Start the Pledge of Allegiance.
Pledge of Allegiance.
This is one matter of the United States of America.
We're meant to be republic for which it stands.
One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Okay, a roll call to supervisors.
18, cool.
There he is.
19, supervisors are present.
Supervisors, Brown, Clonia, Franco, and Morris, they are excused.
Okay, tonight's youth in governance here are Bruno Gonzalez,
alternate, and Samuel Sheen from finance administration.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, citizens comments.
Are there any citizens who would like to comment tonight?
Any citizens who would like to comment?
Any citizens?
See no citizens, citizens comments are closed.
Announcements of the chair.
I don't think I have anything to announce at this time.
Supervisor reports.
Supervisor Noodle.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I move to discharge the finance committee from further consideration of my motion.
I'm division ed and I study to be placed on the next board agenda.
Second.
Seconded by supervisor Lux.
Court council, did you want to?
Sure.
Briefly, the motion is in order.
It's a motion to remove something from a committee.
Bring it to the board floor.
If the majority of the board is in favor of so doing requires a second,
which it got, it is debatable, and would require a majority vote.
If majority supports the motion, then the matter would be scheduled on the next board agenda.
So we are open for debate.
Supervisor Gray.
I'm sorry.
I think you know.
Sorry.
Supervisor Noodle.
Sorry.
Thank you.
All right.
This resolution was brought in to change from going back in 1996.
It was that the division ed and the department ed were sorry.
The division ed was to be brought up in order to be discharged to the board floor and vote on it.
Then back in 2022, that was changed and it passed and I know there were some comments.
In fact, just to refresh my memory, the last couple of days I went to look at the videos
from that time.
And some supervisors, which they're on this board right now, and including me,
would say that we were going to do it maybe like in a trial base for a couple years,
see how that worked.
Going in the future then, back in 2022, one supervisor brought in to change it back to what it was
because we didn't believe that it was working.
It went through finance committee.
It passed that the finance committee came to the county board and it passed on the vote
of 13 tonight when one supervisor excused.
And the next day, the county executive veto the resolution.
So that's why we're back at that.
So now I felt it was time to bring it back again.
I think we should go back to what we were.
It works a lot better.
It's for the people working there.
They're from more comfortable knowing that it's not going to be just for politics or whatever,
which, by the way, I'm not insinuating anything right now, but it's something that can happen.
If someone doesn't like someone because let's face it, it's politics and they just change
it.
And from one supervisor, which I don't think is here now, but it did speak in committee
saying that the first of seven, eight years, there was a couple people to lower and then
the two years after we changed this year, they would have made a list as many as ten
people that either left for whatever reason, neither forcefully, whatever reason.
But it was ten of them that left and they felt that they can not really do what they're supposed
to do because they're afraid that if they said the wrong word, then they could be something
against them.
Thank you.
Thank you, supervisor Nudo.
Supervisor Gray, you had your line.
I actually hit my button for a comment, so supervisor report wasn't OK.
Sorry.
Supervisor Balski.
Through the chair to supervisor Nudo, have any department heads been fired since 2022?
I'm sure if they've been fired, but I know a lot of them, they're left.
But isn't this specifically for firing?
I don't need people's mind, but a lot of them, that's what, but again, it's not something
that I can substantiate with anything.
But there were people that were working for the county for years and years and years, and
then all of a sudden they left, whether they were.
Well, without due respect, I'll have a point of order.
Supervisor Robinson.
Point of order.
This is the, I believe the resolution that he's discussing has to do with division heads,
not department heads.
Division heads.
Okay.
And so it's department heads and then the division heads.
And so before.
Can you speak on a microphone?
Before.
It's my understanding that before it was changed in 2022, the division, the department heads
served at the pleasure of the county executive.
But the division heads were employees, the regular employees.
And in 2022, it changed to have the division heads also serve at the pleasure of the county
executive.
And so I believe that Supervisor Nudo is trying to bring it back to a discussion at the board
of whether the next level down, the division heads should also serve at the pleasure of
the county executive, or whether they should be considered regular employees like everything
else.
So it's, there is a big difference.
I just wanted to clarify that because I'm hearing the words used interchangeably and I don't
believe they should be.
Okay.
Thank you, Supervisor Robinson.
So I'll go back to my original question through the Chair and Supervisor Nudo.
Have any division heads been fired since 2022?
You have been on the board since 22 also, Supervisor Balski.
And so I guess you know, the answer just as well, I do well, and I guess you should know
that about the list and people left, but fired is different for them.
Tell us.
Did they tell you that they take a fire or that they left?
They didn't tell me.
So I'm not going to say anything.
What I say is what I know that it's true, unless what some supervisor want to question
me saying that it's not true.
Okay.
With all, with all due respect, I'm focused on the specific resolution that says that
division heads will report to the exit, the county executive.
To my knowledge, no one has been fired.
Now that's much different than somebody quitting, and I can't get into why people would leave
because I didn't have exit interviews with them, but with all due respect, I'm going
to vote no on this because I don't believe that anybody was fired.
Thank you, Supervisor Belsky.
Supervisor Gibson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This failed in our committee and this policy that allows this to come back to the full
board where the majority was one that I actually proposed when we were going through our rules
process.
And I agree with this policy.
I think it's a good policy, but I'm going to be voting no on this action tonight.
We killed it in committee.
I waved my file in the air and talked to everyone at committee, and I said, if there's
any one that would like to discuss this with me, I'm happy to do it, but I didn't want
to spend the time in committee at the time, but I haven't heard one argument in favor
of this that holds any water.
I could go through 30 of them tonight and debunk all the arguments, but at will is a
better policy for the county, and I'll be voting no to bring this back under our rules
that permit this to come back, but I need to agenda with a majority of 12.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Supervisor Gibson.
Any more discussion?
Any more discussion?
All right.
Seeing more, no other discussion, we ask there's a roll call vote asked for?
Yes.
So, all of those who are in favor of bringing the resolution out of committee and straight
to the board, is that correct, Joe, out of committee, instead of going to the committee
bringing it to the board, that's what we're voting on.
And then should that pass, then we'll have a different vote, but this is just to bring
the resolution that failed at finance off the finance committee, bring it right here to
the board.
If we want to do that, yes, if you don't want to do that, that would be a no.
Sorry.
To be clear, we wouldn't take action on the underlying resolution this evening, it would
be on a future agenda.
Right.
Thank you.
Okay.
So, all those in favor of the resolution vote yes, and all those not in favor would vote no.
All those in favor of the resolution vote yes, and all those in favor of the motion.
There's a six yeses.
Supervisor Gray, you had a comment.
Yeah, this is having nothing to do with that.
It's simply a report.
Commerce Farm, which is at 5646 place in Kenosha, is holding an open house this Sunday.
For the third or fourth year in a row, they're demonstrating sustainable farming practices
that among other things help management of stormwater, and we'll be hearing more about
stormwater in the future.
So, it's from 11 to 3 this Sunday, if anybody needs that address again, I'm happy to provide
it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Supervisor Gray.
Are there any other Supervisor comments?
Any other Supervisor comments?
Say no.
Supervisor comments.
We'll move on to our next new business.
New business resolution 28 from the planning development and extension education committee,
a resolution annual report, a multi-jurisdictional plan for Kenosha County 2035, the 2024 annual
report.
This past unanimously at committee, Supervisor Gray and Lux were excused.
I'm going to go to Meadows on this one.
Supervisor Meadows.
Move by Supervisor Meadows.
Seconded by Supervisor Kirby.
Supervisor Meadows.
Yes, this is a simple resolution.
Sorry.
Can you hear me now?
Yeah, there we go.
This is a simple resolution of, it's a commitment from the committee once a year to provide an
annual report of a summary of all of the changes to the comprehensive plan and the
land use map.
This didn't happen for the 2024 report, so this is going back a year to 2024, similarly
the next one's going to be for 2025, but it passed unanimously at committee.
You can read the resolution or read the document to see all of the changes to the map, but
I ask for your approval.
Thank you, Supervisor Meadows.
Is there any discussion?
Seeing no discussion, all those in favor, vote aye.
Aye.
All those motion passes.
Resolution 29 from the planning development and extension education committee, a resolution
annual report, a multi-jurisdictional plan for Kenosha County 2035, the 2025 annual report.
This past unanimously at committee, Supervisor Gray and Lux were excused.
Supervisor Meadows.
Move resolution 29.
Move by Supervisor Meadows, seconded by Supervisor Kirby, Supervisor Meadows.
The same as the last resolution, but for the year 2025, we ask for your support.
Any further discussion?
All those in favor, vote aye.
Aye.
Aye.
4.
Against.
Not.
Motion passes.
Resolution 30 from the public works facilities and the finance administration committees, a
resolution to approve a contract regarding float the river tubing at Fox River Park.
This past at both committees from public works, Supervisor Belsky voted no.
From finance, Supervisor Nuto voted no.
And Supervisor Carroll was excused from both committee meetings.
Supervisor Meadows.
Move resolution 30.
Move by Supervisor Meadows, seconded by Supervisor Geertzt and Supervisor Meadows.
Yeah, this is the float the river, float the Fox River tubing has a temporary use permit
to provide a tubing experience along the Fox River and they're seeking a full contract
for five years to do that on a more permanent basis.
There were some questions in committee about some of the insurance coverage, making sure
that we're lively covered, but it did pass both committees and we ask for your support.
Thank you, Supervisor Meadows.
Supervisor Belsky.
Thank you, Chair.
First of all, I'd like to say a very heartfelt thank you to Director Moore.
I know that a lot of these for-profit venues that are now participating at our parks are
new, RFPs have gone out and I think he's really done an amazing job in not only the RFPs,
but responding and he did answer all of my questions.
I'm taking every precaution with these new contracts because they involve a for-profit
business, they involve our county parks, they involve liquor and I just want to make sure
that we're being very, very thorough and not rushing any of these contracts through because
we will set a precedent.
I think that $25,000 that we could bring in as revenue is overshadowed by potential liabilities
if we don't get these contracts right.
So I was very appreciative that he answered all of my questions.
I received some more today, which I'm appreciative of.
As I said, I think he's done a real good job with this and especially in the time that
he's had.
So I will be voting yes tonight.
Thank you.
Thank you, Supervisor Belsky.
Mr. Meadows, how does this contract compare to other private partnership contracts that
we have out there, the beer garden, what's our boundless adventures, the beer garden
Pringle Nature Center, although that one's not for-profit.
We've got Director Moore here, he can answer questions better than I, but it's not that
different.
There's a lot of liability coverages that are spelled out in the contract.
The other ones that we're referring to tonight are tenure contracts.
Well, this one is only for five years, so that's a slight variance from some of our
other ones.
Do you have specific questions about what it contains?
Not specific.
I just, just, if they were comparably similar.
Yes.
Okay.
I would say so.
Thank you, Supervisor Meadows.
Any further discussion?
No?
This is going to require a two-thirds vote.
So if you are in favor of the resolution for the float, the Fox River tubing contract,
you will vote yes.
If you are not in favor, you will vote no.
Resolution passes 18, yes, 1, no.
Resolution 31, from the public works and facilities and finance and administration committees,
a resolution to approve a contract regarding petrifying springs, beer garden operations.
This passed unanimously at both committees.
Supervisor Carroll was excused from both committees.
Supervisor Meadows, move resolution 31, moved by Supervisor Meadows, seconded by Supervisor
Gertson.
Supervisor Meadows.
Yes, this is a renewal of an existing contract with the petrifying springs, beer gardens
operation.
They've been a good business partner for us and we're looking to renew their contract
for a further 10 years.
So we ask for your support.
Thank you, Supervisor Meadows.
Any other questions?
I'm sorry.
Supervisor Belsky.
Again, this is another contract that went out for RFP for the first time.
And I think Director Moore did a very thorough job.
Of course, I had additional questions that were answered very promptly.
And some of my questions or some of the content of the contract was clarified.
I would say that my only outstanding concern right now because this is a for-profit business
is twofold.
One, the RFP went out for 10 years.
I would have preferred to have seen five.
And then number two is we've been spending a lot of money at Petrifying Springs to help
this for-profit business.
And while I think there is a great partnership, I'd like to understand probably every couple
years a report to the Public Works Department on what improvements they specifically are
going to make because they've only identified one.
It seems to me we're putting in a lot of money into the park for this for-profit and
we're getting a 15% growth, I believe, percentage.
So I would like to also see for these private or for these public relations, or how can
I say this, for this, the revenue that's generated from these contracts for a for-profit
business.
I'd like to see specific line items on the budget so that we know.
So it's not all just going into one generic parks department.
I'd like to see it broken down on how much we're actually bringing in by month and then
maybe they report annually to the Public Works and then it comes up to the board.
Likewise I'd like to see a comparison on how much the County is investing in the area
that has to do with this partnership to make sure there's an even swap because while it's
said that they contributed thousands of dollars to the public restrooms at Petrifying Springs,
it's clear to me how much profit was actually brought in and how much of it was applied
to the bathroom project.
I think we need clear delineation on money that's brought in versus money that is contributed
to improvements so that we can understand exactly what they're doing.
Not that I don't trust our Public Works Department because I do, but I'd like to see the hard
numbers when we're talking about this.
So again, I will be approving this tonight, but I would prefer to see the next RFP for
a for-profit business remain at five years.
And the last thing is if they should transfer ownership or anything, I had concern about
it just going to the Public Works Department.
I think if they transfer ownership, even though they're operating under the same agreement,
I think it should come back to Committee and to the Board to review and approve.
I think it's just standard.
Thank you.
Thank you, Supervisor Belsky.
Supervisor Gertzen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Through the Chair, to our Budget Director, could I please, I'm going to support this resolution,
but could I please request the reports that were discussed at budget time?
Could we please, could you please make it a point to provide those reports at budget
time?
Yes, I'll make that a commitment.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Supervisor Gertzen.
Supervisor Tagliapietra.
It's like just to be out of support of this contract and the commitment that this company
has made to our parks over the last 10 years and what they've put in, it seems silly not
to encourage them to continue it when nobody else is on the table making it happen.
I'm looking forward to see what they can do to improve the park in the next 10.
Thank you, Supervisor Tagliapietra.
Any other discussion?
Seeing no other discussion, all of those in favor, I'm sorry, budget modification.
The last one had a budget modification?
Right, that's what it was, yeah.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, any further discussions or questions?
Okay, all those in favor, vote aye.
Aye.
Any opposed?
Motion carries.
Resolution 32 from the Public Works and Facilities and Finance Administration Committees, a resolution
to approve a contract regarding Pringle Nature's Center Operations.
This passed unanimously at both committees.
Supervisor Carroll was excused from both committee meetings.
Supervisor Meadows, move resolution 32, move by Supervisor Meadows, seconded by Supervisor
Gertzen.
Supervisor Meadows, yeah, this is the last of our contracts for tonight.
This is a resolution to approve a new 10-year contract with the Pringle Nature Center.
It did a pass of both committees unanimously.
I think most people already agree that it's been an amazing partnership with this organization
and they do a phenomenal job.
So I highly recommend you approve this and we ask for your support.
Thank you, Supervisor Meadows.
Is there any discussion?
Seeing no discussion.
All those in favor, vote aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries.
Resolution 33 from Public Works and Facilities and the Finance Administration Committees, a
resolution to purchase property at 11308 Burlington Road.
This passed at both committees from Finance, Supervisor Zoodle and Pollack, quoted nay.
Supervisor Carroll was excused from both committee meetings.
Supervisor Meadows, move resolution 33, move by Supervisor Meadows, seconded by Supervisor
Gertzen.
Supervisor Meadows.
Yes, this is a resolution to acquire a property adjacent to another one that we recently purchased.
If you recall, a few months back, we purchased a home on Burlington Road to place some sex
offenders that had finished their jail time.
The property owner adjacent to them, there's only two houses in that small little section.
The property owner approached us wanting to sell.
So this was brought to the county.
It passed both committees, Public Works and Finance.
The idea, or a possible idea in the future is to combine it into one larger partial once
we no longer are required to place these people and which would increase the value of the property.
So we ask for your approval.
Thank you, Supervisor Meadows.
Supervisor Decker.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am speaking to ask you to either vote no on this resolution or if you're not comfortable
doing that to refer it back to committee.
I want to begin by acknowledging something.
Last August, I voted to purchase the property at 11312 Burlington Road.
I did so because chapter 980 left Kenosha County with very limited options.
I believe we had a legal obligation to provide housing, even though I had concerns that we
were paying substantially more than the property was worth.
Today's vote is different.
This isn't about complying with chapter 980.
This is about whether we should spend another $425,000 of taxpayer money without having
adequate answers to some very important questions.
Before speaking tonight, I went back and did my homework.
I re-watched the August 14, 2025 joint Jadair Sherry and Law Committee and Public Works Committee
meeting.
I re-watched the August 19, 2025 full county board meeting.
I also watched the July 16, 2026 joint judiciary and law committee and Public Works Committee
meeting regarding this property.
I wanted to make sure my concerns were based on record, not my memory.
One thing stood out to me.
Corporation Council recently sent an email stating, quote unquote, at that time there
was some discussion that we might explore acquiring the property next door, 11308.
I respectfully disagree with that characterization.
After reviewing both the committee meeting and the county board meeting, I did not see
any discussion during the meeting about purchasing the 11308 Burlington Road property.
If someone can point me to that committee discussion, I'd welcome it.
But after reviewing those meetings myself, I didn't hear it.
That matters because this proposal is being presented as though it has been part of the
county long-term plan all along.
I don't believe the public records supports that.
My next concern is the appraisal and the market analysis.
The market analysis relies on only three comparable sales.
And one of those comparable sales is the county's own purchase of the 1132 Burlington Road property.
Many of us believed that purchase occurred under extraordinary circumstances because
we had an immediate legal obligation under chapter 980.
If we believed those circumstances resulted in paying a premium, then I question whether
that sale should now be used as evidence of fair market value for another purchase.
And the remaining two comparable sales are also material different properties, including
larger four bedroom homes with different features.
At minimum, I think those concerns deserve additional review before approving another
purchase.
My next concern is the lack of a clear plan.
I've heard many different ideas.
I've heard the home may eventually be demolished.
I've heard it could become a veteran's home.
I've heard it could become a substance abuse treatment facility.
I've heard it yet could be another youth group home.
I've also heard it will eventually be sold.
Even Corporation Council has referred to presumably selling the property.
Those are all very different policy decisions.
But none of those decisions are reflected in the resolution before us.
And a plan should be discussed and agreed upon before we approve the resolution.
But perhaps my greatest concern is about the role of this board.
Under Wisconsin law and under our county's governance structure, one of the most important
authorities this board has is approving the purchase of real property.
That's exactly what we're doing tonight.
Once we approve this purchase, there's no budget amendment before us.
And this resolution contains no direction from the county board regarding the property's
future use.
That means we are exercising our authority to purchase the property without exercising
our responsibility to establish the policy for what should happen to it.
If the board wants this property sold when it is no longer needed, that should be in
the resolution.
If the board wants it demolished, that should be in the resolution.
If the board intends another public use, that should be in the resolution.
But we should not purchase the property first and then decide later why we bought it.
That is not good governance.
I also question the urgency.
The property at 11308 has been vacant for over a year and in that time has never been
on the market for sale.
The chapter 980 residence at 11312 is operating as intended.
Nothing changes if we wait.
But a great deal could change if we spend $425,000 before answering these questions.
Finally, every time government purchases another home, it removes that property from the tax
rolls.
That means less tax base for Kenosha County, the village of Summers, Kenosha Unified School
District, Gateway Technical College, and the other taxing jurisdictions that depend on
those revenues.
At the same time, we have spent years talking about the need for more housing and housing
affordability.
Governments should be cautious about taking another home off the market unless there
is a clear and compelling public purpose.
Tonight, I don't believe we have reached that point.
If you believe the purchase has not been justified, I ask that you vote no.
If you're not ready to vote no, then I respectfully ask that you support referring this resolution
back to committee.
Let's answer these questions.
Let's establish a clear policy.
Let's make sure the resolution reflects the county board's intent before we authorize another
$425,000 expenditure.
There is no emergency.
There is time to get this right.
And with that, I would like to make a motion to refer this back to the finance and administration
and public works committees to be postponed until the administration can present a plan
of use and fiscal analysis of the plan on the property located at 11308 Burlington Road.
Second.
Second by Supervisor Belsky.
Any discussion on the new motion?
Supervisor Kirby, did you have a discussion on the new motion or on the original motion?
Okay.
Hold on.
Just a minute.
Okay.
Supervisor Stalker, this might cover both of them, but it sounds to me like this is
the appraised value is not what it should be, and it seems like we're spending a lot
more money for this property than what it would really be worth.
Okay.
Thank you.
Supervisor Stalker.
Supervisor Noodle.
Thank you.
First of all, I want to say thank you to Supervisor Decker for much summarize everything
that I did say on committee in a very, very more eloquent way to say it.
And I appreciate that.
I would not be against to send it back to committee.
However, I don't believe we should even think about purchasing the property because again,
first of all, we cannot change the contract and the corporation council can correct me
if I'm wrong because the only conditions that we have on this contract is approval
of the board.
So we want to make any changes.
Actually, we cannot do it.
Either we reject it or we take what it is.
So I would prefer that we vote on it, reject this based on the most of the things again
that I said in committees and Supervisor Decker explained even a lot better way.
It's just a lot better speaker than I am, I might want to admit that, but it's true.
So one thing that I want to say also which about the appraisal, everybody's talking about
the appraisal, which I've brought it up before.
It's not an appraisal.
It's just a market analysis.
It's nothing.
Nobody would even end up running in the property.
I mentioned that when we purchased the property, which I was against at the last time, pretty
much everybody knew that we paid a list, 125 to 150,000 dollars more than what the property
was worth.
Now, here we are paying the same amount for the property that is worth less than the other
one.
Number one thing is the county, Kalisha County, should not be in the business of property
investment.
Let the realtors do.
Let the property stay there.
So we're doing this to keep it and we don't know how long we're going to keep the other
property.
Those people in there could be at least five, six years and with three of them, one could
go out but other two could stay maybe for another 10 years.
So what are we going to do?
Keep the property of the tax roll and everything.
I think it's another thing is about the inspection contingency over the committee level.
I did mention what happened the last time that we did not have an inspection.
I questioned that and I was told that everything was fine.
Then we found out that there was water here and I'm working.
And one supervisor pretty much told me that I was wrong and I want to make sure that we
go on record.
That I was 100% right.
I did talk to Matt Storino, I don't know if he's here tonight or not, is there?
And he could confirm that and then what I said at the committee, that's exactly what
happened and I ate when somebody calls me a liar and that's pretty much what I was done
the other night.
So this year I was told if I need to, that's the first one to take it to go back to committee
but at that point, still my preference will be to vote on it tonight, reject the purchase
and go from there.
Thank you.
Thank you Supervisor No No.
Okay, any further discussion on any further discussion?
Supervisor Gertz, thank you Mr. Chairman.
Through the chair to the court counsel, a couple things that were mentioned in the motion to
refer back.
One is in order to buy property by law, the county board has to approve that.
In order to sell property, does the county, does that also require county board approval?
Yes, it does.
Okay, thank you.
And I know that there's some properties that are awaiting demo and we've talked about demo
but does that not require approval of the board to do a demo, both from a budget standpoint
and from a property management standpoint?
I believe so, yes.
Okay, we need money to do the demo and we have to approve that.
So we already have a budget that addresses the majority of the concerns that were enveloped
and policy that were enveloped within the statement to refer back to the committee.
So we already have policy that addresses that.
On the comment that we were considering this purchase of the next store property, the one
we're considering tonight, at the time we were acquiring the first property, could you
please comment on that?
I'm certainly not going to dispute the supervisor Decker's comments based on her review of the
record.
It was a reflection that it was mentioned, at least in passing, perhaps it wasn't, perhaps
there was a conversation that was happening internally and not with the board.
So I'll simply say that certainly the owner of the neighboring property, when news of
this was happening last year had reached out to the county, if that wasn't discussed
as part of the purchase of that property, then certainly, again, I'm not disputing
Supervisor Decker's assessment or summary of what she listened to.
Okay, thank you, Corporation.
So the purchase of this policy, there were reasons why the resolution to approve this
property, the reasons we did it, one was, the reasons that it was brought to us, one
was it's good, we're being good corporate citizens, is that one of the reasons we did
this?
I believe that was one of the statements, yes.
And then it was security, another reason that we have this house right next to this, the
one we own, and security was another reason why we did it.
It certainly would allow us to sort of control the property, create a buffer around the property
that we have for the individuals without having to worry about what or what is not happening
next door.
Okay, thank you.
And then one last comment, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for indulging me.
There's been a lot of discussion on the market value of this property.
I mean, we're not, it's correct, we're not in the business of buying and selling real
estate.
We should have been in this position if we weren't acquiring the property.
And at the time that we were having this discussion, court counsel, you said the worst case was
that if we don't comply with the court order, the predators could be released in the community
and you cited instances where that has happened in the past.
So we were taking action to protect the community here.
Now, by buying the property next door, we're further taking action to protect the community
because there's a security element here.
We can secure the perimeter, but there's been a lot of discussion on the market value and
the appraisal versus the market analysis.
And I think generally, I know that the market value in Kenosha has been increasing significantly
faster on residential property than nationwide.
But can you at least advise the board on information, the most recent information you may have
on market value?
I can simply say that I spoke Friday and then again yesterday with the real estate agent
who had done that market analysis, he indicated that there were other properties in the area
that he believed were comparable that had sold for the purchase price or higher, I believe
he had initially told me about half a dozen since the start of the year.
So that was not just the comparables in the market analysis.
That was other comparables outside the market analysis.
Correct.
He didn't provide me with that information, but anecdotally, that's what he advised me.
anecdotally.
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm not going to favor the motion to refer, although I'm certainly happy to have it sent
back to my committee, our committee, and revet the thing, but I think we have enough information
tonight to make a decision, and so I'm going to vote against referring back to committee.
Thank you.
I yield.
Thank you, Mr. Pfizer and Garrison.
Supervisor Kirby.
Hi.
I was initially not going to speak, but just in case, I will be voting against the motion
to send this back to committee because I see absolutely no reason why we can't vote
no tonight.
I feel like this is a highly speculative endeavor.
I don't know if anybody else remembers 2009, 2008 somewhere in there.
We don't know what's going to happen with the housing market.
So us purchasing a property that we don't absolutely have to purchase, like with the
last one, I think with a lot of other supervisors here, I didn't want to buy that house.
But we had to, we had a legal obligation, and that was the smart financial decision
for us at that point in time, and it helped protect the community.
That made sense.
Purchasing a property next door to it, I just can't see any reason to do it.
And then there's the added factor.
We do not know when we are going to be able to sell that other property.
We could be sitting on this for 10 years, and then we have two properties off the tax
rolls.
So anyways, I'm going to vote against the motion to send it back to committee because
I would like us to just vote no on it tonight.
Thank you, Supervisor Kirby.
Supervisor Metals?
I yield.
Never mind.
All right, Supervisor Gasky.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Through the Chair to Corporation Council, Supervisor Noodle had mentioned that if this
were to be referred back to committee, that the committee or the board would have little
opportunity to make any modifications or changes.
Could you just speak to the accuracy of that?
If this were to get sent back to committee, what opportunities would that afford us?
There would be an opportunity if there's further vetting, if there's further information
that people want, but the Supervisor Noodle is correct, the offer has been agreed to
by the parties.
It was contingent on board approval, you know, if I don't think there's really, I mean,
could I speak with the other parties, certainly, but I mean, in terms of as a practical matter,
we have an agreement that just is waiting on the board to either approve it or not.
Okay, thank you.
That being said, I would agree with Supervisor Kirby.
I would favor the idea of rather than sending this back to committee that we just simply
voted up or down tonight.
And I personally don't see any compelling reason for us to purchase this property.
I don't see a clear use for this property.
And again, the cost of this property does appear to be somewhat inflated.
So given the lack of clarity for the use of it, given the lack of a compelling reason
to purchase it and the price, I would rather just see us vote this up down tonight and
I would plan to vote it down.
Thank you.
Thank you, Supervisor Gashke, Supervisor Robinson.
I think that one of the things that we should look at is not only are we spending money
for a property, but also what have we, what is our role and how have we impacted the
owners of this property?
This is not a property that is in the middle of a block with a whole lot of residential
around it.
We came into an area where there were two houses.
We placed sex offenders that cannot be released for quite a while into this house, which materially
impacted the house next door.
Would you buy a house knowing that there are sex offenders next door?
No.
Would most people know?
So one of the things that we also have a responsibility to our citizens about is not
just the fiscal responsibility of should we spend X number of dollars for a property.
And I believe that our Corporation Council and Mr. Storino and other people have done
due diligence in saying it's not just the house next door, but here's six houses, seven
houses, eight houses of approximate same amount.
We've all got pictures.
We can see that it's a livable house.
It is from all intents and purposes and from what I could see, the water heater is fine.
Everything seems, the mechanicals are fine.
In other committees, we are talking about the need for veterans homes.
We're talking about the need for substance abuse treatment, small group homes.
Do we have a specific plan for this property at this moment?
No.
But are those discussions ongoing with other agencies?
Yes.
Because we all know that we need more homes, more substance abuse homes.
Should I normally be in favor of this if it was on a regular street with houses on
both sides?
No.
But I do think that we need to take some responsibility for the harm that we the county have done
by putting sex offenders next to a family that has lived there for years.
Is it a difficult decision?
Yes.
I tend to think that we need to consider that as well as just dollars each direction.
If this comes back to committee, I don't really care.
As Supervisor Gertzen says, we'll discuss it again.
We can add things if that makes other supervisors more comfortable.
But I think we also need to recognize that there is more to this specific situation than
just we buy one property.
Because I think a whole lot of citizens would be very uncomfortable with the idea that we
the county could come in and do this and buy a property on their street and then just kind
of turn around and walk away.
Thank you, Supervisor Robinson.
Supervisor Belsky.
Thank you.
The reason I seconded this resolution is for the resolution itself.
I know that we cannot make changes to the agreement to purchase the house.
But I think that we have a responsibility to our constituents that we know what we're
going to do with this facility.
Right now it's been empty for a year.
Let's there's no big rush.
Nobody's been living in it.
Nobody's being subjected to the tenants next door.
Let's figure out how we could use this to our advantage.
Let's figure out since it is our responsibility, can it be used for veterans, can it be used
for another purpose?
That's what the resolution is for.
And we we should it is our responsibility to make that happen so that we aren't blindly
going into this without a plan.
We should have a plan.
So that's why I believe it should go back to committee and through the chair to corporate
council, which realtor did the market value analysis?
It was sent to everybody beginning of July, but it was done by Daniel Crucco.
Who is he with?
At the properties.
Is that somebody we normally do business with?
We've used him for other county business, yes, okay.
So I would ask that we send it back to committee so that from a resolution standpoint, we have
a plan.
We should have a plan.
We shouldn't just buy this and then say, well, maybe it's going to set empty.
Maybe it's going to be used for something.
That's what the resolution is about.
It's not just approving the agreement between the two parties.
It's how are we going to use this?
And then we can decide if it's an up or down vote.
But I think it's on us to take that responsibility.
So I agree with referring it back.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Supervisor Belsky.
Supervisor Nuto.
Thank you.
I just got a couple of comments.
I believe Supervisor Robinson mentioned that we should, because we'll purchase the property,
this property, we're not in value, because nobody wants to leave next to sex or fund
or whatever.
Well, if that's the case that we want to be in the Christmas mood and give some gifts
to everyone, there is a couple of properties right across from there.
Even though there are commercial properties, I believe one is quick trip and the other
one is, please help me, the first food covers.
Well, because there's a lot of kids that go there, you know, at covers or whatever.
In fact, I used to take my rain kits there because it's out of the way and everything.
Not that it's sex offenders.
There may be people will not go there.
So they're losing business with it.
Should we give them some money?
So they can recoup what they're losing.
That is the fact of life, if you buy a property, you never know what's going to happen next
door to my house.
Somebody can come over.
So we're not in that.
And the other thing is, how much time do we have for the board to approve the offer to
the chair to Corporation Council?
I know I looked at it, but I don't recall it.
I don't want to go through the offer now to see what it has to be done by.
Contract the time is over the office.
The contract calls for a closing before or no later than August 28th.
Okay.
But when does he have to be approved by the county board?
I don't know.
There was a deadline for that.
And, you know, obviously before we could close.
Okay.
Which, basically, it's not going to be that much time or whatever, but even if it is,
it's a material.
The other thing is speaking about the so-called appraisal, the market analysis.
I believe Corporation Council said that he talked to the real estate agent.
They did it.
And they could have used another, or maybe appraisal or, sorry, conveyorables with this
property.
Well, and that's the case.
When did he do it?
He used the property next door, which he should have known the property actually it's got
it in there, that the property was listed for $325,000.
And then it was sold for $425.
So a real estate agent added for over two years before they started to have a couple
million dollars and then they kept on coming down.
But for the last six months was listed $335, I believe.
And then we put in an offer for price and it came in rejected and we offered the $425.
He also put it in there that this property, the one that they were trying to buy now,
has been for sale, listed for sale for $425,000.
This property was not listed for sale.
And since I believe there were some interest or some tolls involved with the seller about
purchasing this property ever since we purchased the other property, now this is not a complete
fact, just rumors that I think that I can believe it, why did we wait until the last
minute all the time?
The last time where the walls are vexed against the wall, like Supervisor Baker said, we had
to do it.
I mean, first of all, why did we put ourselves in that position?
Now we're doing this here.
It seems like every time at the last minute they tried to shut something down our throat
and I think it's enough is enough and we should just vote no.
And the main reason is we don't want to be in the real estate business, the county should
not be in the real estate investment business and if we do, then we should know what the
heck we're doing, not purchase properties over their value, that maybe in five, six
years we can sell it for our price and save some money.
Instead of losing whatever we are on this house, we sell it, if we ever will, we're going
to lose a lot more to this house.
Let's put some more because it's not our money, so who cares?
Let's spend the money.
Thank you.
Thank you, Supervisor Noda.
Supervisor Tagli, a Pietra.
Through the chair to come and go to the council, what if any risks do we take on by not following
through with this contract?
Are we at any legal risk for any production and value to the neighboring property due
to our original purchase?
Is there any potential litigation, you should be not approve this purchase?
It has been made eminently clear since this process began that this was going to be contingent
on board approval, so I don't see any legal risk to the county should the board not approve
it.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you, Supervisor Tagli, a Pietra.
Supervisor Lux?
Yes.
I do want to come on and say I do agree with Supervisor Robinson and as someone who has
an old soul but a young mind, I got to say it is going to be very, very difficult for
that property to just generally be sold in general because like Robert and Supervisor
Robinson said, who realistically does want to live next to a sex offender, you know,
it is, we got to think about the community, we got to think about children, we got to
think about, you know, the protection of Croatia, you know, so when I was running my campaign,
my campaign settlements for the people, I live by that and I think that is what we
need to do is be there for the people and if, you know, I, that's all I have to say.
Thank you, Supervisor Lux.
Supervisor Gray?
Thank you Chairman.
I was prepared to support this resolution and I think there's been a lot of great points
made tonight from every angle, some I've never expected.
They're very, very valid, very solid and I do believe it deserves some further consideration
with all of the new perspectives given but I would disagree that we don't, I shouldn't
say it that way.
We aren't obligated to do anything but in the meantime, the owner of that property can't
rent it or it's very, very difficult to rent and they continue to pay taxes on it which
was mentioned before.
So to Supervisor Robinson's point, we do serve these people also and I think going back to
committee to hash this out would be the wise thing to do.
Thank you.
Thank you Supervisor Gray.
I just wanted to bring up a point here.
We did not put those sex offenders in that house.
Those sex offenders put themselves in that house.
We had to follow the law, it was at least two years, Supervisor Decker, I think one
or both of those that were first slated for Salem Lakes, putting them into a park basically.
That's not allowed.
So the courts came down and said you need to do something and need to do it now.
We did not choose that location, that location basically chose us.
It's unfortunate that there are other homes in the area, I feel for that but we did not
do that.
We just understand that it's not a function that the county did to these people.
I think the fact of what we paid for it was outrageous but it was needed to be done.
This is not a need and I 100% agree with Supervisor Decker, Supervisor Noodle that there's no
plan for this property and I will not be voting to send it back to committee.
Thank you.
Are there any other discussion?
I'm going to clear the board first of all.
Any other discussion?
Supervisor Noodle.
Just to clarify something, this is the vote to send back to committee, correct?
That's correct.
Now when we say send back to committee, just to finance committee or to vote committees?
Supervisor Decker, I'll clarify.
The wording of my motion is to refer this back to the finance and administration and
public works committee to be postponed until the administration can present a plan of
use and fiscal analysis of the plan on the property located at 11308 Burlington Road.
Thank you, Supervisor Decker.
Supervisor Noodle.
Thank you.
That's fine.
I just wanted to clarify.
Yeah.
Okay.
Thank you.
I potentially kill the contract anyway because of the amount of study and research and all
that that have to go in, probably looking at a new contract.
I mean, if you're asking me a question, my suspicion would be that the sellers would
be prepared to modify a closing date if it looked like we would still be able to close.
That would be my guess, but it would still be a modification of the contract more likely.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any other discussion on the motion to send it back as Supervisor Decker explained, does
anybody need that explained or defined again?
I'll see you in no more questions.
Are we going to need a roll call vote?
Thank you.
Roll call vote has been called.
All of those in favor of sending the motion, sending the resolution.
Thank you.
To the finance administration and public works committee with defined clearly defined goals
will vote yes and all those against sending it backward vote no.
The motion passes to send back to committee 10 yes and I know.
Okay.
With the resolution passing to be sent back to committees, then the original motion then
would be rescinded, correct, or eliminated or exiled.
It dies.
Okay.
Thank you.
Resolution 34 from the Human Services and the Finance and Administration Committees,
the resolution to approve adding one economic support specialist lead position and three
economic support specialist positions pursuant to 2025 Wisconsin Act 116 funding to perform
quality assurance reviews.
This passed unanimously at both committees.
Supervisor Carroll was excused from the finance and administration committee.
Supervisor Stalker.
Let me get this.
I thought it was coming from the other committee here.
34.
It moved.
34.
Resolution 34.
Okay.
Moved by Supervisor Stalker.
Seconded by Supervisor Gibson.
Supervisor Stalker.
This resolution passed our committee.
Could you get into the microphone a little bit more, please?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Supervisor Stalker.
Any discussion?
Questions?
Seeing none, this will require a two-thirds vote as it's an amending or budget.
So all those in favor vote, yes, and all those against vote, no.
10.
Resolution passes unanimously.
Item 35 from the finance and administration committee, a resolution authorizing and providing
for the issuance of not to exceed 22,750,000 general obligation, promissory notes and
or bonds, providing for the notification of and sale of said notes and bonds and other
related details.
This passed unanimously at committee.
Supervisor Carroll was excused.
Supervisor Gertzen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Moved resolution 34.
Moved by.
35.
Sorry, 35.
Moved by Supervisor Gertzen.
Seconded by Supervisor Noto.
Supervisor Gertzen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This resolution is to authorize the structure and issuance of our 22.75 million G.O.
notes.
And this is to fund the capital budget that was approved in the 2026 budget.
The sale is scheduled to occur on August 18th.
A resolution will be presented to the board that evening for approval of that sale.
We will meet with standard importers before the end of this month to affirm our triple
A bond rating.
We also got a pre-sale report.
The county board received that.
It documents the initial resolutions that we used to structure the 22.75 million G.O.
notes.
It outlines the issuance expense, documents, compliance with our debt policy and other
matters related to the sale and structure of the bonds.
This was approved by all members present in finance committee.
We recommend approval of the board tonight.
We have administration and elders here tonight if we have any questions.
And in addition to that, I would request a roll call.
It's my understanding that our record keeping would like to have a roll call for the bond
issuance.
Thank you, Supervisor Gertzen.
Are there any discussion, questions?
Supervisor Grady.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Through the chair to our bond committee bond advisory, I know it's very difficult to look
into the crystal ball and to say what's going to happen for a second week of August.
But if this issue were to come today, here we are in the July 21 category, what would
be the expected range of interest rates for an offering such as this?
Can you comment?
Greg Johnson from elders in our presale report, the interest rates that we had estimated factored
in higher interest rates than what we're seeing presently in the market.
So there's about a 50 basis point cushion.
So 50 basis points is half a percent.
So based on current market conditions, we would expect that the interest rates would
come in more favorable.
Specifically, if it were to go to market today, can you give me a range of what the estimates
might be today at this particular time?
I would say it would probably be within 20 to 25 basis points of lower than what we had
in our presale.
A certain number would be what?
I don't have the exact number for me.
You can't give me a range to say between two and a half, three percent, is this not possible?
Yes, basically, if you take off 25 basis points from the rates that are in the presale report,
that would be the answer I was looking for.
Thank you all, and you'll have the floor.
Thank you, Supervisor Grady.
Any other questions?
Discussion?
Okay, so you know more discussion.
A roll call has been asked for, so if you are in favor of the resolution.
I'm sorry.
Yeah, it's resolution 35, vote yes, Chair Gaston, vote no.
Resolution 35 passes unanimously.
Communications, 30, communication from Andy M. Bueller regarding future items scheduled
before the planning, development, and extension education committee.
Receive and file.
31, communication from Supervisor Decker, a resolution relating to consumer lending
reform and predatory lending protections.
Refer to legislative committee.
Claims, seven, Sean, Oziland's property damage.
Refer to Corporation Council.
Approval of the July 21, 2026 minutes by Supervisor Decker.
Supervisor Decker.
Motion to approve the minutes.
So second.
Seconded by Supervisor Robinson.
Any discussion?
No discussion?
All those in favor?
Vote aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries.
Motion to adjourn.
I'll go with Decker and Robinson on that, too.
It's in two voices.
All those in favor vote aye.
Aye.
We are adjourned.