committee only move to approve second so we have motion and seconded to approve
the minutes any additions or corrections to the minutes as presented
seeing none youth in governance all those in favor
by signify by saying aye aye committee members all those in favor
signify by saying aye aye opposed all right
minutes are approved item number five is moving over to
the transfer department uh letter a is human services department
director otter will authorize an acceptance of a wi department of health
services grant in the amount of a hundred and sixty six thousand seven
hundred and twenty four dollars and transfer of funds within human
services department twenty twenty six budget
twenty twenty six resolution action requested for first and second reading
at the august 25th 2026 county board meeting
and director auto is out of town tonight but we have y'all in the
joins here to bring us up to date on both of these
resolutions so we'll start with a thank you all right hello
so the first um grant that we have is the um
substance abuse prevention treatment and recovery services black grant
this is a grant that the receding county already receives um this was
supplemental funds that came became available at the end of the month of
july um totaling the hundred sixty six thousand seven hundred and twenty four
dollars raseen county applied and was awarded this
um these funds are intended to be used for the new
residential facility um to properly equip them with the curriculum
equipment and supplies to get um the program up and operational
um we're happy to hear that um these funds have been offered to us and are
hoping that we are able to help um support the services there and um
cover the cost for um beginning operations at the residential
does the committee have any questions for y'all or not unless
supervisor milan thank you mr chairman i assume there's a state deadline and
that's why you're asking for first and second reading yes
and i should add that in my apologies um these funds need to be spent by
september 30th so we are quite on a time crunch here
um the supplemental funds end then and then we just continue with our normal
amount of funds that are already allocated for substance abuse treatment
and prevention within the county um so we are hoping that all of our
expenses can be covered to get the residential up and running
thank you it's chairman i would move to send this to the county board for
first and second reading thank you so we have a motion
second to send this to county board for person second reading this evening is
there any other discussion on this super pleasure thank you mr chairman um i
want to thank um the grant writers that obtained
this supplemental grant and reading through the details
what struck me is it states the project will eliminate a
long-standing gap in the county's continuum of care
improve access to residential treatment reduce barriers to recovery and provide
individuals with the tools environment and support
necessary to achieve lasting recovery i love that
and this is great that we can use the money in this fashion
thank you yelena and your team thank you and i also want to just kind of add
too with the way that this is written yelena i've had some conversation too
it's very very broad on what we can use the money for and how we can spend it
so it's one of those things where it's it gives us a lot of flexibility
with everything from something as is bedding and pillows to hygiene products
to curriculum and and you know workbooks and stuff like that so
thank you any further discussion on the motion
seeing none youth in governance all those in favor signify by saying aye
aye all right committee all those in favor signify by saying aye
aye opposed all right motion carried thank you
so while you're up there yet we'll move on to the letter b
human services department director otter the authorized an acceptance of a
wi department health services grant in the amount of
two hundred thousand nine hundred and seventy six dollars
and the transfer of funds within the human services 2026 budget
2026 resolution action requested for first and second reading for the
august 25th county board meeting we only need to bring us up to date on
this one please i sure will this grant is a grant
opportunity for the community mental health services black grant this is a
grant that we're seeing county already receives an additional supplemental
fund became available same time frame as the last grant discussed at the end of
july to be used for the months of august and
september all funds need to be expended by the end of
september 30th the total award is the two hundred thousand nine hundred and seventy
six dollars we were able to apply for this loan what we
intend to utilize loans excuse me this grant as you can see it's late in the
evening so this grant's intentions are to
continue to expand the programs and initiatives
surrounding housing focused behavioral health services for individuals living
with serious and mental serious mental illness
anybody dealing with serious and persistent mental health issues obviously
already has a barrier against them when their basic needs aren't being met such
as being homeless this creates another divide in them
trying to find some stabilization with that being said
we have proposed that we will use existing
initiatives such as our sale crisis hostel
and ensuring that any individual that comes to sale that is looking for
connection to housing supports or promoting
long-term stability and recovery we will link them with a non-profit
provider that deals with housing navigation and stabilization services
to help find some housing services that are available to them this fund
cannot be utilized for paying payments mortgage payment
landlord payments this is strictly for housing
navigation supports coordination with landlords
these will have to be these dollars will have to be utilized to work with
non-profit providers within Racine County loving kindness is one
provider here in Racine County that is a non-profit
that often struggles with funding we have had conversations with them we also
intend to have some conversations with halo to ensure that we are
trying to capture anybody that is dealing with some
housing homelessness issues or at risk of becoming homeless
to make sure that we could try to sustain them with long-term
stabilization and that arena of getting their basic needs met
since the grant is two hundred thousand nine hundred seventy six dollars we have
proposed that a hundred a thousand of this goes
to the non-profits and we will obviously keep hold of
all the grant reporting all the requirements of the grant
the other hundred thousand nine hundred seventy six dollars will go for
advertising this is a big ordeal that um behavioral health often struggles
with is to get the word out of the resources that are
available within Racine County crisis such as the crisis hotline
our crew initiative making sure that people are aware of wellness connect
and where to turn for mental health services within the county
so we're looking for a motion to accept the grant
Mr. Chairman I would move to send this to the county board for first and second
reading tonight second Mr. Chairman so we have a motion and
seconded to accept this grant move it forward to
county board for first and second reading any further discussion
any questions
all right I've seen none we'll call the question youth and governance all those
in favor signify by saying aye
aye committee all those in favor signify by saying aye
aye opposed all right thank you most carry thank you
let's send us the county board for first and second reading this evening
next up item number six is the staff report there's no action items listed
under staff report our next finance and human resources
committee meeting will be on september second at five o'clock
if there's any other questions or anything that's for the betterment of
this committee if not looking for a motion to
adjourn so I'll move all right we are adjourned thank you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
you
evening
and they were having a little technical difficulty with the video but we do have the audio
so I'm going to be calling the notice of the meeting of tonight for the
executive committee first thing on the agenda is approval of the previous minutes
second
motion has been dained seconded
all in favor say aye
opposed
motion is carried
item number two
closed session it's approximately 20 minutes it's anticipated that the executive
committee will meet in a closed session pursuant to section 19.85
parents one parent Z of the Wisconsin statutes to deliberate and negotiate the sale of public land and investment of public funds for development at
209 north main street in the city of Burlington where competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session. I would so move.
Roll call vote.
Supervisor Meyer.
Supervisor Miller.
Supervisor Rossy.
Supervisor Capallian.
Supervisor Weatherston.
Supervisor Schacour.
Supervisor Spencer.
Chairman Kramer.
Yes.
We are in closed session.
We're going to go in the back.
I got you.
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
You
Good evening.
My name is Tom Kramer and I'm going to be calling the county board meeting for August 25th, 2026th order.
order could click, call the role, supervisors, Kelly,
Horrith and Pritzker are excused supervisors Coleman and
Trattier are attending virtually and everyone else is in the
chambers.
Okay, why don't we stand for opening prayer.
A moment of silence.
Thank you.
And now the pledge I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the Republic for which it
stands, one nation under God, individual with liberty
and justice for all.
So item, item number four is public comments.
Pursuant to section two to 71 of the Racine County Code of
Ordinance, each speaker shall be allotted a maximum of three
minutes.
Vice chairman Meyer here will be the timekeeper.
He'll give you a 15 second lead up to the end.
First to speak tonight is Jean Jacobson.
Jean, why don't you come up and give us your address?
Somebody broke the air.
Hey, Jean.
Good evening.
I'm Jean Jacobson.
I'm the chairman of the town of Norway.
Nor that is.
It's at the beginning of Racine County.
And I'm here tonight in support of Ordinance 2026-4-1 and
2026-4-2 and I want to thank the Racine County Planning and
Development Committee, Economic Development Committee for their
support, our town board and our planning committee appeared
before them a couple of weeks ago.
And I am here tonight on behalf of the Norway Town Board,
the town of Norway Planning Committee and the audiences
that sat before us in total support of the rezoning
request that has came before us.
This evening we have with us the Jasper sins, the Gundersons,
the Johnsons, the Jacobsons, all our regions that came along
this evening to support this resolution.
This rezoning in this ordinance is for our business
located in an agricultural area that is extremely important to
serve those people in agriculture and people in
municipalities.
This business also serves Racine County snowplows and
machinery and it does a fine service to the area.
I want to thank those supervisors who took time out of
their day to come out to the town of Norway.
They found us and to take a look at the property and to
realize how well it fits into the area.
In fact, right next door, there's a sod farm that has maybe 16
semis a day.
This business is very quiet.
This business has been there for over 15 years and has served
our community extremely well.
I learned as the public official many years ago that
sometimes decisions come before you that are very difficult.
But I knew that I could always sleep at night if I made a
common sense decision.
Sometimes you have to make a little change in your thought
to make it happen.
So I appreciate your support and I appreciate all that you've
done to make this happen and I look forward to your positive
vote. Thank you.
And now we have Jeff Ehrhard.
And just step up and give us your address, Jeff.
Jeff Ehrhard, 225 South Griton Road, Union Grove, Wisconsin.
I am also here tonight.
I'll echo what Jean said.
So I won't repeat what that said.
But we spoke at the last meeting to try to get a little bit of
training to try to iterate the importance of the all-star
business to our communities.
But more so than that, I think it needs to be noted that all-star
is actually a service company.
They're a service to all of us who are in business out there.
And they make anything we want, anything we need, and they
literally will stock parts that we can't get anywhere else.
And they just do a great job on that.
But more so than that, I think it's imperative that the county
board understands the importance of a business like them or any
other business for Western Racine County.
The tax base is small out by us.
We need good businesses such as all-star.
And I hope that when you make your decision that you keep that
in mind because the tax base is small.
This is a company that pays business or pays taxes into the
town, the county and the state.
And they are well run.
There was absolutely zero opposition to them.
And I think it'd be a travesty that if we were to,
if you were to turn them down.
And so I look forward as Jean said to a positive vote. Thank you.
And now we have Justin Earhart.
You give us your address, Justin too.
Good evening, Justin Earhart, 26997 Plank Road, Burlington,
Wisconsin. I'm also here on behalf of the all-star company.
I think it's very important to echo what my,
my dad Jeff just said about the hard set all-star stocks.
And their ability to do that and willingness to do that.
It allows us as farmers to keep equipment running.
We have a very short window to do our jobs.
And what they provide as a service to the farm community.
Allows us to do our job.
On a different note.
I think it's important to keep in mind the type of people
that you're working with here.
I'm obviously one of probably the youngest person in this room.
Jeff and John and all the other guys to all-star have taken the time
to educate me and to work with us as farmers,
even when I come in there with a very oddball request.
They take the time to work with us.
They take the time to help me understand how to do it right.
And then sometimes how to make the equipment run.
If we can't get an exact part we need, they help us work through that.
I would hope that the business style and the personalities
and the positive community impact are reflected in your positive vote tonight.
Thank you.
Are there any other further comments?
Any other public comments?
Seeing none will move on.
So do we have a UW presentation?
I see.
Do you receive anything or?
Mr. Green is online.
Mr. Green is online.
There he is.
Thank you, Mr. Green.
Go ahead.
Here.
I think you're muted.
There we go.
Sorry.
I'm not terribly familiar with WebEx.
So I'm going to share my presentation real quick.
I was asked to give this presentation to a group of municipal officials.
I believe last month.
And then I was asked to give the presentation to the full county board.
So my name is Carl Green and I'm with the local government education program
with UW Extension.
We are part of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
And we are really here to help.
Both elected officials and just the general public better understand.
A variety of issues in the state that the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
And so our job is to help local elected officials understand a variety of issues
regarding elected government.
And one of those being the Wisconsin property system.
So I'm going to go into this.
I know that I cannot see everybody there.
And I certainly don't mean to insult anybody if I explain to them.
I'm going to go into this.
I think sometimes understanding some of the basics of our property tax system
makes us better able to explain it to the general public as well.
And they really look to us to understand how the system works as well as
where our property tax property taxes go.
So we have a two-value system.
We have both the essential property taxes.
So we have a two-value system.
We have both the assessed value that your municipal assessor determines
or your municipal assessing department.
And then we have a what's called full or equalized value
that the Department of Revenue statistically determines from municipal
sales supply to them from your municipal assessing department
and other assessors around the state.
So not all taxing jurisdictions use the same value.
The county uses equalized value to divide its levy buy to get its mill rate.
The municipality uses the assessed value to divide its levy buy to get its mill rate.
And so sometimes when we compare mill rates between municipalities,
we're actually making a little bit of an error because we're using the each
municipality's assessed value rather than the equalized value,
which would cause the numbers to become more equal and equalized
according to the state of the Department of Revenue.
We also need to understand that not all properties are assessed at full value
in more rural areas where we have ag land that's assessed at what's called
use valuation based on the crop that's being grown and then depending on the forest
land and how it's being used and whether public access is offered or not,
there's a variety of managed forest land programs that that owners can receive.
In other words, just not every single type of property is assessed the same.
And so that can be confusing.
And this confusion really starts to lead to mistrust.
And that mistrust gets echoed in a lot of different ways.
One of that is to the TIFF debate and whether TIFF is a way to really incentivize economic development.
Again, better understanding of the property tax system helps people to better understand some of these more complicated subjects such as TIFF.
And as I mentioned, your understanding of the property tax system to be very helpful in reducing that misperception.
So it's such an important issue because we rarely pay property taxes, unlike sales tax,
where we're paying it with every purchase property taxes are billed on anywhere from one to four installments and you're paying them annually.
And so people really, it really, you know, emotionally affects people.
It's a big, large sum of money, some of money that's being sent out in pretty big installments.
Revaluations, which I'll talk about a little bit and the impacts that they can have,
it'll create a fluctuation in that property owner's valuation.
And the perception is, is that however much that fluctuation goes up, my taxes are going to similarly go up and that's just not always the case.
So to very quickly get us to understand how the system works.
When we budget, we have more expenditures and we have revenues.
We have a lot of revenues coming in as a municipality or as a county,
but we typically have more expenditures and revenues and we have to make that up.
We have to balance our budget every year. So we balance it with the levy.
The levy used to be our ability to balance our budget, but since the mid 2000s,
levies have been held to a certain amount that we can increase them by based on that new construction.
I'll talk about that in a minute.
When we do a revaluation and we get more in the bottom of the equation.
We aren't getting more money.
We are getting, we are only getting more money by levying more dollars.
So by levying more dollars, we get more money, but unless we are not doing that,
we aren't getting more money. And just by changing people's valuation doesn't mean we have more money to spend.
And so people need to realize that the bigger that the bottom of the equation gets the mill rate actually will go down.
And so while yes, as the housing market has really escalated in the past few years and values have really escalated as well.
Those appreciations in the market can sort of fluctuate out through a lower mill rate.
So, unfortunately, when the property tax bill comes, what it is looking at and what it represents is the percent change from the year before.
And so when a revaluation does occur and somebody that was under assessed is now being paid or excuse me is now over assessed adequately closer to what the average is,
it's going to show up significant change from the year before.
That is not the amount that the municipality or the county or the school district is levying.
It's simply the difference between last year's tax bill for this property and this year's tax bill.
I don't believe that the general public gets that and I don't blame them.
These tax bills have a lot of numbers on them and they can be very confusing.
And that percent tax change at first glance looks like that's how much of a difference it is that the city or the taxing jurisdiction is spending between years.
What really causes property taxes to increase is increasing the tax levy.
If we don't change the municipal or any assessed values or when we have changes to individual assessed values, while the municipal assessed value has either reduced or stayed the same or increased at a lower rate than your individual increase.
So, this is getting at that reassessment.
Just real quick, this is an example tax bill that can be sent in the mail with the property taxes so that people at least have the ability to understand what they're looking at in the middle of the screen towards the top.
You see what is called the average assessment ratio.
That's a very important number.
This example gives us an illustration of what happens between years during a reassessment year.
And again, I sincerely apologize. I cannot see anybody. I don't know if anyone is falling asleep at this point.
I'm sorry to continue to go on, but this is is really the nuts and bolts of how the property tax system works.
So this community, let's say, is a community of six people.
They are assessed at a very different amounts. And so their assessment ratios are anywhere from 77% to 95%.
And that's in comparison to the full value, which is what should be the market value of the property.
The assessor, however, has deemed them at very different amounts.
And so on average, their average assessment ratio was 84.6%.
But you can see that's an average and they range anywhere from March, who's at 77% to Mike, who is at 95%.
So they levy $12,500 for the year. They spread that over that $1.1 million.
And they have $10.96 as a mill rate that they need to spread over everyone's value.
So in this beige in the bottom of the left side of the graphic, you can see how much each individual property pays for property taxes in that community.
So the next year, which is represented by this black line, they have a revaluation.
And so new values are determined. And so the red represents what those new values are for each property tax owner.
Again, there's only six property owners in this community.
Each one goes up a certain amount in comparison to the market value. The market value hasn't changed at all.
But the valuations, when comparison to each other have changed, the assessor went through and reassessed.
The average assessment ratio is now 97%, which is this, you're supposed to be within that 90% range once in a four year period. So, department of revenue doesn't require you to do a reassessment.
Okay, in the blue, the net new construction allows this community to increase their levy by 6.4%. They do that.
They get the total assess value of 1.3 million that they divide that new levy by and their tax rate becomes $10.07 per thousand.
Put that in the tan books, and you can see how it plays out. They are able to raise the full amount that they need to raise.
And look at the difference that different taxpayers have paid. The person that was under assessed the year before saw $243 increase in their property taxes.
But Mike, the gentleman that was over assessed in relation to everyone else, even though his property tax assessment did go up between the year before and the new year.
His property taxes went down and that's because everybody else is accommodated for that raise because he was paying such a higher average rate, such a higher assessment in comparison to his, his neighbors.
So the takeaway here is that having your average assessment ratio, which is again on your property tax bill, as close to 100% as you can, creates a lot more equity between the property taxpayers so that they're paying a reasonable amount in relation to each other.
That gets communicated, not just for the municipality, but for the county. And so in this example, where I take it out a step further and say what would happen in 2025.
The county had a three and a half dollar per thousand mill rate. And this would be how much the each property would end up paying.
And then the county changes their mill rate they actually drop their mill rate.
So that's where the tax less. And yet, many of these properties see this 11% change, which is what I was getting at the beginning on your property tax bill when it starts to show that change of 11% from the year before.
The interplay between how everybody is being assessed if there's been a revaluation year, it's not necessarily that the municipality or county has increased their levy by that significant of an amount.
Here's just another example of a good way to communicate that when a resident is paying the property tax bill they're paying not just to the municipality that's collecting it but they're paying for the technical college.
They're paying for the municipal services, the county services, and the school district services so being able to represent that in a manner like this helps to communicate that so people can understand that it's not just their dollar is going to the municipality that's
getting it but these other taxing jurisdictions as well. This real quickly, and I'll then very quickly go into an open questions, but this is the net new construction, which is really the lifeblood for municipalities and how they can raise their levy.
This is the net new construction for every municipality in Racine County study that I had put together a while back but I was trying to look at how is net new construction keeping up with inflation.
Unfortunately except for Mount Pleasant and the village of Sturavant, Sturavant, every municipality is well below the inflation rate meaning their costs have gone up more than their ability to raise their levy to catch up to that.
Departments are competing with each other for that precious levy dollar because they're not able to raise enough to keep up with inflation.
So I guess who has questions anybody have any questions I would be happy to take those.
Here's my contact information and again, thank you for your time and willingness to have me and give me the opportunity to come and speak.
Any questions for Carl.
Seeing none I thought it was very interesting but then I'm a municipal treasure to so.
You did a really good job.
They did it here in the headlights.
Could you put your contact was yeah, if you could do that again.
I put the contact.
Oh, could you put your contact information up again, Carl.
Let me bring it up real quick.
You see it.
Yes.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you everybody.
All right.
Item number six.
Reading of the minutes of the previous meeting, which is automatically waived unless requested by the majority of the members presence.
Item number seven resolutions and ordinance ordinances referred to committee.
There are none.
Item number eight introduction of resolutions and ordinances for first reading and referral.
We have resolution number 2026 dash 49.
My public works parks and facilities committee authorizing and improving a memorandum of understanding.
Between receiving county public works and water for youth football.
Please chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, your finance and human resources committee about earlier this evening and unanimously passed two resolutions 202650 and 202651.
These would be for some supplemental grants. We typically don't ask for first and second reading, but if there's no objection, I'd like to ask for first and second reading tonight.
Do the amount of money and the time that it needs to be spent.
I see no objections.
See there.
Okay.
Liz is passing out copies to everyone.
The first one would be resolution number 2026 dash 50 by the finance and human resources committee authorizing the acceptance of a Wisconsin department of health services grant and the amount of 166,724 and transfer funds within the human services department.
26 budget.
And then resolution number 2026 dash 51 by the finance and human resources committee authorizing the acceptance of a Wisconsin department of health services grant the amount of 200,976 dollars and transfer funds within the human service department 2026 budget.
All right.
Item number nine, communications and claims.
Number one, a resolution requesting the Wisconsin counties association provide equal and equitable, equitable voting to all counties on WCA steering committees from Polk County.
Item number one is referred to the end file, then the county clerk's office.
Number two resolutions regarding sustainable state funding for local public health departments from tremolo green lacrosse and Sawyer counties.
And number three resolution requesting the state to provide GPR funding to cover the full non federal share of M a CSP and crisis services from Sawyer County items number two and three refer to the health and human development committee.
The public knows this of an air pollution control permit application review for EPSI Frank's bill located at 4220 Courtney Road, Frank's bill we're seeing county Wisconsin FID 252 179180 from the Wisconsin department of natural resources.
Item number four is refer to the economic development and land use planning committee.
Number five we're seeing county facilities management notable project status report for the month of July, 2026.
Item number five is referred to the public works parks and facilities committee.
And then items number six is a foreclosure of mortgage item number seven as a claim and items number eight through 24 are notifications for the United States bankruptcy court.
Items number six through 24 refer to finance and human resources committee and corporation council.
Supervisor Caprillion.
Supervisor wish I thank you chair copies of four and seven please.
Supervisor McRennell.
Thank you Mr Chairman also copies of four and seven.
Supervisor Osterman.
Four please thank you.
Supervisor Hoffman.
Thank you chairman I'd like copies of four and seven please.
Supervisor Lorentz.
Thank you Mr Chairman copies of number four please.
Vice Chairman.
Thank you Mr Chairman.
Two and seven please.
And I would like one and.
Seven please.
Any further requests for copies.
Seeing none.
Proceed.
Communications from the county executive.
There are none in tonight's agenda.
Item number 11 standing committee reports containing recommendations and items preferred.
There are no reports.
And number 12.
Second reading of resolutions and ordinances.
Under majority vote we have ordinance number 2026 dash 41 by economic development and mind use planning committee to rezone from a to general farming and residential district to to be three commercial service district section 22 town for north.
Range 20 east town of Norway owners.
Ingersoll development LLC.
Ordinance number 2026 dash 42 by economic development and land use planning committee to amend the town of Norway land use map of the multi jurisdictional comprehensive plan for Racine County 2035.
As it pertains to personal ID number 010042 022 004030.
Resolution number 2026 dash 48 by financing human resources committee authorizing and adopting a financial policy manual motions been made in a second did Mr Chairman like separate consideration of 41 and 42 separate consideration as a group as a group.
Okay, I guess.
Supervisor asked, why don't you lead us into ordinance 2026 41 42. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
These need to be considered separately.
These two.
Okay, you're asking for separate consideration on both.
Right.
Okay.
And with your indulgence, we need to do 42 first. I think these were numbered out of order.
42 is the.
That's okay.
We'll do that first.
Okay.
So 42 is what we're talking about. This is the land use plan amendment for the town of Norway.
The change in the ordinance from what you had in your packet versus what is on your desk now is the third page line seven.
There was a, there was a typo that proposed amendment to the Burlington plan and it was supposed to read town of Norway.
That changes have been made. It does not require a separate S ordinance, just a correction. So.
And the other is 2026 41 as a rezone.
Normally these things, this land use plan with a rezone is a very routine type.
If I could issue, should we take.
2026 42 first or you want to explain 40 doing that.
Yeah, 42. Okay.
For 42. Right.
But.
A, this land use.
Amendment is not routine.
Neither is the, the ordinance, the zoning ordinance.
The.
Just right up front, we need to get out of the way that the, the business that was, has been operating there has been operating for 13 years and an on conforming use.
I believe that.
That is due to the fact that that Mr. Ingersoll was misinformed.
Either through research or information that he had as to the requirement to have an operating permit.
It very well could have qualified under our H barb ordinance.
But he was operating under the.
Use that you could.
You could operate with a small business within the confines of an A to within a building with limited number of employees.
During the meeting, I was only on.
The phone. I was not in person. I did not have the opportunity to me, Mr. Ingersoll.
I'd like to thank supervisor wish off for facilitating that introduction.
I went out and spent two hours talking to Mr. Ingersoll.
I made a friend and we, we exchanged our, our dilemmas.
I am initially and still against the land use plan change for several reasons.
The, the reduction in agriculture land philosophically. I always want to preserve ag land.
There was also nothing else around it permitted.
And potential negative uses down the road and putting the county at risk for others.
Saying, well, you had, you created spot zoning here.
In fact, the, the staff recommendation was to deny this.
That it was spot zoning.
There were no other uses around it and that the use was inconsistent with the.
The, the, the district in the land use plan.
Now, out of the other side of my mouth, I'm going to tell you the reasons why a land use amendment would be good.
First of all, as you've heard from the public, it's good for agriculture. It's good for the farmers.
There's overwhelming public support. There was not one person at the, at loop meeting or tonight that spoke against allowing this to happen.
That business paying sales tax state sales tax and county sales tax.
One of the most important things when you're trying to argue against spot zoning.
Is to understand that a business serves the greater good. It serves the municipalities.
This business.
There is OEM equipment from every manufacturer, which is what the farmers need and especially our municipalities.
They are committed to 24 hour availability.
On an emergency basis that can be very important during the snowstorm for our municipal governments.
So there, there's, there's a very good, there's very compelling arguments to.
Change the land use plan, even though it may seem as though it's spot zoning, which I still.
Think it's spot zoning.
But I want to present a balanced.
Explanation here as to why this is not routine.
So.
There are, we have a potential substitute ordinance for the rezoning.
Should this land use amendment pass.
We spent an hour.
Mr. Ingersoll and myself with Michael Lanzorff and john circuits.
Going through.
Some of the issues that we have here and we think that.
With the following ordinance for rezoning, we have a good answer to many of these issues. So.
It came out of committee, this land use amendment came out of committee at six to one.
Six members voted to allow it. I was the lone vote against it. Again, because.
I think it's important to preserve agriculture land. Now, admittedly, we're, we're talking about affecting less than 10 acres.
And I'm arguing against myself here, but I want to be able to present to you guys all the reasons for and against this.
So my vote is against the land use plan amendment, but please make your own decision as you will.
On the, you know, the importance of moving this, this business forward. It does.
But the land use plan amendment does benefit the county and municipalities, it benefits local farmers. And again, there is, there's overwhelming public support without any dissent.
So there's much more to talk about.
On the further ordinance, but that is pretty much the land use plan amendment to.
Allow a zoning change so that their business can expand.
Any other further comments supervisor Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So I wanted to, we're consideration to, to speak as I'm going to speak, but I did not know the back corner.
That supervisor, I'm just raised, but.
I will proceed with my previous thoughts on that was.
It is not often that we get any public input on a land use plan or a rezone. So I'm very grateful that both the town of Norway and citizens were here to speak to those concerns and very much over my history on the board.
Inclined to trust the local people and their decisions.
But I also wanted to say that.
Not only is Jean Jacobson chair of the town of Norway, but she served on this county board for many years.
In fact, as the unofficial county board historian, I will note that my first vote on this board was to elect Jean Jacobson county board chair.
After all these years.
I publicly reveal my private vote, but I also wanted to note that.
Jean Jacobson was the first female county executive, not only a very seen county, but I'm in the state of Wisconsin. So.
I just think it's important for us, especially those who might be listening online to, to note that we have distinguished citizens with a lot of service here this evening.
Thank you.
Supervisor Miller, supervisor, try to your head to hand up.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman for allowing me to speak.
And then thank you, Mr. Chairman for giving me the tour of the town of Norway and the property in question and the surrounding community that supports it.
It was very educational.
I want to let everyone know that I have been a banker for the last 35 years and I understand development and business for all communities, especially the community of Racine County.
But I am not in support of amending the town of Norway land use map.
Of the multi jurisdictional comprehensive plan for Racine County in 2020, 2035.
Why that recommendation from our development service division was to not adopt this change.
The change may could be considered spot zoning, according to our development service department.
This change of approved may or could set a precedent for future request of landowners in the county.
This may and could.
Be a potential liability for the county with this, Mr. Chairman, I see the floor and I am not in support of this ordinance.
Thank you, supervisor. Are there any other comments.
Supervisor wish I thank you, chair. I'm in support of this. I spoke to Mr. Ingersoll for probably close to 45 minutes.
Late last week, it was a great conversation. It's clearly it. They have done a lot for down at Norway. They've done a lot for Racine County.
And they're going to continue to do that as they move forward. I'm not in favor of doing anything that would hinder their ability to be a successful business and a good patron for their community.
So I'm in favor of supporting this moving forward.
Supervisor McRennell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am in support of this. It's not too often. I think it's been said that.
There are a lot of people that will show up at an economic development land use meeting and I am out from out that in that area and have heard nothing but great things about the business owner.
And to have several neighbors come in and support this just.
Echoes what a great business and and what.
This gentleman does not only for the businesses, but also for the community.
So I am in total support of this. Thank you.
Supervisor Hopkins. Yeah, I just want to make sure I understand.
What's an issue is it that allows this business to exist.
And or allows it to expand if he just got to clarify.
Both. Is there a day.
May I go ahead.
So what's before you right now is the land use plan change with that.
So Mr. Ingresall was found to be operating without a permit due to information that he had.
He thought he didn't have to have an operators permit, but he does. So he's in the process of fixing that with the developmental services.
But he has two choices now.
He has to find a new place, a new building.
Because where he's at right now operating when which I toured the place.
It's very clean. It's a well run operation. Everything's being done really, really right. And there are a lot of precautions being taken.
So I appreciate the good business that that he's running.
And Mr. Ingresall, if I, if while I'm talking if I mischaracterize anything, please step up.
The, so he has to either move to a new building somewhere.
Or he has to seek a land use plan change and follow that up with the zoning to get the right zoning. So his business is permitted.
Right now he's running a technically an unpermitted business. And it's, it's not been objectionable to the neighborhood or anybody or anything.
So having gone through the exercise for a long period of time to find a new building.
And that, that he could use to serve his, his, his market, the way that he is now and the way that farmers and especially the municipalities are relying on right now.
He could not find anywhere. There was nothing available.
So the, the next step then would be to build a new building. Additional on that property. So he has to have the land use plan with the rezoning.
Okay, so I understood to extent that he needs this rezoning.
So that that building can exist where it currently is. Right. So, so he can continue to operate where he's at and build the new building.
And the rezoning is the next thing to talk about. If I could just a little bit on the history of the property.
The property was and it was a, it was a farm.
And these warehouses were warehouses that they stored vegetables and machinery and what have you.
Mr. Ingersoll came in, bought a parcel that actually, well, multiple parcels. Actually, this is just the one.
And that had some migrant labor camps on from the 70s and early 80s and also had.
A worn down wore down buildings that have been used over quite a few years. He upgraded those, started a small business.
And that brings us here today were the businesses.
Working with the community members, municipalities, agricultural community and special projects.
And he needs more room. So on an a two parcel.
That you don't have that you can't expand your business building.
So that's one of the reasons why we need to change the land use plan.
That's that we have on file here. So we can go to the next step and get the rezoning.
So Mr. First of all, Mr. Ingersoll will be operating on the correct zoning.
And also he can build an additional building.
Now the building is his area there has got a couple three or four acres of gravel.
Parking lot and parking lot. The rest is all.
Farm land.
And the farmland has last time the town of Norway does sounding out there a soil sample out there. There was 16 feet of muck.
So you have to be on the high ground to be able to build this building.
So the impact on the farmland probably isn't going to be very much to losing itself.
The current resolution or resolution is so that.
That business can exist and expand and without it, he has to move.
Yes.
If I may go ahead in regards to the spot zoning question.
This is from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
Various cases, Cushman v. City of Racine.
Howard versus on Grove.
Well, versus Alcorn.
Spot zoning is not necessarily illegal, but must be judged on individual circumstances.
The courts look at the purpose for which that zoning was granted.
Should be for a public purpose and result in public benefit and not solely for the personal benefit of the property owner requesting the rezoning.
As I stated, I'm in opposition because of the, the, the ag use value.
And, but an argument on the other side is that this certainly could be looked at as a public benefit,
especially when you're looking at 24 hour availability that the business commits to the only business that has all of the inventory and stock 24 hour availability for municipal services to use in the event of snow,
and other emergencies, flood emergencies, what have you, they can get their equipment and prepared and back on the road right away.
And so that's, that's a consideration.
Another, you know, according to a trial court, the business provided a public service to both the neighbors and to the entire town.
So I, as, even though I, I stand in opposition to it, I acknowledge there are very compelling arguments the other direction.
I was reading as well. And it seems to me, some of the stipulations about a public good and where who and what it benefits.
It seems to satisfy those.
Depulations, at least when I understand.
Supervisor Rossi.
Thank you chairman.
I would say typically that I would not support something like a spot zoning situation, which I do feel this has a little bit of, but I will say the amount of people have showed up and then having the town chair.
And then having to move over and find another facility.
I don't have an issue with this one and on committee, I've made exceptions for certain issues that are in conflict with county ordinances and I do feel that this is very similar to some of the ones that we have made exceptions for so I'll be voting in favor of this one.
Thank you.
Any further.
Supervisor variance.
Thank you, Mr chair. I'd also like to go on record. This can be front in front of the economic development lane.
You're explaining on July 20th at that time, there was, I don't remember this exact number, but there was at least five to maybe as many as seven neighboring properties that spoke in support of this.
So it's not only the support you're in tonight, but support at that time.
This business is already has a history of is operating in good standing without any issues.
And it provides a very needed service for a lot of the different businesses and people within the area, you know, not moving this forward.
Not only affects the business that we're talking about, but the people that support that business and need products in generally when they need those products, they need them in an emergency, you know, during planting harvesting season.
And snow snow situations. So I'm going to vote in support of this. And I would ask that we think in terms of those things to us as we move forward.
Supervisor Caprillion. Thank you so much. I don't want to repeat anything that's been said, but I do want to bring some attention to what supervisor.
Trottier was talking about about it studying a precedence being that I am one that supports it, but I have to think about as I've said here for 15 years and I've been hearing things like that.
And I've often said the same thing. And I wonder what would show up for this to be different, because I think we are all thoughtful people making a judgment call here. And so what another body that would come with another issue that might look similar.
So I do think it's a fair concern that supervisor Trottier has, but I'm wondering if maybe in the motion, now I'm just kind of thinking out loud.
Or if it be written as be in what we have before us that it doesn't say that it's just approved because it could be because we like the guy.
But maybe that because the surrounding area is constrained from development is what I've heard. Chairman Kramer said, and because the farmers of those who testify established with established businesses need it as something.
Supervisor Osterman had said was something that justifies spot zoning to go against it. So something more so in the motion that it could be.
I think we're going to address that in the next ordinance. Perfect.
Is there any other further comments or questions? Okay. Supervisor wish.
Thank you. I think this is a perfect exam example of extenuating circumstances and benefit to the community more than is anything else.
You know, mistakes were made. We're correcting mistake. And we're also supporting the community that he represents.
So, I don't, you know, let's cut through the red tape. I mean, just, it's just something that makes common sense.
I mean, and I don't know anything about the business.
But I think it deserves that. Thank you.
Thank you. Any further comments. Supervisor Miller asked for roll call vote. So if you could power us up there, we're going to roll a vote.
And first you have to check in.
Okay.
Supervisor Coleman, how do you vote? Yes.
Supervisor, try to hear how do you vote? No.
Motion carries. Give us a moment to record this.
Thank you.
All right. Supervisor, instrument ordinance number 202641.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So now that we have a change in the land use plan, myself, I see no reason except for one to not support the rezoning request.
One of the things that happened during all of this discovery was that, again, Mr. Ingersoll and I sat down.
We kind of traded places of putting ourselves in each other's shoes and have a long discussion about what would you do if you had the issues that I had and vice versa.
So we, we talked for a long time and that led to a meeting with county attorney, Landstorff and circuit.
So some of those concerns were related to protecting the county from future potential litigation or even questioning.
You know, when somebody else comes along now and they want to do something that we find very egregious.
How do we say no, you know, so a lot of things need to be on the record.
I'm very thankful that we had so many people at the ed loop meeting.
And tonight speaking in favor of this, that helps bolster the case of it being good for the community.
We need to provide the opportunity for all start to grow their business.
We need to protect the intent of future use.
And so.
When one of the things that that Mr. Ingersoll was very worried about was down the road.
If he sold his business.
If somebody would change it dramatically and it would not meet the, the intent and the character of what we're trying to do here with this land use plan amendment.
So through discussions with county attorney, they drafted at S ordinance that you have in front of you now.
And there is a single paragraph, the whereas paragraph, which talks about what would happen in the future.
Should this property be reverted or something would change in the, in the, the material use of it, not generally,
in the material use of the property and how that business would operate.
Basically trying to keep it from becoming a gas station or a high volume, you know, traffic area or something like that, all things that are allowable in B three. So this is the language that came from the county attorney.
And I am very comfortable with the fact that, that it protects the county.
And it also stays true to the intent of what Mr. Ingersoll was trying to, to do on his property, expand his business, keep it running as is and transfer that down the road to a similar like or exactly like type owner.
So that's what the, the S resolution is.
Um, I would move to approve the 202641 S ordinance in place of 2026 dash 41.
So we have, we have a motion.
It's been made in a second to amend the 202641.
To 202641 S.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if I may, just real quickly, prior to this coming here, this was all vetted with Mr. Ingersoll.
And he is fine with the way that it's worded has no, no issues at all and feels very comfortable with the fact that this will help secure his, secure his, his property for the purposes that he's trying to make happen.
It also puts this whole thing, it puts the reasoning on record also, you know, this fixes a lot of issues this S ordinance. So.
Mr. Chairman.
Supervisor Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think I would like to know and I would assume the rest of the board might.
If the town of Norway has any comment on this S resolution with the, with the additional paragraph on the rezoning.
I've not seen it or we have not read it, but I have all the confidence in Mr. Ingersoll.
He's committed to make this work.
He's happy or happy.
And I would say, Mr. Chairman, to that point.
Mr. Ingersoll did not have to do this. And the things that he was offering was talking about doing something with the deed he was trying to figure out how to, how to keep, make the county stronger in with this.
And I really commend him for stepping up and volunteering to, to put something like this in place so that the future use is protected.
Yes, and I can, I can attest to Mr. Ingersoll's willingness to help and compromise because.
I believe the town has been working on this solution for almost a year.
Now, before.
Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I just don't follow a question for Corp console.
What does this paragraph mean? I've never seen this in all my years on the county board that we would add something like this.
It's quite unique.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, in the wake of our meeting that we had yesterday.
John search ditch and I have spent some considerable time just researching applicable case law.
Ultimately, I am comfortable from a legal standpoint that while I would caution against some of those alternative approaches that were mentioned conditioning county approval of a rezone on restrictive deed, something like that.
There's a good chance that would be unlawful. And so I don't recommend going down that path.
The alternative was codifying through the ordinance that there's a formal reversionary interest. That is not what's drafted here.
The courts have, you know, weighed in on some of those formal reversionary interests. And it's just something that in that abbreviated time, I wasn't comfortable recommending or as your risk manager, you know, recommending approving.
But what we've drafted is an attempt to supervisor Osterman indicated document the intent, document some of the justification for this.
You'll notice that it's aware as it's essentially a preamble to the actual substantive ordinance change and documenting that it's been determined by the county that this is in the public interest.
It's, it's in the interest of public health, safety and welfare to rezone the lands.
But if you continue on it notes that the property may not be appropriate generally for expansion material expansion of the business beyond what was in the petition.
It may not be appropriate for other uses that are otherwise permitted or permissible in the B three commercial service district.
But it doesn't specifically state that in the event, whether through Mr. Ingersoll or through a future owner that if they did either propose or take action to materially expand or to alter that use that it would automatically revert back to.
In agricultural use, it says that it may with the necessary governmental approvals and in this instance, that would be the town of Norway and Racine County to take action to change back the zoning designation for this particular parcel.
And that's the intent. And so playing it out in real world if 10 years down the road, either through Mr. Ingersoll, through a future owner of the parcel.
If they took action to materially expand or to turn it into some other authorized use in the B three, but something materially different than what was in the petition.
In that instance, I could envision the economic development land use planning committee, I could envision the town of Norway inviting that owner before them to explain how this fits within that original rezone.
This is deemed to be in the public interest. And that could not saying that it would, but it could lead to a rezone to go back to an agricultural designation, or it could lead somewhere else, but minimally would force the discussion.
So that was our intent in drafting this language as a sort of preamble is to one document the intent document that determination that it's in the public interest, but also set forth that in the event it ran a file of that original designation that there's
the means for the appropriate governmental bodies to review whether that continues to be most appropriate for the community.
Supervisor crowd here.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Thank you.
Supervisor Austin and for all the work you've done with this.
Ordinance and everything that you have done with the contact with Mr. Ingersoll and our legal counsel.
I am very supportive of resolution 2026 41s.
For the number one purpose, if the text the public for future use.
Yes, I am not fond of spot zoning, which this could be.
I was nervous about the liability that it could create with the county.
Also, if this resolution s wasn't added, as Osterman said, this could be a gas station down the road.
Possibly. Therefore, I am in support of resolution 2026 dash 41s because it does protect the public from future use.
It also.
This is the general public for the support in Western Racine County.
The business adds value to the community and.
Good luck, Mr Ingersoll.
Should this be approved.
Any further comments.
Okay, so we're going to be voting on the ordinance substitution, the amendment.
It's the majority vote.
Be a voice majority vote.
Mr. If I could just interject, I just want to make clear that my understanding of the motion that's before the body is first the motion to amend or substitute.
And so this would not be to authorize.
The S ordinance, rather, it would be to replace or substitute the original drafted.
202641 with 202641.
Upon that approval, if approved by majority vote, then it would go for another vote on the adoption.
Right, this is replacing it like an amendment. Okay.
So we do all do all know who we're voting for a yes vote would replace the S ordinance with the original resolution.
Does the voice majority vote all in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed.
Motion carried.
Mr. Chairman, I would move to adopt 202641s.
We don't need to have a motion in a second on now.
We don't know.
We've already had a motion to do.
You don't have to re motion, though, at the S got it.
We just now we're going to vote on the resolution 202641s.
Ordinance, excuse me, ordinance 202641s.
For final approval.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed.
Motion carried.
Thank you.
Supervisor vice chair.
Mr. Chairman, just to note, if I may, so at look committee, we have to resign the forms.
So let's do that before we leave.
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, resolution 202648.
Yes, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, the resolution 202648 before you is from our finance director, Gwen Zimmer.
This is a new manual that she's been working out of a project for our finance department to help consolidate modernized clarify and our financial policies and to be happy to have directors in here to expand on this manual that she's worked so hard on.
Director.
Thank you, Chairman.
I'm happy to answer any questions specifically about this. The purpose of it is that with the new budget software that will be released with the budget address in September, we're looking over the documents that currently reside in the budget.
So that the financial policies are in there, decided to take them out so that they can live in their own document.
This will live on the finance department page. It'll be looked over annually, providing to our auditors and to our bank console.
It adds a lot of depth to the policies that have already existed.
We've modernized them. We've looked at other municipalities and best practices by the government finance officers association.
And it provides continuity of operations for my staff, if I were to leave or others in my department to leave.
Any questions on the document.
I read parts of it.
And it's very, very well done.
You don't read all 50 pages.
I read the ones that were interesting.
Supervisor Miller, you have a question.
No, I just wanted to thank the finance director for other work. I think this will help.
It's been mentioned sometimes in the past, but.
When we are going out for bonding, this type of documentation will be helpful.
Yes, and then bond agencies.
Care that it exists, but they care that we're in compliance with it regularly.
So I will provide it to the agencies, but then also we'll have extensive conversation with them about how we're actually doing on it.
And Mr. Chairman, I just like to add to that.
Glenn heard staff, but a lot of time and effort into this. She's been working on this for, it's been well over a year.
Yeah.
Any further questions or comments.
So voice majority vote.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed.
Aye.
Motion carried.
Next, we have the items for two thirds majority vote. That would be resolution number 2026 dash 44 by finance and human resources committee authorizing the appropriation and use of opioid settlement funds to pay 25% of debt service annually for the series 2026 eight.
General application promissory notes for the behavioral health building in years 2027 through 2046.
Not to exceed 8,467,517 dollars.
Resolution number 2026 dash 45 by finance and human resources committee authorizing the implementation of the mental health symposium and transfer of $3,000 from the opioid settlement fund 2026 budget.
Resolution number 2026 dash 46 by finance and human resources committee authorizing the creation of one FTE contracted peer support specialist.
Effective September 30th 2026 through December 31st 2027.
And transfer of 95,065 dollars from the opioid settlement fund 2026 budget.
And resolution number 2026 dash 47 by finance and human resources committee authorizing the acceptance of the donation from the watershed protection committee.
And transfer of 42,270 dollars within the capital 2026 budget for the Kruger finally site improvements.
Chairman.
Yes.
Thank you chairman requesting separate consideration for 2026 dash 46 46. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We'll start off with resolution 2026 44.
This is the clerk would say we're authorized use of opioid settlement funds to pay approximately 12% of the portion of the new behavior health building and the amount of 8,467,517.
By using the settlement funds for this purpose is compliant with our opioid settlement guidance and it's fiscally responsible strategy to reduce property tax levy impact for debt service and direct resemblance here if you have any other questions in regards to that.
Are there any questions or comments on that.
Mr. Chairman supervisor Miller. I think just to echo what the.
Supervisor Myers said this is direct property tax relief because that anticipated $8 million would have had to be on the levy if we didn't use these funds for this purpose.
Any further questions or comments.
2026 45 resolution.
All right. This resolution is for a mental health symposium. This resolution would be the implementation of a mental health symposium.
This would be the first symposium that would cultivate a peer network among local behavior health providers and sustain ongoing regional collaboration.
This event is slated for October 7th at Romelage gel and zone Jones is here if you have any questions for her.
Are there any questions.
Comments.
Why don't we skip down to 2026 47.
All right. Resolution 2026 47. This would be an acceptance of a donation from the watershed protection committee ever seen in the amount of $21,135 for a part of a shortfall in a Kruger farm site.
Improvement.
The county's balance would come for the transfer of $21,135 from the parks capital P even account for a toll of $42,270.
And I believe Chad is here from land and water. Chad Sampson is here if there's any questions on that transfer.
Are there any questions comments on that.
Okay, so this is a two thirds majority vote on those three resolutions.
They should fire us up.
Supervisor Coleman, how do you vote.
Yes.
Thank you.
Supervisor, try to your how do you vote.
Yes.
Confirm.
Superviser, you're a yes as well. Okay. Motion carries unanimously.
Okay, then.
Vice chairman, how about 2026 46.
All right. Thank you chairman. This resolution is for creation of a peer support specialist to create a one FTE contracted position, which would help ensure individuals receive links to treatments and peer support services.
This position has been an estimated cost of $76,053 and 64 cents per year.
And it would be a contracted position for September 30, 2026 through December 31, 2027 for total cost of $95,068.
This position would be reevaluated for 2028 for continued use.
And needs, or if there's additional funding that would be available. If approved, this position would be used the opioid settlement funds and yelling us here for any questions on this topic.
Any comments or questions.
Supervisor Rossi.
Thank you chairman.
A situation like this came up when I was still on the.
Yeah, I'm being a health committee. The name escapes me right now. Sorry. I'm all health and human development. Thank you. Supervisor Miller. You're always right there for it.
And my concern was.
And I can't stress the concern I have with this enough.
We just got done with a one time funding.
Disaster. We slowly crept up funding and built up our spending. So we were supplementing operations with our funding.
This is exactly the same thing using opioid funds with our situation of give, give, give this to the budget and I'll feel better about it.
We are on the eve of the budget.
We are looking at a situation which so many people that I talked to said, and, you know, nobody really understood the gravity of what we were doing at the time is we were approving our allocations to operations.
We're, we're starting it again with this.
If, if this is going to be taken seriously by me, I would at least wait to the budget. We are so close to the budget.
We're trying to tie this to that.
We keep adding positions. We added positions previously and they work.
You know, this, this is one time funds always were grant funded, but it's still stress on our operations.
When you hire someone or you bring someone in from one department.
It's, you know, I said at the last meeting, you know, like human services.
It's more work for them to do.
So I would like to see this tied to the budget. I'm going to be voting no on this one.
And I cannot support something that's going to bring us back to a situation that to this day, we really don't even have a good answer about how we got to the ARPA cliff.
So this is a big red flag for me.
If I may make one comment.
When we first received the opiate element dollars, we spoke with board leadership yourself and vice chairman Meyer about how to handle requests for the use of those funds.
And you both emphatically said that the recommendation needed to come from the task force, which the county executive appointed him at for 18 months and created this recommendation.
And then your second request is that every single request for use of appropriation of these dollars happen through separate resolution and not to be included in the annual budget.
That's why you don't see this included in the budget.
You see it as a request outside of the budget so that the resolutions can be tracked individually.
And we always know what the proving body said for the spend of the dollars.
I have a question on when this does get printed somewhere in the.
In the budget or next.
You know, subsequent budgets.
Will this be a sunset position?
It is. Yes, it'll be a sunset position with an expiration of December 31st, 27.
It'll be handled. It'll be handled just like the sheriff's department with sort of in the sheriff's department with truck inspectors and that.
Yes. Yeah, with the new budget software for every position, we were able to add a filterable field that says sunset sure false.
So that will be presented for every position county and contracted so that the board and residents can clearly see which ones are funded with money that will inspire.
Supervisor, thank you chairman.
And thank you directors, but I don't think that my request is at odds with what.
No, I'm just asking. I was just asking the sunset question.
That my point being is that, you know, like similar to what the axon contract was, it was something that's in the budget, but also needed separate resolution for full authorization.
So this is the same situation where there's going to be a separate resolution.
It can be included in the budget. This resolution then times out with the budget.
No issue.
Just saying.
I may just make one comment.
Unfortunately, the only thing that I hear was being said, the only problem is with the peer support. They are very scarce around the state.
We were able to obtain one. And obviously it was the perfect timing because we had the additional grant dollars that came through the supplemental dollars.
We were able to obtain this person in order for us to continue to keep them through September.
After September 30th, we would need some type of funding.
Otherwise, obviously they would move on to another opportunity. I will know some of our peer support positions have stayed vacant for close to a year.
It's a real struggle. And the other initiative that is written in here was our crew overdose response services that also was came out of the opioid advisory committee of figuring out how we can better meet the residents of Racine County.
Following every overdose that occurs within the county within 24 to 72 hours were to respond. So we already have our crew initiative team that's there and covers the mental health crisis response.
This would be an additional factor covered, which would require a peer support in order to carry that initiative out.
Supervisor wish. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Back a few years ago, I had spoken to.
County executive delegate about the use of funds from our phone. I was concerned about where that money was going and it wouldn't be replaced in those persons that were hired or was the funding going to come to pay for them down the road.
That point, you know, not concerned about it.
He's going to come up with it or he had a plan. Well, unfortunately, he never came around to.
Conveying what that plan would be or had time to implement a plan.
I feel the same way as supervisor Rossi and there are other questions I have. It's a sunset position, but if I didn't read that correctly, it also says you're going to reevaluate it down the road.
And then you're either going to let that person go. If I was that person, I wouldn't feel very happy about it.
You know, I'm going to come work for you for $95,000 or whatever that is, whatever that amount is, and then I'm gone.
I don't think that's right. Right. Right. We're on a business and I know this isn't the business, but.
You have to think about the people involved too that you're hiring.
Don't dispute that maybe this person is needed, but I.
I can't vote for something that I don't believe in, and I don't believe in using funds that were designated for something else.
And we're going down that road that I don't want to go down again.
Because I warned people about it. And those of you that were on the board have been here long know that.
So I can't and good and good and good faith or good conscience.
I agree to it. And again, not disputing the needs, you know, but I am disputing the method.
I can just make one comment on that. So unfortunately, it's the reality of the world and the population that we serve our state opioid response dollars that come through fund to other peer support positions that are both contract positions.
Every year or every six, three to six months. Now, when we see things come down from the feds and it's all over the news articles and, you know, whatever Google searches, all of our staff are constantly nervous.
So unfortunately, it's not the way that we want to run a business, so to speak. However, it's the harsh reality of the funding streams that we have to fund these positions.
And then also, I just want to add that in our state opioid meetings, when they discuss the opioid dollars, the one overarching theme is how are we serving the community.
Which we are receiving the funds for. I understand that majority of the funding can go for prevention dollars, treatment dollars, that sort of thing.
Your support is a crucial element that's required in any type of substance use recovery.
They are the individuals that are really helping support the individuals that are going through recovery, making sure that helping them navigate the system, connecting them to services.
I would go on a limb and say that an individual is less successful without this peer support in place.
And again, my mic is still on and I guess I wasn't finished. Oh, my apologies. No, that's okay. But you just.
You went another direction and I'm not willing to go and I don't think we should go in that direction.
Don't dispute the need for the person, but we need to budget this.
In my opinion, as opposed to taking money away from something that was supposed to go to something else.
Okay, we could discuss it during budget hearing and I don't understand the philosophy of.
What was agreed to in the beginning.
Why, why is this got to be separate resolution? Why isn't this part of the budget?
Because somebody explained that thinking about enough.
Supervisor Pritzker was the one that was on the Opium panel.
I don't know.
Anybody else was.
If you want to explain.
I think the majority of the reasons behind it was just so there was transparent where we were spending the money and where it was going by separate resolutions and this goes back to the open settlement.
This goes back six, seven years, not just from the, not just from a task force.
But one of the things that the task force wanted to do is just make sure that when they are spending the money that we all know where it's going and what it's for.
Why does that have to be under resolution when I can't be part of the budget process.
That this is what was presented as sort of finance. So that's why I don't we can find out about that. It's moving forward. We can see if there's something that would be a better mechanism for it.
But this is what came to the finance department.
I don't know the history of this, but I can address that last point. I mean, regardless of whether it were included and first introduced through the, the annual budget, I would still strongly recommend having a separate resolution.
And then to document that it's a two thirds member elect vote versus the majority vote that the approval of an annual budget is the documentation is clear. This documentation is necessary for auditing purposes for verifying that we're
expending it for an eligible purpose. And this is an eligible process. You have to do it through a separate solution.
I would absolutely recommend regardless of whether it's baked within the budget, having a separate resolution also just to make abundantly clear because the document book, it can get lost in that. And so what you could do it through.
That you're saying it could be done both could be done at the same time.
It could. It wouldn't address some of those concerns that were raised by staff about the timeliness of the issue.
But yeah, you could do it that way.
I mean, that would be only my concern to be if you have a documented that.
That's what it's for.
It could be done through the budgetary process. Doesn't have to be done by special resolution.
That's what you're saying. It needs to be approved by resolution, I believe. Not simply the resolution authorizing the budget.
Okay.
I could debate that online, but you've got my just the work my feelings are, I, I, I am not going to be for this.
And the other just point that I want to make abundantly clear because there was a suggestion that this is not.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but not an appropriate use of the funds.
The appropriateness is a policy decision, but it absolutely is an eligible expenditure under the parameters of the opiate settlement.
Okay.
Let's do it during the budgetary process.
Supervisor Miller.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I certainly share the concerns that supervisor Rossi and wish raised about using.
So to speak, one time funds and, you know, how are we going to fund things in the future, but.
The court counsel and I was wondering what your concern was about the appropriate because this.
This money is designated for this type of position, but my understanding is that we.
Through some other grants, we are funding this now.
And if we don't continue it a little ahead of the budget process, that person who is hard to get.
Could find employment elsewhere and then we lose a good staff member.
For the whole effort at helping people with their opioid problems.
So I will support this.
Supervisor Osterman.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Supervisor wish I disagree. I do believe that this is an appropriate, a very appropriate.
Place to spend these monies that I mean, it's in the description.
And I'll tell you who else I think probably would.
Have been.
In favor and thinking it was appropriate.
One guy who wanted to leave a legacy of mental health services, Jonathan.
That was his number one issue.
And when I think about what.
How he would have felt about this money.
It would have in my mind been hands down.
Absolutely no question. This is a very appropriate expenditure and necessary.
So necessary in fact, when we look at the per capita spending of health and human services, mental health.
Treatment in our state.
We're seeing county sets at 71 of 72 counties near dead last.
That's right.
So if there was ever an appropriate moment to use.
OPM other people's money.
For the betterment of our citizens in our county.
This is one of them. I support it.
Supervisor Ross, you have a second comment.
Yes.
I believe it will be my final. Let me go through some of my items here.
I do agree that.
And I'd like to make the distinction that, you know, there is an appropriate use of funds.
But no, there was not one ARPA dollar that was inappropriately used.
Just because it's an appropriate use doesn't mean we should do it.
That's exactly what created the situation. We got it.
Exactly the same decision making.
Supervisor asked me to talk about 71 of 72 counties for just spending.
Again, you know, obviously I'm chair of the committee, but I look to highway.
We're 72 of 72 by leaps and bounds from what we were when last year,
when we were 72 and 72 for BHS, BHS position is improved.
Highway is horrible. We, we're, we're still like several positions.
I mean, it's not necessarily a funding point that are a funding issue at this time.
But it previously was those, these decisions all add up.
I had the comments about.
I'm not going to ask executive delegate supporting this and he did through ARPA.
And that's exactly my point.
That thinking got us into the ARPA situation.
I don't agree with any, I disagree with anything that's been said.
I'm just looking at it a completely different way.
This, you know, I, I do have a question for you, Chilene, right now.
This is being funded by grants right now. This position.
Yes, it is.
So this would be an example of a position that would sunset when funding runs out,
but that doesn't happen. We keep funding.
I honestly can't think of a single position that sunset in my two and a half years here.
No.
Victim witness plus three positions last summer.
So three positions and how many that we've had.
Also, the CMB positions will be expiring in September.
Okay.
Will be. I mean, I'd like to see that that we're actually sunsetting positions because of our,
what I consider.
And not so stable financial position. And then the next three years, we'll see where we are.
But we're talking about when we are supporting doing the exact same thing that created our last issue.
I'm actually, I'm a shock.
That's it for me.
Thank you.
Tony executive.
So I just want to support what supervisor Miller said and counter what supervisor wish.
Built up there.
You want consistency and employment.
This is going to run out of grant funding. The person currently exists on staff.
Person goes away in September.
We agree that this is a acceptable purpose of this money.
So now you want us to go back out in January after the budgets passed.
Even though you have the money.
That is appropriately spent here.
And rehire that professional position.
That's.
Difficult.
That person's not going to be there in three months.
And I understand about the longevity.
That doesn't work today with the funding sources.
So I just want to reiterate.
What supervisor Miller said.
The position already exists.
And yes, we will hold to sunset position supervisor Rossi.
If it's sunset, it's sunset.
Period.
When we see the three CMV officers go away.
If there's openings in the sheriff's department, they'll be repositioned.
That's just a fact.
There's no hiding.
There's no shell game.
Sunset positions are sunset.
That's all I have to say about that.
Any further questions supervisor Miller.
I think.
Okay.
Supervisor.
Okay.
Supervisor Hopkins.
And then I'm.
Supervisor Coleman will be next.
I do see.
It's.
Clearly an appropriate of funds.
And right when this resolution.
Was introduced immediately in the back of my head.
Because of the previous conversation we've had, I thought about the budget.
And ultimately.
Chair, you addressed that by simply stating.
It's sunset.
It's sunset. So.
And I would also add that anyone being hired.
I'm sure we'd be.
Completely transparent.
It's just acknowledging.
The circumstances where she being hired, and they would know.
That this position.
There's look to be a sunset position. So they could make it a decision.
Agree to it.
So they would understand.
It is a sunset position.
So there wouldn't be any sense of.
Of.
Well, I didn't know or something of that nature.
it is a sunset position.
So I don't see this being the issue
was they understand that and they take on the position.
So for those reasons, I support this resolution.
Supervisor Coleman.
Well, I don't support, I'm not in support of this.
Sitting on the HD committee,
we should really be worried about using these funds
with for the opioid crisis
and important into the community
and using it for the community,
not for our positions.
So I am not in favor of this
and we really do need to wait until budget time
and add it in as a position
and we need to take those funds
and use it for what they were supposed to be used for
and that's born and actually into the community.
Thanks.
Supervisor Miller.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Now I have two points in full support
of Supervisor Coleman's point.
I would just ask,
Yona, are we not serving the community with this person?
This position primarily works in the community.
There's nothing that they're doing in the office.
If they're in the office,
they're meeting with the consumer.
So this is direct citizen contact.
So I would all do respect with Supervisor Coleman.
This is exactly what I think both of us are calling for
and that is direct service to our constituents.
My second point with indulgence to my colleagues
because I say this so often,
I was really disheartened
and I had respect for Supervisor Ostrman
but to use that very misleading number from WCA
about human services spending.
I will say it again,
we have lower spending because we focus on prevention
and we are highly successful at preventing
all kinds of problems that other counties have to deal with
because they don't focus on prevention
as successfully as we do.
Any further questions or comments?
Jeremy.
Okay, and Supervisor Coleman for your second time.
Okay, I just wanted to come back
because I heard what you said Supervisor Miller's
but yeah, it's gonna be-
Make sure you address-
Make sure you address-
I know, the board, the board, I know, I know, I know that
but all I'm saying is that it's a position
that's helping us, that's supposed to help the community
but the funds would better be spent on something
with the community instead of a position.
So that's why I stay in my position
and saying that I'm against it
and that we should wait until budget time.
There's a lot of positions that's needed in the world
and things like that
but there's a time and place of everything
and why can't it wait until budget?
If I may just make one comment.
Should go ahead.
The only thing that I want to add to this
in consideration to be given
is for as far as the crew overdose response,
we are responding, this is what we're trying to move for.
This additional position is to respond
to all overdoses that take place for us seeing county.
We're gathering dispatch data, law enforcement,
ambulance, EMS data to let us know
where the overdose occurring in this individual
we'd be responding with our crew initiative team
to make sure that we're following up.
So unfortunately, if we're not able to get this position,
we will have to halt on that.
We will not have staff to fill that peer support role.
Any further comments or questions?
Sure, good.
I just want to clear up something.
I'm not against the person and I'm not
concerned, basically, about my main focus wasn't about
sun setting the person and being clarified to me
that that person's going to be gone.
That's my exact point.
You know, we need the person,
we're going to need the person down the road.
I just don't think this is the way to go about it right now.
OK, whether it's sunset or whatever, OK?
So that was my point, you know, not necessarily anything
other than that.
And we've gone through this once before.
And my problem is, you know, the ARPA funds
were one-time purpose.
They're gone.
There was nothing to fall back on for anybody.
I don't want this situation coming around
like we went through the last time.
That's it.
Thank you.
Supervisor Spencer.
Thank you.
I didn't want to go here as a person who
lost two people over the last three years to overdoses
in your not direct family members,
but close to our family members.
They probably could have benefited
from a peer support specialist.
So I just want to put it out there.
I am 100% in support of this.
Supervisor Woodrum.
Thank you, Chair.
You know, initially was going to know on this.
But what turned me on this was the fact
that this is working directly with folks
that need this type of assistance
and to echo a little bit of what Supervisor Spencer just
mentioned.
Having folks that I've taken in personally
to my house that have suffered from this
and have also benefited from some of the programs
in Racing County, I'm going to vote yes on this.
I'm going to support the county executive
in his comments that this will sunset.
Normally, I'm not in favor of using one-time funds by any means,
but this is something that I will make an exception for.
So I'm going to vote yes.
Any further comments or questions?
Go ahead.
Last time.
Thank you, Chairman.
In the sunset situation, if this truly were to sunset
and you're talking about this position being something
that you could not move forward with a program
unless they existed, if they sunset in the future,
then you'd realize that situation not.
So that's really not a good reason for me
to vote yes on something like this.
And honestly, I think this opioid situation
is a very real thing for everyone.
I had someone who's a brother to me,
a year and a half ago die.
I don't think that makes me any more or less qualified
to speak on this issue, so I just wanted to get that out there
that this does affect everyone.
But I'm going back to what I said about one-time funds
were stepping right back into that same situation.
We're going to use one-time funds.
We're going to fund positions.
This is being described as a critical position
that really can't go unfunded, but at the same time,
we're talking about, well, when it sunsets,
then it'll be okay.
There's something that will change then, very confusing.
That's it, thank you.
I have yet just one question for the director.
So we have a grant currently that sunsets
must be a federal grant, September 30th.
So there's nothing that happens October.
Did we reapply for that grant or was there no grant
to reapply for it by federal funding cuts?
These were supplemental funds.
There were no supplemental funds.
So that's why.
So, and I kind of agree with Supervisor Rossi here
when the sunsets, and one-time funds,
because I got and Supervisor Wish,
because of the one-time funding
and the problem with ARPA money.
But we didn't see this.
I mean, I know if we funded another,
what $25,000, we would've went to the end of the month,
end of the year for this position.
You know, I think we maybe have to take a look at that.
So we kind of get away from this funding.
I understand federal funding is gonna always end
on September 30th, but if we think it's a good enough
program to have, especially when you get into the opium
and the drug, you know, that's something that I think
the county board here would spend the money
out of taxpayer's funds to do that.
So it's something.
And that's all I have to say,
because it's an opium problem touches every family usually.
So any other questions?
Chairman.
Last time, Supervisor Coleman.
I was listening to what everybody was saying,
talking about personal stories.
My father actually died from overdose, okay?
So nobody knows this story well, like then I do, okay?
So what I'm saying is being a person
that it did touch me, my father,
I wish that it would've been something to help him,
before then iron a position to be able
to try to prevent it.
So nobody knows this as well as I do.
There's a lot of things that you guys just don't know
about my life, but.
Okay, let's keep it to remain to the position.
I understand, I understand.
But the thing about it is when we're throwing out things,
there's somebody that has direct contact
with this situation, and it was my father.
So that's what I'm saying.
Supervisor Coleman, that to be mean,
but we need to talk about the position
and the funding here.
And that's why the position does not matter right now
that it could wait until budget time.
It could wait until budget time.
It's not important right now.
Those funds could be used for something better.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Second time.
Except that we lose a trained and qualified person.
We're taking that risk.
Any further questions, comments?
Mike, sorry, let me ask a very fine question.
The scenario that you just laid out about,
if the position were to sunset,
I'm sorry, if the position were to expire
at the end of September,
and then we were to fund that position
for the end of the year,
I mean, is that an option?
Instead of doing this,
I'm just asking the question since you opened the door.
Well, I'm saying when we have federal budget,
it's September, you know.
So you've got the last quarter.
I think this was a $80,000 job, $25,000
with Social Security and taxes.
And that's a possibility.
You know, that's more of a finance director
and county executive.
Now we do have the Opium funds.
I, you know, we all agree that this is a correct use of them.
You know, so,
horse a piece in my mind.
I mean, the Opium funds could be used on something else.
And then we fund this or we use the funds over here.
And this other thing that we were going to fund with the $90,000,
you fund with levy.
I mean, you know, I take my right pocket
and put it in my left kind of thing.
So it's one option.
I think that's really a finance director
and a county executive and a committee
how they bring it to us, you know.
Any further questions?
This is a two thirds majority vote.
Okay.
Supervisor Coleman, how do you vote?
No.
Supervisor Trattier, how do you vote?
Supervisor Trattier.
Yes.
Yeah.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
This is by.
Motion carries.
Now we have the items that have been requested for.
Second reading first, excuse me, first and second reading this evening that we read in under first reading.
They could be taken together. They are both a two thirds majority vote.
That would be resolution number 2026 dash 50 by the finance and human resources committee.
Authorizing the acceptance of Wisconsin Department of Health Services grant the amount of $166,724.
And transfer funds within the human services department 2026 budget.
And resolution number 2026 dash 51 by finance and human resources committee.
Authorizing the acceptance of a Wisconsin Department of Health Services grant the amount of $200,976.
And transfer funds within the human services department 2026 budget.
Motion has been made and seconded.
Vice Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
2026 50.
As the clickest, this is request, except the substance abuse prevention treatment and recovery services block grant supplemental award in the amount of $166,724.
These funds would help with the purchase of evidence based treatment curriculum and educational materials,
as well as purchasing a supply such as betting pillows, linens, personal hygiene products, et cetera.
This supplemental grant does not require a match and we recommend the acceptance of the funds.
We're asking for first and second reading for these funds because the supplemental grant needs to be spent by September 30.
And regards to resolution resolution number 2651.
This is another supplemental grant from the Department of Health Services for a community mental health service block.
This grant supplemental funds in the amount of $200,976 for programs and it allows us to expand our housing focus for individuals with serious mental illness.
This will be a partnership with our nonprofits to create a referral pathways for our individuals that need care and face challenges of housing.
And the supplemental grant does not require a match.
And we're asking for first and second reading because this grant needs to be spent by September 30 as well.
And y'all want to see if there's any questions in regards to those grants.
So you've heard the vice chairman and this typically we don't like to do first second readings.
However, when the state or federal government has supplemental funds that we need quick action.
So, are there any questions for Helena?
We can agree on something.
I call the question so it's a two thirds majority vote.
Supervisor Coleman, how do you vote?
Yes.
Thank you.
Oh, shoot. I hit the wrong button.
Supervisor, how do you vote?
Yes.
No.
Motion carries unanimously.
Item number 13.
Reconsiderations of resolutions and ordinance from previous meetings and our action on videos.
There are no items.
Reconsideration of and or notice of intent to reconsider resolutions and ordinances.
There are no items to reconsider informational reports.
Apparently.
Information all reports on tonight's agenda.
And then with that number 16, miscellaneous business announcements and all reports.
I'd like to remind everybody as a supervisor Weatherston here has got his IT and I see a few other of them out there.
If you haven't got your IT laptop yet, get with the IT and schedule up a meeting.
And then also I'd like to thank the nine.
The nine venues in the water village of water for one of our own.
And a venue for the water for jam. It's a great celebrations. Well, I think it's probably the biggest music festival in Racine County.
So thank you.
And it's profited, profited a, a deer near and dear.
Thing to me, the FFA and the alumni.
I can report, Mr Chairman, we had a follow up meeting yesterday with all the venues and.
The recipient of the FFA water for FFA.
And this year, water for jam fest raised.
Just over $50,000 for the organization.
So.
Goodness.
Thanks for mentioning the first one was for the library. And it was like $25,000.
Correct. Yes.
Yes.
Supervisor Coleman, did you have a go to.
Yes.
So I just wanted to make everybody aware that.
Bishop Kirby's funeral service will be this Saturday at grace church.
At 11 am.
So if we can just continue to keep the congregation in the community.
In the prayers and as we get as we prepare to lay Bishop Kirby to rest.
He was a very, very, very, very.
Very important pillar in our community and we've really lost a great one. So just wanted to acknowledge that.
Supervisor Osterman. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
As you know, the Wisconsin farmer led watershed protection program has become a national model.
And one of the most successful of those groups are right here in Racine County.
The scene county watershed protection group represented today by Brian Gunderson and Anthony Beck.
They were here because a very important thing happened with the.
Acceptance of the donation and the transfer of capital for the improvements at the Kruger side. And I think the watershed protection committee has a special gift that they would like to present.
And grab the county executive received that on behalf of the county.
Go ahead gentlemen.
So the donation is a $21,000 donation for the Kruger farm improvement site.
Thank you very much.
Sure. Any further supervisor wish off. Thank you.
Just wanted to mention that downtown Burlington is partially open. And if any supervisors would like to come down for a pint.
To check it out.
Love the host to you sometimes. So thank you very much.
Sue.
Any other.
Good.
We are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you.