Mining Bill Hearing Packed; Legitimacy Questioned
[UPDATED] HURLEY — Nearly 300 people crowded into a conference room at the Hurley Inn on Wednesday to participate in a state committee hearing on the proposed mining bill. Lacking seating for everyone, the venue forced many other participants to stand and listen to the hearing from an adjacent room, where some people complained they could not easily hear the proceedings.
Some speakers questioned the legitimacy of the hearing, responding to news reports that the state assembly plans to vote on the bill as early as next week. Theron O'Connor, a Bayfield businessman, told a group of state legislators that they did not have enough time to make substantive changes to the bill.
“I see this as being essentially a charade,” O'Connor said. Members of the Committee on Jobs, Economy, and Small Business held the hearing only in response to a “public outcry” after initially failing to schedule a hearing on the bill in Northern Wisconsin, he said.
State Rep. Janet Bewley (D-Ashland) and Sen. Bob Jauch (D-Poplar) had scheduled a hearing on the bill for last week at the Ashland High School, but they canceled their hearing after Committee Chairwoman Mary Williams (R-Medford) announced last week the committee's plan to hold one in Hurley today.
Few speakers addressing the committee on Wednesday fully endorsed the mining bill, even while expressing support for the proposed iron ore mine in the Gogebic-Penokee Range.
Advocates of the proposed mine largely focused on a provision reducing by 50 percent local government's share of tax revenue generated from mining operations. Representatives from both the Ashland Area Development Corporation and the Ashland Business Alliance expressed similar complaints, calling for 100 percent of those funds to be distributed to local municipalities. The proposed bill calls for giving 50 percent to the state general fund.
Ashland Area Development Corporation Director Dale A. Kupczyk said tax revenue should go toward a variety of local uses, including property tax relief and economic development. Asked by Rep. Penny Bernard Schaber (D-Appleton) whether the bill met his standards, Kupczyk said, “Not all of it.”
Ashland Business Alliance representative Brian Matthys echoed Kupczyk's sentiment. “This area doesn't have a lot of income, a lot of money,” he said. “We need all those resources to come back to this area for roads, for infrastructure, to address any issues that come up with this mine.”
Both Rep. Klenke (R-Green Bay) and Rep. Mike Kuglitsch (R-New Berlin) repeatedly emphasized that the Flambeau mine in Ladysmith did not return 100 percent of mining tax revenues to local municipalities, returning instead only 60 percent.
“Now you realize that the last mine in the state of Wisconsin was a 60-40 split,” Kuglitsch told Jessica Bolich, a representative from the Hurley Chamber of Commerce. “It wasn't 100 percent.”
Some speakers did express complete support for the proposed mining bill, including State Treasurer Kurt Schuller. He refused to endorse giving 100 percent of mining tax revenue to local communities when pressed by Rep. Rep. Louis Molepske Jr. (D-Stevens Point), who asked Schuller whether he requested or supported the proposed 50 percent reduction.
Schuller said, “I think the community would fair very well under a 60-40 (split of tax revenue) or a 70-30.”
At the hearing, some of the bill's proponents said many people were confused about the proposed bill. Scott Manley, of the Wisconsin Manufacturers Commerce, said a lot of “misinformation” is circulating about the bill and denied that the bill would prevent the public from having a voice in the process of issuing mining permits.
The proposed elimination of contested hearings, a legal avenue for the public to challenge the issuance of a mining permit, was addressed repeatedly at Wednesday's hearing. The bill's opponents portrayed contested hearings as an important safeguard against environmental degradation, while the bill's proponents argued that contested hearings were unnecessary.
Manley, director of environmental and energy policy, said the proposal to eliminate contested hearings would help to streamline the application process. But, he said, people can still file a lawsuit. “Anybody who doesn't like (a mining permit) decision can challenge that decision in circuit court,” Manley said.
A representative for an Iron County development group, Kelly Kline, also voiced support for the elimination of contested hearings, calling them redundant, costly, and time consuming.
Rep. Molepske defended the availability of contested hearings and said they provide a framework for allowing people to voice their objections. “Without the contested case there is no record for the court to begin the process of reviewing the case itself,” Molepske said.
Molepske also said both Minnesota and Michigan allow for contested hearings.
Updated to include additional details about Wednesday's hearing, including discussions on tax revenue from mining operations and contested hearings.