Polk County board rejects transfer of Stowers Seven Lakes trail planning to DNR

Polk County supervisors voted down Resolution 1926 on May 20, declining to authorize a renegotiated memorandum of understanding that would have the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources take over master planning for the Stowers Seven Lakes State Trail.

Staff reviewed the draft MOU’s history and edits, saying the county first authorized continued negotiations with DNR last December and circulated versions this spring. "One of the biggest issues is maintenance," a supervisor said during debate, noting that the county currently spends "over $30,000 a year on maintenance" and has incurred large legal fees in prior litigation. The staff presentation also noted committees had reviewed the MOU and public safety/public works returned a "not to recommend" position to the full board.

Opponents argued the draft places many operational responsibilities on Polk County while giving planning control to the DNR. "If you read this memorandum of agreement, everything is the DNR telling the county what to do," one supervisor said, adding concern that the county would continue to bear maintenance costs without clear gains. Another supervisor urged pursuing a corrected local public‑hearing process instead of turning planning authority over to the DNR, saying the board had spent years and substantial funds on the master‑planning effort.

Supporters said the DNR would restart master planning and would be responsible for defending future litigation over the plan, and staff described the agency's approach as a new, 18‑month master planning process with public hearings. Corporation counsel and staff clarified the legal posture: a recent master plan had been overturned by the court, returning the county to an earlier 2004 plan and leaving some injunctions — particularly limits on ATV/UTV and snowmobile use — in place under the older plan.

After the debate the motion to adopt the MOU failed; the board directed staff to prepare a separate resolution to begin the public‑hearing process the court had previously identified as missing and to bring that to the public safety/public works committee for consideration.

The item concluded with board members saying they would pursue next steps at committee level rather than immediately transferring planning responsibility to the state.

The board moved on to other business; staff said the draft public‑hearing resolution will appear before the relevant committee for further action.