March 9, 2023 at 1:47 p.m.
A county board replay as easement committee convenes
Both sides marshal arguments over Pelican River Forest resolution
The committee was formed after last week's county board meeting resulted in a unanimous board decision to hold off on a resolution opposing the easement purchase, which has been so far blocked by the legislature's Joint Finance Committee, as well as other large easement purchases in northern Wisconsin.
At the end of the day, the real business of the committee - to become organized and begin its work - took only a minute or two as committee chairman Robert Briggs handed out assignments to other committee members. Briggs assigned committee member Tommy Ryden to research the accuracy of the resolution related to the Knowles Nelson Stewardship Fund, in particular the lines alleging that the state is purchasing conservation and access easements by using the Stewardship Fund. The resolution alleges that those are borrowed funds that increase the burden on current and future generations.
In general, that allegation is accurate - most of the conservation easements to date have been used through Stewardship bonding, with the state, according to one estimate, paying about $1.2 million a week in debt service.
However, in this particular case, though still tax dollars, the money would come from a state segregated forestry account. Ryden is also to investigate the remaining Stewardship principal and interest that the state had accrued as of December 22 as well as the resolution's call for the state to cease the "unsustainable and runaway debt" of the Stewardship Fund.
Supervisor Jim Winkler will investigate the balance of the resolution's claims, including accusations that some of the statements within it are factually wrong, misleading, or taken out of context.
On the broader questions, supervisor Bob Almekinder will research and bring recommendations for proposed snowmobile and ATV/UTV trails on the Pelican River Forest; Mike Roach will research the towns' and county's comprehensive land use plans and how the proposed purchase aligns with those plans; and Briggs himself will probe the economic impacts.
You're still the same
Before the committee tackled its business, it took public comment and again the public that showed up - many of whom also showed up at last week's county board meeting - voiced unanimous support for the easement.
Mostly, the public comments focused on the inaccuracies in the resolution; what the speakers deemed in their view was overwhelming public support for the project; and the private property rights of the land's owners.
County resident Karl Fate made those three points exactly.
"The resolution offered to the board is full of inaccurate information," Fate said. "The premise of the resolution was overwhelmingly rejected by those who testified to the county board in favor of the Pelican River Forest. ... Private property owners should be able to attach easements to their own property and reserve rights to their own property."
Resident Kathleen Cooper objected to the resolution's assertions that the purchase was removing taxable land from the tax rolls.
"It's not removing taxable land," Cooper said. "It is still private property and it's still being taxed. It's misleading to the public; it is being taxed now. They pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes on this land."
Cooper also said that public opinion very much favored the conservation easements, and she called for a public hearing so the public could have input.
Forester Matt Carothers applauded the county board for forming the committee to take a look at the issue.
"I think there are a myriad of nuanced stances on this," Carothers said. "I think the origin of Mr. Brigg's resolution was to shake the tree with the state, with the DNR, and it's true that a private landowner has a right to sell bundles of rights, such as this conservation easement."
There were many issues, and Carothers thanked the board for giving the community a chance to have a conversation about them.
"I think it is very important," he said, adding that the debate is a healthy one to have.
"I encourage all of us neighbors to ask each other questions because perpetuity is an awful long time and it is worth a look," he said.
County property owner Dan Butkus said the committee and the county board were disconnected from their communities.
"Not since the Lynne mining issue have I heard this board and possibly this committee be so collectively tone deaf to its constituents," Butkus said. "At the last board meeting around 100 people showed up in person and online. Over 25 people spoke, the vast majority in favor, if not 100 percent in favor. However, here we are, talking about Mr. Briggs' resolution once again."
Butkus, too, raised the issue of inaccuracies in the resolution, but he said there was something even more important.
"But more fundamental to all of this is our representative form of government at the county level," he said. "As I claimed, this county is tone deaf. Here we are today listening to the vast majority of people in support. Therefore I agree with everyone else. Hold a public hearing. That's all I ask. Listen to everybody and represent your constituents."
County property owner John Scott said such areas as the Pelican River Forest were what attracted him to the Northwoods.
"I'm one of the many who spends time in the county because of the forests and the public lands," Scott said. "I'm here because of the recreational activities that help support local commercial business. I speak in favor of the Pelican River Forest."
Scott said the planned forest would have multiple uses for recreational activities, commercial logging, and the protection of water resources.
"Local communities will be well served by a forest plan and with careful designation of lands for various uses including needed development," he said. "Some have said there should be more land identified for development. I hope this is just not meant as obstruction."
At first glance, Scott said, considering development seems reasonable, but it raises a few questions.
"Have studies been done to ensure that enough land will be protected for future forest industries, homes, municipal buildings, and commercial buildings?" he asked. "Has that already been done and is the existing community large enough? Do existing wood products facilities in neighboring communities meet the needs of the forest?"
Scott said it was important to recognize that some development is better than others.
"Both good and bad development can be found," he said. "There's outstanding development consistent with the overall goals of a healthy economy and a healthy forest ecosystem. I'm sure you can think of some. There are also undesirable developments such as areas with random dwellings spread every several or more acres that destroy the value the forests have for both recreation and logging."
County resident Joe Steinhage said the very concept of the proposed easement should be celebrated.
"The word perpetuity should not be feared but rather embraced," Steinhage said. "If much or all of this land, which is so well suited to remain as forest and in its natural state, would be opened to development, there would be devastating consequences. The enjoyment of existing and future generations is a proper and fair consideration."
Steinhage said the community should think of the long term and of future generations.
"We cannot be so shortsighted and dare I say selfish," he said. "I do not think there are developers out there waiting in line to build subdivisions, hotels, and restaurants as one may think."
Steinhage said it was also erroneous and misleading to cite the number of persons per acre, or acres per person, of other states or even other even counties as a valid comparison and a justification to not allow the easement.
"In other states, and even other counties in Wisconsin, the demographics, topography, and other salient factors are all different," he said. "Also, to place a number on an acceptable purchase of land that can or should be state-owned is meaningless. There is much reason to believe that those who flatly oppose the easement project have skewed and misled the public regarding the income producing ability of all this land left in its current conditions."
Maps released to the public are insufficiently detailed to determine where future land development could occur in the Monico area due to population growth, Steinhage said.
"Land bordering Hwys. 8 and 45 is an example of that, but you must take the time to closely review and analyze the best maps available of all that land and have fruitful discussions with all interested parties," he said.
Steinhage said the need to conserve the forest was apparent.
"It is abundantly clear that much of the almost 70,000 acres is environmentally critical to remain as is except to enhance many forms of recreation and tourism, with also substantial income coming from logging and prudent forestry practices," he said. "... If any of that land would be kept out of easement for future urban development, it should not be fragmented or the land held in easement would not continue to provide quality waters, rivers, streams and wetlands nor would the area sustain the current level of precious wildlife."
Chairman's position
Following the committee assignments, Holewinski addressed the committee he had appointed, and addressed some of the same issues he has previously pressed, as well has asserting some new ones.
For one thing, addressing claimed inaccuracies in the resolution, Holewinski said it had been drafted with the best information the county had at the time.
More important, Holewinski said, the easement purchase was pushed though with little input from the affected towns or the county. Holewinski again recalled that he had received a letter giving the county only 30 days to object to the purchase.
"They gave me a number to call but after numerous tries, no one answered or returned the calls until a couple of days at the end of the 30 day period," Holewinski said. Holewinski said he was out of town but notified another supervisor to return the call but again there was no answer.
Holewinski said the DNR somehow said it never received resolutions passed by towns opposed to the purchase but touted resolutions from towns that supported it.
"Our town [Sugar Camp] passed a resolution opposing it and sent it out before the 30 day deadline," he said. "Now the DNR says they never received it, nor did they receive the resolution from the town of Monico objecting to it, but they did receive the one from Schoepke with approval."
Holewinski referred to a Natural Resources Board meeting in June 2021, during which the NRB approved funding for phase 1 of the project and cited public support for the effort.
"They said there was strong support for the easement but no detail for that," he said. "There was no input from the affected towns, no input from the county, no discussion about comprehensive plans."
Holewinski said the DNR says there are 20 miles of interior roads open to the general public from June 1 until the end of the year for vehicle traffic but he said it also makes sure that if ATVs and UTVs are ever categorized as vehicles that they are not allowed on those roads in the future.
"They discuss ATV-UTV trails," he said. "They said they confirmed with the local yokels that ATV-UTV trails were more important than snowmobile trails, year-round use, but nobody can show you where these trails will happen on the Phase I project, and I doubt on the Phase II project also. They said the property owner was in favor of discussion of designated trails, but no guarantee anywhere that this will happen."
Trails would supposedly be negotiated between the DNR and the landowners, but Holewinski said the DNR controls the Northern Highland American Legion Forest north of the property and there are no ATV/UTV trails there at all.
Holewinski also talked about the America the Beautiful Initiative, a Biden administration project that seeks to conserve 30 percent of the nation's land and water by the year 2030.
"They call it the 30x30 plan," he said. "This [project] aligns with the America the Beautiful guiding principles, which include commitments to honor the nation's conservation provisions, also private property rights, the sovereignty entity of the tribal nations, and the values and priorities of local communities."
Holewinski said there were six major focus areas of the initiative, one of which was creating jobs and growing local communities. Among the 342 organizations Holewinski said supported the initiative was the Conservation Fund, the owner of the Pelican River Forest.
Holewinski moved on to dispute the argument that the easement would keep the properties, which are now in Managed Forest Law, on the tax rolls. Holewinski said the payments on the Pelican River properties came out to about 72 cents per acre.
"If you go on adjoining properties next to them, same acreage, they average $18.04 an acre, but they are not in MFL," he said.
Same thing in Schoepke, Holewinski said.
"If you take the current taxes in MFL for the first phase, the first phase would pay $9,120 in taxes," he said. "That's until 2040, I believe. If it was in private ownership and still forestry land, that would bring in taxes to the county of about $200,000 a year."
So they are right that the land would still be on the tax rolls, Holewinski said, but it isn't bringing in any money. He said the real impact is in future taxes and future expansion, when the land is unencumbered.
"Based on the same numbers, if you average that acreage, almost $16 an acre, that's almost $900,000 a year in taxes, compared to the $40,000 that's currently being paid on that property," he said.
"The America the Beautiful Initiative says 30 percent," he said. "Thirty percent in Oneida County would be 237,000 acres. If you add up our lakes, our federal land, our state DNR, Board of Commissioners of Public Lands, and county forests - we're at 300,000 acres already, or roughly 37.9 percent."
Add in exempt properties like churches and school and town buildings, plus Phase 1 of the MFL easement, which would be 12,497 acres, and that adds another 3.1 percent to the total land not paying any or much taxes, Holewinski said.
Current MFL properties, open and closed, add about another 25.6 percent, and agricultural land adds another 1.9 percent, Holewinski said.
"We're at 68.5 percent of our land that's paying very little or no taxes," he said. "The MFL lands take revenues from the town, but they are for future development."
Forever easements remove that future potential tax base that towns need, Holewinski said.
The bottom line?
"People will be forced to pay higher taxes, kids won't be able to afford to buy land in Oneida County - they will have to live by the city," he said.
Supervisor Jim Winkler, who served on the conservation committee for many years, said he was very much in favor of conservation. But Winkler said he had conversations with county board members in Forest County, and they told him they were finding it difficult to find workers because the county could not pay enough.
"They told me that the taxable land in Forest County is 11 percent," Winkler said. "... They are having real issues with trying to make ends meet. ... We have to be very careful as we think about this whole issue because I would hate to see us become a new Forest County."
Richard Moore is the author of "Dark State" and may be reached at richardd3d.substack.com.
Comments:
You must login to comment.