[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6075357,"mediaKeyId","2979824-5fac92826a52b6a152fba85308ec1efd","parentId",2979824,"title","Votes at a glance: Rusk County committee approves minutes, payments, CSMs, travel and a resolution recommendation","audioSeconds",3201,"startMs",220000,"endMs",3421000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2979824-5fac92826a52b6a152fba85308ec1efd&start=220&end=3421","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2979824-5fac92826a52b6a152fba85308ec1efd/thumbnail_220000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6075357/Rusk-County/Wisconsin/Votes-at-a-glance-Rusk-County-committee-approves-minutes-payments-CSMs-travel-and-a-resolution-recommendation","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6075357-81a75406d6c94dcd1dc409d2446096ec/orig.mp4?Expires=1775476149&Signature=VPnTfiT3WqvsBSiqZvVnkDTBZBRlp9dQsgha1ijFtfOlAbe0twICjv2IEtZpt63xveYb9F0GovuEsjGRN5lb0614tIz5s6xT-xtUmesR2MOzmsF8S0J~SgQC80h~vPARJpVpG5e~pxeL~1AmHZC-DQMkhlxZoXFYawknEwf1EmuuNIfgCk0bbop-TvVcJmK9mOx~ZkeCigtl7wx2suVE79j3pB-jybJ-knAJZQE7tLbWpSE8qmcLq0-SaJLz72TfUyQRtGiacGLMASnfYSJ-Ljxsvi25D1LNeryjoIPsvdzJjlWlwGn~cgrjPAGqAJ3RWDLg3f1P8iSqj61YBlb-wg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","WI / Rusk County","date","2025-04-08T00:00:00Z","article","The Rusk County committee recorded a series of routine and substantive actions by voice vote during the meeting.

Key results

- Minutes: Committee approved the minutes of the March 11 meeting by voice vote; no recorded opposition.

- Payment approval report: Committee approved the payment approval reports as presented by voice vote.

- Certified Survey Maps (CSMs): The committee approved three CSMs presented for review: a three‑lot CSM in the town of Rusk for Mark Kennedy (one lot ~4 acres; second lot ~1 acre), a one‑lot CSM in the town of Big Bend for Bonnie Barley (dividing buildings from farmland), and a one‑lot CSM in the town of Marshall for Jerome Metesky (dividing farm buildings from farmland). Each CSM was approved on motions with voice votes; no recorded opposition was noted in the meeting transcript.

- Out‑of‑county travel: The committee approved out‑of‑county travel requests for the register of deeds (WRDA and the Fiddler symposium) and authorized related hotel spending up to previously used limits; approved on voice vote.

- Staff training (Python/ArcGIS Pro): Committee approved enrollment for an online Python scripting course for staff (course fee cited at $895) using the staff development/training budget.

- Transfer‑fee legislation resolution recommendation: Committee voted to recommend that the county board adopt a resolution supporting the state transfer‑fee bill described to the committee (voice vote; no recorded opposition). See a separate article for details.

How votes were recorded: Most motions were approved by voice vote; the meeting recorded “aye” responses without individual roll‑call tallies. The meeting transcript records no roll‑call tallies or named recorded votes for these items.

Ending: Staff will prepare documents and a resolution for the county board where required; approved CSMs will be recorded following normal recording procedures.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Rusk County Zoning Land Information Committee April 8, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The committee approved routine minutes and payment reports, approved three certified survey maps, authorized out‑of‑county travel for staff, approved staff training, and voted to recommend a resolution supporting the transfer‑fee bill.","taxTitle","Rusk County , Wisconsin","taxId",76550,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6075362,"Rusk County planners begin aligning shoreland code with DNR model; limited technical edits proposed",216,3632000,3848000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2979824-5fac92826a52b6a152fba85308ec1efd&start=3632&end=3848","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2979824-5fac92826a52b6a152fba85308ec1efd/thumbnail_3632000.jpg","/articles/6075362/Rusk-County/Wisconsin/Rusk-County-planners-begin-aligning-shoreland-code-with-DNR-model-limited-technical-edits-proposed","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6075362-6d9f428ebdd8342ea06a77ba5bb279f2/orig.mp4?Expires=1775476149&Signature=Ojc0x2a5vafwoNArfgaZ8ijTblmDpJClQelk0nEDt-o7JuNMxyiJVUuKM0p0PYqAjWDXaZEQ-GLJoKA2Hy0ClaHj68LM4-1ECbQRbvg3qdIbrDw1KL7kGrfsAC40uwwpFPc0l7-ZVX4zJZhc2P3R--D3dmzuSeuVeOg2~4SadzqVA6SouhsExBVPuft3vbNLIGQ6sVmTgICQ-MYJz58zTmG8SeQS3y-Zn~uySMttK0YoPwvVJVFKf7zmyB7Ztahk~KRIwhijyzNVtQnjl6q064dO~fUvXckZmFDaCgtWBKBR-CULJ8suHObMEHeT5Z7wWco0aUn19-7cw5R7n4FBWQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Rusk County zoning staff reviewed planned edits to the county’s shoreland zoning ordinance to align local language with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) model ordinance and recently passed state provisions.

Zoning administrator Yvonne told the committee staff propose modest edits rather than wholesale changes: break up existing boathouse language for clarity; explicitly exclude boathouses from the 200 square‑foot floor‑area cap applied to open‑sided or screened structures in the shoreland setback; add “rail system” to the list of dock and pier features; and insert fence language that mirrors a new state provision for fences near roadways.

Staff said the edits are largely technical and intended to make local code consistent with statutory citations and the DNR model. The changes would maintain local limits such as the 35‑foot minimum setback for open‑sided or screened structures and a 10‑foot wall height maximum, while clarifying that boathouses do not count toward the 200 square‑foot limit for certain setback structures.

The zoning review also noted a DNR‑modeled fence exemption for roadway‑adjacent fences that meet detailed dimensional conditions (for example, a location requirement landward of the ordinary high‑water mark and defined distance limits from road edges). Staff said the fence exception likely applies to very few properties in the county but must be added to local code to conform to state language.

Next steps: Staff will incorporate the edits into a draft ordinance, submit it to the DNR for review and then schedule the changes for a public hearing and final county action after the DNR’s review.

Ending: Staff emphasized the changes are principally clarifying and not intended to broadly expand or restrict current local regulation; the draft will return for further committee and public review.","Zoning staff reviewed proposed updates to shoreland ordinance language to match the Department of Natural Resources model, including boathouse exclusions, open‑sided structure language and a new fence exemption near roadways.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":46,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6075367,"Committee recommends resolution backing transfer‑fee changes intended to bolster county land‑information funding",588,2833000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2979824-5fac92826a52b6a152fba85308ec1efd&start=2833&end=3421","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2979824-5fac92826a52b6a152fba85308ec1efd/thumbnail_2833000.jpg","/articles/6075367/Rusk-County/Wisconsin/Committee-recommends-resolution-backing-transferfee-changes-intended-to-bolster-county-landinformation-funding","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6075367-54305eadb465d6cbcd9c2afbfb71a072/orig.mp4?Expires=1775476149&Signature=l~ApdqoCTsA09OCtKEugKZNnOlNSYnlzZ8YEGF7AxuFM-rlEbNnCNZ9QF7XXDifZPBm3uhbryu3Z-9YUMa2FQDFh-WvB5uEWTTyqZAfgSUU5CSnyqQr3jWfcN7-dciTbK0HMWo7~2ULNUv~9hVOt4vhU8cZOBPhCEX8NG9SKjK6XavoQJQYTldd8hafNpNS-K0hHGsoDhOQQWs3cCGFhDoOWMH0Y2XvDcW3iNe90id1M3oqkiIKUaHKOeG666g~ITxYQOrffS-a~w3zKSXwEq0cySE~MeClALrK07WCK4ANTrVsOKIxqYhpQF7xhYQ62-HRVqn8fgWvHQtRg8viYjw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Rusk County committee members voted to ask the county board to adopt a resolution supporting state legislation to alter real‑estate transfer fees and distribution formulas, staff said.

Under the bill described to the committee, the statewide transfer fee would drop to $2 per $1,000 of value (noted in discussion as $2 per thousand). The bill would change the distribution so counties retain 50 percent of the fee, 30 percent goes to the state general fund and 20 percent funds a land‑information account; a statutory guarantee would direct a fixed share back to counties as grants. Committee members said the proposal also would raise the minimum county land‑information grant from $100,000 to $175,000 and increase funding for training and strategic grants.

Why it matters: County speakers said Rusk County stands to gain relative to the current formula because of the higher county retention percentage and the larger base grant. Staff cautioned that statewide totals and redistributions depend on mortgage market activity and the final bill language, and they noted the state would forgo some revenue under the proposal.

Committee action: The committee approved a motion to recommend that the county board adopt a resolution supporting the transfer‑fee legislation; the motion passed on a voice vote with no recorded opposition.

Staff comments and caveats: Land‑information staff said that, depending on final distribution rules, more counties may qualify for grants and that the net benefit to Rusk County is likely positive but that the exact effect depends on final bill text and statewide revenue flows. Staff also noted retained‑fee revenue for counties has fallen in recent years (a cited internal figure showed a 43 percent decline in retained fees since 02/2023) and that the new formula’s benefits will depend on broader market conditions.

Ending: Committee members asked staff to draft a supporting resolution for the county board and to provide the board with background tables and the local fiscal implications once bill language is final.","Committee members voted to recommend the county board adopt a resolution supporting a state bill that would lower the per‑transaction transfer fee but shift a larger share to counties and increase minimum grant floors for land information programs.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6075372,"Rusk County staff draft local policies to handle Act 235 shielding requests",115,2047000,2162000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2979824-5fac92826a52b6a152fba85308ec1efd&start=2047&end=2162","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2979824-5fac92826a52b6a152fba85308ec1efd/thumbnail_2047000.jpg","/articles/6075372/Rusk-County/Wisconsin/Rusk-County-staff-draft-local-policies-to-handle-Act-235-shielding-requests","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6075372-7fb040d66f4a474813de333dfa151a61/orig.mp4?Expires=1775476149&Signature=Mgy78tnskFFALRXrnQF6P3d4uif1yBxGUawCNCXLCZ3biBJIYKYqpbRg0-t-a0UwPqRfccmyWK-1WsacIqf6XF7VFV-M~jR13GaTLOMriHb11YAoMTKk2fME3Oy36NB0dOlI-bmVerkp4SmSHFfUuyr1RvDYFuD960ivGTbj~8g7ORvHpQ0QVLK-pim3UOcbGYzA2Hs4fOMsE~-8IPmUcOgruR6AMWkoxY0gsZDvX-WlXj9HE5mGFfCthSMgwGYPV3p3yR6vtib~kq3YJXX9L6PKH4-pBfGN5NQ5Bj555muBaWsF0BciHjrTS-2T~CT897DrwPMWMdgxY8UuuX5YDg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a Rusk County committee meeting, the register of deeds described departmental draft procedures to implement Act 235 requests to shield specified public records from the county’s public indexes.

The draft described by Mary, the register of deeds, would remove shielded documents from the public index, store originals in a locked, classified file and keep an electronic scanned copy in a secure folder accessible only to intake staff; an edited copy with personally identifiable information redacted would remain for routine local use. Mary said the shielded status would last “10 years or death.”

The proposal grew out of questions about a judicial officer’s request to shield a certified survey map (CSM) and uncertainties about how shielding would appear on committee agendas and county web maps. Department speakers said the county’s mapping platform (the “Beacon” parcel web map) already supports parcel‑level shielding that hides searchable names and permit links from public view but said paper records and local file practices still require clear internal rules.

Why it matters: Act 235 shielding affects how property and court‑related records appear in public databases and on county websites, and it can change how staff process and index land records. Committee members repeatedly said procedures must preserve legally required survey information while protecting personal identifiers when the law requires shielding.

County staff and committee members sought to balance statutory obligations and operational details. The proposed local practice would:
- Place flagged records in a locked file and add a visible cover sheet to hard copies noting “shielded information — do not copy or distribute.”
- Retain a full scanned original in a secure folder accessible only to intake staff and keep a redacted electronic version for routine internal use.
- Use parcel‑level checks in the web map to create a “black hole” effect: the parcel outlines remain but searchable details and permit links are suppressed.

Committee members raised practical questions that staff said remain unresolved: how agendas will show a mix of shielded and unshielded CSMs, whether the assessor or treasurer systems will be able to honor shields, and how to revert shielding if a shielded person later authorizes release. Mary and other staff said departments will supply their draft policies to the county administration and the county’s resolution calls for each department to build on the county policy and route drafts to administration and county legal staff for review.

The committee did not adopt a uniform county policy at the meeting; staff said departments will refine their drafts and that the board’s policy framework already contemplates departmental procedures.

Staff and committee members asked staff to document operating steps and a checklist for later review so county employees who handle land records will be able to identify and process shielded documents consistently.

Ending: Staff said they will continue to refine the departmental procedures and return with language and a recommended operational checklist for committee and administrative review.","Register of Deeds and department staff described draft procedures to remove or redact certain public records under Act 235, but raised practical questions about implementation, cross‑office access and duration of shields.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Rusk County committee approves minutes, payments, CSMs, travel and a resolution recommendation

Rusk County planners begin aligning shoreland code with DNR model; limited technical edits proposed

Committee recommends resolution backing transfer‑fee changes intended to bolster county land‑information funding

Rusk County staff draft local policies to handle Act 235 shielding requests