Port Edwards trustees committee reviews draft wake-boat ordinance, asks attorney to vet enforceability

Port Edwards trustees committee members reviewed a draft wake-boat ordinance provided in the meeting packet and agreed to send the draft to the village attorney for legal review before any formal action.

The ordinance, credited to the Wilderness Alliance and intended to apply to NEPCO Lake, was introduced during the committee’s May 27 meeting. Committee members and residents at the meeting raised two central issues: whether neighboring municipalities (Grand Rapids and Saratoga) must adopt similar language for full lake-wide enforceability, and how enforcement would be carried out if the village adopts the ordinance.

A committee member summarized comments from an open forum, saying residents were worried about enforcement and that enforcement historically has been rare. "I think there's good science behind it," the committee member said, while noting that any local rule would be more effective if other municipalities adopt comparable measures.

The Chair said the next step is to have the village attorney (referred to in the meeting as Nick) review the draft and determine whether the village can reasonably adopt and enforce the proposed language. "We will have Nick look at it," the Chair said; "If it's approved through Nick, then this would be the actual ordinance that we would vote on."

Committee members discussed enforcement logistics. The Chair said Chief Abbott had indicated willingness to enforce the ordinance locally but acknowledged the village lacks water-capable patrol craft. Committee members pointed to the Wood County Sheriff's Department’s recreation deputies as a possible enforcement partner; a meeting participant noted the sheriff’s office uses one or two jet-skis and could issue citations on the water if necessary.

Speakers also debated the legal line between providing information to neighboring municipalities and actively advocating for passage. One committee member urged caution about cross-jurisdictional advocacy, saying education about the ordinance and sharing the information panel-by-panel would be appropriate, while the Lake District could perform advocacy work.

Members noted that the village of Rome has already approved a first phase of a similar ordinance and sent its draft to the Department of Natural Resources for review; Rome’s action was cited as an example of a municipality that has already moved the process forward.

Outcome and next steps: Committee members did not vote on the ordinance. They agreed to forward the most recent draft to the village attorney for review, distribute the attorney-reviewed draft to committee members, and return the item to the committee agenda in a subsequent meeting for possible committee recommendation to the full board.

The meeting packet included the draft ordinance and related public comments; committee members requested that staff circulate any attorney feedback and the confirmed court date for unrelated DMI enforcement actions when available.