Rice Lake residents press Winnebago County to proceed with road project amid easement dispute

Several Rice Lake area residents urged the Winnebago County Board of Supervisors to move forward on a resurfacing project for Rice Lake (also referred to in discussion as the Bridal Lake) Road, even though one property owner has not executed an easement the county says is needed to clear title risk.

A resident who identified herself as Kathleen presented a petition signed by Rice Lake residents, club members and park users asking the board to continue the project for safety reasons. Petitioners told the board they had been told a project cost estimate of about $460,000; they also said Rice Lake residents’ taxation related to the project would be about $170,000 spread across roughly 61 residents. Those figures were offered by petition organizers as background and were presented as claims, not as adopted budget numbers.

Board members and staff described a legal and logistical problem: county counsel advised caution because one parcel had not granted an easement. Staff said that, historically, the county had treated the neighborhood road as a prescriptive easement—having maintained and used it for decades—but that the status is not finalized on paper and could be contested. Two legal paths were discussed: (1) pursue an eminent domain condemnation to obtain the needed right of way, a step the board said would be politically and legally sensitive; or (2) seek a court judgment to confirm a prescriptive easement based on long use and county maintenance. Staff said they have not pursued eminent domain for this project to date.

Residents in the room largely favored prompt action. A show of hands by those present indicated local support for using the county’s legal options to proceed; one board member summarized that attendance suggested unanimous support from the roughly 19 people present. Several residents asked whether a contractor could begin resurfacing work now if crews stayed within the unquestionably controlled right-of-way; staff said repaving the existing traveled 18-foot pavement could be done physically without the disputed strip but cautioned that liability or lawsuit risk would remain unless the easement issue were resolved.

Practical steps discussed included locating survey pins on front property corners, commissioning a limited survey to identify the county’s 30-foot platted right-of-way, and, if necessary, negotiating a temporary construction easement limited to allowing contractor personnel to step on property without granting permanent rights. Staff also said that, to use the currently earmarked funds this year, the county would need to advertise for bids soon: a notice to bidders could go out as early as next week, and the typical bidding window is three to four weeks. A contractor the county contacted indicated readiness to bid and perform if the project were advertised.

Funding was a central matter. Staff reported the county is drawing from urban renewal bond proceeds tied to nearby wind-energy projects; the original bond amount discussed was $6,150,000, and staff said interest and refunding adjustments had increased the available account to about $6,760,000 (figures provided by staff during discussion and described as approximate). Board members noted the urban renewal funds are a limited, time-bound resource and that delaying the project would likely increase construction costs.

County counsel’s advice, as summarized by staff, was that the county should not proceed with paving until legal title concerns are clarified. Several supervisors asked the county attorney to re-evaluate the options and provide a written opinion; staff and petitioners asked that the item be placed on the board agenda at the next regular meeting so the board could decide whether to move forward this year.

No formal board action (vote) to proceed or to condemn property was taken at this meeting. The board directed staff to consult with the county attorney about legal options (eminent domain, prescriptive-easement judgment, or limited construction easement), to explore surveying options to identify front pins, and to bring the item to the next meeting for further direction.

The board also discussed a possible phased approach—resurfacing the county portion up to certain boundaries now and leaving disputed segments for later—while acknowledging that splitting the project could raise per-unit costs.

Residents and staff reiterated safety concerns and the potential for higher costs and scheduling risks if the county waits. Staff said that using the current funds, with a timely bid process, would give the county the best chance to complete the project sooner rather than later.