[0:00] [clears throat]
[0:15] So this meeting is live streamed um and
is recorded.
[0:20] Is it recording?
[0:36] Good evening. We are now on the record.
The purpose of the hearing is to receive
[0:41] comments and provide information
specifically regarding to the pending
[0:44] permanent application for wetland
impacts submitted by Waste Management of
[0:48] Wisconsin. Waste Management applied for
a wetland individual permit to impact 11
[0:53] wetlands totaling approximately 7.66
acres of permanent wetland fill for a
[0:59] proposed landfill expansion. The project
is located in the northern half of
[1:03] section 31, Township 5, range 21 east in
the city of Franklin, Milwaukee County,
[1:09] Wisconsin. Thisformational hearing was
requested by the city of Franklin
[1:13] pursuant to statutes 28136.
The hearing today is non-adversarial in
[1:19] nature and is not intended as a Q&A
session. It is designed to provide you
[1:23] an opportunity to submit your oral or
written input and comments on the
[1:27] proposed project. Speakers will not be
subject to cross-examination.
[1:32] This is not a contested case hearing as
no decision has been rendered on the
[1:36] permit. This meeting is being recorded
and all testimony is public record along
[1:41] with any written comments received.
We will start with a brief presentation
[1:46] by the consultant representing the
applicant who will describe the proposed
[1:51] project. Then DNR water management
specialist Sonia Ponzi on behalf of
[1:55] Michelle Soderling will explain
Wisconsin DNR's permit and review
[1:59] process along with the preliminary
decision. I will then call upon those
[2:03] who have indicated on their appearance
slips that they want to provide oral
[2:07] comments to come to the front of the
room or the microphone
[2:11] for speaking. Please say your name and
give your statement at that time. All
[2:16] comments will be recorded. If you have
not submitted an appearance slip, but
[2:21] wish to make a statement before the
hearing ends, you may also have that
[2:25] opportunity once you provide me with
your appearance slip. I will need all
[2:29] slips prior to you leaving today so that
we will have it as a matter of record.
[2:33] In addition to formal oral statements or
written comment slips given at the
[2:37] hearing today, you can also submit
written comments by email to travis t r
[2:43] a v i s period shrader s c h r o e
disconsin.gov
[2:54] or by US mail to Travis Shrader,
Wisconsin DNR, room 180,
[3:01] 141 Northwest Barstow Street, Wauaaw,
Wisconsin, and that's 53188.
[3:09] Any comments should be submitted no
later than Friday, September 4th, 2026,
[3:14] close of business. You can also use an
appearance slip to submit a written
[3:18] comment or your position on the proposed
resource impacts of the project. Written
[3:23] comments receive the same weight and
effect as all oral comments submitted
[3:27] into the record today.
All comments will be summarized and
[3:31] taken into consideration in the review
and decision on the permit application.
[3:36] The permit decision is appealable and
the appeal procedure will be listed on
[3:40] the permit decision document. At this
time, I will ask the applicant to give a
[3:46] brief background on the proposed
project.
[3:53] » Thank you, Travis. Thank you everybody
for coming. Um, introduced myself
[3:56] earlier. I'm Tyler Field. I'm
accompanied by Betsy and Jeff. They'll
[3:59] be presenting the project here to you
tonight. Um, just to give you a a
[4:03] project description and objective, the
the main objective that WM wanted to
[4:08] achieve with this project was to
continue to provide disposal services
[4:11] for the community. The landfill's been
in the community providing a a
[4:16] beneficial disposal service for the
community for up around 50 years. Um the
[4:21] proposed project includes constructing
an expansion of that facility of
[4:26] approximately 72 acres to the north and
to the east of the existing active fill
[4:31] area. Um this arrangement, this designed
arrangement was consciously contemplated
[4:37] to maximize layover and re reduce the
impacts to wetlands and the land use
[4:44] that that's there currently. So, we've
we've really spent a lot of time laying
[4:48] out this landfill, laying out the
expansion to maximize airspace to
[4:51] achieve the project goals, which is to
provide a long-term ongoing disposal
[4:55] service for the community while
minimizing the impacts to the land.
[5:00] Additionally, the area we selected has
already been zoned and approved by the
[5:03] local community for landfilling
activities. So, it fits well within the
[5:07] land use the community has already
designated for this area. Um Betsy is
[5:12] going to talk a little bit more about
how we uh went through the deciding the
[5:16] project's purpose and need and how we
met the goals of the per purpose and
[5:19] need through our designed expansion
process.
[5:25] » Thank you. So this project is in
response to a real and documented need.
[5:30] Um, waste management serves over uh 1.5
million um people in the regional area
[5:37] and um they are required by uh statute
to demonstrate that need as part of this
[5:43] process um for the landfill permitting
and as a result of that evaluation
[5:49] uh the regional disposal capacity and
the service area. So that includes waste
[5:53] disposal capacity from other landfills
that accept waste from from this
[5:57] regional area is expected to be um
depleted in 2033 and specifically at
[6:03] Metro by 2030.
So there's a need for more disposal
[6:08] capacity in the service area with the
estimated 14.7 million cubic yards of
[6:14] extra waste capacity that this expansion
would provide. that would extend Metro
[6:19] site life by an estimated 11 and a half
years, which is less than the maximum
[6:25] allowable 15 years um that is allowed
for either an expansion or a new
[6:30] landfill in Wisconsin.
Um, and the one of the keys to this is
[6:36] that it's uh it's taking advantage of
continuing landfill operations on a
[6:41] property that currently has landfill
operations and industrial uses at it
[6:44] rather than creating a new landfill on a
a brand new property that doesn't
[6:49] currently have those types of activities
occurring at it. So, there's three three
[6:52] primary objectives that this project
will achieve. The first again is that it
[6:57] utilizes maximizes the efficiency at an
existing site that has a landfill on it,
[7:02] has industrial uses. It allows the uh
waste management to be able to take
[7:07] advantage of that existing
infrastructure, site access, and the
[7:11] environmental controls and monitoring
systems that are already at this site.
[7:15] The second one is that it adds that kind
of long-term regional waste disposal
[7:20] capacity that we've just talked about as
a demonstrated need. Um and then the
[7:25] third is that it does retain key wetland
areas. There's five wetlands that will
[7:29] be um completely preserved. Um Jeff will
talk more about those in just a moment
[7:34] here. Um but what what I would like to
say about that is that um from the
[7:38] onset, Waste Management decided that
they would um preserve those five
[7:43] wetlands in entirety. So there's a
portion of them that just can't be
[7:48] impacted um because they are navigable.
But there are portions of those wetlands
[7:53] that are also not navigable. So the
waste management could have presented an
[7:57] option to um impact those non-navigable
portions of those five wetlands, but
[8:02] from the onset chose not to made a
conscious decision to maintain all of
[8:07] those and preserve all of those in their
in their entirety, which reduced the
[8:11] overall capacity that they could have
asked for right from the onset. This
[8:15] shows some meaningful avoidance that
waste management took and those
[8:18] constraints um have an impact on the
operational efficiency and the capacity
[8:23] that's provided by this but um waste
management has accepted those
[8:26] constraints with the selected
alternative.
[8:30] Um and then so this process requires us
to look at several different footprints
[8:35] that could be considered for this um
alternative
[8:39] um that would help to try to you know do
document that uh achieving that waste
[8:44] disposal capacity that's needed for this
region. Um and so there were like seven
[8:49] different alternatives that we evaluated
and revisions to a couple of them. So
[8:53] you know even I could say like maybe
like nine overall um alternative
[8:57] footprints that were looked at. One of
them, the the single one that would mean
[9:01] that no wetlands on the site would be
impacted, has a 3.6 million um cubic
[9:07] yard capacity, that's about a 75%
reduction of the 14.7 million cubic
[9:12] yards that are provided by this selected
alternative. Um and so that does not
[9:16] meet the the regional waste disposal
capacity needed. Um so so I just want to
[9:22] point that out. So the 10.21 is what
will be maintained. Those are those five
[9:26] that I've talked about. 7.66 66 will be
directly impacted by this. More so more
[9:31] were um maintained than than are
proposed to be impacted. And I think
[9:35] waste this this kind of selected
alternative really provides that balance
[9:40] of providing meaningful avoidance while
also meeting the project purpose and
[9:43] providing the waste disposal capacity
needs for this region. Um so now Jeff
[9:48] will kind of talk more about the the
wetlands themselves.
[9:50] » Thank you. Uh one of the first steps in
the planning process for this project
[9:55] was to identify and assess sensitive
resources and regulated resources. Um
[10:02] that includes wetlands. Um so wet the
wetlands on the property were all
[10:06] assessed, mapped, and delineated
um in the early planning stages so that
[10:12] we knew where where they were located,
what their quality was um and how they
[10:17] affected the planning of the project. um
uh detailed botanical surveys to
[10:22] understand the uh types of wetlands that
are present and the diversity of those
[10:28] wetlands were completed. Uh we completed
uh what are called functional value
[10:33] assessments of those wetlands proposed
to be impacted. So that is a process
[10:37] where we look at um ecological,
hydraological
[10:43] uh water quality, humid use uh functions
of those wetlands. Um uh we evaluated uh
[10:50] the presence of threatened and
endangered species within the project
[10:53] footprint. Uh we also evaluate just
historical land use in this area and on
[10:59] the project area to understand past
impacts and how they uh how those shaped
[11:05] the wetlands that are there today.
uh we had coordination and consultation
[11:10] with the US Army Corps of Engineers to
understand what federal regulations
[11:14] applied uh to the wetlands on site. Um
[11:22] as mentioned there uh 7.66 acres of
wetlands proposed to be impacted. The
[11:28] wetlands that are are proposed for
impacts are predominantly distur
[11:32] disturbed common wetland types. of wet
meadow, shallow marsh, uh lots of
[11:37] invasive species that dominate these
wetlands such as reed canary grass,
[11:41] cattails, and fragmitees.
Um most of the wetland functions of of
[11:47] those proposed for impacts rated as low
low functions. um water quality
[11:53] protection and storm water storage were
typical moderate functions of these
[11:57] wetlands uh just based on landscape
position and and no threatened or
[12:02] endangered species were identified
within the project area. Um those
[12:06] wetlands uh that were avoided as Betsy
mentioned uh those wetlands actually
[12:10] have some higher functioning resources
associated with them. they have greater
[12:16] plant and habitat diversity and several
of them have public water bodies
[12:21] associated with those wetlands that are
being avoided. Um just uh briefly on the
[12:27] historic context of the site uh just
looking at some of the older air photos
[12:32] before the the existing landfill was
present. This property was an
[12:35] agricultural use. Um it was regularly
rowcropped. There was drainage
[12:41] activities.
um there really wasn't much for
[12:45] functioning vegetated wetlands present.
Uh when the landfill became established
[12:49] on site, those land disturbance
activities ceased and and these wetlands
[12:53] started to develop, redevelop and
reveate on site. Um I think the
[12:58] important context from that is that
these are not intact remnant wetland
[13:03] communities. These are uh highly
historically disturbed wetlands that
[13:08] have had some amount of recovery uh
since the landfill has been associated
[13:13] with the property.
Um some of the uh protections that are
[13:18] uh in place for those wetlands that are
not directly impacted. Uh we have 50
[13:23] foot setbacks from from wetlands in
place to buffer uh those from the
[13:28] landfill. Um there are erosion and
sediment controls and operational
[13:33] protections in place um to avoid
secondary impacts. uh Waste Management
[13:39] submitted with their permit application
a a long-term wetland monitoring and
[13:44] management plan that would be able to
identify early potential unintentional
[13:50] secondary impacts and then has methods
and means for uh ceasing those impacts
[13:56] and remediating those. Um the storm
water management grading plans
[14:02] conveyance features are designed not
only to control runoff and treat it from
[14:07] the landfill, but they're actually
specifically designed to avoid
[14:11] hydraologic and sediment impacts to the
wetlands that remain on site.
[14:16] Um and I guess lastly for the
unavoidable wetland impacts that are
[14:22] proposed with this permit application
compensator compensatory wetland
[14:26] mitigation was proposed and that is
essentially offsetting each acre of
[14:31] wetland impacts with restoring wetlands
at another location within the same
[14:37] watershed.
Um so together these measures protect
[14:41] and retain wetlands and compensate for
those unavoidable losses.
[14:46] Thanks, Jeeoff. So, I'll bring it home.
So, folks, as you can see, we we put a
[14:49] lot of thought and effort into the
design and the layout of this expansion
[14:53] project. Um, I think you heard Betsy and
Jeff, there's there wasn't a there was a
[14:56] conscious effort to understand what we
have for wetland um, inventory out on
[15:02] our facility and on our available
property to expand to understand the
[15:07] impacts that we have and how we can
develop an expansion that minimizes the
[15:11] those direct impacts while protecting
the secondary impacts for the remaining
[15:15] wetlands. that was included in our
application. And the selected
[15:20] alternative that we've designed, we feel
minimizes those direct impacts, controls
[15:24] the secondary impacts to those wetlands,
and provides a service that that the
[15:29] community needs in a long-term disposal
outlet that protects human health and
[15:33] environment. Appreciate you guys coming
out tonight. I'll turn it back over to
[15:37] Travis.
>> Thank you, Tyler. At this time, Sonia
[15:40] will now talk about the department's
permit review process and preliminary
[15:44] decision.
[15:52] The Department of Natural Resources
reviews permit applications for wildland
[15:56] impacts under section 281.36 of
Wisconsin state statutes. The purpose of
[16:01] reviewing projects through an
application and permitting process is to
[16:04] ensure projects are in compliance with
statutory criteria for wetland impacts.
[16:09] State and federal regulations require
that the project demonstrates that
[16:13] avoiding wetland impacts was the first
step as the project is being designed.
[16:17] If the project cannot avoid wetland
impacts, this is described and
[16:21] documented in the applicant's
application materials. If it is
[16:25] adequately demonstrated that wetlands
cannot be avoided, the applicant
[16:29] thoroughly reviews alternatives and the
preferred alternative has to minimize
[16:32] wetland impacts to the greatest extent
practicable. In this case, the applicant
[16:37] is also required to mitigate wetland
impacts through the purchase of wetland
[16:40] mitigation credits. The department's
preliminary decision is to tenatively
[16:45] deny the permit for the proposed wetland
impacts.
[16:50] At this time, it is your opportunity to
provide formal oral comment or statement
[16:55] regarding the wetland permit application
under review. I will work through the
[16:59] list of hearing slips that have been
submitted
[17:02] and I will call on you. When I call your
name, please come up to the front of the
[17:06] room. State your name, address, who you
represent or position if any, and the
[17:10] content of your comment or concern.
[17:16] » John Nelson,
uh, Mayor Nelson, I'm sorry.
[17:20] » That's fine. Well, good evening and I
thank everybody for coming out today
[17:25] because this is an extremely extremely
important thing for our community. And
[17:31] looking back at the at the history on
this, I see the former mayor Tom Taylor
[17:36] and the former alderman Ken Skaransky
who authored this. And this was part of
[17:43] a Franklin undertaking an expansion with
a very long-term goal and vision in
[17:50] mind.
[17:53] What we look at now
as far as a fiscal impact
[17:59] in the city of Franklin, we've got five
taxing entities that make up your tax
[18:04] bill. For the Franklin residents that
are in here, there's five. So, you've
[18:08] got MMSD,
Milwaukee County,
[18:12] okay? You've got MATC,
schools, and the city of Franklin. So
[18:18] the city of Franklin portion of your tax
bill makes up about 24% of the pie.
[18:24] Okay? Now that 24% 80% goes to staff.
When you look at the fiscal impact of
[18:33] what the city of Franklin gets,
for example, last year ending 2025,
[18:43] I'm glad you're all seated.
$3.3 million we got for that year.
[18:51] This year projected 3.4.
Next year estimated 3.6 million. We get
[19:01] notice the trend.
[19:05] What we're looking at so far, what we've
collected is about $29.4
[19:11] million that came to the city of
Franklin.
[19:14] That's what balances budgets. That's
what makes things happen. That's what
[19:18] keeps our financial stability. So we can
look at you taxpayers and say, you know
[19:23] what, we offer a top tier community A1
services, fire, police, DPW, and you
[19:30] know what? Your Franklin portion of your
tax bill went up 2.8% last year on
[19:34] average. 2.8%.
I can't speak to the other four
[19:38] entities, but 2.8%.
This is huge for our city as we continue
[19:46] to plan our future
and this is vital vital when we come to
[19:52] balancing our budgets, our expectations
of our finances and to make sure we
[19:58] continue to provide top tier. I like
saying that term top tier because it's
[20:02] true. We live in a booming community but
a aside from that what makes it balance.
[20:08] This is vital to making it balance.
Thank you.
[20:15] » All right. Thank you, [clears throat]
>> Robert Whiti.
[20:23] [clears throat]
[20:28] [clears throat]
[20:31] » We came.
[20:36] » No. Uh, we'll take care of it. Thank
you.
[20:41] » Thanks for coming.
[20:49] » Okay. Uh, my name is Bob Whitkkey. I am
the state assembly representative for
[20:55] 63rd assembly district which you are
sitting in. The landfill is also in my
[21:00] district. I represent two host
communities, the city of Franklin and um
[21:06] the village of Raymond as well. So, u I
will also uh just to set a few facts
[21:14] straight, uh I have been out to the
site. I have met with uh waste
[21:19] management and their people to talk
about what they want to do, reviewed the
[21:23] site. Uh and I've also had a follow-up
call with your department after that to
[21:28] gain more information on permit.
So, I I appreciate the opportunity to
[21:34] provide testimony tonight um regarding
this proposed expansion. Uh I want I
[21:40] want to make sure this is clear. I am
here today to express my strong and
[21:44] undying support for the proposed
expansion and to respectfully ask the
[21:50] Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources to reconsider its tenative
[21:53] determination to deny the wetland uh
individual permit and I've got the
[21:59] number in case you want uh because
that's the information we got. It's
[22:03] IPSSE
202441-03989.
[22:08] Um, Waste Management uh currently owns
and operates the Northern Expansion West
[22:14] Landfill at the Metro Recycling and
Disposal Facility. Metro RDF provides an
[22:20] important waste disposal resource for
southeastern Wisconsin, receiving
[22:25] commercial, industrial, municipal, and
permitted special waste from
[22:29] municipalities,
businesses, and industries throughout
[22:32] the region, not simply serving one
community. And I think that should be
[22:37] underscored as well because by denying
this permit, denying this expansion in a
[22:43] time when everybody talks about
affordability, you are potentially
[22:48] opening up residents from throughout
Milwaukee County uh and in northern Rine
[22:54] County to additional costs. As John
said, um trying to hold the line on
[22:59] property tax, uh if this would not be
here, um that it would potentially lead
[23:06] to additional costs for each
municipality.
[23:09] The proposed Oakwood expansion would
provide additional capacity through both
[23:12] the horizontal and vertical expansion of
the existing facility. The horizontal
[23:17] expansion would encompass approximately
72.25 additional acres. proposal would
[23:22] directly impact um and I think you saw
that in the presentation. I have 11
[23:26] wetlands but I'll defer if I was too
heavy on the investment involving
[23:33] approximately 7.66 acres of permanent
wetland fill.
[23:38] I recognize um as uh representative of
the state that Wisconsin has a pro
[23:46] responsibility to protect its wetlands
and that any proposal in involving
[23:50] wetland impacts deserves careful
scrutiny. Thi that responsibility is
[23:57] precisely why I believe the department
should fully evaluate the public need
[24:01] for this project, the applicant's
proposed measures to avoid and minimize
[24:05] impacts and any required mitigation
before making a final decision. We
[24:11] should not lose sight of the larger
public interest question before us.
[24:16] The state government should work for its
constituents to minimize cost and to
[24:22] serve their interests instead of making
determinations that are contrary to what
[24:29] the community wants. Metro RDF provides
disposal capacity for municipalities and
[24:35] businesses across south uh eastern
Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wakaan, Rine
[24:39] counties uh generate substantial amounts
of waste every day. that waste does not
[24:44] disappear simply because landfill
capacity becomes more difficult to
[24:48] permit. If existing properly regulated
facilities cannot expand to meet
[24:55] demonstrated regional needs, the waste
must be transported somewhere else
[25:00] potentially increasing transportation
distances, costs, traffic and place a
[25:06] burden on the communities involved. Fact
of the matter and John mentioned this
[25:11] that well we have uh the overall impact
is about 5 million in annual revenue and
[25:18] that's to uh all the host communities.
Question before the department therefore
[25:23] should not be whether the wetlands are
important. they are. The question is
[25:27] whether this expansion with appropriate
environmental safeguards and mitigation
[25:32] can be permitted while balancing wetland
protection with the very real need for
[25:37] reliable regional waste disposal
capacity. I believe the balance is
[25:42] possible and as I said, I've been out to
the site. I have talked to waste
[25:46] management. Um though I'm not an expert
in landfill expansion, um I I know more
[25:53] than I probably should. The Oakwood
expansion is an expansion of an existing
[25:58] established waste management facility
rather than the creation of entirely new
[26:02] landfill in another location.
That distinction matters. Existing
[26:08] infrastructure, established
transportation routes and an existing
[26:13] operational framework can provide
significant public benefits compared
[26:17] with for forcing future disposal
capacity to be developed elsewhere. I
[26:23] also believe the department should
consider the consequences of denying
[26:27] this application. Southeastern Wisconsin
will continue to generate commercial,
[26:32] industrial, municipal, and permitted
special waste. The need for responsible
[26:37] disposal will not disappear with a
permit denial. Instead, the pressure
[26:41] will shift to other facilities and other
communities. As the department conducts
[26:46] its review under Wisconsin statutes
administrative code, I urge the DNR to
[26:51] consider the complete public interest
picture, including the regional need for
[26:56] disposal capacity, the benefits to
Franklin and Raymond and other host
[27:01] communities, the economic and practical
needs of southeastern Wisconsin
[27:05] businesses and municipalities, and the
applicant's ability to meet all
[27:09] applicable environmental requirements
and mitigation standards. And I'll make
[27:14] a comment on the historical side that I
was given when I was out at the
[27:18] property. It appears that uh Waste
Management has been a good business
[27:23] partner with the communities with the
constituents that reside here and I
[27:29] believe that that should be an
overwhelming consideration as to how you
[27:33] work through this. I respectfully ask
the Department of Natural Resources to
[27:38] reconsider its tenative determination to
deny the wetland individual permit and
[27:42] give the Oakwood expansion a thorough
and fair evaluation based on the full
[27:48] record, including the testimony
information uh presented at this public
[27:52] information hearing tonight. Uh thank
you for your consideration and I
[27:57] appreciate all those that came in
support for this. Um, like I said, state
[28:02] government should be working for us, not
putting roadblocks in between. Thank
[28:08] you.
[28:11] [applause]
[28:15] » Thank you, Bob. Danielle Kenny,
[28:25] thank you.
Good evening. My name is Danielle Kenny
[28:30] and I serve as the district 6 alderwoman
for the city of Franklin and I'm also a
[28:35] member of the finance committee and the
waste manage management facility sits in
[28:40] my district and I rep where I represent
and I actually live 1.2 miles away from
[28:44] it. Waste management has been a
responsible business in our community
[28:49] for decades and as a neighbor I can
vouch for the responsiveness
[28:53] responsiveness to issues as they arise.
Anytime that I've called with a problem,
[28:57] somebody calls me back immediately. And
to me, that speaks volumes about
[29:01] whatever mitigation that they have
planned and their follow through and the
[29:05] responsiveness to whatever it needs to
be addressed. I wanted to begin by
[29:10] acknowledging something important.
Wetlands have value. I don't believe
[29:14] Franklin's financial interests should
simply override environmental
[29:17] protections. And I'm not asking the DNR
to disregard the quality of these
[29:21] wetlands. I'm asking the the department
to consider the full picture before
[29:25] denying the permit.
This is an expansion of an existing
[29:29] regulated waste disposal facility that
already serves a significant portion of
[29:34] southeastern Wisconsin. Like uh Bob
Witkkey said, it doesn't disappear. It
[29:39] has to go somewhere. So, we're putting
in money to move it somewhere else and
[29:44] have different environmental needs
there. What I would like to know is um
[29:50] if the wetlands that are the problem are
considered high quality, what does the
[29:55] the department account for these
wetlands sitting at the base of the
[29:59] existing facility for decades and how
how does that impact the quality of
[30:05] them? Also, the DNR previously allowed
more than eight acres of wetland impact
[30:11] associated with an expansion of this
same facility with compensatory
[30:15] mitigation in the past. And I'm
wondering what's material materially
[30:20] different with these 7.66 acres that
makes it unacceptable. Now,
[30:26] there's a substantial public interest
component to this decision. Franklin
[30:30] receives, as you've heard, approximately
3 million annually in landfill sighting
[30:34] revenue. Losing it would create a
significant funding gap that would
[30:38] ultimately mean additional borrowing,
delayed infrastructure,
[30:42] reduced services, or an increased cost
to taxpayers.
[30:46] Franklin has hosted this regional public
necessity for decades. Our community
[30:50] accepts the trucks, environmental
impacts, monitoring, and long-term
[30:54] responsibility that come with it.
I respectfully ask the DNR to consider
[30:59] and the entire public interest, the
actual quality and function of these
[31:03] wetlands, the feasibility of mitigation,
regional waste disposal needs, the
[31:08] environmental consequences of sending
that waste elsewhere, and the
[31:11] significant impact denial would have on
the host community and the surrounding
[31:15] communities. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Danielle.
[31:22] Ken Scoransky.
[31:30] » [laughter]
[31:33] » No, no, no, no, no.
[31:38] » Okay.
>> Oh, no.
[31:45] » Please don't.
[32:01] No problem.
>> Come back. [laughter]
[32:06] » All right. Somebody else.
>> You're good.
[32:12] » Mr. Chairman, I can go in his place if I
can give him some rest.
[32:17] » Okay.
>> Yeah. Okay. All right. We can
[32:19] » Tom Taylor.
>> All right.
[32:22] Okay, let me see if I can
[32:27] » Tom Taylor.
>> Yeah, Tom.
[32:29] » Thank you very much.
>> Happens to me, too. I lose the
[32:32] circulation in my legs these days.
[snorts] Um uh I'm Tom Taylor. I'm the
[32:38] former mayor um city of Franklin.
[snorts and clears throat] I've served
[32:42] as the um as a chairman of the IC
elected by the mayors and village
[32:47] presidents of Milwaukee County and 19
municipalities.
[32:51] served as the director of human
resources for Milwaukee County and I
[32:55] served as the vice president of
Milwaukee District Council 48 ASME at
[32:59] one time. Um I also was alderman for
approximately five years.
[33:06] I was intimately involved in the
negotiations
[33:11] of the waste management contract met
here and many other places with the uh
[33:18] other communities. Raymond, Norway,
etc., etc., etc. I think when it was all
[33:23] said and done, it was something like
nine years that went into the
[33:28] negotiations that led to the final
contract. My recollection is Franklin
[33:34] did not want any expansion of the
landfill at all. Um, but under state
[33:40] law, you must negotiate in good faith or
you lose uh any negotiating ability that
[33:48] you have. So we did negotiate and we
came up with a settlement offer. Well, I
[33:55] understand that waste management and
Mike who used to be out there, we worked
[33:59] with him and he was pretty good with uh
you know the uh the dump site and
[34:03] everything.
Um well it's good we were not the city
[34:09] was not in favor of any expansion at
all. So, we came up with this
[34:14] compromise. And the compromise basically
is you got to stay in the box. You can't
[34:20] go uh past 112th. You can't go past
124th. You can't go past Oakwood Road.
[34:26] And you can't go past South County Line
Highway. You have to stay in the box.
[34:31] But, Mr. Chairman, there's a flyer that
has been distributed widely throughout
[34:36] the community. I've I've been told it's
actually emanated coming from the dump
[34:42] site. It's being passed out by waste
management. I I don't know if this is
[34:47] true or not, but in that document,
it's basically saying that if they don't
[34:53] get the wetland expansion,
then the tipping fees and the ability to
[35:00] dump at the site and all of the other
things that were negotiated in the
[35:05] contract will basically disappear.
And that's not the case at all. As I
[35:10] understand it, 77 acres you're not
contesting for the expansion. What waste
[35:17] what the DNR is contesting is the 7 odd
acres of wetland.
[35:24] And so that flyer that's out there, I
think has misled many in the public that
[35:29] they won't be able to take their
trailers like I do out there and dump uh
[35:34] or that the city is going to be
restricted in getting the money that it
[35:40] has been gained that has it has gotten
over the years and it's a substantial
[35:45] amount of money. But I I also have to
tell you that when I was in there and
[35:50] Ken was an alderman, the money that w
that came from the from the landfill, it
[35:58] was the policy decision that those
monies be only used for capital
[36:02] projects. And the reason for that is
when the landfill was finally
[36:08] uh filled in the box, I'll say, and it
stopped and the money stopped pouring in
[36:15] that you would not have to raise the
taxes in Franklin by 20 or 30%. you
[36:20] would just simply the capital projects
you would have to go out maybe at a
[36:24] referendum maybe you'd have to go out
for borrowing but the money was never
[36:28] intended to be used for the general fund
to pay off let's say the police contract
[36:32] or the fire contract or anything like
that and so I think it's it's important
[36:37] to note that well waste management I
have to say very professional but it
[36:43] wasn't out of the kindness of their
heart that they did all these things it
[36:47] came through really hard hard
negotiations. And just so you know, this
[36:52] gentleman up here and I met with three
county executives. We met with three
[36:58] secretaries of the DNR. I took the
proposal along with Mr. Wesalowski to
[37:03] the mayors and village presidents, which
at that time included Scott Walker and
[37:08] Tom Barrett,
and to get their support to support us
[37:13] on keeping the expansion within the box.
and we were eventually successful in
[37:19] that, but it was very, very hard
negotiations. Almost fell apart a
[37:23] hundred times. So, with that, I thank
you for allowing me to speak.
[37:31] » Thank you, Tom.
Doug White. Oh, Ken, are you
[37:35] » That's right. That's right.
>> Ken, you got the microphone in your hand
[37:38] if you're Are you comfortable?
>> Anybody else can speak? I got it. No, I
[37:42] should. Okay. Thank you very much and I
apologize. my leg is getting better and
[37:46] fell asleep and everything everything
else. So, uh I'm Ken Skansky. Uh I'm a
[37:52] resident. My residents when I first came
to Franklin was part of the landfill
[37:58] that they own now. And since then, they
have done a tremendous job. They've been
[38:03] very cooperative
uh all the way along and then I became
[38:08] the alderman for the area and
it never changed. They were always very
[38:13] cooperative. They got things done. They
listened to the common council, the
[38:17] mayor, uh the citizens. They were here.
Their heart was here. They get things
[38:22] done and get things done right. So,
there's a lot of negotiations that
[38:27] nobody ever sees or does. Tom and the
mayor, great job uh getting this things
[38:33] accomplished. And uh I'm for uh
accepting the waste management's
[38:40] proposal. uh have the DNR uh help
receive this and get it done. Uh I was
[38:48] there when a lot of that wetland wasn't
there. So I don't know how it it it got
[38:54] a little extra land changes a little
bit, but they've always been very
[38:58] professional in getting things done and
I I admire them for it because it's is
[39:04] quite a task. So, I can I can't say
anymore that the other uh people have
[39:11] said it's all been very good. Uh and I
don't want to take up any more time or
[39:15] stumble around. My league is finally
getting back awake. So, I thank you very
[39:20] much and thank the DNR for being here
and Mayor Nelson and Mayor uh Taylor. Uh
[39:26] it's always been very good uh to serve
the city of Franklin. Thank you.
[39:33] » Thank you, Ken.
[39:44] Doug,
>> this Doug.
[39:47] » Yes. Okay.
>> Doug, what
[39:53] I'm Doug White. I'm [clears throat] the
president of the village of Raymond. Uh
[39:57] Raymond strongly supports responsible
[clears throat]
[40:00] environmental stewardship and the
protection of wetlands.
[40:04] But we also believe that environmental
decisions should evaluate the full
[40:08] consequences of of the alternatives
before us.
[40:11] This is not simply a Franklin landfill.
DNR's own notice states that the
[40:16] majority of the waste received in the
metro comes from Milwaukee, Walka, and
[40:20] Rine counties. Metro currently handles
hundreds of thousands of tons of waste
[40:24] annually and reportedly only has 3 to 5
years remaining of capacity. If Metro
[40:30] closes, that waste does not disappear.
It must be transported to other disposal
[40:34] facilities for Raymond. This has very
very real consequences.
[40:39] Our village currently receives about
$325,000
[40:42] uh annually associated with this
facility. For a small community that
[40:46] represents a significant operating
effect, that's 15% of our budget.
[40:52] But my concern goes beyond the revenue.
In southeastern Wisconsin's waste must
[40:58] instead travel greater distances. Those
additional truck miles have consequences
[41:03] and additional fuel consumption,
emissions, traffic, and wear on the
[41:07] roads that those trucks use. Rural
communities like Raymond ultimately bear
[41:12] part of the burden for that extra
infrastructure.
[41:16] The proposal before the DNR involves
approximately 7.66 acres of permanent
[41:20] wetland impact within a roughly 72 acre
horizontal expansion. Wisconsin's
[41:25] permitting process provides mechanisms
for avoidance, minimization, and
[41:30] compensatory mitigation. Therefore, I
respectedly asked the DNR to consider
[41:35] the complete environmental equation. Has
the DNR compared the environmental
[41:39] impact of mitigating these wetlands
against the impact to the environment of
[41:43] transporting hundreds of thousands of
tons of waste across southeast Wisconsin
[41:48] to another facility? Has the department
exhausted reasonable opportunities to
[41:52] redesign, minimize, mitigate the wetland
impacts before concluding the outright
[41:57] denial is is the appropriate result?
Raymond is not asking the DNR to
[42:02] disregard Wisconsin's wetlands. We are
asking the DNR to consider whether an
[42:06] environmentally responsible expansion
with appropriate avoidance,
[42:10] minimization, mitigation may produce a
better overall environmental and public
[42:14] outcome than simply moving the region's
waste, truck traffic, and environmental
[42:18] impact. somewhere else. Thank you.
[42:23] » Thank you, Doug. [applause]
[42:28] » Vince
Trippy.
[42:30] » Trippy. All right.
[42:33] » Thank you. Vince Trippy, 6910 South
Lovers Lane Road, Franklin. I've lived
[42:38] in Franklin or Greenfield my whole life.
I got my degrees from University of
[42:42] Wisconsin Milwaukee. Environmental
scientist for a career. I worked for the
[42:47] Center for Great Lakes Studies for four
years before I went into envir
[42:50] environmental engineering. I worked at
the largest environmental engineering
[42:54] system in the world. I worked on dozens
of landfills in the 42 states and Canada
[42:59] and Mexico. And it doesn't make sense to
me to develop a new landfill when we
[43:05] have a functioning quality landfill in
existence and working. The word
[43:09] mitigation means to make a deal to
offset costs, benefits, and trade to
[43:16] make a a project go forward. It doesn't
mean that it's a stop dead rationale to
[43:23] the project. So, I'm in in favor of
moving forward with the the mitigation
[43:28] of the wetland to let the expansion go
forward. Thank you.
[43:32] » Thank you, Vince. [applause]
[43:37] Joe Walter Spear Jr.
[43:54] » Uh, the card said, my name is Joe Spear.
I am the landfill compliance officer for
[44:00] the city of Franklin and have been for
over 20 years. But I'm standing here to
[44:03] speak as a professional in the industry
and everybody has covered so well how
[44:08] important it is that this landfill
exists and others. So I'm going to ask
[44:12] the DNR to take a look at something that
I've me mentioned before in swana
[44:16] conversations and so on. We are at a
point now where we have not done our due
[44:21] diligence. We never reinstalled the
bands for cardboard. We haven't done
[44:25] anything to reduce the waste going into
our landfills. And now we're talking
[44:28] about not expanding.
So, we now need to consider airspace as
[44:34] a natural resource. And we are running
out of airspace. And this landfill, I
[44:39] always joke in Emerald Park, God said
put it here. Here's a big plug of clay.
[44:44] Big plugs of clay have wetlands. You
find a site without wetlands, you're
[44:49] going to have soil problem.
And oh, I have one question. If I write
[44:53] the DNR, can I get a list of reasons why
they're considering denial? It was a
[44:58] statement, not a not supported.
>> So, we can you'll see in the decision
[45:05] all of those reasons. It'll be written
out. We can get you a copy of the
[45:08] decision. Absolutely.
>> Thank you, Joe. Joe,
[45:15] just
[45:27] Billy Faze.
[45:39] Okay,
I kind of got sid sidetracked when uh
[45:45] Tyler made a comment about 50 years. So,
I want to Tyler, I think you're a little
[45:50] bit off on that because the word has it
old man Knight tried starting that
[46:00] landfill 1938.
Okay, there's got to be somebody around
[46:06] here that knows Rolley, you
>> Can you back me on that one? Roly,
[46:13] [laughter]
[46:15] » Harvey, you've been around too, but
I do believe, if I remember right,
[46:23] Waybot Metro
1984,
[46:28] 83ish.
So, this landfill has been around a long
[46:33] time.
I'm 60 years old
[46:38] and I'm trying to look to see I might be
one of between Harvey Sitzer and I we're
[46:46] probably the closest to the landfill
where we live.
[46:51] Been there for 60 years.
My family been there. My uncle bought
[46:58] the farm in 1946 when he got home from
World War II.
[47:03] Uh
he made a comment
[47:07] one of the last times maybe 30 years, 25
years ago when we have to come to this
[47:13] to support the landfill.
He said,
[47:18] "You know what?
Everybody's arguing about that landfill.
[47:23] Everybody should be responsible about
their own garbage. Maybe they should
[47:28] back or bury it in their backyard.
And I'm thinking, boy, uncle, you're
[47:33] getting old that doesn't make sense. But
you know what? It kind of does make
[47:36] sense. Everybody should be responsible
their own garbage and bury it in their
[47:40] own backyard. Very easy for him to say.
He had 80 acres behind his house. What
[47:47] do you do with the land? What What do
you do when you live in the city? Where
[47:52] does the garbage have to go?
So why don't we just leave it there? Let
[48:00] him expand
because
[48:04] can I ask Tyler a question and can he
answer it?
[48:08] » Tyler, [clears throat]
>> if they if if they say you can't build
[48:12] no more, where do you go to find land?
>> Do you look at a subdivision and go,
[48:19] we'll do it here. we're going to knock
all these houses down or do you go to a
[48:23] farm and say we'll buy up your farm and
we'll put the landfill here.
[48:30] Doesn't that mean how ridiculous is
that?
[48:34] Now
you can see all these data centers going
[48:37] up. They're taking up a lot of land
farmland.
[48:43] We're going to run out of food to feed
not just America but the world.
[48:50] They're already making meat in
factories.
[48:53] Think about it. Next time you go to
McDonald's,
[48:57] six billion hamburgers served a day. Now
we're going to [sighs] get rid of a
[49:02] landfill
to eat up more farmland.
[49:07] Well, I'm sorry, but I like to eat. You
can see.
[49:13] Think about that. I bet you every one of
you up there like to eat. I bet you
[49:17] everybody in this room likes to eat.
Think about burning up more
[49:25] farmland
when we got a night. The land's right
[49:29] there.
Why?
[49:34] Let's just leave it. Leave it there.
Thank you.
[49:40] [applause]
Thank you, Billy.
[49:45] Kevin Lele.
[49:56] » Thank you. Uh my name is Kevin Lele. I
am a resident in the village of Raymond.
[50:01] I um on purpose came here as a civilian.
I didn't but um I'm also the assistant
[50:07] chief on the fire department. So came to
assist uh this gentleman here as he fell
[50:12] on the floor. So was happy to get him
back in this chair. So
[50:17] um a lot of people today waste
management representative Whitkkey um
[50:21] the mayors my village president have
said way more than what I have in my
[50:27] notes what I have in my notes and then
more said I'm here in strong support.
[50:32] Um, the only thing I had to say for the
DNR, they they're doing a good job of
[50:36] the wetlands management and that in fact
the tile system in the area, you know,
[50:42] for the farmers that was put in over a
100 years ago is failing and the
[50:46] wetlands are in fact growing. um delin
the lination where the make the mark the
[50:53] wetlands is growing and
if the DNR took a look all the wetlands
[50:58] are
growing and you know there's more of
[51:02] them and if the waste management is
willing to
[51:05] help with that process and offset the
the waste the wetlands that they're
[51:10] taking away I just believe that that's a
a no-brainer for the DNR to use this
[51:16] existing property and expand it and kick
that can down the road before we have to
[51:21] take away another farm. Thank you. My
name's Kevin Lele.
[51:24] » Thank you, Kevin.
[applause]
[51:30] » Uh, and I had one person that was
undecided, Suzanne.
[51:38] I'm Suzanne Mayor. Uh, 9733 West Ryan
Road, Franklin. So, I'm 2 miles from
[51:44] the,
um, facility. Um, I was actually I'm
[51:50] here because I live close by and I'm
always interested in the landfill. Um,
[51:58] I was actually very surprised at the
fact that we learned that you're in
[52:03] you're considering denying
the proposal. Um,
[52:09] surprises me because I kind of thought
that it we were all here to discuss what
[52:14] the expansion was actually going to be.
Um, this map wasn't gone over. I don't
[52:20] know why. Um, kind of seems like that
showed maybe what the plan was supposed
[52:26] to be or is supposed to be. But I do
want to just say um
[52:36] I would be in favor of the expansion
with the understanding of what um Mayor
[52:43] Taylor had said that it doesn't go
beyond those um parameters originally
[52:49] set in place. Um
[52:54] the only thing that I do have a question
about is actually to the city of
[53:00] Franklin and that is to say why would we
think that this is a vital
[53:06] part of our budget. This cannot be a
vital part of our budget. This does come
[53:10] to an end at some point. um whether it's
you know 3 to 5 years from now or what
[53:18] is it 11 or 15 years from now it
that is scary to me as a resident. Um
[53:27] and I think that that is the biggest
question that we need to that we need to
[53:33] solve. But I am definitely um not
opposed to expan this expansion. Um I
[53:39] would be very curious to um Danielle's
um question as to what the what's the
[53:45] difference between these wetlands and
the wetlands from before that you know I
[53:51] have had experience with the DNR just
blowing past wetlands when they want to
[53:56] and making a big deal out of them when
um
[54:01] it's fits their purpose I guess. Um,
this is within a dump. The the city of
[54:07] Franklin
set this up. It's within a parameter.
[54:13] These are the wetlands that are in this
um facility. And if they're not
[54:22] really great, I don't really know what
the what the problem is. And there are
[54:27] already ones that are being set aside to
protect. So just a lot of questions
[54:33] brought up because I did not know a lot
coming into this meeting. Um now I know
[54:39] a lot. So thank you.
>> Thank you Suzanne. [applause]
[54:46] » Is there anyone else wanting to change
their mind and provide an oral comment
[54:50] today?
[55:00] All right.
[55:03] » If you've changed your mind, then
>> Yeah.
[55:06] » You need my form.
>> Did you fill out one?
[55:09] » Yeah. Okay.
>> I walked in late and
[55:10] » Okay. If you have one, I'd love to get
it just so I have your name so I can
[55:14] take notes on what you say.
>> Okay. You need name, address.
[55:18] » Yeah.
>> Can you give the form?
[55:21] » Can you give me the form?
[55:30] Thank you.
[55:43] Oh.
[56:09] No, the the slip just so we have a
>> she's working on it. Yeah,
[56:16] » sorry.
>> Yeah, it just helps me keep track of
[56:20] what you say and
[56:24] » that's all right.
[56:30] Hi, my name is Mera Cresvic. I am the
district 4 alder. I also sit on the
[56:36] finance committee and I've lived in
Franklin since 1971.
[56:40] Um, the landfill has been here and I do
consider myself an environmentalist.
[56:48] I do believe that it makes more sense to
expand the existing landfill than to
[56:55] create a new one elsewhere. The
wetlands, as were discussed, I was
[57:01] listening on the way over. If I
understood correctly, were previously
[57:05] farmed
and we all know what chemicals do in
[57:10] farmland. You had stated there's a lot
of invasive species there. You had
[57:16] stated that the are lowquality wetlands.
So I failed to understand
[57:22] adequately why this would be denied.
Thank you for your time and allowing me
[57:26] to speak.
>> Thank you, Mera.
[57:35] Is there anyone else?
Sir
[57:49] Thank you, sir.
[57:54] » Ron Dretzka, did I get it right?
>> All right, good.
[57:58] » I had one question. I I did what didn't
hear it mentioned, but I remember years
[58:03] ago that what they down there they had
to uh eliminate houses that the water
[58:09] wells got poisoned. Is that a concern?
Now,
[58:15] you know, you're expanding.
Now, what happens when that expansion
[58:21] reaches wells that are still
that people don't have city drinking
[58:27] water? They still got wells. I got a
still got a well. What does that do to
[58:33] my well? Anything. I live on 94th and
Ryan.
[58:38] How far does that go? because I know
those houses had to be removed. People
[58:43] had to move from there to my
neighborhood which is on 94th and Ryan.
[58:49] They had to be bought out.
So, a lot of these older guys probably
[58:54] know that. They know this. So,
so
[59:00] sorry guys
you young guys. But yeah, I mean just
[59:05] something to consider and I haven't
heard it in this meeting at all but
[59:10] Is that a consideration in your
assessments? And when you check the
[59:15] ground and all that, how far does that
travel?
[59:19] Because you're talking about toxics and
whatever comes to the dump go leeches
[59:23] into the ground. How far does that go
into the ground to other pe to people's
[59:29] wells or or uh places of where they
live? I mean, is there some way to
[59:37] measure that? It's not really a part of
>> this review. Y
[59:41] » isn't. Okay. I'm sorry.
>> Appreciate Ron. No, I your comments well
[59:44] received. It's not part of the wetland
process, but there is another part of
[59:47] our solid waste permitting process that
will address your concerns. There's a
[59:51] extensive hydrogeeologic study that we
have to perform as part of a different
[59:56] process than what Travis Travis is
talking about tonight that looks at the
[1:00:01] groundwater flow patterns underneath our
proposed expansion. We design a robust
[1:00:05] monitoring system and a robust liner
system that goes through a DNR peritting
[1:00:09] solid waste permitting process, okay, to
ensure that those protective measures
[1:00:13] get first put in place and then that
there's a monitoring system beyond those
[1:00:19] that liner system to ensure that if
there was a leak in that system, we
[1:00:24] would detect it prior to it meeting a
downstream receptor like a private. So
[1:00:28] that that that process will
>> okay
[1:00:30] » unfold if if part of if if we can get
through this process which is we have to
[1:00:36] understand if the area we proposed for
this expansion we can receive the
[1:00:40] wetland fill permit.
>> Okay.
[1:00:41] » So good comment not related to what's
being talked about tonight but it will
[1:00:45] be addressed.
>> Um I assure you.
[1:00:48] » Okay. Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you Ron. Is there
[1:00:52] anyone else? Thought I saw a hand. Just
want to make sure.
[1:01:06] All right,
with that I'll start the closing
[1:01:09] statement. Uh,
I would again like to remind you that
[1:01:14] written comments may still be submitted
to me, Travis Rder, no later than
[1:01:19] Friday, September 4th, 2026. and all
written comments submitted will have the
[1:01:23] same weight and effect as the oral
comments and statements given at the
[1:01:26] hearing today. If there are no further
comments, I truly want to thank you on
[1:01:31] behalf of the Wisconsin DNR for your
attendance here today. The hearing is
[1:01:34] now over.