Kenosha County committee declines to approve petition to form Rock Lake Management District after divided public comment

Chairman Guida Brown’s Planning, Development & Extension Education Committee on March 11 considered an application from the Rock Lake Restoration Association seeking creation of a Rock Lake Management District under Wisconsin Statute § 33.25. David Hoke, representing the association, summarized updated findings intended to justify the district’s necessity and the public benefits it would deliver.

Dozens of residents spoke both for and against the petition. Supporters included residents such as John Grage and Rick and Sandy Honaker, who attended to voice backing for structured lake management. Opponents — including Kerry Kaye, Cole Krause and others who submitted written comments — raised questions about the petition’s signature pages and whether the petition met the five statutory criteria required by Wis. Stat. § 33.25. Several residents also expressed concern about proposed chemical treatments and potential impacts on public health and the environment.

Supervisor Erin Decker told the committee the application omitted or did not sufficiently explain material items needed to satisfy the statutory test, including a clear proposed budget and evidence that the properties to be included would receive direct benefits. The committee also questioned whether the petition process had complied with Open Meetings Law requirements and sought clarification on ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the dam/weir that affects Rock Lake.

Corporation Counsel Cardamone advised that the County Board’s final determination on a district formation is made within six months under Wis. Stat. § 33.25 and that notification and hearing requirements must follow the statute and the Open Meetings Act.

After public comment and discussion, a Decker/Robinson motion to approve formation of the Rock Lake Management District failed on a roll-call vote: Brookhouse voted aye; Karow, Decker, Robinson, Geertsen, Brown and the two Youth in Governance representatives registered nay. The motion’s failure leaves the petition without county committee endorsement and requires further work by the petitioner to address the committee’s stated deficiencies before any future approval could be recommended.

Next steps noted by committee members included preparing a report on the petition’s deficiencies to present to the County Board within three months and requesting that the petitioner provide missing documentation (signature-page format clarification, a proposed budget, and clearer explanations of statutory findings) before the board considers the matter.