County Board - Regular Meeting

Committee only.

Move to approve.

Second. So we have a motion and seconded to approve the minutes. Any additions or corrections to the minutes as presented? Seeing none. Youth and Governance, all those in favor 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. Letter A is Human Services Department. Director Otto authorized an acceptance of a WI Department of Health Services grant in the amount of $166,724 and transfer of funds within Human Services Department 2026 budget. 2026 resolution actually requested for 1st and 2nd reading at the August 25th, 2026 county board meeting and director auto is out of town tonight, but we have yellow Jones 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 1st, um, grant that we have is the, um, substance abuse prevention, treatment and recovery services block grant. This is a grant that the Racine county already receives. Um, this was supplemental funds that came became available at the end of the month of July. Um, totally the 166,724 dollars Racine county applied and was awarded this. These funds are intended to be used for the new residential facility to properly equip them with the curriculum equipment and supplies to get the program up and operational. We're happy to hear that these funds have been offered to us and are hoping that we are able to help support the services there and cover the cost for beginning operations at the residential.

Does the committee have any questions for you all on this?

Supervisor. Thank you. Mr chairman. I assume there's a state deadline and that's why you're asking for 1st and 2nd reading.

Yes. And I should add that my apologies. These funds need to be spent by September 30th. So we are quite on a time crunch here. The supplemental funds and 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. So we are hoping that all of our expenses can be covered to get the residential up and running.

Thank you chairman, I would move to send this to the county board for 1st and 2nd reading.

So, we have a motion to send this to county board for 1st and 2nd reading this evening. Is there any other discussion on this?

Supervisor prior to your Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 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.

And I also want to just kind of add to with the way that this is written. 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 1 of those things where it's, it gives us a lot of flexibility with everything from something is betting and pillows to hygiene products to curriculum and workbooks and stuff like that.

So, thank you.

Any further discussion on the motion. Seeing none, youth and 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 auto, the authorized and acceptance of a department health services grant in the amount of 200,976 dollars and the transfer funds within the human services 2026 budget. 2026 resolution action requested for 1st and 2nd reading for the August 25th county board meeting. Yeah, you're bringing us up to date on this 1. 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 timeframe 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 $200,976. We were able to apply for this loan. What we intend to utilize, loan, 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 mental illness. Anybody dealing with serious or 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 hostile 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 nonprofit 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 rent payments, mortgage payment, landlord payments. This is strictly for housing navigation, supports coordination with landlords. These dollars will have to be utilized to work with nonprofit providers within Racine County. Loving Kindness is one provider here in Racine County that is a nonprofit 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 in that arena of getting their basic needs met. Since the grant is $200,976, we have proposed that $100,000 of this goes to the nonprofits, and we will obviously keep hold of all the grant reporting, all the requirements of the grant. The other $100,976 will go for advertising. This is a big ordeal that 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, seeing none, we'll call the question you think governance all those in favor signify by saying aye aye committee all those in favor signify by saying aye aye aye opposed. All right, thank you. Thank you send us the county board for 1st and 2nd reading this evening. Next up, item number six is the staff report. There's no action items listed on the staff report. Our next Finance and Human Resources Committee meeting will be on September 2nd at 5 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 moved. All right, we are adjourned.

Thank you.

Good evening today, we're 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, uh. Executive committee 1st thing on the agenda. Is approval of the previous minutes 2nd, which has been named seconded. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion is carried. Item number two. Closed session, it's approximately 20 minutes is anticipated that the executive committee will meet in a closed session pursuant to section 19.85 parent 1 parent Z of the Wisconsin statutes to deliberate and or negotiate the sale of public land and investment of public funds for development at 209 North main street in the city of Burlington or competitive or bargaining reasons required a closed session. I would so move. Roll call vote.

Supervisor Meyer.

Hi.

Supervisor Miller.

Hi.

Supervisor Rossi. Supervisor. Supervisor weatherston supervisor supervisor Spencer.

Chairman Kramer yes, we are in closed session. We're going to go in the back or we got you. Good evening. My name is Tom Kramer, and I'm going to be calling the county board meeting for August 25th, 2026 to order. Could call the roll.

Supervisors Kelly, Horath, and Preissker are excused. Supervisors Coleman and Trottier 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. Another pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands 1 nation under God. Individual with liberty and justice for all. So, I don't I don't remember 4 is public comments. Persuade to section. 2-71 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 put, yeah.

Good evening. I'm Jean Jacobson. I'm the chairman of the Town of Norway. You know where that is? It's at the beginning of Racine County. Um, and I'm here tonight, uh, in support of ordinance 2 026 dash 4 1 and 2 0266 dash 4 2. and I want to thank, um, the Racine county. Planning and development committee, economic development committee, uh, 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 Jaspersons, the Gundersons, the Johnsons, the Jacobsons, all Norwegians that came along this evening to support this resolution. This rezoning in this ordinance is for a 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 snow plows 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 a public official 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 the that you've done to make this happen. And I look forward to your positive vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And now we have Jeff Earhart. And just step up and give us your address, Jeff.

Jeff Earhart, 225 South Britton 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 iterate the the importance of the 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. There are service to all of us who are in business out there and they. 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 you were to turn them down. And so I look forward, as Gene said, to a positive vote. Thank you.

And now we have Justin Earhart.

Will you give us your address, Justin, too? Yeah, 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 dad Jeff just said about the parts that 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 at 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, we'll move on. So, do we have a UW presentation? Did we receive anything?

Mr. Green is online.

There he is. Thank you. Mr. green. Go ahead.

I think you're muted. There we go.

Sorry. I'm not terribly familiar with 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 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 works with. 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 tax 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 this or over explain it. But 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 2 value system. We have both the assess 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 the equalized value to divide its levy by to get its mill rate. The municipality uses the assessed value to divide its levy by 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 municipalities assess value rather than the equalized value, which would cause the numbers to become more equal and equalized according to the state of the department 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 a 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 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 through 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 can 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. It really emotionally affects people. It's a big, large sum 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 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 as well. 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 assess is now being paid or excuse me is now over or assessed adequately closer to what the average is. Then 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 1st, 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 assessed value. So this is getting at that reassessment just real quick. This is a 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 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 really the nuts and bolts of how the property tax system works. Um, so this community, let's say, is a community of 6 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 is 84.6%. But you can see that's an average and they range anywhere from Marge who's at 77% to Mike who is at 95%. so they levy twelve thousand five hundred dollars for the year they spread that over that one point uh one million dollars and they have ten dollars and ninety six cents uh as a mill rate that they need to spread over everyone's value whoops excuse me so in this uh 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 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 6 property owners in this community. Each 1 goes up a certain amount in comparison to the market value. The market value hasn't changed at all. But the. valuations in 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 percent they do that they get um the total assessed value of 1.3 million that they divide that new levy by and their tax rate becomes ten dollars and seven cents per thousand Put that in the, the tan 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 dollar 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 or 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 a hundred percent 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 And 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 if the county had a 3 and a half a dollar per 1000 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 they 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, it might just be that 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. Um, 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 collecting 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. A 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 Sturtevant. 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. So 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 give me the opportunity to come and speak.

Are there any questions for Carl? Seeing none, I thought it was very interesting, but then I'm a municipal treasurer too. So. You did a really good job during the headlights. Could you put your contact? Yeah, if you could do that again. I. T. put the contact. Oh, could you put your contact information up again? Carol?

Yeah, let me bring it up real quick.

You see it yes.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Everybody.

All right item item number 6. Reading of the minutes of the previous meeting, which is automatically waived unless requested by the majority of the members presence. I remember 7 resolutions and ordinance ordinances referred to committee.

There are none.

Item number 8, introduction of resolutions and ordinances for 1st reading and referral.

We have resolution number 2026 dash 49 by public works parks and facilities committee, authorizing and approving a memorandum of understanding between Racine County, public works and water for youth football.

Place chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your Finance and Human Resources Committee met 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 due to the amount of money and the time that needs to be spent.

I see no objections. See there.

Okay, Liz is passing out copies to everyone. Uh, the 1st, 1 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 to the amount of 166,724 dollars and transfer funds within the human services department 2026 budget. And then resolution number 2026 dash 51 by the financing human resources committee, authorizing the acceptance of a Wisconsin department of health services grant in the amount of 200,976 dollars and transfer funds within the human service department 2026 budget. All right. I don't remember item number 9 communications and claims number 1, a resolution requesting the Wisconsin counties association provide equal and equitable voting to all counties on steering committees from Polk County.

Item number 1 is referred to the end filed in the county clerk's office.

Uh, number 2 resolutions regarding sustainable state funding for local public health departments from Trump below green lacrosse and Sawyer counties. And number 3 resolution requesting the state to provide funding to cover the full non federal share of and crisis services from Sawyer county.

Items number 2 and 3 refer to the health and human development committee.

Number 4, public notice of an air pollution control permit application review for EPSI Franksville, located at 4220 Courtney Rd, Franksville, Racine County, Wisconsin, FID 252179180 from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Item number 4 is referred to the Economic Development and Land Use Planning Committee.

Number 5, Racine County Facilities Management Notable Project Status Report for the month of July 2026.

Item number 5 is referred to the public works parks and facilities committee.

And then items number 6 is a foreclosure mortgage item. Number 7 is a claim and items number 8 through 24 are notifications for the United States bankruptcy court items.

Number 6 through 24 refer to finance and human resources committee and Corporation Council.

Supervisor.

Thank you chair copies of 4, 7, please.

Supervised McDonald's thank you Mr chairman also copies of 4, 7. Supervisor Osterman or please thank you.

Supervisor Hoffman thank you chairman of the copies of 4, 7, please. Supervisor rent thank you Mr chairman copies of number 4, please.

Mr chairman.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 2 and 7 please.

And I would like 1 and 7 please.

Any further requests for copies?

Seeing none, we can proceed. Communications from the county executive.

There are none on tonight's agenda.

Item number 11, standing committee reports containing recommendations on the items referred.

There are no reports.

Item number 12, second reading of resolutions and ordinances.

Under majority vote, we have ordinance number 2026-41 by Economic Development and Land Use Planning Committee to rezone from A2 General Farming and Residential District 2 to B3 Commercial Service District, Section 22, Town 4 North, Range 20 East, Town of Norway, Owners Ingersoll Development, LLC. Ordinance number 2026-42 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 parcel ID number 010042022004030. Resolution number 2026-48 by Finance and Human Resources Committee authorizing and adopting a financial policy manual.

Motion has been made and seconded.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like separate consideration of 41 and 42.

Separate consideration.

As a group. As a group.

Okay, I guess supervisor asked, and why don't you lead us in the ordinance? 2026?

41 42. thank you. Mr. Chairman. Um. These need to be considered separately these 2. okay.

You're asking for separate consideration on both arguments.

Both of those. Right?

Okay.

Um. And with your indulgence, we need to do 42 1st. I think these were numbered out of order. 42 is the, uh, that's okay. Do that 1st. 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 3rd page line 7. there was a, there was a typo that proposed amendment to the. Burlington plan, and it was supposed to read town of Norway. So that change has been made. It does not require a separate S ordinance. Just a correction. So, um. And the other is 202641 as a rezone. normally these things this um land use plan with a rezone is a very routine type of if i could issue should we take 20 26 42 first or you want to explain 40 i'm doing that okay 42 okay for 42 right um but This land use amendment is not routine. Neither is the zoning ordinance. Just right up front, we need to get out of the way that the business that has been operating there has been operating for 13 years in a non-conforming use. I believe that that is due to the fact 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 HBARB ordinance, but he was operating under the use that you could You could operate with a small business within the confines of an 8 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 meet. Mr. I'd like to thank supervisor wish off for facilitating that introduction. Um, I went out and spent 2 hours talking to Mr. made a friend. and we exchanged our dilemmas. I am initially and still against the land use plan change for several reasons. The reduction in agricultural land, philosophically, I always want to preserve ag land. There was also nothing else around it permitted, um, and potential negative uses down the road and putting the county at risk for others saying, well, you. You created spot zoning here. Um, in fact, the, uh, the staff recommendation was to deny this, that it was spot zoning. Um, there were no other uses around it. Um, and that the use was inconsistent with the, um. the district and 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 Ed Loop meeting or tonight that spoke against allowing this to happen. That business is 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 carries 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 a snow storm for our municipal governments. So there's, there's a very good, there's very compelling arguments to. uh change the land use plan even though it may seem as though it's spot zoning which i still think it's spot zoning um but i want to present a balanced explanation here as to why this is not routine um so there are we have a potential substitute ordinance for the rezoning should this land use amendment pass um We spent an hour Mr Ingersoll and myself with Michael and John 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 a committee at 6 to 1, 6 members voted to allow it. I was the lone vote against it again, because. I think it's important to preserve agricultural land. Now, admittedly, we're talking about affecting less than 10 acres and I know I'm arguing against myself here, but I want to be able to present to you guys all the reasons for and against this. Um. So my vote is against the land use plan amendment, but please make your own decision as you will on the importance of moving this, this business forward. It does. 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, um, there's much more to talk about. Um, on the, the, the further ordinance, but that is pretty much the land use plan amendment to. Allow a zoning change so that their business can expand.

All right any other further comments supervisor Miller?

Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Um. So, I. Wanted some consideration to to speak as I'm going to speak, but I did not know the background of that supervisor just raised, but. I will proceed with my previous thoughts and 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, I am. inclined to trust the local people in 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 boat, but I also wanted to note that, um, Jean Jacobson was the 1st, female. County executive, not only every scene 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, uh, we have, uh, distinguished citizens with a lot of service here this evening.

Thank you supervisor Miller supervisor, try to your head to hand up.

Yes, uh, thank you Mr. chairman, um, for allowing me to speak. And 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 racing county. But I am not in support of amending the town of Norway land use map. Of the multi jurisdictional comprehensive plan for racing county and 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 if approved may or could set a precedent for future requests of landowners in the county this may and could

I think you got muted there supervisor try here.

I'm sorry I hit my button. Um, this change if approve may. And could set a precedent for future requests of landowners in racing 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 Wishaw. Thank you chair. I'm in support of this. I spoke to Mr. for probably close to 45 minutes late last week. It was a great conversation. It's clearly they have done a lot for Norway. They've done a lot for racing 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. Um, for their community, so I'm in favor of supporting this moving forward.

Supervisor McReynolds, uh, thank you.

Mr. Chairman. Um, I am in support of this. Um, it's it's not too often. I think it's been said that, uh. There are a lot of people that will show up at an economic development land use meeting and, um. I am out from out that in that area and have heard nothing, but, uh, great things about the business owner and to have several neighbors come in and support this, uh, just. Echoes what a great business and and what. This gentleman does not only for the businesses, but also for the community. Um, so I am in total support, um, of this. Thank you.

Supervisor Hopkins.

Yeah, I just want to make sure I understand. Um, what's the issue is it that, uh, allows this business to exist. Uh, and or allows us to expand if you just kind of clarify.

Both. May I go ahead?

So what's before you right now is the land use plan change with that. So, Mr Ingersoll was found to be operating without a permit due to information that he had. I thought he didn't have to have an operator's permit, but he does. So he's in the process of fixing that with the developmental services. But he has 2 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. Um, in mystery yourself while I'm talking, if I mischaracterize anything, please step up the, um, 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. Um, right now he's running a technically an unpermitted business. And 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 that he could use to serve 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 the extent that he needs this rezoning. So that that building can exist where it currently is.

Right? So, 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, he had multiple parcels actually, this is just the one, that had some migrant labor camps on from the 70s and early 80s, and also had worn down, wore down buildings that had been used over quite a few years. He upgraded those, started a small business. And that brings us here today where the businesses working with the community members, municipalities, agricultural community and special projects. And he needs more room. So at an A2 parcel, that you can't expend your business building. So that's one of the reasons why we need to change the land use plan that we have on file here so we can go to the next step and get the rezoning. So 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 uh farmland and the farmland has last time the town of norway did a sounding out there a soil sample out there there was 16 feet of muck so you 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 it so the current resolution or resolution is so that that business can exist and expand and without it he has to move yes

Um, if I may go ahead in regards to the spot zoning question, um. This is, um. from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, various cases, Cushman versus City of Racine, Howard versus Elm Grove, Bell versus Elkhorn. 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 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 in stock 24-hour availability For municipal services to use in the event of. Snow emergencies, flood emergencies, what have you, they can get their equipment 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. Even though I stand in opposition to it, I.

acknowledge there are very compelling arguments the other direction yeah that would be one of them i was reading as well and uh it seems to me some of those stipulations about a public good and where who and what it benefits it seems to satisfy um those uh stipulations at least yeah what i understand supervisor rossi thank you chairman um

I would say typically that I would not support something like, um. A spot zoning situation, which I, I do feel this has a little bit of, but I will say the amount of people that showed up and then having the town chair. Present not just in a direction that I feel more comfortable with.

We've got a good business here. I understand the geographical limitations and then, you know, having to move or find another facility.

I don't have an issue with this 1 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 1. Thank you.

Any further supervisor brands.

Thank you. Mr. chair. I'd also like to go on record. This can be front in front of the economic development land use planning on July 20th. And at that time, there was, I don't remember this exact number, but there was at least 5 to maybe as many as 7 neighboring properties that spoke in support of this. So it's not only the support you're hearing tonight, but support at that time. This business is already has a history of is operating in good standing without any issues. Um, 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 during planting harvesting season and 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.

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 setting a precedence. Being that I am one that supports it, but I have to think about, as I've sat 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 would another body that would come with another issue that might look similar. So I do think it's a fair concern that Supervisor Troddier 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. Um, but maybe that, because the surrounding area is constrained from development is what I heard. Chairman Kramer said, and because the farmers are 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. Um, you know, mistakes were made, we're correcting mistake. Um, and we're also supporting the community that he represents. So, I, I don't, I, you know, let's cut through the red tape. I mean, just this is 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 votes. So if you could power us up there, we're going to roll call vote.

And first you have to check in. Okay.

Supervisor Coleman, how do you vote? Yes. Supervisor how do you vote?

No.

Motion carries give us a moment to record this. Thank you.

All right. Supervisor Osterman ordinance number 202641.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Um, so now that we have a change in the land use plan. Myself, I see no reason except for 1 to not. Support the rezoning request. Um, 1 of the things that. Happened during all of this discovery was that again, Mr and I sat down, um, we. Kind of traded places, 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. And so we talked for a long time and that led to a meeting with county attorney landsdorf and circuit edge. 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. Um. We need to provide the opportunity for all start to grow their business. Um, we need to protect the intent of future use. And so. One of the things 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. Um. So, through discussions with county attorney, they drafted. As 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, um. be reverted or something would change in the material use of it. Not generally, but 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 traffic area or something like that. All things that are allowable in B3. So this is the language that... Came from, uh, 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. Um, 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 that's been made in a 2nd, to amend the 202641 to 2626202641.

S. now, Mr chairman, if I may just real quickly prior to this coming here, this was all vetted with Mr. and he is fine with the way that it's worded, has no issues at all, and feels very comfortable with the fact that this will help secure his property for the purposes that he's trying to make happen. This whole thing, it puts the reasoning on record also. This fixes a lot of issues, this ordinance.

Mr. chairman supervisor Miller.

Thank you. Mr. chairman. Um, 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 with the additional paragraph on the rezoning.

I have 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. If he's happy, we're happy.

And I would say, Mr. Chairman, to that point, Mr 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, I can I can attest to Mr. willingness to help and compromise because. I believe the town has been working on this solution for almost a year now. Yeah. Before.

Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I just have a follow up question for Corp Council. 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 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 a 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. Uh, the courts have 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 recommending approving. But what we've drafted is an attempt to, as Supervisor Osterman indicated, document the intent, document some of the justification for this. You'll notice that it's a whereas. 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 that it's in the interest of public health safety and welfare to rezone the lands. But if you continue on, it notes that. Um, 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. B3 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 an agricultural use. Um, 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. 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 3, 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 that was deemed to be in the public interest. And that could, I'm 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 it would force the discussion. And so that was our intent in drafting this language as 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 afoul 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 Crotty here.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Supervisor Osterman 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 202641S for the number 1 purpose, it protects 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 because it does protect the public from future use. It also pleases 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, uh, substitution the amendment. It's the majority vote and 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 1st, the motion to amend or substitute. And so this would not be to authorize the ordinance rather. It would be to replace or substitute the original drafted. Uh, 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 we all know who we're voting for a yes vote would replace the 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 2026 41 S. No, we don't need to have a motion in a 2nd on now.

And no, we don't know. We've already had a motion to you don't have to re, motion though at the S we just now we're going to vote on the resolution 2026 41 S. Ordinance, excuse me ordinance. 2026 41 S. For final approval. All favor say aye aye opposed. Motion carried.

Thank you.

Thank you very supervisor.

Vice chair, Mr chairman, just a note if I may. So, at loop committee, we have to resign the forms. So let's do that before we leave.

Okay. Thank you. Vice chairman resolution 202648.

yes thank you mr chairman the resolution 202648 before you is from our finance director glenn zimmer this is a new manual that she's been working on of a project for our finance department to help consolidate modernize clarify and our financial policies and we'd be happy to have director zimmer 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 provided to our auditors into our bond 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.

Are there any questions on the document? I read parts of it. And it's very very well done.

You didn'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 all the 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 the 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'd just like to add too that Gwen and her staff put a lot of time and effort into this. She's been working on this for, it's been well over a year.

Any further questions or comments? So, voice majority vote all in favor say, aye. Opposed.

Hi, what should we carry?

Next, we have the items for 2 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, a general obligation promissory notes for the behavioral health building in years 2027 through 2046 not to exceed 8467,517 dollars. Resolution number 2026-45 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 1 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 acceptance of the donation from the Watershed Protection Committee of Racine County and transfer $42,270 within the capital 2026 budget for the Krueger family site improvements.

Chairman?

Yes.

Thank you, Chairman. Requesting separate consideration for 2026-46. 46. Okay. Vice Chairman.

Thank you. Mr. chairman, we'll start off with resolution 202644. this is the clerk and say, we're authorized use of opioid settlement funds to pay approximately 20% of the portion of the new behavioral health building and the amount of 8467,000. $517 by using the settlement funds for this purpose is compliant with our opioid settlement guidance and is fiscally responsible strategy to reduce property tax levy impact for debt service and direct resumes here if you have any other questions in regards to that.

Are there any questions or comments on that?

Supervisor Miller, I think just to echo what the supervisor Meyer said, this is direct property tax relief because that. Anticipated 8Million dollars would have had to be on the levy if we didn't use these funds for this purpose.

Any further questions or comments. 202645 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 Roma Lodge. Jelena 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 20 26 47 this would be an acceptance of a donation from the watershed protection committee overseen 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 twenty one thousand one hundred and thirty five dollars from the parks capital paving account for a total of forty two thousand two hundred and seventy dollars and i believe chad is here from uh 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 how do you vote?

Yes.

Confirm supervisor. You're a yes as well. Okay. Motion carries unanimously.

Okay, then vice chairman about 202646.

All right, thank you, Chairman. This resolution is for creation of a peer support specialist just to create a one FTE contracted position, which will help ensure individuals receive links to treatments and peer support services. This position has been an estimated cost of $76,053.64 per year, and would be a contracted position for September 30th, 2026 through December 31st, 2027 for a 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 Yellen is here if there's any questions on this topic.

Are there any comments or questions? Supervisor Rossi.

Thank you chairman. Um, a situation like this came up when I was still on the, um. Your 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.

Um, and my concern was. And I, 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 ARPA spending, so we were supplementing operations with ARPA funding. This is exactly the same thing. Using opioid funds with our situation, I'll get 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 as we were approving our allocations to operations. 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 tie this to that. We keep adding positions. We added positions previously, and they work, you know, this, this is 1 time funds dollars were grant funded, but it's still stress on our operations. When you hire someone or you bring someone in from 1 department. It's 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 1 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. So, this is a big red flag for me.

If I may make 1 comment, and the director, when we 1st, received the open settlement dollars, we spoke with board leadership yourself and advice from admire 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. They met for 18 months and created this recommendation. And then your 2nd 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 approving body said for the spend of the dollars.

I have I have a question on when this does get. Printed somewhere in the in in the, um. Budget or, uh, 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, 2027. so it'll be handled.

It'll be handled just like the sheriff's department with sort of in the sheriff's department with, uh, 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 would expire.

Supervisor.

Thank you chairman and thank you director, but I don't think that my request is at odds with what, um.

No, I'm just asking. I was just asking the sunset question.

Well, no, not to that. My point being is that, you know, similar to what the acts on 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 1 comment. Unfortunately, the only thing and I hear what's being said, the only problem is with the peer support. They are very scarce around the States when we're able to obtain 1. and obviously it was the perfect timing because we had the additional grant dollars. They came through the supplemental dollars. We were able to obtain this person in order for us to consist. 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 note some of our peer support positions have stayed vacant for close to a year, which creates a real struggle. And the other initiative that is written in here was our crew overdose response services. That also came out of the Opioid Advisory Committee of figuring out how we can better meet the Residents overseeing county following every row overdose that occurs within the county within 24 to 72 hours where 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. Um, initiative out.

Supervisor wish Thank you.

Mr. Chairman. Um. Back few years ago. Uh, I had spoken to, uh. County executive delegate about the use of funds from and I was concerned about where that money was going and it wouldn't be replaced. And those persons that were hired, where 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 an idea or he had a plan. Well, unfortunately, he never. Came around to conveying what that plan would be or. Add time to implement a plan. I feel the same way as supervisor Rossi and there are another 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 dollars or whatever that is, whatever that amount is and then I'm gone. I don't think that's right to run away right over on a business and I know this isn't a 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. 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 and along know that. So, I can't in good faith or in good conscience agree to it. And again, not disputing the needs, you know, but I am disputing the method.

I can just make 1 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 636 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 um theme is how are we serving the community that 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, I might Mike is still on and. No, 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 gotta be separate resolution? Why isn't this part of the budget? Somebody explained that thinking about enough.

Supervisor Priceker was the one that was on the opium panel. I don't know if 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. 6, 7 years, not just from the, not just from a task force, but 1 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? 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 know if we can find out about that. If it's moving forward, we can see if there's something that would be a better mechanism for it. But this is what came through 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 1st, introduced through. Be the, the annual budget, I would still strongly recommend having a separate resolution to document that. It's a 2 thirds member elect vote versus the majority vote that the. Approval of the 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 purpose process. You have to do it through a separate resolution. I would absolutely recommend regardless of whether it's. Bake 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, but you could do it through. That you're, 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. Um, but yeah, you could do it that way.

I mean, that would be only my concern if you have a documented that. That's what it's for. It could be done through the budgetary process. It doesn't have to be done by a 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 all night, but you've got my just of where my feelings are. I am not going to be for this.

And the other just point that I want to make a button lay 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 opioid settlement.

Okay, let's do it during the budgetary process.

Supervisor Miller.

Thank you. Mr. chairman. Um, I certainly share the concerns that supervisor Rossi and wish raised about using. So, to speak 1 time funds, and, you know, how are we going to fund things in 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, um. 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 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 1 guy who wanted to leave a legacy. Of mental health services, Jonathan. That was his number one issue. And when I think about 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, that when we look at the per capita spending of health and human services, mental health treatment in our state, Racine County sits at 71 of 72 counties near dead last.

That's right.

So, if there was ever an appropriate moment. To use other people's money. For the betterment of our citizens in our county. This is 1 of them I support it.

Surprise Ross, you have a 2nd comment.

Yes. Okay. Go ahead. 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 1 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 exactly the same decision making. Supervisor asked me to talk about 71 of 72 counties for spending. Again, you know, obviously I'm sure the committee, but I look to highway. We're 72 of 72 by leaps and bounds from what we were with last year when we were 72 and 72 for VHS VHS position is improved. Highway is horrible. We, we, we're still lacking several positions. I mean, it's not necessarily a funding point or funding issue at this time, but it previously was those these decisions all add up. Um, I, the comments about, um, uh. past executive delegates supporting this, and he did through ARPA. And that's exactly my point. That thinking got us into the ARPA situation. I don't disagree with anything that's been said. I'm just looking at it a completely different way. This, you know, I do have a question for you, Shalene, 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 now.

Victim witness last 3 positions last summer.

So, 3 positions and how many that we've had.

Also, the CMV 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 what I consider a not so stable financial position. And then the next 3 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 in shock. That's it for me though. 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 in 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 budget's passed, even though you have the money that is appropriately spent here and rehire that professional position. That's difficult. That person's not gonna 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 Supervisor Hopkins has priority.

Okay, Supervisor Hopkins and then Supervisor Coleman will be next.

I do see it's clearly an appropriate use of funds. Um, and right when this resolution was introduced. Immediately back my head because of the previous conversation we've had, I thought about the budget. And, uh, ultimately, um. Chair, you address that by simply stating it sunsets. it sunsets. So, and I would also add that anyone being hired, I'm sure we'd be completely transparent and acknowledging the circumstances where she's being hired. And they would know that this position is looking to be a sunset position. So they could make that decision before agreeing to it. So they would understand that it's a sunset position. So there wouldn't be any sense of, Of well, I didn't know or something of that nature. They wouldn't understand. They would understand that 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 pouring it 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're what they were supposed to be used for. And that's pouring it actually into the community. Thanks.

Supervisor Miller.

Thank you. Mr. Trevor. Now, I have 2 points in full support of supervisor Coleman's point. I would just ask the owner. 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 due respect to 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 have high respect for Supervisor Osterman, but to use that very misleading number from WCA about human services spending, 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 okay supervisor coleman for your second time

Okay, I just wanted to come back because I heard what you said, Supervisor Miller, but yeah, it's going to be- Make sure you address the chair. 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- i stay i stand in my position and saying that i'm against it and that we should wait until budget time um 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 you 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. We're seeing county. We're gathering dispatch data, law enforcement, ambulance, EMS data data to let us know where the overdose are occurring. This individual will be responding with our. 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.

Just want to clear up something. I'm not against the person and I'm not, uh, I'm not concerned basically about my main focus wasn't about sun setting the person and being clarified to me that that person is 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. Okay. Whether it's sunset or whatever. Okay, so that that was my. That was my point, you know, not not necessarily anything other than that. And we've gone through this once before. And my, my problem is, you know, the funds were a 1 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 2 people over the last 3 years to overdoses. Uh, you know, 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 Woodson.

Thank you, Chair. You know, I initially was going to vote no on this. But what turned me on this was the fact that this is working directly with folks that need this type of Um, assistance and echo a little bit of what supervisor Spencer just mentioned, um. Having folks that I've taken in personally to my house that have suffered from this, um, and have also benefited from some of the programs and racing county. Um, I'm going to vote yes on this. I'm going to support the county executive in his comments that this will sunset. Um. Normally, I'm not in favor of using 1 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. I had 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, well, if they sunset in the future, then you'd realize that situation then. So that's really not a good reason for me to vote yes on something like this. And I honestly, I think this opioid situation is a very real thing for everyone. I had someone who's, he was a brother to me. A year and a half ago, 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. I'm going back to what I said about. 1 time funds, we're, we're stepping right back into that same situation. We're going to use 1 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 will change then. Very confusing. That's it. Thank you.

I've got just 1 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 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 it sunsets, you know, 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 $25,000, we would have went to the end of the month, end of the year for this position. 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 going to 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 that's something that I think. The county board here would would spend the money out of taxpayers funds to do that. So it's something and. That's that's all I have to say, because it's a opium opium problem. Touches every family usually. So, any other questions.

chairman last time supervisor coleman i just i was listening to what everybody was saying um talking about personal stories my father actually died from an 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 have been something to help him more than hiring 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 remain to the to the i understand i i 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. 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?

Sorry, let me just ask a clarifying 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. So you've got the last quarter. I think this was a $80,000 job, $25,000 with Social Security and taxes. That's a possibility. That's more of a finance director and county executive. Now we do have the opium funds. I, you know, we all agree that we that this is a. Correct use of them, you know, so. Horse 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 dollars. You fund with levy, I mean. You know, I take my right pocket and put in my left kind of thing. So. It's 1 option. I think that's really a finance director and accounting executive. Oh, and the committee, how they bring it to us. Any further questions this is a 2 thirds majority vote.

Supervisor Coleman, how do you vote? No. Supervisor how do you vote? Oh. Supervisor.

Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Motion carries now we have the items that have been requested for. 2nd, reading 1st, excuse me 1st and 2nd reading this evening that we read in under 1st reading. They could be taken together. They are both the 2. 3rd 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 No. 2026-51 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. 202650, as the clerk has stated, this is a request to accept 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 of supplies such as bedding, pillows, linens, personal hygiene products, etc., This supplemental grant does not require a match and we recommend the acceptance of the funds. We're asking for 1st and 2nd reading for these funds because the supplemental grant needs to be spent by September 30th. And regards the resolution resolution number 202651, 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 dollars for programs and. it allows us to expand our housing focus for individuals with serious mental illness this will be a partnership with our non-profits 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 30th as well and yelling is here 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 1st, 2nd 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 2 thirds majority vote.

Supervisor Coleman, how do you vote? Yes. Thank you.

Oh, shoot. I hit the wrong button.

Supervisor Trotter, how do you vote?

Yes.

No.

Motion carries unanimously.

Item number 13, reconsiderations of resolutions and ordinance from previous meetings and or 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. Informational reports on tonight's agenda.

And then with number 16, miscellaneous business announcements and oral 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. T laptop yet get with the it and schedule up a meeting. And then also I'd like to thank the nine venues in the Village of Waterford, one of our own had a venue for the Waterford Jam. It's a great celebration as well. I think it's probably the biggest music festival in Racine County. So thank you. Profited a near and dear thing to me, the FFA and the alumni, so.

I, I can report, uh, Mr chairman, we had a follow up meeting yesterday with all the venues and, um, the recipient of the, and this year, uh, water for jam fest raised, uh. Just over 50,000 dollars to the organization. So goodness, thanks for me.

I think the 1st, 1 was for the library and it was like 25,000 correct? Yes. Yes. Supervisor Coleman, did you ever go to Supervisor Coleman first?

So I just wanted to make everybody aware that Bishop Kirby's funeral service will be this Saturday at Grace Church at 11 a.m. So if we can just continue to keep the congregation and the community in the prayers and as we prepare to lay Bishop Kirby to rest. He was a 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 1 of the most successful of those groups are right here in Racine County. The 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, 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, uh, and have the county executive received that on behalf of the county.

Go ahead, gentlemen. Okay.

So, the donation is a 21,000 dollar donation for the Kruger farm proven site. Sure, thank you very much. Sure, any further supervisor with Shaw.

Thank you. I 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, I'd love to host you sometime. So thank you very much. Any other good we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.