[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.

Public Informational Hearing for Wetland Disturbance - 8/25/2026 - 6 PM

Transcript