summary of the recreation and the significant activities that happen in this this area. I won't read all these to you, but you can see them. It is a key area of the of the county throughout the course of the year that facilitates things that are significantly enjoyed by both county residents and visitors. Um. From out of state, and within state, it's been an area that's been highlighted publicly in the media most recently with the TMJ for piece on the yakkers kayaking group, which is a significant club that operates on the waterway. And also the John Gillespie's water and woods TV program, which highlighted the fishing habitat within our environment. Uh, with that, I'll turn it over to grant and he'll touch on, um, some of the critical elements that are really driving the need for this project.

Thank you, Tom next up next slide please county board of supervisors. Thank you for your time and for hearing us out. I had the pleasure this week of taking two county supervisors out to demonstrate firsthand what the waterway looks like in its current status. What's wrong with our waterway is, as you've heard over and over, the accumulation of sediment that is full of nutrients that are conducive to growing invasive species that we have tried to remediate and remove via chemical treatments as well as other harvesting. You can see the picture up there of the harvester. but we are continually plagued by these continuously shallowing depths that continue to get shallower and shallower as time goes on. This also leads to algae blooms, which can be poisonous to not only pets, but also humans. And as the water gets shallower and warmer, that increases the likelihood of those blooms and the frequency of those blooms. As the areas where boats traffic is constricted because the water is shallower and shallower if the boats get closer and closer, presenting further present danger for water skiers, children, adults of all ages as boats are moving by more quickly and closer to each other every single time they drive by because they can't get out to the further sections of the water. Next slide please. A lot of our owners, and 1 of the goals of this project is to allow everyone to be able to use the waterway. Not just people who live here, but specifically a lot of our owners can't get their votes off their peers because the settlement has accumulated and there's so little water between the top of the water and the bottom of their lift. Some areas as little as 6 inches. Next slide please. I talked about the algae blooms the water temperature last year. We had over a 1000 fish die. I took the out for a kayak ride. We paddled through could barely paddle through some of the areas because of the growth within the water. The very next day we had over a 1000 fish die in the waterway due to warmth due to lack of oxygen. Lack of oxygen comes from not enough depth, not enough depth. And I spoke to the navigation hazards. Uh, every year that we don't do anything about it, it continues to it's a vicious cycle. They call it a utropic cycle where these. All the weeds grow, they die, they don't decompose and they add up and it continues to get worse and worse next slide. Please. So, what we propose to do is remove that sentiment specifically the soft. Sediment that is. accumulated significantly in areas where there's less flow of water. We will remove that sediment by drawing down the river. We are in a unique position with the waterway that is dammed. You can't do this in Browns Lake, or Browns Lake would have done the same thing. We're drawing down the river using a dam five feet, and then we're going to remove it the most efficient way, the best use of our taxpayer dollars, the best use of these funds that we're requesting. Estimates I don't want to give exact numbers, but. We can save up to 75% on the cost. Of traditional hydraulic dredging by doing a draw down dredging using our local contractors, grading companies. Back those excavators and not bringing in. work from out of state, which is expensive when it comes to mobilization. I had a company quote me over a million dollars to come from out of state to bring their equipment in here. Instead, we'll be using local Racine County grading contractors. This lower cost is because we don't have to excavate it from the top and pump it miles like they're doing in Burlington. And it will impact these high sediment zones that you can see highlighted in red on the map here. Next slide, please. The DNR acknowledges that this needs to happen. The DNR is working on this to happen. I just authorized $17,000 worth of CAD drafting fees yesterday for the project for the, presentation or the necessary construction documents to the DNR that are needed for the permitting. The NR 347.05 is the first step or was the first step to applying for the dredging permit. So the DNR has that. Once they receive these documents that our engineers Baxter and Woodman are currently working on, we'll be able to take that next step. And we are currently Awaiting some communication from the in the next week as we speak next slide please. Baxter Woodman is our firm that we are working with. They have been doing draw down. They have experience in doing draw down, pledging, judging projects. Excuse me and as well as a typical hydraulic judging projects, they are a. Now, a fixture in our community, they have a permanent office in the village of Waterford. And they are there to support us through this process. We just began or we will begin taking sediment samples. I approved that a few weeks ago, and they'll begin taking sediment samples. I believe this week that are necessary in order to get permit approval. All of these actions that you see on here are currently underway and being done since this presentation was since this presentation was 1st given. So those are all in process. Next slide please. Our goal is to remove between 350 and 400,000 cubic yards of sediment. This project cost is approximately 6Million dollars as an example, and the amount of work that we've put together in the different options that we have looked at in order to make this project affordable for the citizens of not only our, but in general. Uh, I have a bid for 8Million dollars to remove 189,000 cubic yards from a traditional. Hydraulic method, you can see that our cost here by doing it from the drawdown method, reduce our cost down to approximately 6Million dollars and allows us to get more sentiment. Next slide please. You can see here our project chart showing us approximately we are in year 1 and we're in that plans and permitting phase that you can see as my colleague Tom said earlier. This is a 3 year project. So we can't get all that sediment just like Brown's Lake is doing. They can't get it all in 1 year. It will take us 3 years to get this entire thing done. Next slide please. We, uh, you see that tonight that we have representatives here from town of Waterford. Tom, and we have representatives from the village Waterford. We're asking for the help. Of this county and your support. As a team effort to make this happen, it takes. Truly everyone to make this project happen. And we hope that it will extend even further beyond Racine County as these, as you've heard previously, that these resources are enjoyed from all over the state. And personally, I see dozens of hundreds of visitors come from Chicago and outside of our state and come and spend money in our area because of this waterway. Next slide, please. I'm going to. pass it over to Luke Francois and to take it out from here.

Thank you. Thank you. As you can see, this is a direct investment in the betterment of the waterway. There's so many things that happen. Not only do we restore the sediment back to its predestined days where water is clear again, but it provides a long-term economic and environment benefit to the Racine County area and reduces a lot of the future public costs that will go along with a larger scale project. Next slide, please. So, we respectfully request your consideration today of 1Million dollars in the Monsanto funds in that settlement fund. We, as I mentioned earlier is specifically for water clarity. We're asking for simply 1, 6 of the total amount of this project. We are covering a large and substantial amount over the next 3 years. And this is a very reasonable ask and if I would ask if you find it in your hearts to give more. We have a bigger need yet than the 1Million and so we ask that you consider funding this original request as it was brought to you because this is a significant. Resource for Racine County, it has great benefits to us all and will help us to move this project forward. Next slide so we want to thank you because this project protects environmental health. It supports our recreation and tourism across the county. preserves our property values and it demonstrates that regional partnership that we've been striving for. So we thank you for your time and appreciation and we're here and welcome your questions. Are there any questions?

Mr. Horst?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time and certainly these gentlemen's opportunities, I will be making a request for an addendum to the resolution. So I'd like to take your guidance as to would you want that to be done first or would you like questions to be asked of this group before we get to that point?

Let's have some questions first and then we'll get back to the amendment.

Very good. Thank you.

Is there any questions? I do have 1, the local stake, the village in the town. What is their contribution? As as the local governments, like, the town of Burlington did, we are currently working through that.

We do not have final numbers or agreement in terms of what that local contribution is going to be. There's currently a special charge that's assessed to over a 1000 repairing owners that are on the waterway today. We're actively working with the town and the village to look for additional consideration from them.

Right? The assessment I get that. I'm just asking for the general government, just like. You know, Racine county, and then the, the. The silt that you take out where is the site that it's going to be watered and finally spread on a spread out.

There are two primary sites. Unlike a traditional hydraulic dredging, the sediment will not need the amount of dewatering. The dewatering will happen in the waterway. The two sites, one is at 5818 Big Bend Road, which is approximately 150 yards from my house. So as a resident, I don't have any concerns over what's going on in that field. as long as we treat it and take care of it as the DNR requires. The second site is the Rank Farm located off of Buena Park Road on the northwest side of the waterway. The purpose of having these two sites with this method of dredging, we're going to have to move it with vehicles. There will still be a river running through the middle of the waterway, and therefore it would be advantageous to have disposal sites on both sides.

There's not much dewatering, you say, even. I mean, I understand, you know, because when we dredge, when you dredge down in Burlington, there's a lot of water. It's your second water. But when they do the canals out in Norway, they do need to have it dewatered. And, of course, they are allowed to put the spoils right there, so it goes right back in. So I'm sure the DNR is going to require some kind of,

silts you know catching device so it doesn't get too far out any other further questions here supervisor wishaw thank you chair um are there any direct county assets tied into this project other than property tax or tourism or sales tax

Can you clarify that question?

Yeah, so, like, other county boat launch county parks, things of that nature anywhere.

In the project area, there are no county assets in in this project area.

Okay.

Thank you. Supervisor well, good evening.

Thank you. Um. I'm a little confused about the connection between this project and the dam. Um, I live where the dam is. It has a great effect on the village rep of California where I live. Um. I was under the understanding that the dam was fully funded by the Department of I'm sorry the core of engineers. So, I'm not sure why we're comparing these 2 is my wrong on that or is it we'll get the director.

Zimmer to.

Thank you chairman in the 2026 budget, I believe, or 25 budget, we approved our portion of the project. The total project is 900,000. we expect 500,000 to come from the army corps of engineers. So we bonded 400,000 for the project. The bids are out there. They're working through the project plan. We do expect it will be more than 400,000.

Okay, thank you. But my understanding was because they found absolutely no pollution upstream of the dam that the costs were going to go down, not up.

I don't want to speak for the public works director, Raleigh. It's going to be more of the remediation afterwards, after the dam is removed, that will be more expensive than was the Army Corps originally anticipated.

That's total news to me.

Thank you.

Supervisor Shakur?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, or, like, me understanding, um, the, uh, how about the armor core engineers? Were they involved with this at all?

The army Corps of engineers has previously approved a draw down for this. Um, they are not at this point required to be involved. Um, the is is very much involved.

And they spoke in the affirmative that needs to be done.

Uh, they, they agreed that this needs to be done. Yes.

Thank you for now.

Supervisor.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

I have quite a few. The 1st is a clarification on the, the communication. you're stating that the DNR has said that this dredging needs to be done.

The DNR agrees that we need to dredge.

Agrees with what? A question that you posed to them? Agrees with a written proposal? Or how is that?

Through meetings and conversations with the DNR and our partners, engineering firm the DNR has agreed that and as I stated I took the DNR the individual in charge of dredging out on the waterway and she in her exact words were we will work with you to get this project moving within the statutes and she said we'll get the what and who was that Sonia Ponzi

Um, did they issue a letter or anything like that or an email or anything? A letter or an email saying yes, this needs to be done and we will move it forward for you as you have stated core.

I mean, correspondence back and forth.

We yes. Okay. Then you can share that with us. Sure. Great. Um. So. In 2013, Graves applied WWMD a report which detailed sediment testing done in 2012 to 2013 and an assessment of what was there. showed that if dredge spoils would be approximately 182,000 cubic yards from the channel areas, 263 cubic yards from the bay areas, and some additional nondescript areas to total almost 500,000 cubic yards. This is from your own report. Why is there a 20% discrepancy from what they found in 2013 to what you're talking about now, 400,000 cubic yards? It would stand to reason that since 2013, by your slide, there's more that has come in even from then. So what is the discrepancy from?

The discrepancy comes in the affordability. I personally went to over half of this waterway. I went door to door to over 400 properties. And talked with every single owner in those properties of those properties, 350 people agreed. On a signature page, I didn't bring and brought them with me to the finance committee meeting. I did not bring them with me today, but they agreed legally to pay up to 700 dollars per year out of their pockets to support this project in discussions with homeowners and surveys. I deemed that any higher amount would not pass a vote, which is required to make this happen.

So that influenced a cut off it. We're going to do up to $400,000.

The dollar amount influenced it. At those times, and Monty, you and I spoke of this earlier, some of those dollar amounts were estimated to be $32 million to be pumped out to a quarry. And that was not an amount that would be reasonable to be

handled by burdened by the uh repairing owners which by the way thank you for the the tour that was wonderful it's a it's a beautiful waterway and it's it is very impaired that's that's for sure um so your lake management plan on page 18 states that Internal phosphorus loading is present from the sediment, but that the water quality is so heavily influenced. This is from your plan is so heavily influenced by the Fox river influx and it's carrying of the phosphorus load that any internal. Load from the sediment is negligible. So that is, to me, it's a discrepancy. It's a little bit contradictory to what we're seeing and hearing now. So from your plan, they say that sediment phosphorus is negligible. It's all coming from the Fox River. And now we hear it differently. So can you square that for me?

You said what wasn't negligible?

The page 18 of your lake management plan states that the internal phosphorus loading from the sediment is negligible when compared to the heavy influence of phosphorus coming in from the Fox River. It alludes to the fact that the problem is from the Fox River rather than the The sediment load, the sediment loaded phosphorus, the phosphorus loaded sediment. Excuse me.

That is a question, uh, supervisor Aspen that. I not being an engineer and, uh, and probably not qualified to answer.

Okay. Um, your lake management plan also states that there have been ongoing. We problem since. Going back clear to the 1970s, it identifies some time frames there. Um. And why is there such an issue now with this coming up intensely over the last 3 years? Why do you think that's happening? And it didn't happen. Back then we hear we, we don't we hear there's weed problems, but there's not. You know, why is it now? Um. interfering with navigation and didn't then. If the testing from 1973 and 1975, 1994 to 98, 2004, 2016 and 18, if it all shows the same levels, the same concentrations of phosphorus, this is from your plan, what is the difference? What's happened? That the sediment phosphorus is testing the same, you know, 50 years ago and now. What what's thank you.

That's a that's a great question in 2008. we had severe flooding that, um, if I was not around for those days, but anyone who has was around in those days remembers what it was like prior to that. Uh, they remember. not having weeds that are so thick that animals can walk across on this waterway. And 2008 was really the catalyst. So as it brought those levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, ammonia, whatever you want to call it, into the waterway and then brought the sediment for those nutrients to live in and to accumulate in, Over time, it has gotten worse and worse and worse. And as I said, this eutrophic cycle continues to exacerbate and just multiply the problem.

Yeah, I understand that the 2008 flood brought a lot of issues with it. Page 19 of your management plan states that the waterway was actually in a mesotrophic state in 2009, which is a medium range condition for potentially creating overgrowth problems. In fact, it states the waterway was in its best trophic state with that medium range TSI trophic state index since the 1970s. So the flood happened in 2008. 2009, the waterway was in its best trophic state since the 70s. Wouldn't it stand to reason that if all of the problem came from the sediment that in 2008, that in 2009, it would have exploded, but yet your own Plan states that it was in a mesotropic state, medium to low range.

This this 1 is definitely over my pay grade when it comes to engineering and hydrology, but supervisor, I can take the. Minutes from this and bring them to my.

Yeah, and we don't have to beat that to death, but there's, you know, again, 2018 water sampling done. By, um. by the management district showed phosphorus concentrates the same at the top of the water as the bottom where the sediment is. So the lake does not turn over. The top water stays on top. The bottom water stays on the bottom. This is from your own plant. So if the phosphorus levels were the same on the top and the sediment layer, where's the problem coming from? You see my confusion. The aquatic species management plan Does not even mention dredging for invasive control and you have mentioned it here, but your management plan does not. It, it basically looks, uh, you know, addresses and it doesn't even mention Eurasian milfoil. But specifies chemical application does not talk about dredging. Um. Page 28. of the plan shows internal, it states, internal phosphorus loadings from sediment is insignificant compared to what is coming in from the Fox River. Another reference, 2018 testing, 10 years after the flood was done for a phosphorus to nitrogen ratio of 14.1, indicating a limited range of sediment phosphorus. Page 18, references testing data from 73 and 75, 94 to 98, shows that the Tichigan Lake bottom had high concentrations of phosphorus back before the flood. Why were there not overgrowth problems then? Why are the problems just popping up over this last three years? To me, this suggests the problem is not in the sediment, but in a point source upstream. from highly erodible lands, from a pollutant source. I had been assuming all along that this was non point source. But when you took us on that trip, which again, that was an eye opener. I started seeing that maybe the problem was maybe more point source upstream. So it gives me questions as to what is the real issue causing this. I have a lot of questions regarding the farm fields. Do you have a written agreement or a letter of intent or anything yet from the farmers, from the producers where this is gonna be spread?

Um, as, uh, as we discussed, um, and I'm sorry, not everyone's privy to that conversation. The, uh, farmers that we are working with. Will, um, they will agree when we agree. So they want the same commitment from us before they will sign anything from, you know, what conservation practices are on the land now. I'm not familiar of what the conservation practices are.

Has your board decided what would be required of the landowners to put into place to prevent reintroduction of the sediment to the waterway? It's close enough that major storm events can push that sediment back into the waterway. Have you set anything up that way?

We have not gotten to that point yet. That's part of the...

engineering that we're working you know if the lands are in a farmland preservation zone i do not know if they are in a farmland preservation one of them is and he has signed up on farmland preservation um Have you discussed with him how this extra nutrient load will affect his required nutrient management plan, the NMP, the nutrient management plan? Producers can only spread the nutrient at certain times under certain conditions and be in compliance with the nutrient management plan. Has there been any of those discussions with him?

Not yet at this time.

Okay. So there probably is no information yet with the producer knowing how this may affect his future federal NRCS 590 compliance, which is required for what he's doing in farm press and nutrient management, and thereby his eligibility for further grants. Do we know that?

We're not at that point.

Okay.

and that goes into the compliance of ATCAP 50 and NR 151 also. Does the producer know, this comes from the GRAIF report, your documents in the permitting section, that the producer will not be able to use their crops for consumption for the first full year after the last deposit of the sediment. They cannot use their crops for consumption for the last full year After the last application of the settlement, are they aware of that?

These are all part of the work that these are all in in your documents taken from your website.

Um, and that's a, um. You know, 1 of them is a grazing operation, so it's, it's heavily influenced there. Um, the great report in the permitting section, that same section describes an assumption of placing up to 6 inches of sediment on on the farm fields. Now. That is the maximum that you're allowed to to the place. Um, the great report, uh. Use a simple math of, you know, 130,000 cubic yards would be over 200 acres to dispose of. That's basically 1 3rd of the entire project scope. The total disposable acres available on those sites between both farms is just under 130 acres. which would only take up 25% of the spoils spread at six inches. That math is very easy to do. You can go on the website. We had the land and water conservation staff run up some numbers on this, and that would be 25% of the spoils. Unless you stacked it all on there, you could stack it all and it would be over two feet high. Well, that's obviously not feasible. So if the sites you've chosen, Can only take up 25% of the spoils. Where, where will the rest go?

Those are the 2 primary sites we have additional sites. Um. And that this deserve 2 primary sites.

And those additional sites are.

We have a site in the village in a former quarry. Excellent. We have a site that is on the golden arrow bow hunters property. They've had their, they've had meetings and they have approved that usage. Um, and we've got additional landowners that are are willing if and when we find the amounts that are over the volume, that'll be allowed. So this is all part of the engineering that's being done and the drawings that are currently underway.

I'm assuming they're all, uh. They're all aware of the level of contaminants, the arsenic, the pesticides, the mercury, all that stuff that's in those. Um, okay.

Um, so.

How do we, I guess, basically what I'm wondering. How do we square the information that you guys have already that you. That's on your sites that you provide that the sentiment. Phosphorus is the problem against your own information. That says the phosphorus coming down the river is the problem. I have. Look, I'm trying to find a way to yes. Your project is important, and we have to do something there. I'm having trouble justifying a dredging operation that we don't have any real, to me, any real evidence that it's going to be effective. One thing that is notable here is that in In any of these documents, the Grape Reports, the Your Lake Management Plan, the Invasive Species Plan, the Sewer Pack Plan, I don't see anywhere where anybody says definitively that dredging will fix this problem. There's no documentation. There's no expert opinion represented or a professional agency or experienced consultant documented as recommending sediment dredging as a remedy, either on a permanent basis or a temporary basis. And that's confusing me. We're hearing these people are saying, those people are, this is what it is. I, and I, God, I really want some documentation as to that's.

Real, you know, so supervisor Osterman, thank you. The level of homework that you've done the detail of your questions. Outstanding greatly appreciated your vested interest in it. Greatly appreciated a couple of things for this group that I want to clarify. Nowhere in what we've stated. Have we stated that this is a permanent solution? nowhere and quite frankly environmentally and physiologically it's not the realistic situation here is before that waterway was dammed in the 1920s or 1930s or whatever it was this was a swamp okay it was a swamp the dams went in The ecosystem still does what the ecosystem does. It's moving sediment through that waterway. It's now blocked. The area wants to go back to being a swamp. To the best of our knowledge, there has never been any dredging that has occurred. So from the 1920s or 30s or whenever it's been, there's never been any dredging. It's gotten to the point of criticality now where we need to do something. Is it a permanent fix? No. How long will it address the issue? None of us will probably be around to see that. I hear you searching or the root cause solution. The root cause cause and a solution to the root cause. I don't think we have that. I don't think we can find it or have it in the time that action needs to be taken on this problem. So I appreciate greatly, and I would love partnership with you in working toward the best solution possible. But for the purposes of why we're here tonight, and the partnership that we are looking for from this leadership team at the county, we need you to help address the problem that has accumulated over probably 100 years or close to it. We're not gonna fix it. And maybe 100 years from now, there'll be a similar situation and someone's gonna have to address it then. But we are in the red zone now with this problem on this waterway for this portion of the county, and it needs to be addressed. We won't have all the answers you're looking for. And it won't come anytime soon before we're able to address this, take action on this problem. But I love the level of detail and the expertise that I hear you having that can help us work towards the best solutions possible. And I would love to partner with you on that.

Supervisor, we'd have to surprise roster and if we could have supervisor Rossi as his question, he's been patient.

Thank you chairman. Um. Excellent points by Supervisor Osterman. I do wish we had more time to understand the answers. A lot of questions asked. I don't see any opportunity to really get an answer from you guys. A lot of these are really technical items. So I'm going to take this to a very basic level. What I saw when I went out there, and it wasn't related to this, it was actually prior to this, and a resident informed me of this upcoming dredging project. That's how I first heard of it. And I went out because I was touring their house, beautiful property, and I saw their dock and I said, you're not doing too much with that. It was about a foot and a half of water at the end of the dock. I mean, these are genuinely the conditions out there. I don't know much about phosphorus, but I do know what it takes to launch a boat, and it's more than a foot and a half of water. What's interesting for this one with the Monsanto funds is we see here a demonstrably appropriate use of these funds, and then we're talking about the dam. I don't want to say what's more or what's less appropriate, but I And that's why I'm going to move the way I am here. This was originally a 1Million dollar ask it got, uh. It was proposed then on the 750 and and it was knocked down to 600 and 600,000 by motion. I think compromise here to move this thing forward. And this would be to me a very good use of funds would be to go with 750. so therefore chairman, I move to amend the resolution to allocate and transfer 750,000 of the Monsanto funds. 2nd.

Okay, so motion has been made and seconded to that. First of all, I want to thank you, gentlemen. I've been watching from the town of Norway town hall. And I swear you've been trying to fix that problem for 25 years. And I know the trials and tribulations through conversations with different town chairman and different people over there. um i do have kind of a question when you when you draw that down how far out on an average obviously is there is you're going to you're going to be uh removing silt Is it going to be 20 feet from shore 40 feet 60 or is it. Too much of a variable to have that question answered.

No, thank you for the question. Uh, the, uh. We can't get within 10 feet of of any peers, so it'll vary in the distance from the end of the peers. Uh, but there, this will be no, no greater no less than 10 feet from the end of any peer. Um, a part of our project is allowing our repairing and owners to remove sediment themselves within guidelines and within the restrictions of the. And we have engaged our engineers and approved them to put together a homeowner resource guide, which will allow them to connect with contractors and do things the right way and the water way. And not, as I say, just go out there with shovels and start removing it themselves. So not only are we looking at removing the sediment from the major project, but also allowing homeowners to remove sediment from around their piers and their shorelines as well.

I can just add to that in answering your question, Chairman Kramer, one of the rationales in the multi-year approach to doing this drawdown is that we don't know exactly how the waterway is gonna react when we take the water level down the five feet that we're planning to. That first year is gonna be educational to help us really understand how to best execute in years two and years three. In addition to what Grant just mentioned in giving riparian owners the ability to do some work within front of their own properties,

uh to address from their shoreline out to the end of their docks and then you know we the dnr application is kind of a work in progress with them i'm sure just like most anytime application with the dot dnr you're going back and forth your engineers are working very hard supervisor shakur thank you mr chairman on the motion that was just made but i got a question

Okay, it was reduced. What was presented initially was $750,000, and it ended up being $600,000.

Coming out of the committee.

Okay, now, I just want to know for sure, was there any other sources anywhere, be it the county, be it the state, be it the federal government, that could shore this back up? Was it researched locally, or...

Not by the county, you know, these gentlemen probably have and supervisor Osterman is a good resource for grant funding. You know, so it's super supervisor horse.

Yes. Supervisor. There may be some other grant opportunities. In fact, as a part of all of these conversations, we've actually connected with Travis Richardson in the county office, who has already forwarded some information to Chairman Machowski and copied myself on it as well. For the possibility of looking for other grant. Scenarios, so the answer is, it doesn't die with just this 1 item here with the county funding this opportunity. It, in fact, is the beginning of where we are looking at other scenarios. This district has also, by the way, been very successful already in getting grants from the surface water grants and some of the recreational vehicle grants. A recreational vehicle grants that has actually resulted in the purchasing. Of the harvesting equipment that you saw up on the screen and so they've been extremely active. In fact, I believe it was 4, maybe 5 years ago, hired a company. solely for the purpose of being able to support them with grant funding and locations and they were instrumental with the DNR and getting all these funds that I was sharing. So there has been a lot of activity regarding that and to, and including most recently with Travis, who, in fact, has already surfaced some other possibilities that may be of assistance. So, Mr. Chairman, if I may ask, would it be.

Uh, possible to delay this, or do we need to proceed to go with the 600,000 and if get more later. Right.

Yeah, it's kind of up to the board. Um, that's the question, you know, the. The grand funding, you know, would be with, you know. Most of the time would be with the, the, the, the waterway district. Uh, you know, and if there, you know, I'm sure. if they need a letter of support the Racine County would support the town and village of Waterford would support um but it really is a you know the the the key the key uh entity is the water waterway district so yeah Mr. Chairman I would hate to to pass this through and not have

addendum or something on it that we could say hey we may want to come with more money if it's available as was mentioned by a supervisor over there on the west side uh which i think he articulate that well i i just don't want to well i guess we can't this this county can do anything they need to but i would hate to wrap this up and not have the opportunity to put more money there if it's found to be and can become available

If that makes sense makes sense supervisor.

Thank you chair. I just want to make a quick statement before we vote my position on the 750,000 dollar request for the water for waterway project is based on whether there is a direct county asset tied to the project. I am supportive of using settlement funds for waterway projects when there is a clear county responsibility or county asset involved. That standard matters, because it allows other areas of racing county with a direct county asset to be considered for similar waterway projects in the future, which I think is what supervisor was getting at while still protecting taxpayers from requests that fall outside of the county's role. That is why I supported and advocated for brown's lake a county asset existed echo lake also in Burlington did not have a direct county asset and I raised concerns about funding that project for that reason. If the water for project has a direct county asset attached, I can support the 750,000 dollar request. If it does not, which it was indicated earlier, I cannot support. The use of settlement funds for that purpose, this is not about being opposed to Waterford or opposed to waterway improvements. It is about making sure dollars that are spent. I'm sorry it is about making sure dollars are spent. For a defined county purpose, and that we do not set a precedent that opens the door to request outside of the county's responsibility. Thank you, sir.

Surprise.

Uh, actually, I was waiting on supervisor Osterman. He had something he needed to finish.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman. So, um, from what I, from what I've seen with my own eyes, what we've read on the information and what we know historically, we, I'm unsure if the. The problem is the phosphorus in the sediment. But what I am sure of is that a problem definitely exists, a big one. I turned that water away. It's an absolute mess. And I would call it a top priority to fix it. Thank you for your candor, by the way. I love that. I can't say that dredging, as has been stated by the management district, to eliminate the phosphorus is the ultimate answer. But I do know that likely dredging for plant removal into increased navigation may temporarily fix the issue. But I'm further convinced that if we do so, we'll be right back in the same spot five years from now with the very same problems if we don't enact a plan to prevent them. We must first know the true cause and then Create a plan to extensively mitigate that resource concerns from our experience. The way we know that is best done is through voluntary incentive. Based compliance, I worry that these dollars will have no finish line right now. There's so many questions we could be getting a project with so many variables, which has been admitted that once we do the draw down, we don't know what's going to happen. The funds could become stagnant and. I think that the way to find yes is that we do create an opportunity for that partnership to work with our competent, experienced staff and agency professionals to develop a more concise and more productive and dynamic use for the funds within this project. So with that, I move to refer this item to the Economic development land use planning and land and water conservation committees to quickly provide specific recommendations. For the use of these funds within the overall Waterford waterways project, and within the original intended scope of the Monsanto settlement agreement. 2nd, may I continue just briefly. Briefly this will give the opportunity to the management district. Man, the county board. An interaction that we have not had before on this, it puts. This project with in the expertise where it belongs, where it was not before. And we have, we have a much greater opportunity to. Find more funding to your question. Supervisors secure. That's the best place to put it to increase the opportunity for more funding. And I am would be jazzed to the people to work with you guys, you know, and be part of that partnership. Yes, it does put the timeframe back slightly, but. No work is going to happen until the third quarter other than the drawdown. And we have time. We can take a month, take a little breather here, and look at this a little bit stronger and get a better idea on what's happening out there and where best to put the money to be productive. And it could be in the dredging. It could be split up into a few things. But that's my justification.

Move the call, please.

The motion is to refer this item to Ed loop and land and water conservation committee to quickly provide specific recommendations for the use of these funds within the overall water for. Waterways project, and within the original intended scope of the Monsanto settlement agreement, which was 2nd advice provided.

Let's take up to.

Let's take up that motion 1st that we have to the motion to refer is the 1st. Item of that we need to to start with. Then we'll go ahead.

Supervisor motion to refer has precedent over. Yes.

Yes, that's what I'm saying is that's the 4 we have to take out take up 1st. So so. Are there any comments on just the motion to refer? Let's go ahead.

Supervisor Osterman has raised a lot of very significant and very important questions. And I think his suggestion and by the motion gives us time to come up with with. Answers to many of those questions, or or to begin a dialogue on those. And, um, as this debate went on, I felt in committee, I supported the 600,000, but as this debate went on, I don't feel good about voting any money tonight. And I think the wise course is to put it back. To committee where expertise will be available and a new. Partnership is also possible.

Supervisor horse.

Thank you Mr. chairman. Um, obviously this conversation for myself has taken a very, um, let's just say interesting turn. Um, I would offer that I'm, I'm. Handedly incredibly disappointed at this moment that we're talking about sending something like this back to committee again. when this topic has now been on the table for several months and, in fact, was voted on to be approved. And I take nothing away from Supervisor Osterman and certainly his experience and his knowledge in this area. But to echo what I heard a few moments ago, something needs to be done. And we're talking about a number, thank you, Supervisor Rossi for 750,000 recommendation. That actually would have been is my amendment to the resolution. And I believe it gives the district the opportunity to move forward immediately as opposed to potentially postponing anything. And frankly, I always step back when I look at these groups that come up and present to us and think about, I'm looking at three individuals here that are volunteers. Not one of them is a professional in this area. They've hired professionals and they're the ones that they're working with right now to get the answers that in many respects you've asked and be able to present in a manner that will be approved. But to kick this can down the road, Is incredibly disappointing right now and frankly, I, I'm, I'm a little bit taken back and I'm sure no, 1's gonna want to hear this. But when I saw what we did as a board for brown's lake. Who then in turn was successful, by the way, successful at having relationships in an area that got them an additional 5Million dollars for brown's lake stretching project. I'm saying that from a county perspective, I believe we have an opportunity to come together to immediately develop that component for the partnership and continue to work on, continue to work on the issues and the items that we know we don't have answers to. Because I'll tell you what, when we get those answers, I just know this board, we're going to have another 50 questions that we want more answers to. This gives us an opportunity to make a difference now. And I'll tell you what supervisor. Supervisor. The 2 of you were gracious enough and we couldn't have been more thrilled that you took up the offer the opportunity to view the waterway. We have right now on that waterway almost 600 of the 1,000 properties that are sitting on less than three feet of water, some of them a foot to a foot and a half. We're trying to act now to improve some things that will address. It will address it regardless of all the statistics water quality. It will address the environment. It will address safety. I mean, safety right now, we don't do something about this. We're going to have an issue and guess what? We'll all be able to look at ourselves at that point and say. Those two boats that were trying to get past that center's buoy ran into each other. Were they going too fast? Yeah, they were. But guess what? That's not going to hold water. No pun intended. So I am just watching this thing unfold. I clearly will vote no to sending it back to committee. for purposes of trying to retool something that, quite frankly, and I thought even yourself, Supervisor Osterman, said, and others have said, this group of individuals has put together a very solid plan that still is being developed. And it will continue to be developed. So, with that, Mr chairman, thank you for the opportunity. I, like I said, I will absolutely not support this. Oh, I'm sorry. 1 more and supervisor wish to the comment about the county availability or launch or what have you. I'd like to point out that this waterway does have. 2 public public boat launches now, whether it's county owned or not. That's 1 thing, but 1 is in the village and the other is actually a launch. So you're right. It's not county. But it is still. Talked myself out of this 1, it is it is free to anybody who would like to launch their boat. So, once again, I say to that, I don't disagree with the thought, but I'm trying to see that this water district has the benefit that frankly, we have an opportunity as a board to give them right now. So, thank you so much again. I apologize. I took an extra 2 minutes.

Just a quick question. I know applications of this sort can be done in 3 months. Or years and has the DNA giving you any inclination as to when this permit would be, or are they really in the exploratory phase? Like. Supervisor Osterman where they're sending. 20 questions over to your engineer. And he has to answer them and then they come up with another 20 questions. Because I've seen that circle go round and round for a long time on some projects.

The approximate time that they've given us is 90 days. The 20 questions have been asked already, and that is what we're answering right now in these process. They're waiting right now on the CAD drawings, construction documents. So just like building a building, a dredging project requires construction documents. And I can tell you that, as I said earlier, I just signed off on $17,000 worth of CAD drawings. Cool.

So, it this, if it was approved tonight, you wouldn't start judging tomorrow. That's what I'm getting at, you know, so, you know, that's that's kind of like, so maybe. But we have a motion on the floor. Oh, Supervisor.

Here I am. Thank you.

The harbor commissioner.

Thank you to all of you. Supervisor. I, I feel. your energy and where it sits in the frustration, but I'm going to offer you just a little bit different perspective. Hopefully, if you just step back for just a second, because I know it's been a lot invested. Not only with your time, but with the group that's before us this evening, and I think a referral back to the land to ed loop and the land and water conservation gives this project the foundation. It needs to come back stronger and actually in support of the full ask. Quite honestly, what it went through supervisor was a finance committee. So, I want you to understand that and when it goes through and it goes through the land and water conservation, you're attaching to themselves some experts that we have at the county that can help strengthen your original ask. And so what I saw is the dredging isn't planned to be started till 2027. And so why not strengthen this request? Because as you can see, the figure that you presented is now being bounced around. It got bounced around at finance and it got changed. And even this evening, it got changed. Let's come back stronger and use the experts in which that we have. I thank you for allowing me to go around the lake, it is in dire need. I think you said it's in the red zone. I would agree with you there. And I can't speak to the, and articulate to the expertise that Monty Osterman and Supervisor Osterman has. You know, I sit, I was a water educator for eight years, so I can go so far into it and I can understand so far. And I do understand the concerns that Supervisor Osterman presented, but I do think we have the right people that can attach themselves. So I just ask you Supervisor Horowitz to step back. I hear the frustration. Dredging isn't going to begin until 2027. Let's make this stronger. Come back where we can have more voices. Of those who dabble in this realm to help speak and support it at the county level. So, with that, I strongly strongly encourage the county supervisors to support the referral back to and the land and water conservation committee.

Any further comments supervisor Hopkins.

Well, it seems to me that, um. The conversation has been. looked at to broaden the scope of what's going on in the watershed area, which I think it runs the risk of something completely different happening with the funding. I think a colleague mentioned the possibility of more funding. I think the risk exists for So, they could be possibly less, um, picking up on where that conversation goes. As far as broadening, um. What's going on in that watershed area as brought up by awesome and so there's no guarantee. I think that there would be. It could be potentially less and I do believe some due diligence has had been done by the committee, but. That's just my take.

Supervisor Osborne, Roof Court.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bringing it back to the proper committees gives us an opportunity to answer those discrepancies and those questions. It gives us an opportunity to look at what I believe is going to be a new lake management plan that should address the issues of the dredging. And right now, all we have to go on is what's in front of us. And I believe that giving the management district the opportunity to further their cause is appropriate. It's good for the project and I'm in support of the project. I'm very much in support of what Supervisor Horwath wants to do. I think it's in the methodology and this is this is the right thing. This is the proper path and it gives us the opportunity to get it right because we are still setting precedent here.

Thank you roll call on the referral.

There'll be a roll call. Are there any further questions? All right. So, what we're voting on is a motion to refer. Back to the loop committee and the land use and water conservation committee.

Mr chairman, if you could just explain again a vote yes represents what the vote?

Yes means the vote the. This item would be referred back to committee a vote. No. Would not we continue with the discussion here? And the funding.

Okay, 1st, all supervisors have to check in supervisors. Yes, you have to check in before we get to voting on anything supervisor. I know there was a question when you 1st got here, you have your correct voting pad number. Okay, just just checking. I know that was a question. I thought it was straightened out, but. Somebody who's not here or we'll have to share. I thought we can. No, no, there's anything that blue box maybe.

OK.

9 volt no, no, you're just checking in. So you would get it 1st. And and hit confirm confirmed.

All right.

Now, gentlemen, could you move forward? All right now you're voting yes or no on whether or not to refer. Oh, confirm it. And then I'll verbally put you on the record.

Okay.

No.

Okay. And supervisor Shakur is voting. No.

And yes. So.

Nine to 10. Hmm.

So, the motion field.

Well, actually, it's 8 to 11, because supervisor is actually voting. No. Okay. So just a moment. Let me. Record this.

Yes.

So that motion does not pass it is 11 knows 9, excuse me 8 eyes. All right, so get referred back to committee. So then we are back to the, the amendment on the amendment.

So the amendment. Is to go from. 600,000 to 750,000. Correct. So are there any further comments or questions? Supervisor Trottier.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Supervisor Osterman, for your expertise also. I can fully support Resolution 2026-12. I truly think it will benefit Racine County residents, both commercially, water activities, and property values at $600,000. From a risk management position, As I said at the meeting, and I was quoted today. If this original amount of 750 is granted, it will leave the Monsanto fund. Lean for future needs of Racine County. I mentioned at the meeting 1 possibility, and that was the restoration of the Horlick down. Is that the only thing that's. It could go to no, I just mentioned it as a possibility. Okay, what else may arise? I do not know. I do not want to leave that Monsanto fund. Lower. than i think is necessary my conclusion therefore this evening at 750 instead of 600 000 this resolution is requesting more money at the possible expense of every single racine county resident for 150 000

This request is unacceptable. I will be voting.

No surprise.

Thank you. Well, boy, I had the opposite of that position. I not only am gonna vote yes, but however, I'm disappointed. I really would have loved to see that go back because I would have liked to see the support of the original request, quite honestly. And there's a reason, there's always going to be something the county needs. And, you know, you often see that when you're trying to finance for your own home and you have a big project and it's like, well, gosh, darn it. I really could have used it for this or this or this or this. We're always going to have something. Those Monsanto funds could be used not only now, 10 years from now, whatever it might be. But I think this request hit the mark on it. You know, is it how we should have been handling those Monsanto funds? I think maybe. The water and land use committee probably should have had a better oversight and been able to vet that out. But we didn't have that from the beginning spending of that. So here we are. Um, I will support it because it sounds like that's the direction that, um. This body wants to go, but I would have liked to have seen that gone back and then support the original request. Water is so important. It is absolutely so important, not only from an environmental perspective, but for a draw perspective. I'm somebody who travels the globe, and usually every single place I travel is beautiful. Around some body of water, and I'm not alone in that statistic shows what draws people and it's water that draws people. And so I think we have a responsibility just because we're by a huge fresh water source, but we do have water in our county to keep investing in our spaces around water and our water quality. So, I just wanted to add that in a little disappointed, but I will be supporting this.

Supervised McDonald's, um, I will also be in support and of this and. You know, we always talk about county meeting revenue. what this project will do and continue to bring in additional tax dollars to the area. I am a business owner in this district, and I see the amount of people coming in to use the waterway. There are not only Racine County residents, but from out of state that do spend a lot of money locally that We take advantage of in in sales tax dollars. So, again, just an added bonus for this project and keeping our waterway. Um, clean and navigable and and enjoyable for for all. So, again, I will be in support rise Rossi.

Thank you chairman. Um, I do want to say how much I respect the supervisor wish I was comments. I do agree with them, but actually, if you look at the net position of the county. know if you look at like fisher we operate in the red on fisher park so technically tishigan provide is isn't that neutral for the county and it does provide boat launches that all the residents can use i just i i thought that was a very interesting approach um you know looking at it that way not what supervisor wish i was saying so i i do see a great value in it um i do find it interesting that um we're We're looking at very earmarked funds is what other projects they could be utilized for. We spent, we have authorized so much spending. Over the last 6 months and software and miscellaneous items and now we're looking at very designated funds here. And what we see is a very appropriate use of those funds and we're figuring out other technicalities and how we could spend them elsewhere. I just find that very interesting. I think this is a great use of funds. Thank you.

Supervisor wish.

Yeah, thanks. This has been a very interesting evening. Um, but in the finance committee, I did 2nd, the motion that supervisor Rossi made that he's making tonight. As far as assets go look at the definition. It's not just physical places. It's people also. And yeah, we don't own the lake as a county. There might not be any parks, but it's all used by people that live in the county. That's an asset. So, as far as that definition goes, I can't agree with. Supervisor wish off, I do agree with supervisor Rossi and I am in support of this and in support of the original. Um, resolution that was made by the chairman. So, that's what it's all I've got to say, and I'm tired. Thank you.

Supervisor Spencer.

Thank you. I'm not, I understand what your need is. And I guess I'm speaking as the supervisor of the fifth district in which the Horlick Dam sits. And so I'm going to support, I'm not going to vote for the 750,000. The river isn't going away. The dam removal isn't going away. And it's a project that qualifies for the Monsanto funds. I feel like we do need to reserve some of that money because, I mean, the river has a chance to be pristine too. And I mean, maybe you can actually eat the fish that are caught up stream in the river once time goes by and that river comes around. So that impoundment area has many of the same problems that Tichigan Lake has. And so I can't, I'm not gonna support it due to reserving some of the funds for the dam removal project and the area impoundment cleanup. We're at a time where federal projects including the uh u.s army corps of engineers i mean the contracts are being broken so you know i'm leery and um just need to be careful and want to reserve some of that funding so i hope you understand supervisor horst thank you mr chairman um

I think you all know how I'm going to vote for this 1, so I'll kind of leave it out of that. But I would like to say that, um, certainly to supervisor that. None of us begrudge the opportunity for additional funding to be available for future projects. And in fact, the number that we came in with, and I appreciate supervisor Rossi. Speaking up and offering his motion, but was also for 750,000 and the reason for that. Was that it was going to allow for the additional roughly 350,000 to be in the account for future opportunities and challenges that may come up. Might not have been 500, but there was still a negotiated or an amount that was anticipated to say, hey, we don't disagree with that mindset. There should be some additional funding there. So we are certainly in support of that. I didn't do this unilaterally. Supervisor McReynolds was a part of this. Certainly these three gentlemen standing before you were a part of this. So the district was certainly saying, okay, we still believe. We believe we deserve the opportunity for the million dollars. But in fairness to the process and certainly to the future, We're willing to consider this 750,000 as being the number and want to say, thank you. And say, thank you to everybody in this room tonight to sorry. Supervisor wish we're all getting tired now. And I will tell you that I appreciate everybody's passion and engagement in this conversations and just want to thank you all voting. Yes. Or no, it doesn't matter. We want to move this forward for purposes of trying to benefit. the residents of not only Racine County, but in specific on this project, certainly the town and village of Waterford. But keep in mind, you heard something that seems to be sometimes a little overlooked. And that is that whatever gets done in that northwestern corner of Racine County, vis-a-vis the Fox River, will benefit all the rest of Racine County because of the value of the improvement to the water that will be getting dispersed. I am done. Thank you.

Supervisor Miller.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for the record, I would like to clear up an important question that was raised during public comments about whether the Monsanto money could be used for the Horlick Dam project. And at committee, I believe, Vice Chair Meyer indicated that he had spoken to Corporation Council, and I verified with Attorney Kidd tonight that money from the monsanto uh account could be used at for the horlick dam project so i think it's important just that that be cleared up on the record thank you mr chairman if i could have 15 seconds um yeah not no okay thank you supervisor osterman yes thank you mr chairman how much is in the fund right now

Director Zimmer pretty exact if we can.

1,103,228,000.

Uh, no, sir, we have added interest since then. I have an updated fiscal note for the 750,000 if this is approved and the finance committee will need to convene to approve the fiscal note. It has the updated amount 1,120,000. we had too much 2 months of interest added since. All right.

Corporation Council, can I amend the amendment? Please bear with me.

This is advantageous.

Yes, I believe you could make a motion.

Yes, so yes. Are you folks all aware of what's happening with the right now in regards to? Okay. Yeah, they're starting fast hearings on coming up with the PFAS rules. Which could very likely mean that any projects of this nature would require PFAS testing of any dredge materials. There's one place in the state to get rid of PFAS sediment is up by Manaqua. That turned a $5 million project in Milwaukee County to a $45 million project overnight when they discovered PFAS. I believe that we need some flexibility in the specification of what this money would be used for. Before I talk about the $750,000 project, Because you need some flexibility in using this money. Potentially, I would move to amend the amendment. To strike the word draw down dredging. On line 13 and insert waterway improvement and the same to be held. On line 22 at the end. Strike draw down dredging. and insert waterways improvement project. Second. Thank you. Okay.

Supervisor Osterman, could you repeat that second line number? I got line number 13, and I got the strike, the drawdown.

Line number 22 would read identical. Strike, drawdown dredging, and insert waterways improvement.

Waterways improvement, so that's both lines 13 and 22.

Yes.

Thank you.

Awesome, so now we discuss that. Yes, I already explained it. We need we need that. We need they will need the flexibility if this passes supervisor Rossi.

Sorry, no supervisor horse.

That seems like a very reasonable request. I guess just so that it doesn't materially change. What the intent is of this effort, I would probably look to the. Members of the to respond to that if that would be appropriate and a brief response rather than us making that decision right now. Especially with you still here.

Yeah. Thank you, uh, supervisor Austin. Thank you. I think it's a great suggestion in the district supports that they're great.

Sharon, I asked unanimous consent that the board accept that.

Amendment right now, is there any objections to that? Seeing none, we will change the word on line 13 and 22, the words draw down to waterway improvements. So, we're back to the motion to increase the funding to 750. Or the amendment to increase the funding from 600,000 to 750,000 dollars. Are there any questions comments?

Chairman requesting a roll call.

Okay, so Mr. I just wanted to say that that. I, I've been in support of this project all along and. No matter which way this goes, I please, I beg you guys please partner with us. Please work with us. Come to me, come to Chad and let's, you know, let's really put a cohesive group together. I've always felt like we should get what we need before we get what we want. The Horlick dam is a need we have a 14 year old order to repair that damn if we don't do it and if we don't follow through with it, or if we stop the project, they will come in and do it and it will cost us a heck of a lot more. Okay, so we need to be cognizant of the fact that monies have to. Sit back for that eventuality and if this PFAS question comes up, that may come up here, it could still come up for the Horlick dam. So we want to keep some monies. behind this, okay? And I feel like $750,000 is not enough to do anything out at the Waterford site beyond the $600,000. That $150,000 is not going to make much difference. But we still need to get what we need before what we want. Horlick Dam is a need. The Waterford project is a want. And out of the other side of my mouth, I will tell you that it is so important to look at everything on a watershed wide base, a regional basis. Stop this East and West stuff. We're all in this together. What's good for the Waterford waterways is good for the river is good for the city is good for the county and vice versa. So. I will support the $750,000, oddly enough. That sounds weird, but I want you guys to hear all sides of this and understand that we have got to be absolutely frugal and hold on to the rest of what's left for the eventuality of what could be coming down the pike with the Horlick Dam, which is a qualified project. stop this nonsense of they got theirs now i want my piece right it's over now that money sits it's supposed to serve that purpose okay so i'm in support of it thank you uh supervisor rossi for that friendly amendment that edit change on that it's going to be important for waterford i'm in support thank you

Oh, go ahead.

I'm sorry, Mr chairman, but I need to just point of clarification supervisor. I think the choice of terms is what I'm reacting to that. The Horlick dam is a requirement and the water for waterway management district is a lot.

We're talking about the funding. We're not talking about the verbiage. That's a little out of the germane. Well, because let me, let me finish. Let's talk about the funding. Let's keep the stay on 1 portion because I mean, I've already said my comment.

Thank you.

Okay, so this is a simple majority vote. To increase the funding from 7600,000 to 750,000. We're going to have a roll call vote, so when she queue us up.

Mr. Chairman.

It's still in.

Yes, you can.

Motion motion passes recorded.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, you got to bring Mr. chairman now that the.

The motion has been amendment that in the opinion of the finance director, do we need a new fiscal note? Okay, so, but you want the committee to approve that? Yes, please. Yeah, that's that's.

Yeah, I was spoke with corporate council, Michael, and earlier today, and the committee does need to convene to approve the new fiscal note before voting on the new resolution. And I, I sent it to it, so I can display it on the screen. I can also email it to the group. I'm not able to access a printer.

Recording.

So, Mr. so, Mr. chairman with your, we'll call the finance meeting committee to order for the approval of the amended fiscal note for.

And so, so, Mr. chairman, I would move to approve the revised fiscal note for 2026, 12, so in motion 2nd, to approve the.

An amended fiscal note any further discussion. No other discussion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

Okay, so now we're going to be ready. This will be a two thirds majority vote.

Which is 14 votes Mr. chair chairman, I didn't get through the motion maker of the finance Miller wish.

The main motion, we were voting to approve 750,000 dollars for the.

Of the monsanto money going to the water management district. An old tiebreaker, you know, right here.

Yes, no. Okay. 3 and 2345.

14 to 5 motion pass.

Thank you all.

Thank you very much.

Greatly appreciate it.

Okay. Reconsideration of resolutions item number 15, reconsideration of resolutions and ordinance from previous meetings and or action on vetoes. There are none item number 16, reconsideration of a notice of intent to reconsider resolutions and ordinances. There is no notice informational reports.

Report number 2026 dash 24 by finance and human resource committee announcing the distribution of sales and use tax revenue for May of 2026 and report number 2026 dash 25 by county board chairman, making appointments to standing committees and making changes and committee assignments.

Number 18, miscellaneous business announcements and oral reports supervisor Spencer.

Um, thank you. I am, uh, informing everyone of the Juneteenth parade that's happening this Saturday, uh, downtown Racine. It starts at 11 a.m. Uh, you can watch anywhere from. 4th and main South to 14th street West to grand Avenue. So, to. Drive, and then you can join in the Juneteenth festivities afterward. Hope see something be there.

for all of you don't forget june is also dairy month we are adjourned