CALUMET COUNTY 206 Court Street, Chilton, WI 53014

Transcription

1 ATIACHMENT #1 CALUMET COUNTY 206 Court Street, Chilton, WI Phone: (920) From Appleton: (920) Website: Date: 2/18115 Department: Health and Human Services. Contact Information: Jeremy Kral, Director (920) Please list the specific Budget Issue you wish to address: Language in AB21/SB21 pertaining to Aging and Disability Resource Center. Primarily in Section 1573 of the bill, but pertains to many sections due to cross-references and many statutory changes needed to make this policy change. What is the potential impact to Calumet County? The potential impact to Calumet County is somewhat difficult to predict because the bill would give Wisconsin Department of Health Services independence in contracting with counties for as many or few of the current services as the Department wishes. The concern is that the statutuory change introduces risk that aging and disabled people will not receive adequate care or services. What is the potential impact statewide? s/a The impact above-would be statewide. Talking Points: The bill is quite vague and does not provide any reasoning as to why it would be necessary or rational for the department to seek to contract with entities other than counties for these services. There are currently Aging and Disability Resource Centers successfully operating statewide and all are either 100% county-operated or strongly county-affiliated. The current model of Aging and Disability Resource Centers is strongly fulfilling the needs of eligible consumers, which can be verified by customer service surveys already on file. The current service model is cost-effective for Wisconsin, as evidenced by ADRCs scaling up service volume without additional contract funding in the past several years. The updates and changes to the Family Care model do not require or depend on a corresponding change in the ADRC contracts or structure.

2 In a recent parallel scenario, Wisconsin Deparrtrnent of Health Services elected to contract for Medicaid-eligible non-emergency transportation (NEMT) services through Logisitcare and more recently with MTM. Each of those contracts have resulted in wellpublicized issues including poor medical outcomes due to unreliable contractor performance, and a lack of accountability on behalf of the providers. Requested action: Remove Section 1573 and subsequent changes from AB21 and SB21, retaining the current model of Wisconsin Department of Health Services contracting with counties who choose to provide Aging and Disability Resource Center services.. Other considerations:

3 CALUMET COUNTY 206 Court Street, Chilton, WI ATTACHMENT #2 Phone: (920) From Appleton: (920) Website: Date: February 15, 2015 Department: Corporation Counsel, County Treasurer Contact Information: ; Please list the specific Budget Issue you wish to address: Section 2014, creating Wis. Stat County and regional assessment What is the potential impact to Calumet County? This is a direct impact to Calumet County as it requires that the County either (1) hire and emply an assessment administrator; or (2) contract with contigous counties to form a regional assessment unit. Although the County must charge municipalities for the services, it can only charge up to 95% of what the municipality paid to conduct its own assessments in 2015, increased by the muicipality's valuation factor, as defined ins (l)(d) for all years after It is unclear whether this charge will completely pay for the cost to em ply an assessment administrator and the staff necessary to complete the assessment of all real and personal property within the county. First and Second Class cities may opt out of this statutory scheme; however Calumet County only has one second class city - Appleton - which spans three counties - Outagamie, Winnebago and Calumet. The City of Menasha lies partly in Calumet County and is a third class city. Therefore, it may become difficult for completeing assessments in the City of Menasha due to the split. It may become necessary for Calumet County to partner with Winnebago County for assessing property due to this split. It is uncertain if contiguous counties would be able to enter into a regional assessment unit agreement. I question if the current assessment system is so broken that it needs to be delegated to the Counties, rather than the municipalities. What is the potential impact statewide? Counties which share municipalities that do not contain a 1 ' 1 or 2nd class city may be forced to or unable to reach agreements for a regional assessment unit and be forced to create employment positions for which they may not be fully compensated for under the statutue. Talking Points:

4 Partially or fully unfunded mandate Existing long term contract currently in place between Municipality and Assessment firm. Roles responsibilities of Open Book and Board of Review Process not clearly defined. Is the property assessment system so ineffectual or inefficient that it needs to be transferred to the Counties. Historically has there been a time in the past where Counties were responsible for the assessment of real and personal property. There is no provision for the cities, towns and villages to submit prior information for real and personal property assessment to the County. '-Requested action: Remove this item from the budget. Other considerations: Mechanism already in place to allow deviation of +/-10% of market value before municipal revaluation requirement.

5 ATTACHMENT #3 CALUMET COUNTY 206 Court Street, Chilton, WI Phone: (920) From Appleton: (920) Website: Date: Department: Land and Water Conservation. Contact Information: Tony Reali ext. 235 or Please list the specific Budget Issue you wish to address: DATCP staffing grant funds What is the potential impact to Calumet County? Potential decrease in staffing grant funding for the county What is the potential impact statewide? Same Talking Points: Staffing grant will drop statewide from $8.8 million to $8 million, last biennium the base was also at $8 million but there was a one-time boost upjo $8.8 Requested action: Consider boost back to the $8.8 from last biennium, biennium level was at $9.3 while expectation has increased for county Land and Water Departments Other considerations:

6 CALUMET COUNTY 206 Court Street, Chilton, WI ATTACHMENT #4 Phone: (920) From Appleton: (920) Website: Date: February 16,2015 Department: Highway Department. Contact Information: Brian P. Glaeser (Highway Commissioner) Please list the specific Budget Issue you wish to address: The Governor's budget removes payments to local governments for the removal of car-killed deer. The proposal removes $350,700 in each year of the biennium. What is the potential impact to Calumet County? The impact to Calumet County per the 2014 Car-Killed Deer Contract is approximately $5,000. What is the potential impact statewide? The statewide impact is approximately $350,700. Talking Points: The fact of changing something that was not broken is discouraging. The deer removal process conducted on our county and state highways was done in a very efficient manner. Requested action: The requested action would be to put this back into the biennial budget Other considerations: For the most part the Governor's Budget keeps things somewhat neutral in Transportation. We appreciate everything the Governor has done for transportation, but cutting important programs really straps county highway departments. We enjoy working with the WCA, and the WCHA, and we support their directions in all of these important issues.

7 ATTACHMENT #5 CALUMET COUNTY 206 Court Street, Chilton, WI Phone: (920) From Appleton: (920) Website: Date: Department: Planning, Zoning & Land Information Contact Information: Ted Rohloff ext. 254 Please list the specific Budget Issue you wish to address: AB-21 -non budget but related Department of Safety & Professional Services - Safety & Buildings Division Elimination of Wisconsin Fund Septic System Replacement Program What is the potential impact to Calumet County? $100, loss in grant dollars annually to 25+ applicants for the program, approximately $4, per applicant. Program assisted with the replacement of failing septics systems for low to moderate income homeowners and small commercial establishements including farms. What is the potential impact statewide? Varies by county Talking Points: Program would be eliminated under Act 21 Requested action: Remove langauge from Act 21 Other considerations:

8 CALUMET COUNTY 206 Court Street, Chilton, WI ATTACHMENT #6 Phone: (920) From Appleton: (920) Website: Date: February 20, 2015 Department: Circuit Court.. Contact Information: Judge Jeffrey S. Froehlich Please list the specific Budget Issue you wish to address: Creation of a second circuit court branch in Calumet County. What is the potential impact to Calumet County? Provide an opportunity to impelement specialty treatment courts in Calumet County. Allow cirucit court to implement a high intensity community supervision program in Calumet County. Allow Calumet County residents more timely access to the justice system in criminal, civil and family court cases. What is the potential impact statewide? Eliminate the need for monthly judicial assignments for the other judges in the district (Winnebago, Manitowoc, Sheobygan and Fond dulac Counties.) Eliminate cases being assigned to out of county judges. Talking Points: County Board has passed resolutions in 1992, 2004 and most recently in 2012, requesting the State create an additional circuit court branch. A second court room, chambers and room for support staff is already available. Calumet County has been identified as being in the top tier of judicial need as well as being interested in an additional judgeship. Calumet County has the highest population per curcuit court judge in the State of Wisconsin with a single judge serving a population of over $49,000 people. Requested action: Creation of a second circuit court branch in Calumet County. Other considerations: Currently when a criminal defendant requests substitution of judge, the case is assigned to a judge from another county. Substitution is often used in either very serious

9 or high profile caes. This leaves decisions being made in homicide, child pornography and sexual assault cases by judges who are not accountable to the voters of Calumet County.

10 COMMITTEE OF CHIEF JUDGES & DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATORS MEETING MINUTES June 5-6,2014, 2:00p.m. Civil War Museum, 5400 First Ave, Kenosha, W1 CHIEF JUDGES PRESENT: Jeffrey Kremers, District #1; Mary Wagner, District #2; Randy Koschnick, District #3; Robert Wirtz, District #4; James Daley, District #5; Gregory Potter, District #6; James Duvall, District #7; Donald Zuidmulder, District #8; Neal Nielsen, District #9; and Scott Needham, District# 10. DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGES PRESENT: Maxine White, District #1; Allan Torhorst, District #2; Lloyd Carter, District #3; Barbara Key, District #4; Amy Smith, District #5; Robert VanDeHey, District #7; Greg Huber, District #9; and Molly Gale Wyrick, District #1 0. DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATORS PRESENT: Bruce Harvey, District #1; Theresa Owens, District #2; Michael Neimon, District #3; Jon Bellows, District #4; Gail Richardson, District #5; Ron Ledford, District #6; Pat Brummond, District #7; Susan Byrnes, District #9; and Kristina Aschenbrenner, District# 10. OTHERS PRESENT: A. John Voelker, Director of State Courts; Sara Ward Cassady, Deputy Director for Court Operations; and Marcia Vandercook, Office of Court Operations. ADDITIONAL GUESTS: Thursday, June 5: Hon. Gerald Ptacek, Racine County; Jared Hoy and Jon Schubert, Department of Corrections; and Jean Bousq.uet, CCAP. Thursday, June 5. Workload Subcommittee Report Judge Needham said Jacob Wilson is leaving the Office of Court Operations to work with the federal Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. Judge Needham said the subcommittee has a meeting scheduled for next week. Progress is being made in working with those counties who are in the top tier of

11 judicial need and are interested in a judgeship. The Dunn County County Board unanimously supported a third judgeship and the Polk County Board is working on a resolution. Mr. Brummond said the Jackson County Board has expressed support for building facilities for a second branch. He noted that Monroe County was included in the last judgeship bill in 2008 and just broke ground last week on a new justice center. Judge Needham said the next step is to draft the bill and identify potential sponsors. Calumet County has been identified as being in the top tier of judicial need and being interested in an additional judgeship. Calumet County is ranked fourth based on a number of criteria including need, the fact the Calumet County Board has passed a resolution requesting the additional judgeship as well as having facilities already in place for an additional judge and support staff.

12 RESOLUTION 2012,42 RESOLUTION REQUESTING LEGISLATURE TO AUTHORIZE AN ADDITIONAL CALUMET COUNTY JUDICIAL BRANCH Motion: Adopted: 1" Draheim Lost: z"' 61-i)lmoQ Tableq: Yes: _t1_ No: _\_ Absent _ -NUmbe r~or~votes~-tequit~cr: Majority 0 Two-thirds Reviewed by:, BARRIBEAU 2 BUOOE 3 CONNORS 4 DIETRICH 5 DRAHEIM 6 GENTZ 7 GLAESER GREEN D~Wh Klockow 9 HOPFENSPERGER 10 KLECKNER 11.LA SHAY 12 LAUCHRJN, P. 13 LAUGHRIN, T. 14 LEONHARDT 15 MUELLER 16 OTT 17 PRESCOTT 18 STECKER 19 schwalenberg 20 STIER 21 STILLMAN Corp counsel YES NO A 'i. ')( '/.. )< )( 'L 'f.. ''J.. To the Honorable Chair and Board of Supervisors of Calumet County, Wisconsin; WHEREAS; Prior to 1978, the Wisconsin Trial Court System consisted of various municipal, county and circuit courts in which the judges' salaries were Wholly or partially funded by the city, county or state; ancj WHEREAS;By oonstitutional amendment. approved. by the citizen!! of Wisconsin In 1971},. a one level trlal court system was created consisting of CirciJif Court Judges who were state employees ancj their salaries were fully ful)deid by the state; and WHEREAS, The effect of the amendment was that except for six co untie~;, eaph county became a circuit. Three circuits were created consisting of!wo counties each; and WHEREAS,. Based upon the ()9 circuits an(j 249 Circuit Judges, each judge today is supported by a mean average of 23,118 and a medium average of20,840 citizens In theit circuit; and WHEREAS, Juoici!!l n!:)eds were historically based upon a formula based upon workloa(j and the number of judges in the circuit; and WHEREAS, Now judicial needs, when creating newjljoges, i~ based upon aformula.based. upon work load and the number of judges and court.commissionets in each circuit; and 1/IIHE~EAS, Fully24.85% ofthe judicial officials in the State of Wis.consin are.now.fuhded by the counties; and WHEREAS, The CaiU!net County 801;1rd requested the creation of a second court in our county by resolution in 1994 and 2004; and WHEREAS, C!llumat County has the largest population perjuoge of any circuit in Wisconsin (201 0 population Of 48,971); and WHEREAS,With the addition of a second judge in CaJumet County. lhis circuit woujcl still place the population nwnber per judge above the. mean and median averages ofthe statewide numbers (24,486 v.s. statewide mean average of 23,118 and statewide meoian average 20,840); and WHEREAS, Calumet County, with two Judges would still have population perjudge. as the 18th largest average of the 69 circuits; and

13 WHEREAS, Eleven of the circuits that have <1 popi.,ilajion less than Calumet County have two judges and two of the circuits that have a population less than CalUmet County have three judg!;!s;. and WHEREAS, Calumet County has provided the physical facilities necessary for a 2nd Circuit Court including a courtroom, chamberscand area for support staff; and WHEREAS, For years, Calumet County has had ajlill~tirne judge with additional judges from within the fourth judicial district assisting with Ca.lumet county cases alan ever increasing rate; and WHEREAS, Circuit Court case filings are continuing to ihcrease; and WHEREAS, In 1992, the Calumet County Board of SUpervisors had approved a resoluiion urging the legislature to <JUthorize an additional jm:licial position for Calumet County, which passed both houses ofthe. legislature and was ultimately vetoed by the Govett\or. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Calumet County Board ofsupervisors herein assembled again request the State to create a 2nd Circuit Court Judge.in Calumet County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Thatthe Calyrneteouiity Clerk is reques!eq to send a copy ofthis resolution to the Governor, the represent<jtives from our assembly and senate districts and the committee members of the Senate. JudiCiary and Labor Comrnf.ttee and the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Dated this 19u' day of February INTRODUCED BY THE PROrECTI(l)N OF PE:RSONS &.PROPERTY COMMITTEE erger, Chair bon Glae.ser Tom Laughrin William Barribeau AND

14 INTRODUCEO BYTHE PUBLIC GROUNDS j).. A~.. N.. D~. RQ;;?;M~TIEE ~u~~ Kenneth Drahetm, Chatr ~~. 7/ James Stecker ~~= _:_~_,_~_._ /_ ~~~~~--~ rian Leonhardt avid La Shay COUNTERSIGNED BY &k e U/VJ A~ep_~ William Barrlbeau, County Board Chair

15 JUDICIAL CIRCUITS BY POPULATION COUNTY FUNDED JUDICIAL CIRCUITS CIRCillT POPULATION CIRCillT JUDGES STATE DETERMINED NEED OFFICIALS Milwaukee 947, Dane 488, Waukesha 389, Brown 248, Racine 195, Outagamie 176, Winnebago!66, Kenosha 166, Rock 160, Marathon 134, I Washington 131,887 4 ' Sheboygan I 15, LaCrosse I 14, Walworth 102, I Fond dulac 101, I Eau Claire 98, ,69 I Dodge 88, Ozaukee 86, I. St. Croix 84, ' Jefferson 83, Manitowoc 81, Wood 74, Portage 70, Chippewa 62, Sauk 6!, Columbia 56, Waupaca 52, Grant 5!, Calumet 48,971 I Shawano/Menominee 46, Barron 45, Monroe 44,

16 JUDICIAL CIRCUITS BY POPULATION COUNTY FUNDED JUDICIAL CIRCUITS CIRCUIT POPULATION CIRCUIT JUDGES STATE DETERMINED NEED OFFICIALS Polk 44, Douglas 44, I Dunn 43, Marinette 41, Pierce 41,019 I Oconto 37, Green 36, Oneida 35, Clark 34,690 I Vernon 29,779 I Trempeleau 28,816 I ' Lincoln 28, Door 27, Juneau 26, Waushara. 24,496 I! Iowa ,687 I Vilas 21,430 I Buffalo/Pepin 21, Adams 20,875 I Taylor 20,689 I Kewaunee 20,574 I Jackson 20,449 I Lang lade 19,977 I Green Lake 19, Richland 18, Lafayette 16, Crawford 16,644 I Sawyer 16,557 I Ashland 16, Washburn 15, Burnette 15,457 I Marquette 15,

17 JUDICIAL CIRCUITS BY POPULATION COUNTY FUNDED JUDICIAL CIRCUITS CIRCUIT POPULATION CIRCUIT JUDGES STATE DETERMINED NEED OFFICIALS Bayfield I5,014 I 0.86I 0.1 Rusk 14,755 I Price I4,I59 I 0.7I Forest/Florence 13,727 I I.I Iron 5916 I Totals I

18 POPULATION PER CIRCUIT JUDGE PER CIRCUIT 1. Calumet 48, Langlade 19, Pierce 41, EauClaire 19, Clark 34, Racine 19, Washington 32, Green Lake 19, Waukesha 32, Columbia 18, Brown 31, Oconto 18, Vernon 29, Green 18, Trempealeau 28, Richland 18, Ozaukee 28, Oneida 17, Dane 28, Waupaca 17, Winnebago 27, Lafayette 16, Manitowoc 27, Crawford 16, Marathon 26, Sawyer 16, Grant 25, Ashland 16, Walworth 25, Washburn 15, Outagamie 25, Burnette 15, Wood 24, Marquette 15, Waushara 24, Barron 15, Iowa 23, Bayfield 15, Portage 23, Monroe 14, Sheboygan 23, Rusk 14, Shawano/Menominee 23, Lincoln 14, La Crosse 22, Price 14, Rock 22, Door 13, Dodge 22, Forest/Florence 13, Polk 22, Juneau 13, Douglas 22,079 69; Iron 5, Dunn 21, Vilas 21, St. Croix 21, Buffalo/Pepin 21, Jefferson 20, Adams 20, Marinette 20, Chippewa 20, Kenosha 20, Taylor 20, Sauk 20, Kewaunee 20, Jackson 20, Fond dulac 20, Milwaukee 20,165

19 Below are the latest weighted caseloads showing judgeship levels for each county in District Four: COUNTY TOTAL WEIGHT PER JUDGE WEIGHT Calumet Judge) Fond dulac Judges) Manitowoc Judges) Sheboygan (5 Judges) Winnebago (6 Judges) This illustrates that the Calumet County Judge on a per-judge basis carries the heaviest caseload average in the District. All the District Judges carry a weighted case load over the ideal of a weighted average of one. Therefore, to alleviate the pressure on the judges and to keep cases moving, the counties were forced to create the court commissioner positions.

20 2012 CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT CALUMET COUNTY ANNUAL REPORT SUMMARY OF CASES Civil New Filings (339) (365) (464) (436) (322) (306) Garnishments ( 57) ( 71) (108) (128) (122) (114) Small Claims New Filings (693) (738) (769) (695) (694) (728) Garnishments (264) (320) (298) (327) (352) (355) Family Case Filings Paternity Case Filings State Tax Liens Tax Liens (348) (376) (301) (311) (260) (173) Satisfactions (183) (229) (274) (220) (218) (207) Voids ( 6) ( 15) ( 6) (16) (3) ( 4) Criminal Felony Misdemeanor Traffic OWl Refusals Forfeiture Traffic 1,778 1,880 1, Ordinance Violations & Older (535) (492) (340) (328) (293) (399) 16 & Younger (111) (113) ( 97) (60) (43) ( 75) Occupational Licenses Passport

21 Appeals Transcript of Judgments Garnishments Construction Liens Totals 5,712 5,923 5,511 5;085 4,999 5,308 ===== ==== ===== ==== ===== ===== Jury Trials

22 NCSC FORMAT - Three Year Average Weighted Caseload Calculations {'09, '10, '11}

23

24

25 Steve Piatkowski Court Reporter CALUMET COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge Donald A. Poppy 206--Court Street Chilton, WI Phone 920/ Fax 920/ Rhonda Neumann Judicial Assistant October 8, 2007 Senator Lena Taylor, Chairperson Committee on Judiciary, Corrections and Privacy Room 415 South, State Capitol POBox7882 Madison, WI RE: Amendment to SB 199 Dear Senator Taylor: I have reviewed the materials and correspondence sent to you by Calumet County District Attorney Ken Kratz and I wish to echo his arguments in favor of an additional judicial position for Calumet County. Mr. Kratz accurately sets forth the need in this county. I have also reviewed John Voelker's correspondence to you of October 3, 2007, and I also agree with the basic methodology of the Judicial Needs Assessment. However, I do disagree with the determination of the study that our family court commissioner is equivalent to.5 judges. The Calumet County family court Commissioner, Gordon Stillings, is only part-time and whose duties are primarily limited.to acting as a family court commissioner in setting temporary orders in divorce matters with some ancillary duties as far as preliminary contempt proceedings and initial appearances in paternities and occasionally hearing domestic abuse injunction hearings.. Mr. Stillings advises that he spends approximately three days every two weeks ' performing his duties which indicates to me that at best he is performing these duti~s at 30% of full-time basis. Since every county has one or more family court commissioners, it does not seem logical to include the normal and routine duties of a family court commissioner in determining that someone who is serving at a 30% of full-time basis is equivalent to.5 judges. On this basis, I have a serious disagreement with this aspect of the judicial needs assessment. I also note that the 2006 Needs Assessment from the Director of State Courts Office recognizes that the roles ofthe court commissioners may need to be re-evaluated periodically as conditions change. I do not dispute the findings that based upon the 2005 study that Calumet County had a judicial need for 1.7 judges. Even if one is generous and concedes that the family court

26 commissioner does the work of.2 judges that still results in a judicial need of 1.5 judges based on calendar year 2005 filings. Another factor that should be considered is an increase in the number of unrepresented litigants which dramatically increases the amount of time to process cases. Additionally, because of a number of mega-farms in Calumet County and surrounding area and increasing urbanization with one of the more rapid population growths in Wisconsin, language diversity and the need for the use of interpreters in legal proceedings has dramatically increased over the last two years. Needless to say, it does require additional court time to explain legal proceedings and to conduct the same with non-english speaking participants so that the hearings can be conducted in a fashion that allows all parties to have their day in court. I am grateful to the judicial administrators in our district who are considerate enough to send judges from other counties to Calumet County to assist with the case overload. However, it may be unreasonable to expect this to continue given rising caseloads in other counties in our district. Working through lunch hours and late into the evening on a regular basis to keep up with the case load does a disservice to those who need to use the courts. sm~ft~ Donald A. Poppy Circuit Court Judge Dap/rsn CC: Jerry Lang, District Court Administrator Barb V anakkeren, Clerk of Circuit Court Merlin Gentz, Calumet County Board Chair Don Sommers, PP&P Committee Chair Bill Craig, County Administrator A. John Voelker, Director of State Courts Nancy Rottier, Legislative Liaison Senator Jim Sullivan Senator Kathleen Vinehout Senator Mary Lazich Senator Glenn Grothman Senator Joe Liebham Senator Alan Lasee Rep. AI Ott Rep. Steve Kestel!

27 Workload per Judge & County Need Rank based on Year End Weighted CaselQJl!L Waukesha Marquette Mllwauk~e Buffalo/Pepin Richland St. Croix Rusk Douglas Pierce Lincoln Sheboygan Fond dulac Green Bayfield lafayette Door Price Juneau Florence/Forest Taylor Ozaukee Crawford Portage Jefferson Oconto Marinette ; Kewaunee Iron

28 ATTACHMENT#7 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION URGING THE FORMATION OF A STATE-WIDE LIQUID MANURE TASK FORCE STATE OF WISCONSIN COUNTY OF CALUMET CERTIFIED COPY teortrytholtno llatna..,_...,., tile original clwhicltllllllegal custodiln.... CclunlrCiodloiC:.U.O..., ~ """"""' lgaa 0ntn I 1l a.r.. CclunlrCiodl.. % 19, 2-0!5

29 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION URGING THE FORMATION OF A STATE-WIDE LIQUID MANURE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE To the Honorable Chair and Board of Supervisors of Calumet County, Wisconsin:,1\ma(l Motion: Adopted: 1" Lost: 2"'. if Tabled: Yes: T No: ~::::j _2L Absent: '-=--1 -Num&er or votes -req uirea: ~J Majority D Two-thirds Dawn Reviewed by: Klockow Corp Counsel BARRIBEAU BUDDE CONNORS YES NO A '1.. '>< DIETRICH --{.. DRAHEIM : GENTZ GLAESER GREEN KLECKNER LA SHAY LAUGHRIN, P. '1. 'f. '!- '/.. MUELLER '(.. on Y. PRESCOTI STANKE STECKER SCHWALENBERG STIER STILLMAN WEINBERGER YELTON "' ")( x '1. 'j. '1.. 'f.. WHEREAS, Certain land use practices are known to provide contaminants (i.e. bacteria, nitrates, pathogens, etc.) that percolate down through the soil during the process referred to as "groundwater recharge"; and WHEREAS, An increasing volume of liquid manure that is generated, stored and land applied by expanding livestock farming operations in Calumet County, and across the state of Wisconsin, can be reasonably regarded as a major source of bacteria, nitrates and pathogens to surface waters and groundwater aquifers; and WHEREAS, In recent years, various surface waters and private wells, located in Calumet County and across the state of Wisconsin, are known or suspected to have been contaminated by the application of liquid manure to adjacent cropland fields; and WHEREAS, Although the percolation of water and waterborne materials through suitable soil material can minimize the amount of contaminants that ultimately reach groundwater, once percolating contaminants reach fractured bedrock, very little, if any, contaminant attenuation takes place, due to rapid transport down to, and into, the underlying groundwater aquifer; and WHEREAS, There are both known and suspected areas in Calumet County where only a thin layer of suitable soil material exists over fractured bedrock, which can allow for the rapid transport of surface applied contaminants down to, and into, the underlying groundwater aquifer; and WHEREAS, Calumet County has provided assistance with private well testing through the county groundwater program; and WHEREAS, Results from private well testing in Calumet County from the year 2004 through the year 2013 indicate that: 1. On a county-wide basis, 31% of private wells in Calumet County have nitrate levels exceeding the health standard for nitrates, and 28% of private wells in Calumet County have tested positive for the presence of total coliform bacteria; and, 2. Over 29% of private wells in the Groundwater Protection Area of Calumet County may be contaminated by coliform bacteria, and over 36% of private wells in the Groundwater Protection Area of

30 Calumet County may have nitrate levels exceeding the health standards for nitrates; and, WHEREAS, Although farmers and certified manure applicators often follow proper procedures when land applying liquid manure to cropland, undesirable weather, unfit soil conditions, and unfortunate accidents that occur during the movement and land application of liquid manure to cropland can lead to the unintended discharge of liquid manure contaminants to surface waters and groundwater aquifers; and WHEREAS, Action and assistance is needed from leadership of the Governor's Office, the Wisconsin State Legislature, the University of Wisconsin System, various Wisconsin state agencies, and Wisconsin's agricultural industry to help protect the quality of surface waters and groundwater in Calumet County and throughout Wisconsin, and to safeguard the health of all those who reside or recreate in Wisconsin. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Calumet County Board of supervisors, hereby assembled, earnestly urges that, under the leadership of the Office of the Governor of the State of Wisconsin, a state-wide task force comprised of representatives from the Wisconsin State Legislature, the Wisconsin Department of Administration, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, the University of Wisconsin System, the Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association, the Dairy Business Association, and the Wisconsin Farm Bureau be formed to: 1. Consider the merits, feasibility and procedural steps needed for implementing alternative on-farm liquid manure management systems on Wisconsin livestock farms; and 2. Prepare and implement an action plan to begin moving Wisconsin's animal agriculture industry toward the implementation of alternative on-farm liquid manure management systems. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That in the interim, enforcement staff of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources be urged and directed to effectively enforce the statutes and administrative rules that are currently in place to prevent the runoff and discharge of nonpoint sources of pollution to waters of the state. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Governor of the State of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader, the Wisconsin Assembly Majority Leader, all Wisconsin State Legislators with a constituency within Calumet County; the Wisconsin Department of Administration, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, the University of Wisconsin, the Dairy Business Association, the Wisconsin Farm Bureau, the Wisconsin Counties Association, the Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association, the Wisconsin Association of Local Health Departments and Boards, and the Wisconsin Towns Association. Dated this 17'h day of February 2015.

31 INTRODUCED BY THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION COMMITTEE!]} ~~ Meflil1(3, Chair COUNTERSIGNED BY Alice Connors, County Board Chair

32 CALUMET COUNTY 206 Court Street, Chilton, WI ATTACHMENT #8 Phone: (920) From Appleton: (920) Website: Date: Department: Health and Human Services.Contactlnformation: Jeremy Kral, Director (920) Please list the specific Budget Issue you wish to address: A bill is being drafted by co-authors Representative Hutton and Senator Petrowski which would place many 17-year-old offenders under the jurisdiction of juvenile courts, thus shifting the service responsibility for those young people from the Wisconsin Department of Corrections to counties statewide. What is the potential impact to Calumet County? Extending juvenile court and its associated service array to 17-year-olds who are currently under adult court supervision would cause a significant financial burden on counties. This burden would either have to be passed on through the local tax levy of each county, or could manifest itself as less services available for this new population and/or less effective services elsewhere in an attempt to address this unfunded mandate. ~ What is the potential impact statewide? s/a The impacts above would be statewide. Talking Points: The bill seeks to make a change to public policy, treating most 17-year-olds as juveniles and providing them services with the goal of reducing recidivism and criminal behavior more effectively than the adult criminal system can. The public policy goal is inextricably linked to funding for services that facilitate achieving the objective. The Wisconsin County Human Services Association supports the public policy goal, but has testified against the bill and will continue to testify against until such time as the bill includes funding for services. As currently constituted, the bill would create a very large unfunded mandate estimated to be in the $15-20 million dollar range statewide. Wisconsin County Human Services Association has offerred assitance with structure and content of the bill in a good-faith effort to facilitate successful implementation of the public policy if the bill becomes law

33 Requested action: Insist that funding for county-based juvenile justice services for these young people is included as part of the bill. Sufficient language and cost estimates have been provided to the authors, and could be added to the bill prior to introduction or as amendments at the committee or full assembly or senate level. If the bill comes to a vote and does not include funding for counties to serve the young people, avoid passing the bill in a form that jeopardizes its own objective and simultaneoulsly creates a large unfunded mandate on county government and its consituents. Other considerations: