[Speaker 1 – Mayor Jim Paine] (0:00 – 6:02)
A perception of a conflict of interest. I don’t have a conflict of interest here, which means somebody that I’m associated with or my immediate family would stand to gain a benefit, but a member of my much more extended family, my first cousin and potentially his father, the Fred Paines, they’re both Fred Paines, approached me several years ago because it’s a long, I’ll answer questions, folks will learn a little bit more about it, but basically the property on which their home is on the St. Louis River, the DNR holds a bird sanctuary easement on it, and it’s not functioning as a bird sanctuary. They have never, the DNR has never done any management or development of it as a bird sanctuary.

To be perfectly honest with you, I think they were surprised to learn that they had an easement on the property, but once they did learn about it, that is their easement. So it clouds the title for more or less permanently, unless the DNR releases that easement. The land has already been developed, it is not, or most of it has been developed, much of it, and so I approached the DNR on Mr. Paines’ behalf to ask about how, the reason I got involved, the city was involved in the original field that locked in a bird sanctuary and sold and developed the land for Mr. Paines, and so he asked the city’s help in resolving the issue. I approached the DNR about releasing the easement at least on the developed parts of the land. The DNR still would like to keep the easement on the non-developed parts of the shoreline, parts of the land Mr. Paines agreed to. So at that point in the negotiation, the DNR said, well, if we were going to release the easement, we would like other St. Louis River or other waterfront land in the city of Superior in an easement, and that kind of changed the nature of the conversation, and they had a couple of things that they suggested. What I suggested was the municipal forest for a number of reasons. One, we already hold this in charter ordinance, so for those that are not familiar, I’d be surprisingly more familiar, except for maybe Christine, so let’s just say for her benefit, because you’re all smart and experienced, the charter ordinance is the strongest law we have in the city of Superior, and it more or less permanently protects the municipal forest from any kind of development other than pure recreation. Very difficult to change a charter ordinance. You need two-thirds of the council, maybe more.

It can trigger a referendum to prevent the change of the ordinance, or only another referendum can change it. However, every few years or so, folks around Superior talk about development in the municipal forest, bulldozing it, building private homes, or adding roads into it. I’ve heard all kinds of conversation around it.

As most of you know, I have been vehemently opposed to any development in the forest ever. The charter ordinance is quite a bit of protection, but it’s not absolute protection. Dedication is the strongest form of protection the state of Wisconsin offers.

It permanently places the land in public trust. Now, dedication can happen a number of ways. In this case, the city would still retain some interest.

The state would ultimately have an ownership interest as well. We would have to have management plans for the long-term care management of it. Significant changes to the articles of dedication that describe that management would require both legislative and gubernatorial approval.

In other words, once you’ve dedicated it and decided how will this forest exist if you’re preserving it in its current state, obviously there’s still management. There take the lead in management, but it would never ever leave the public trust. There is technically a possible way that the legislature can remove it.

No dedicated natural area has ever been in the state of Wisconsin. It’s basically permanent protection and nobody can touch it again. So in the packet, there’s a map of the area that we would discuss dedicating it.

Again, my own perception of conflict of interest, this would, if the city decides to dedicate it, my cousin gets his land released from its dedication. I hope that happens for him, but I don’t actually owe Fred Payne anything. The decision, though, is ultimately this board’s.

Then I think we would likely run it through the Parks and Rec Commission as well and finally the Council. This would be a very large decision and so it needs pretty significant consultation from you. What we would be looking for tonight is a recommendation that would allow us to directly begin working with the team to form those articles of dedication.

They would need final approval after they have been formed, of course, so there’s more opportunity for. Yeah, of course. So what we’re looking for tonight is based on what I’ve told you.

First of all, questions can any of us answer, myself or Director Kondat, and early thoughts. Ultimately, I would ask for your support. The last thing I would say about it is the reason I suggested it in the context of these negotiations was, I mean, it’s possible I have internal bias that wanted me to benefit Mr. Payne, but the real reason is I would like this forest protected into perpetuity. The policy at least for the last 10 years has generally been towards preservation and responsible management for us. I would like to make that the permanent policy of the State of Wisconsin.

[Speaker 5] (6:04 – 6:09)
Can I answer any questions? Yes. Were the tribes consulted on this?

[Speaker 1] (6:10 – 6:19)
No, this is the student territory. Yes, and so the tribes will absolutely have the right to government consultation.

[Speaker 2] (6:20 – 6:39)
Jayfield, Redcliffe, and Fond du Lac. Right. Signatories on that.

And in that treaty, it says the right to hunt, fish, gather, and other activities of usual occupation. And to me, that signifies the use of prescribed fire.

[Speaker 1] (6:39 – 6:53)
Yes. In fact, so I’ll be meeting with the RBC tomorrow for Fond du Lac. The final articles of dedication, of course, we would do government consultation.

I think that responsibility would actually fall to the state, but we’re going to do that.

[Speaker 2] (6:53 – 6:57)
But still, you know, and also the state should be involved with that too. Yep.

[Speaker 1] (6:57 – 7:38)
You know, the DNR and yeah. And specifically in relation to those treaties, I see it as permanently protecting those treaty rights because development takes it out of public use and permanently removes treaty rights. So, it’s the long-term preservation of the use of territory rights in the treaties.

That would be the goal anyways. I mean, beyond that, I can see as we go further down the road of, you know, what does that management plan look like? My goal would ultimately be, if they’re willing to, to ask Fond du Lac to consider management because I haven’t been at a lot of these meetings.

[Speaker 2] (7:38 – 7:44)
Well, the proximity would be, you know, is there for them, you know, their programs.

[Speaker 1] (7:45 – 8:15)
And the expertise. Yeah. They’re outstanding forest managers and taking the lead in traditional fire.

So, while I haven’t been at discussions at these meetings, I’ve been a pretty active participant in the conversations around traditional fire. That absolute, all of my goals for forest management remain the same through this process, including the use of traditional fire and traditional forest management. So, this process, we would be seeking to preserve those management practices.

[Speaker 3] (8:23 – 8:29)
All right. Is there anybody else that, I do have some questions. Go ahead, Ralph or Ryan.

[Speaker 4] (8:29 – 8:40)
So, then who would outline the plan for the plant and recreation that is allowed underneath that natural area?

[Speaker 3] (8:40 – 8:55)
I can talk a little bit more about all the next steps and what that might look like if that would be helpful. Sure, go ahead. So, though the first step would really, we need to have legal descriptions cleaned up.