County Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, I'd like to call the executive meeting to order. The first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from the previous meeting. Second. And if the clerk could call the role. Sorry about that. We have supervisors Meyer, Hopkins, Shakur, and Trouty are in the chambers as well as chairman Kramer. And then we also have supervisors Caprellian, Spencer, and Rkowski who are with us virtually. So we have a quorum and and vice chairman on here too. You're not. Excuse me. And vice chairman Miller

in the chambers. Okay. Item number two, resolution by the executive committee authorizing the settlement agreement with remnant opium defendants. Action requested first and second reading at the April 14th, 2026 county board meeting. Corb Council.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good evening. Uh so first by way of background uh the board will recall that by resolution 202534 uh the board authorize delegating the authority to enter into future settlement um agreements relative to opioids. Um that authority however was conditioned on on really two things. First, it was conditioned on there being a recommendation by the plaintiff's executive committee, which is comprised of attorneys uh representing all litigating governments across the country, as well as the county's opioid class action legal council. And the second condition being that rine county's share of the proceeds from the settlement agreements are consistent with the percentage allocation that had previously been established. So, upon learning of the most recent settlement, which is the subject of the resolution before you this evening, which is with six additional remnant opioid defendants, uh, this office, we reached out to our class action legal council looking for clarification on a few items. Uh and that clarification would inform whether or not we had the authority pursuant to that um resolution 202534 to enter into the binding settlement agreement or whether separate authorization would be needed. Uh we have until May 4th to sign and return the participation and release form. Unfortunately, it really wasn't until last week that we got that clarification we've been waiting for. uh and we determined that uh separate authorization would be required really out of an abundance of caution. Uh the primary reason being that this settlement unlike those prior settlement agreements does not involve states. It it does not involve state attorneys general uh or any amount allocated to a state. So consequently when you remove

them from the equation the percentage allocations deviate uh so not significantly but there is a deviation in that settlement allocation amount. So again out of an abundance of caution just taking the more conservative approach we felt we would be better positioned uh to obtain a separate authorization because it was slightly outside the confines of that previously authorized uh delegated authority. So, the settlement before you this evening, uh, the total set settlement amount is $97 million, $625,000. And before anybody gets too excited about that significant dollar amount, I should note that our allocation is roughly 0036%. Um, and so I can't say with certainty, but once you, you know, take into account the taxes, uh, the tax expenses on the funds, the notice and administrative costs, the attorney's fees associated with this, what we're reasonably anticipating is a range somewhere in the $30,000 to $100,000. And this, unlike some of the other settlement agreements, would be a lump sum uh, one-time payment uh, once that closes. So it it's certainly a positive development. Uh this office certainly recommends acting timely to ensure that we receive the full allocation. Uh unfortunately due to those time constraints due to the conclusion of this board and the organizational meeting being next week. Uh what we're looking for and we consulted with the the board chair on this is looking for a first and second reading all in this evening so that we could timely execute that participation agreement and get it in before the May 4th deadline. So with that any questions? I'm happy to address.

Are there any questions in the chamber off? Supervisor Shakur. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Can you again repeat the uh reason why we only got between 30 and 100,000?

So the total dollar amount is is 97.6 or so million dollars. Uh from that roughly I think it's around 11 to 12% goes to attorney's fees. Um then you have on top of that there are the taxes, there are the administrative costs, um there's the escrow costs. Um, and so once you subtract that out, uh, again, based on our rough, you know, back of the napkin projections, the the conservative amount would be in the 30,000 range up to perhaps $100,000 is what we're expecting based on our percent allocation, which is 036% roughly.

Any further questions? Supervisor Troier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Michael, was the company requesting documentation as to how the funds are being spent? Uh, so this is outside the statutory scope that is referenced in the resolution for the other ones. Um, but those generally speaking, those abatement requirements are applicable here as well. uh it's not considerably different from those the criteria that we're accustomed to. Okay. And so the recommendation what's built into the draft resolution is that those funds upon receipt would be placed in that same abatement fund.

Great. Thank you. Any further questions in the chamber? Are there any questions from our online supervisors hearing? None. Is there a motion on the floor? Do we have two? We have first and a second. We have a first and a second already. I believe we do. We don't have a first. Second. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further comments? All in favor say I. I. I.

Opposed. Motion carried. Item number three, journment. We are journed till 6:30.

Good evening. Thanks for your patience. We're running a little bit behind here tonight because we have half and half due to the weather. The some of the supervisors are calling in virtually and we've got them all online now. So, uh, I'd like to call the meeting to order and, uh, if Wendy Christensen Burke could call the role.

Okay. We have supervisors Neielen and Mcrenolds who are excused. Supervisors Rowski, Caprian, Spencer, Verant, Miller, Cole, Pricer, and Wishaw are attending virtually. Um, we are anticipating Supervisor Kelly to join us virtually as well. and then everyone else is here in the chambers. Thank you. Tonight, as we usually do, we have an opening prayer. If uh supervisor wish online could lead us,

chairman, can you hear me? Yes, I can.

Okay. All right. Uh, heavenly father, we come before you mindful of the responsibility placed upon us to serve the people of this county with wisdom, integrity, and humility. You have entrusted each person in this room with gifts to offer, responsibilities to carry, and a role to play in moving this community forward. Help us to recognize the value in one another. Give us the patience to truly listen, the openness to consider new ideas, and the wisdom to understand that strong solutions are often found when we are willing to hear perspectives beyond our own. Remind us that there are thoughtful and capable people on this board and within our staff, each offering ideas that can strengthen this county. teach us to consider those ideas fairly, to engage one one another in good faith and to work together in a way that honors the people we have been called to serve. We ask your blessing upon our troops, our first responders, and this country. In your name, amen.

Amen. And now the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America,

and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Item number four, public comments. Pursuant to section 2-71 of the racing code of ordinances, each speaker shall be allotted a maximum of three minutes. Do we have any comments? Any comments from this from the gallery? Moving on. Item number five, chairman's comments. Well, typically I don't have a chairman's comments, but being seen tonight is the last meeting of this county board, I wanted to address you. I couldn't be more prouder of the 20 other supervisors in this room. uh a little over two years ago, Jonathan Delgrave came to me and said, "We're going to have some heavy lifts this term." And we sure did. I want to thank you all for being at the committee meetings, being at the budgets, being at the sales tax. Took a lot more time than usual for us to be county board supervisors. Your diligent your diligency is very appreciated by myself. I also want to thank my committee chairs. We have a committee form of government here. Seven of us go sit on a committee and we try to vet it for the other 14. I also want to thank the directors of the departments. It's got to be tough to have one person called the county executive. Let alone in the last two years we've had four an acting and interim and two county executives. Everybody wanted to make the Mercine

County a better place but four gentlemen probably had a little bit way of doing it differently and you all had to be adaptive and lastly I want to thank the staff. We don't plow the snow we don't answer the emergency calls or we don't help citizens and human services. That's our staff. the other thousand people. I'm very proud and appreciative of all our work. I've got one last thing for you all to do tonight. When you go home, thank the people that help you at home. Give them give them a good hug because without their support, it'd be harder to do this job. So, that's the end of my comments. I just also have to recognize tonight and because of the weather, they're not in the chamber. We have two retiring supervisors. Supervisor Cole and Supervisor Rowski. Uh, Supervisor, there's a there's an old adage. If you're going to retire, you need to find somebody in in local government, you need to find somebody to replace you. Well, Supervisor Grove got Gary Cole. And when I first talked to Gary, he was like, I don't know if I can do this. I don't know if I'm good enough. Well, he was good enough. Thank you, Supervisor Coleman, and your your citizens do. Supervisor Rowski, he was the chairman of economic development and for his his term here, this last term, economic development that the committee put together a a solar ordinance very much needed in this county, very much time and dedication. Thank you. So, with that, let's move on to item number six, which is postponed tonight because of the weather. Uh we're going to be doing that on May 12th. Item number seven, reading of the minutes of the previous meeting, which

is automatically waved unless requested by a majority of the members present. Seeing none, item number eight, resolutions and ordinances referred to committee. Resolution number 2025-85 by individual supervisors requesting that the entire causeway leading to Rine Countyy's Harbor Park adopt the name of Kippikawi Causeway was referred to the public works parks and facilities committee. Item number nine introduction of resolutions and excuse me yeah item number nine resolutions and ordinances for first reading and referral. Resolution number 2025-104 by Finance and Human Resources Committee authorizing changes to the public works and development services exempt salary schedule effective April 18, 2026 and use of sufficient funds within the public works and development services 2026 budget. Resolution number 2025-105 by Finance and Human Resources Committee authorizing the acceptance of a United Way grant to the amount of $20,000 and transfer of funds within the human services department 2026 budget and resolution number 2025-106 by public works parks and facilities committee authorizing the participation in the department of natural resources municipal dam grant program.

Supervisor Troier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, as finance chairman, I'm requesting uh unanimous consent, please, from the board this evening for uh first and second reading of resolutions 2025-104 and 2025-105. See no objections. Chairman, supervisor Hopkins also consent like to request a first second reading tonight on resolution 2025106. Okay. Item number 10. Oh, yes. Super

chairman. Uh, thank you, chairman. Your executive committee met earlier this evening and wants to put forward resolution 2025107 for the opioid settlement. Um, that was unanimously approved during the executive meeting and there's no objection. Like to introduce that tonight for first and second reading. Seeing no objections, number 10 would be resolution number 2025-107 by the executive committee authorizing participation in the settlement agreement with remnant opioid defendants. Sorry. Item number 10, communications and claims.

Number one, public comment from an anonymous for county employee.

Item number one is received and filed in the county clerk's office. Number two, public notice of an air pollution control permit application review regarding the Microsoft Mount Pleasant data center located at 4800 90th Street in Mount Pleasant, Rine County, Wisconsin, FID252302490 from the state of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Number three, notice a public hearing regarding the air pollution control permit application for the increase in size of fire pumps, construction of fire pumps, modification of fuel usage and emissions limits and other changes to permit conditions, and the revision of air pollution control operation permit 25230249A- FO3 for the Microsoft Mount Pleasant data centers from the state of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. And number four, order granting extension to the Delivan Drive crossing in the city of Jainsville crossing 177423R from the office of the commissioner of railroads.

Items number two through four refer to the economic development and land use planning committee. Number five, consultation notice in accordance with section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for the Monomony Indian tribe of Wisconsin Kenosha 2023 gaming project from the United States Department of the Interior. Item number five is referred to the executive committee, economic development and land use planning committee and health and human development committee.

Number six, ring county facilities management notable status projects notable project status report for the month of March 2026. And number seven, notice of pending application for dredging for project located on Lake Michigan in in the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter section 9 township 3 range 23 city of rine rine county from the state of Wisconsin department of natural resources. Items number six and seven are referred to the public works parks and facilities committee. Items number 8 through 10 are claims against the county. Item number 11 is a foreclosure of mortgage and items number 12 through 41 are notifications from United States Bankruptcy Court.

Items 8 through 41 are referred to Finance and Human Resources Committee and Corporation Council. Any requests for supervis supervisor? Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would request please copies of two through seven. Okay. Anybody others in the chambers? Supervisor Coleman. Second chairman 356 89 and 10. Supervisor Troutier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 235 and seven, please. Supervisor Rossi. Thank you, Chairman. 2, three, and seven. Supervisors online. Supervisor Wishaw.

Yes, sir. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Copies of two, five, six, and seven, please. Any other supervisors? Supervisor Spencer. Thank you. Uh copies of one, two, three, six, and seven. Any other supervisors? Vice Chair, if I can get a copy of 2, three, and five. And I'll take number eight, nine, and 10. Any other supervisors requests? Supervisor Hoffman. Thank you. could have copies of 2, three, and seven, please.

Any other requests? Seeing none, number 11, communications from the county executive. Report number 2025-72 by county executive making an appointment to the Rine County Human Services Board was referred to the Health and Human Development Committee. Supervisor Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, the Health and Human Development Committee unanimously recommended this to the body, so I would move for confirmation. Motion

has been made and seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say I. I. I. opposed. Motion carried. Report number 2025-74 by County Executive making an appointment to the county human services board. Supervisor Miller.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In order since this is our uh last meeting of this county board, uh I would ask if the Health and Human Development Committee would like to make a recommendation. The nominee to the human services board is Andrew Neighbor of Burlington. I so move. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second from the committee. Any discussion from the committee? All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Mr. Mr. Chairman, I would then uh make a recommendation to the full county board that Andrew Neighbor be confirmed as an appointee to the Brain County Human Services Board. We have a motion and a second. Any questions or comments? All in favor say I. I. I. Opposed? Motion carried. and report number 2025-75 by county executive making a reappointment of the Burlington Public Library Board of Trustees.

That would that would go to the executive committee and I'd like to put that out for the executive committee to make a motion. It's Danielle Danielle Larson and this is u reappoint. She serves currently as the board president and uh she is willing to serve another term. Move for Mr. Chairman. Second. Motion's been seconded made and seconded from the executive committee. All in favor say I. I.

Opposed. Motion carried. Supervisor Miller want to move. M would you like a motion for the full? Yes. Okay. I would move to confirm Danielle Larson to the Burlington Public Library Board of Trustees. Motion's seconded. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. I.

Opposed. Motion carried. Standing item number 12, standing committee reports containing recommendations on the item items referred. There are no reports.

Item number 13, second reading of resolutions and ordinances. Under majority vote as a group this evening we have resolution number 2025-96 by public works parks and facilities committee authorizing the decommissioning of a trail in rine county known as the 100mile bike route. Resolution number 2025-97 by public works parks and facilities committee strongly urging the governor of Wisconsin and the state legislature to enact a comprehensive sustainable transportation funding solution. Resolution number 2025-101 by Finance and Human Resources Committee authorizing the sale of INREM parcels 1236 Street parcel ID 2760000003578001 and 1226 6th Street parcel ID 27600003578002 to the city of Rine in the amount of $55,32. Resolution number 2025-102 by Finance and Human Resources Committee authorizing the sale and transfer of inramm parcels Glenn Eagles Drive Lot 2 parcel ID 151 032214117020 and Glenn Eagles Drive lot 3 parcel ID151032214117030 to the village of Mount Pleasant in the amount of $12,32 and resolution number 2025-103 by Health and Human Development Committee in support of entering into a memory Andum of understanding with the continuation of care for the city and county of Rine homelessness and housing alliance of Rine County designating Rine County is the collaborative applicant to effectively plan and manage coordinated homeless assistance resources.

Movement adoption Mr. Chairman consideration 20251. Motion has been made and seconded. Supervisor Hopkins, we'll start with 202596.

So, res 2025 2096 by the public works uh parks and facilities committee authorizing the decommissioning of a trail in Racing County known as the 100 mile bike trail. In short, uh this bike trail has been deemed unsafe due to the increase in traffic um in the associated area and uh from that point we uh felt it was necessary for it to be decommissioned for the safest uh safety and it was nasty approved by the public works committee.

Okay. Then 202597. I'll take that one, Supervisor Hopkins, because that's kind of the one that I uh initiated with the with the uh so what what we've been asked to by the Transportation Development Association is to write this resolution. So when they go in by the state legislators and the federal legislators, we have a united front. at last count, and that was about three weeks ago, the uh the counties, it was 44 counties that signed on to the same resolution. Uh, and the goal here is for everybody, town, city, villages, and counties to sign on to this so when they go see the legislators next spring, they can say, "Look, all your counties, all your towns, all your villages want you to sustained transportation funding." because we've been very fortunate in the last couple years to increase the funding and we got to try to keep it maintained that level. Um and you know this is how this actually we got these emails today or yesterday afternoon about three projects that we put in for state funding. uh Maple Road, which is a rustic road out between the town of Waterford and the village of Rochester. County Highway N in the town of Dover and County Highway V over here, right up here. The total cost of those projects are $1.5 million. Two of the projects are funded 90% by the states, County Highway N and County Highway V, 50% on Maple Road. That comes out to be $1.1 million of funding that we get to

take that we don't have to spend because we've got these grants or these, you know, local road improvement funds. We got to maintain that level. So, that's kind of why we wrote this resolution so we can have a united front and say legislators find if you've got to find something, don't do it on the transportation or find a better way to fund it. So, is there any questions or comments on that? So, item item number 20, resolution 2025102. Supervisor Troier.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, this pertains to two parcels that are being purchased by the village of Mount Pleasant. The uh two parcels are being purchased for a total amount of $12,000. The appraised value of those two parcels totals 14,000. Um, so these are being purchased again by the village of Mount Pleasant. I think there are Mount Pleasant people here to answer any questions. Any questions from

Are there any questions? Seeing none, we'll go on to resolution 2025103. Supervisor Miller.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this resolution was unanimously recommended by the Health and Human Development Committee, and it will begin a process of collaboration between the county, the federal government, and a number of local groups to combat homelessness. Um, I know there are persons in the chambers who are available to answer questions and the board also received a memo on this in uh via email and perhaps uh, Vice Chairman Meyer could identify those in the chambers who are available.

Sure. Kristen. Kristen, would you please come up? Thank you, Vice Chair, and thank you, Supervisor Miller. Um, so this memo, uh, memo and resolution before you is, uh, as Supervisor Miller was saying, to enter into an agreement with the homeless and housing alliance, um, HUD, which is the federal grant funding for the continuum of care. um as the collaborative applicant, which means we would lead these organizations in streamlining our approach um to how we address housing issues and homelessness in Rine County as well as seeking additional funding. There would be um staff time dedicated to this. Uh as we continue to explore this, we're identifying if this is a full-time staff member. Um, and the funding that goes along with this does cover that staff member if we choose to identify a full-time member for this role. Happy to answer any questions.

Supervisor Horth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, when I read through the program, I came up with two questions. My first question was, has this program been a part of our plan for this year all along when we set up this year's objectives? or is this a new program that just arrived on the the horizon recently?

So, uh it is something that has been explored. It's something that has been um around since 1995. Um, as far as Rine County being approached to be the collaborative applicant, that is something that, um, I I'm not sure on the exact date, but I believe in the fall uh, Rine County was approached to learn about this process and engage in a a greater understanding if we were going to move forward as the collaborative applicant.

Thank you. The second question I had was when I took a look at the information and and you just I think shared it. It appears to be a fairly costneutral type of program. However, however, there does appear to be a fair amount of administration that's going to have to be done to help support this. There's a cost associated with that. And I know you just briefly alluded to it, but that's the one thing that I that I'm sensitive to because there's so many things that we're talking about our staff having to do and now we've just layered one more piece onto that and and I am a little sensitive to that and certainly for the staff members. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Any questions? Any questions from the supervisors online? Chairman Kramer. Yes. Go ahead.

Thank you. Uh I'm definitely uh sensitive to what Supervisor HT just presented and it's it's been a theme and as we were looking at last year's budget and we're moving into this budget season coming soon, it is something we really need to be mindful of. But the one thing that I want to expand the perspective on is first of all I congratulate the county for even considering to take on the continuum of care and being someone who has worked with the homeless population for over a decade plus some years. Uh I can tell you that the continuum of care really um I should say needs the extra hand of the county. A lot of those that are experiencing homelessness or work with those experiencing homelessness often lead on the services that the county does provide. So, it to me it makes sense and the benefit to the community ultimately what government is for. It's not so much the profit and the dollars, but how are we serving and building up our community? Uh, I just wanted to put that out there because I think the benefits will by far supersede any administrator time and dollars that end up getting put into um, admitting the continuum of care until they possibly consider finding a net zero position.

Any further questions? Supervisor Miller or Meer.

Thank you, Chairman. Just wanted to um thank Kristen and her group for working on this. I think it's a great conduit to get more of the data and more of the information that we can use as far as even for grant writing and using the funds more appropriately if the county has a hand to play in this. Um most right now we have about 150 homeless people east of the freeway and about 50 people on the western part of the county. So keeping that information and trying to find out a better way to, you know, get those individuals the help that they need and or track the data to to find out if they're more local residents or they're transient residents too is one of the other things that I think we may be able to have a better pulse on in the county. So I commend you for that and I think this is a good move forward and I'm in full support.

Supervisor Rossi. Thank you, Chairman. Um just wanted to review process on this one in uh committee level. It was discussed that this was uh not the final step. Um one of the questions that I brought up was, you know, we're looking at how many board members would be recommended for placement by the county. Right now it's two. We're looking to maybe increase that to three. I'm just want to make sure that this does not eclipse that process. I do believe we're going to have one final level of action before this actually gets implemented. Um Supervisor Miller, maybe you could comment to that.

That is absolutely correct. We will uh receive documents for a further final approval as we get additional information. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I if I could, we will go ahead. We will have um three members on the board as it stands right now. So, uh, an individual sitting on the board and then two additional members, one designed from the east side of, um, Rosine County and one seat for the west side of the county.

Any further questions? Any questions from the supervisors online? Seeing none, oh, Supervisor Spencer, I just I'm looking for a repeat of what she said. One from the east, one from the west, and did you say a third? That is correct. A third. That would be a member of the county board or that will sit on um the COC board. So, there will be a total of three from the county.

Thank you. Any further questions? Okay. Is there a voice majority vote? All in favor say I. I. I. I. I. Opposed. Motion's carried. So, separate consideration of resolution 2025101. Supervisor Kraier.

Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. Resolution 2025- uh-101. This pertains to the city of Racine, specifically the community development authority, requesting to purchase the two parcels stated by the county clerk. The cost of the two parcels is $55,32. The total appraised value of the two parcels is 55,000. These properties are pivotal pivotal in the redevelopment of the city's downtown riverfront stretching from the 6th Avenue bridge towards the lakefront moving east pivotal for their city development. I do believe I have Jeff Hins here, the assistant director of the city of Racine to answer any questions. Are there any questions?

Did you want to make a statement, Jeff, or or or treasurer Jeff? Either way, excuse me, Jeff. Jeff and Jeff.

Thank you. So, these two parcels, uh, 1229 and 1236 Street, they were taken in foreclosure in April of last year, and, uh, the CDA has expressed interest in purchasing them, put forward an offer to purchase for 55,000. The additional $32 is for a recording fee. So essentially the properties were appraised out at 55,000. The CDA has submitted an offer for 55,000 and this will play a role a significant role in their redevelopment of the riverfront. Um I have the 1236 street has a three-story brick building, a blighted brick building that's on it and has been an eyesore to the neighborhood for a number of years. Part of the redevelopment process would be addressing that. And then 1229 6th Street is an adjacent uh parcel that's a vacant lot parcel that is on the uh south side of the bridge as well. So um I in the spirit of intergovernmental cooperation I this is got my full support and I would ask for the board support as well.

Chairman supervisor Capellian. Thank you so much. Uh, I think I would like to make a motion first and I'm happy to then to speak on the motion. And my motion would be to refer this back to committee. I will second. Yep. Okay. We can motion. Who is the second? Miller. Supervisor Miller. Okay. Go ahead. Supervisor Caprellian.

Yeah, thank you so much. My concerns from the beginning has been that the county never opened a competitive bid process for these two parcels. The treasurer's own documentation and what was just stated acknowledged that these p part parcels were not indicated in a seal bid uh sale. So there is a private resident who is adjacent to that property and on unbuildable lot at the 1229 who had never been given the opportunity to participate. So referring this back to the finance and human uh resources committee will allow us to re consider these two part parcels and what we want to do. If you recall from the last county board, uh there was some guidance uh from Michael Lanstore. First, we were talking about an S resolution to come and see if we can separate these two parcels. But I was guided that ultimately the options are is to vote no, which then makes this item go back to the finance committee or to refer this back to allow it to go back to the same destination, the finance committee. I think we should be allowed an opportunity to uh dig into this just a little bit more and um let this rehash. There is no time constraints on either one of these sales and the city doesn't have anything moving forward right now. So to have this more time uh back at the finance committee, I don't think it hurts any process.

Supervisor Shakur.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I speak against a motion to send this back to committee. And for one, well, I got a couple reasons, but first of all, um, the bid is not required here under section of Wisconsin statutes, uh, land acquired by the county under the provisions of Wisconsin statute 75.521 uh, shall be offered for this shall be offered for a sale and sale with the consistent consistent of the requirements set forth in Wisconsin statutes uh, 75. 5 35 36 and also 7569. The sale and transfer of such land shall also be performed. There's 11 other reasons behind this. I'm not going to tell you about all those, but the fact of the matter is is that under subsection B, uh, this section shall not apply to the withdrawal and the sale of forest lands, nor the sale or exchange of lands to or between the county and municipalities. So, there's no reason to send this back right here. The statutes tell us exactly what we can do. And also uh we have our local which is uh section 757 of the Rene County code of ordinances which sets forth the process and the sale or the transfer of land acquired by inrim proceedings. sub sessions uh subjection manage uh sale and transport in room property is handled by the human resources part uh committee and uh in the subsection uh B does not apply to the sale or exchange or land to be between the county the miss municipalities and also the state.

the finance and human resources passed this resolution five to one. So it really don't make uh we're we're right within the law. Not only are we within the state law, but we're within the law of the county. So this there's no need to send this back. I will vote that down. Supervisor wish. I yield to super court counsel. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to address one comment u from Supervisor Compellian and clarify that uh those two options that she had presented uh based on on my recommendation. One was that the the board could vote no uh to the underlying resolution. The second option was that it could be referred back to the committee. I just don't want to leave the impression that those are the only two options. Of course, the third option is to approve uh the resolution. So, I just wanted to clarify that statement. Supervisor Wish. Um I'm a little concerned about this whole thing. Uh at the last meeting that we had that I can recall, there was a subject brought up uh that the person that was interested in purchasing this had been threatened by the city. And I I would like to have more information regarding that. I'd like proof of what that was. Um I don't know if that has a bearing on my decision. I kind of agree with my colleague uh Supervisor Shakur, but I still would like more information brought before the county regarding that.

Thank you, Supervisor Preser. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Was someone in the chambers there to present what the redevelopment plan is? I'm I'm not familiar with the project, so I don't really know how it fits with the city of Rine, you know, zoning or future development plans or those of the counties. Jeff, yeah, if you could announce who you are and what your

Good evening, I'm Jeff Pence. I'm the assistant director of the city development department as well as the deputy director of the city of Rine CDA. Uh the city currently owns uh the former case factory on Water Street. It was 27 acres. Uh the CDA had all that property torn down. It's a brownfield. We're waiting for final clearance from the DNR. All the remediation work has been completed. Uh moving west along the river towards the Sixth Street Bridge. Uh back in 2017 or so, right when I started with the city, uh we invested substantial money to relocate a water uh line through that property uh to make it developable. uh the developers, you know, went away. Thus, our action here, it was forclosed on. Um so, the city has definite financial interest in this property. Uh we would like to secure the property to implement a water street redevelopment plan that won an award from the American Planning Association Wisconsin chapter uh for a water street redevelopment framework. It included a mixeduse development with residential, a riverwalk, and things of that nature that would uh get it ready to go. So, it was fairly hard to find developers to be interested in the property given its brownfield status. Um, now that we've remediated the property and are taking steps on designing a riverwalk, um, this is the time to acquire and control all the land on the south side of the river from the Sixth Street Bridge uh all the way uh to the riverfront to put that vision uh to reality. So, hopefully that explains a little bit about uh what we would do with the property. Um, the time on that is somewhat developer dependent. We do have a grant from the EPA that will help clean this property up. Uh we have other funds that we can expend on demolition of the building at the proper time for that as well. So that would be our immediate plans for uh these particular properties. Um we did perform a phase one environmental assessment on both of them. Um it did recommend a phase two which is essentially take soil samples. It's believed that these properties are environmentally contaminated. uh the CDA does have the resources to deal with that of course and we would you know do so in

accordance with EPA and uh DNR regulation and I can take any questions beyond that. I guess I have one follow-up question given that are either of these buildings part of a historic preservation district or have any historic value to the city? No. No, they they're not historically designated at the local uh state or federal level to my knowledge. All right. Thank you.

How if if this would go through, how how long of a process from the phase two remediation to start of construction construction?

Uh the demolition would be a lot sooner for that building. Um just in terms of what the initial results of the phase one were. U most of the contamination uh that was believed to exist was actually not at the the site where the building is, but on the west side of the Sixth Street Bridge, uh the unde undevelopable parcel. That's where a lot of the um materials from when it was a um a foundry, not a foundry, a tannery were dumped. There's like mounds where the chemicals that don't do good things for people or animals were stored. So most of the contamination is actually on the vacant parcel. So that would take um a little bit more time to remediate, but the building um we haven't been through it, but pending anything really bad um could be demolished within the next uh you know couple of years once we get you know bids out and things of that nature, it would go down pretty quickly.

Supervisor Shakur. Okay, Supervisor Horse.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, one question for yourself and then Supervisor Capelli and I will have one for you as well. We're being asked as a board now to make one of three decisions and one of which is obviously to potentially send it back to committee. The other would be to approve it. The third is whatever that correct. Um, so for yourself, how long is this project, this area in been in this development phase that you're referring to? Uh, it's a good question. The shortest answer is that the city acquired it prior to my arrival um in 2018 and at one point there was a developer that was going to, you know, utilize the existing buildings that never came to fruition. They became bad enough we had them uh demolished in 2020. So, they've probably been in our control for around 12 years would be my estimation for just the main Water Street properties. um the actual properties that are subject to your discussion tonight um about 2018 when we developed that plan and then sent it to the uh the the state for uh consideration of the award. So those are a little bit shorter time frame.

Thank you for the historical perspective. Supervisor Caprellian, I know that during the finance committee meeting, uh, you human resource and finance committee meeting, I believe it was, you had shared some other thoughts which I think would be important for me to maybe better understand from your perspective and why you're requesting that this possibly go back to committee for consideration. Thank you, Supervisor HT. Chairman, do I have the floor? Hey, go ahead.

Yeah, thank you so much. Uh so this property got brought to my attention because there was a resident who moved into this community and 1229. So when I speak of it and my first issue is that these two are lumped together and 1229 just as uh Jeff Hinn said is an undevelopable property and it butts up to the property of uh of I'm not sure of the exact address but the access to it is to this resident um property and their idea for it was to turn it into a green space. So, not only were they willing to go through the seal bid process to bid for it, but it would get back on the tax role and they waited for the opportunity to do it and it never came forward and didn't come forward because as you see this process right now, we had given it to the city and lumped it with 1230 which is across a bridge. So, it's it's interesting, you know, they're across the street from each other and they butt underneath. Um, and so why I see this going back to the committee and and allow for these answers just like supervisor Wish had some, you know, would like some insight on some of the things I stated before and the resident will make themselves available to be at the finance committee. they are there in the chambers this evening but I don't think it's appropriate as we're discussing this at this moment but uh where we can get those finer details and then for those supervisors who are just you know getting interest into it right now to make this uh vote this evening you'd be afforded the opportunity to take a look exactly what these parcels look like and uh you know there is a question too you know I know supervisor Shakur went through state statute You know, I'm not

questioning whether this was a um that we went through this process uh in a way that we weren't supposed to, but it does bring light to an area of as we've been giving municipalities properties. you know, there is really uh we should have a little bit more oversight to that process in my belief system and maybe we need to establish a written policy framework that should govern municipal transfers of inrun property going forward. Um this the finance committee meets I think next week Wednesday. So it's a meeting or a committee that meets twice a month. So this isn't postponing it uh for all too long. But I don't think it's a a hard ask for a supervisor to ask this to go back to the committee to allow uh some more discussion on this item and it'll just come right back for a vote.

Thank you. Um one final question for yourselves. I'm sorry. What is or is there a specific sense of urgency that says this has to be done by a certain point in time uh regarding potential for funding and and what have you? Thank you for the question. Uh, in conferring with the CDA, there is not a definitive timeline that we need to meet to move this forward. Um, from the county's perspective, in 2024, Act 216 was an was an act that was uh put into place to tie into the disposition of the foreclosure properties. and it essentially puts a clock on the disposition of properties. That clock is 180 days from the date of county acquisition. So in that regard, we are uh under a timeline. We've actually extended beyond that 180 days uh through consult with corporation council. We've been comfortable in extending beyond that 180 days under the premise that we've been in good faith negotiation and trying to convey these properties. So um to answer your question, there is not a definitive timeline. There is a slight sense of urgency and that uh we do want to expedite the process because we currently are beyond that 180day guideline that's set forth in act 216.

Thank you supervisor Shakur. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to know uh ask a question of supervisor Capriian. Did you contact the alderman and also the county supervisor of the district in particular supervisor Coleman? I mean you going through all these motions and things which is not a bad idea. However, it would be wise to introduce or get the people that represent those areas from the county and the city involved. So I'd just like to know if if if they are aware of it. Supervisor.

Supervisor. Go ahead.

Thank you, Chairman. So, we have many items that come before the county board and this item in particular does not cover my district and just as you noted, it's supervisor Coleman's. How I got pulled in and how you get pulled into other issues. You know, how things get birthed is not necessarily because of our own doing. I didn't dig into this. This fell upon me. And this G, you just made a fine point. This gives an opportunity as this has been for discussion for quite some time. This has been before the city months ago for the CDA. So I'm not sure if the city as you sit on the CDA, if you reached out to Supervisor Coleman yourself, as this affects her county board area. So I think the onus doesn't always necessarily need to be where it falls on the lap, but maybe to whatever committee might be on it. But here we are as a county board. We are discussing this item right now and this is a perfect opportunity not only for Supervisor Coleman or the alderman who might be who serves that area to be able to uh have some more opportunity to understand this before a final vote gets made. And all this is going to allow because there are some questions for us to be having this long of a conversation on this inrem property that this does need to go back to the finance committee. Go ahead, Supervisor.

Thank you, uh, Supervisor Capillian. Um, the alderman of the area is wherever and supportive of it, and I did ask, uh, Supervisor uh, Omen. So, they you can ask her, but I did reach out, but I still have a problem. No elected official should be in other people's district regardless of the situation. You got people that represent on the county 9,000 people and that person that was elected by the people of that district should be involved from A to Z.

Supervisor Spencer,

thank you. That sounds like another topic that's not on the agenda, but uh I would I would take issue with it. Um so my question is about 1229. We didn't hear anything about 1229 from Jeff uh hints and and I'm curious too as to if it's an undevelopable property, what uh the intent of the city is with it being on the other side of Sixth Street. I I totally understand 1230. It connects to all the rest of the Water Street properties down to the lake. Um, but I don't I don't quite understand 1229 if if uh Jeff is still Jeff still here.

Go ahead, Jeff.

Yeah. Uh, thanks for the question. Effectively, they're packaged as one with the bid. Um, the CDA's interest would be in exchange for, you know, getting it. Um, we would do something with the trail as well. We don't have the engineering worked out for property that we don't yet own or the rest of the trail. But if it's property the CDA or city were to acquire, we would definitely find a highest and best use for it. It could be a trail. It could be having it cleaned up and remediated and then sold to somebody that could do something with it. Um, you know, all options would be on the table. Um, there's not a definitive set one at this moment in time aside from it needs to be cleaned up and it's part of this bid. So the CDA uh did go through common council and get authorization to get to this point today and we are interested in uh both properties and would find uh a use for it either through redevelopment or public purpose.

So right now that vacant parcel the small one on the other side of the street there's been no it wasn't included in the redevelopment plan on the other side of the street. So what you're saying? No not necessarily. Um, we haven't done the the final riverwalk for it. You know, we may need a turnaround or, you know, something along those lines. Or maybe there'll be a plan to continue the riverwalk even further than the Sixth Street Bridge. That hasn't been determined yet. But, um, it's not part of any, uh, you know, formal, you know, this is what it's going to be type plan if that's no plan. Supervisor Coleman. Okay. First of all, um, it says come back to you.

It says 1226 6th Street and 12:30. So can we clarify what is it first of all is supervis 12:30 there's a typo on the agenda agenda when I look at the actual document it is 1229 I just made

okay so okay let's clarify that thank you so I was aware um in the last meeting and I'm just going to say it like this respectfully thank you Melissa for stepping in and and and and dealing with this, but this is my district. So, the the gentleman, I would like for him to know that as being your county board supervisor, whoever you may be, I would appreciate if you reach out to me so that we can find out what's really going on. So, we're going to start there that this is my district. Now, to get to it, the way that I feel, I do agree with you, Melissa. We need to bring it back to committee because there's things that came to light. And respectfully, I don't care about projects that are going on and things that you have going on. Things need to be done in decent and in order. People need a fair chance to be able to uh do things. And if they want to inquire about buying property, they should have that right, too. Doesn't matter about the projects that's going on because I really don't care. So for future references, as far as us being supervisors, we need to respect doing things the right way. And the right way is to make sure that you talk to the person that governs those people. And I would just ask for just for future references, please respect my district. But I do agree with you, Melissa. Thank you. We're going to the back to super supervisor Spencer. Sorry about cutting you off, but I seen you waving frantically. So, go ahead to Supervisor Spencer.

Thank you. Um, so my question was the assessed value of of each parcel. Um, what is the if if someone has that available, what the assessed value of 1229 is? Jeff, I do have that information. Go

ahead, Jeff. At the time of taking the property through foreclosure, the assessed value for 1229 was $148,000 and the assessed value for 1230 was also $148,000. Again, with the assessed value, uh that sets the threshold for uh implementing the tax levy. As we take properties through foreclosure, uh, our standard practice and actually statemanded statute requires that we do have an independent verification of value done on that. We did and consistently do hire a third party appraiser to appraise the properties in ASIS condition. Uh so the appraised value of $55,000 does account for items like uh addressing any potential contamination on the property as well as the significant cost that will be incurred in potentially raising the building that is bladed on the property. So while the assessed value is a total of almost $300,000, uh the appraised value is in my opinion a more accurate indication of what the market truly is for the properties. And do you have um separate numbers for the two buildings were appraised?

I do. So they were appraised separately. The 1230 6th Street, which is the one with the improvement on it, that one was appraised at $50,000. 1229 Sixth Street was appraised at $5,000.

Any further any further questions, Supervisor Spencer? Thank you. How big is 1229? Uh 1229 is, I believe, just a touch over an acre. I believe it's 1.03 acres. Would that be a buildable parcel in the city? Does Jeff from the city and know that

if it had access to a public rightway? Yes. uh it's really only accesses through um you know adjacent properties being one of the ones that's subject to foreclosure action and the private property that supervisor Caprillion has mentioned um but one acre is a buildable lot but it is um you know fairly close to the river I don't have the flood plane off the top of my head but that acreage would be buildable um if it was accessible but I think given its location um in history development of it might be difficult it's not accessible it's probably not buildable not not readily Any further questions, Mr. Chairman?

Supervisor. Um, you're dark. Who's it cold?

Um, is there a way that if we send this back to committee, we can come back that if this if we do turn these over that it's been a blight on the community for a long time. Is there a restriction that something has to be done with the parcels in a certain amount of time or the county gets to buy it back for a very discounted rate because like I say it is a main thoroughfare Sixth Street going downtown and that building is like I say a blight. It something needs to be done and dragging it out just seems like a waste. So, I don't know if there's something if we're doing this if we can make a restriction on the agreement or once we give it up, we're done.

Corporate right now. Is that correct? We have an offer to purchase right now and then the resolution put forward essentially following the terms of that offer to purchase. So, if the resolution that was put forward this evening were approved, there is no

pullback language currently in that resolution. Um, you know, this is not the first time that we've transferred properties to a municipality. We certainly have negotiated specific language into previous agreements with other municipalities. So, it's certainly an option. Um, you know, one of my concerns with one of the main reasons this has my support is because the CDA has the technical skills and knowledge to bring this project forward. I absolutely recognize that, you know, there's a cost to transferring the properties for $55,000, which is the appraised value. The argument could be that if these were put forward for sealed bid sale that we could essentially we could potentially secure a higher sale price for those. and I don't dispute that at all. So, there certainly is potentially a monetary cost to the county in executing the sale to the city. Uh my concern is that these two particular properties, given the condition of them and the likelihood of contamination and the work that will go into remedying that contamination, these two parcels are not ones that are really candidates for the standard buyer through that sealed bid sale process. Uh it does take I believe it will take a specialized skill set and specific resources to be able to move these projects forward and if presented in a sealed bid sale certainly we might get a higher purchase price but my concern is that that may end up in the hands of a purchaser who doesn't have the skill set to move these projects forward and it continues to be of blight on the community for a longer period of time. Supervisor Rossi.

Thank you, Chairman. This is more so a question for the other Jeff. Jeff, my understanding is this is would become part of the machinery row or machinery row west district. Is that accurate? Yeah, we not necessarily the project name we've got for it. I just go by the addresses at this point, but yes, it would be part of that former project for the development of it. And we haven't determined if that'd be done in phases all at once. I think it's unlikely to have it all developed at once, but it would be part of that overall vision. Yeah. Has there been I haven't driven past it in quite some time now. Has there been any progress on machinery row?

Yeah, we're just waiting on um we've did um we we exhausted some more EPA funds uh last cycle um to just get some, you know, random hot spots, you know, is a technical term from the DNR. Soil removed from the property that just wouldn't be good. And that exhausted that grant. We're just waiting on the WDNR's closure and then we'd be able to start marketing the property as uh ready for development. So that should be coming anytime in the next few months now. Um it's just kind of in their court for, you know, approval of the work that we've done and what it is. And the property's been cleaned to what's known as uh industrial standards, which is good enough for uh redevelopment for commercial and then residential so long as it's not right on the ground floor. Thank you.

Any further questions or comments? chairman. Yes. Go ahead. Is that for me? Yep.

Okay. Thank you so much. Uh uh thank you for those questions that have been pointed towards me. And I just kind of want to reiterate that I was uh able to do in a bit of my answers to your questions, but you know, you have a fellow supervisor here who's just asking this to get referred back to committee to allow further discussion on this. I I think that um courtesy should be awarded to the supervisor requesting that you know there has been some questions that allow for you before a final vote to be able to do a little more homework and to look at this property in particular that I'm speaking of at 1229. Again, it was just mentioned that there is no access this property but through the private property of uh the individual that I'm aware of who was waiting for this to go to bed. And so, you know, let's allow even Supervisor Coleman, thank you for your comments. Um you she mentioned some interest in wanting to get some further information uh in regards to that property as well. And I think we should give her that opportunity to uh our finance committee meets regularly and uh this will be right back before you all and however you would wish to uh vote you you can at that time and hopefully allow us to do a little bit more due diligence. So I am just asking those to support the motion to refer this back to the finance committee. Supervisor Wish,

I'm calling for a roll call vote. Okay. Are there any other comments? Anybody online? Okay. So, we're going to have a roll call vote. M M Mr. Chairman, could we just clarify exactly what our vote is going to represent? A yes or a no. We're going to we're going to be voting on it to go back to committee. A vote yes would move it back to committee. A vote no would then go on to the the original resolution. Thank you. Everybody understand that? I have a question. Go ahead. Supervisor uh Spencer.

Thank you. So, I know this uh this area fairly well and my question is if we bring this back to committee and delay this vote and or separate the votes if there's any chance that the city is going to lose interest in 12:30. Jeff from the city, do you have or Jeff?

Yeah. So, I believe Supervisor Capriillion referenced that this was put forward before city council back in December. Uh, the reason that it took that course of action is I don't want to present items like this in front of the county board unless there's an understanding in place with the CDA or the city or the municipality already. So, if we move this back and we look at separating these two as two separate items, my understanding is that the CDA would then have to get approval for considering those as separate items. As it is right now, they have approval for expending $55,000 for the purchase of both parcels. Uh, if we were to split those and only offer one to the CDA, they would have to get their approval pro get their approval for that process as well. and then we would bring it back forward in front of the finance committee and accounting board.

Supervisor Spencer, are you you're good. Okay. Any further questions? This is a roll call vote and the um number of people that are attending virtually that we will also have to put on the record verbally. What your answer is? We are going to take all votes tonight verbally instead of a mixture of vote pads. That way everyone whether they are listening online or here in the chambers can hear the vote.

Okay. So a vote yes will send it back to committee. A vote no will proceed to the resolution. Go ahead. Supervisor Coleman. Supervisor Kelly. Yes. Supervisor Rowski. No supervisor Caprellian. Yes. Supervisor Spencer. Yes. Supervisor Shakur. Oh. Supervisor Rossy. Supervisor Hopkins.

No. Supervisor Verance. Yes. Supervisor Miller. Supervisor Troier. No. Chairman Kramer, yes. Supervisor Hoffman, yes. Supervisor Wish, no. Supervisor Meyer? No. Supervisor Cobb? I'm sorry. Could you repeat? Yes. Thank you. Supervisor HT. Yes. Supervisor Pricer. No.

Supervisor Wishaw. Yes.

That mo motion passes. 12 in favor, seven against. So that'll be referred back to the finance and human resources committee um for reconsideration with the new county board.

Next we will move on to the group on the agenda that is listed under twothirds majority vote. That is resolution number 2025-95 by finance and human resources committee creating 10 FTE deputy sheriff sunset positions effective April 18 2026 authorizing the transfer of 1,354,473 within the sheriff's office 2026 budget and authorizing a multi-year from 2026 to 2030 police services agreement with the village of Starde resolution number 2025-98 by finance and human resources committee authorizing a threeear agreement from 2026 through 2029 with Tyler Technologies for the payment of jurors. Resolution number 2025-99 by Finance and Human Resources Committee authorizing a tenative agreement between Rine County and the Sheriff's Office command staff for the years of 2025 through 2028 and resolution number 2025-100 by Finance and Human Resources Committee authorizing the settlement of the claim of Thomas Workis. We

put that to Mr. Chair. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Chairman. Yes. Uh as a separate consideration of 2025 95. Separate consideration is for 2025 95. Mr. Chairman. Yes. We also have separate consideration for 99. Separate consideration for 99. Okay. Supervisor TRE. Let's start with 202598.

98. Okay. Let's talk about the 202598s, a three-year agreement with the Tyler Technologies to pay our jurors. This will save time and cost for the county. Tyler Tech will handle the process to pay jurors at a cost of 73 cents per transaction. comparing it to the postage that we now pay is 78 cents per transaction. That's what I have on this. Sounds pretty simple.

Any further questions or comments on that? Okay, then let's go to resolution 202500. Supervisor Troier. Okay. I'm sorry. My notes are all screwed up here. That's the financial settlement. Oh, okay. Thank you. The um again, these are uh was determined by the FHR committee to uh authorize the settlement of the claim of Thomas Workus. Should there be any questions, please get a hold of our legal counsel.

Okay. So, are there any questions on either of those two resolutions? This is the twothirds majority votes and Supervisor Coleman. Yes. Yes. On the resolutions. Correct. Okay. Just checking. Supervisor Kelly, yes. Supervisor Rkowski, yes. Supervisor Caprian, yes. Supervisor Spencer, yes. Supervisor Shakur, Supervisor Rossi, yes. Supervisor Hopkins, yes. Supervisor Ver, yes. Supervisor Miller, yes. Supervisor Troutier,

yes. Super Chairman Kramer, yes. Supervisor Hoffman, yes. Supervisor Wish, yes. Supervisor Meyer, yes. Supervisor Co. Supervisor Horus. Yes. Supervisor Pricer.

Supervisor Pricer. Supervisor Pricer. Yes. Thank you. Supervisor Wishaw. Yes. Okay. I'll have voted. Those two pass unanimously. Thank you. We'll take up 202595 now. Supervisor Troutier. Okay. I'm going to make this one short because I'm going to hand it over to Deputy Sheriff Jim Widner. This is the proposed agreement with the Reine County's Sheriff Office with the Village of Sturdivan. Deputy Sheriff Widner. Thank you.

Good evening everyone. Uh my name is Jim Widner, the chief deputy with the sheriff's office and tonight with me is Captain Carrie Madreal, our operations division captain. So currently we are providing law enforcement services to the village of Sturdivan under a temporary contract. The goal throughout this temporary contract was to work within the county and with the village of Sturdivant to enter into a longerterm 5-year contract. So tonight, that's why we are here to enter into a five-year contract with the village of Sturdivan to provide their law enforcement services. To provide those services, we are also asking for uh respectfully asking for the approval of 10 deputies to provide those services to the village of Sturdivant. So we feel that this is a very positive relationship that's being developed with the village of Sturdivant. It's providing high quality law enforcement services at a very cost-effective price for the village and its residents. So, we feel this is a very positive move forward and I know we've been before this body as well as the subcommittees multiple times to discuss that. So, with that, I will open it up to any questions.

Supervisor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chief Deputy Captain. Uh, one number that I didn't see and I very well just may not have seen it was how much has the city or village town, I'm sorry, whatever it is of Sturdivan spent annually for policing services over the past 1, two, three years. How much have they spent? We're now saying it's going to be 1.3 and change. What have they spent as an operating entity? their budget from their budget book for 2025 was just under $2.1 million for their law enforcement services.

So they in fact anticipated 2.1 and your services for them I'm going to presume are allincclusive including special events and extras that they know that they would have used in the past that you're going to now have to take care of in this 1.354 million. Correct. Thank you. Any further questions, Mr. Chairman? Supervisor Pritsker.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Chief Deputy, related to the question Supervisor Horth had about how many I guess what was the size of the staff that Certivant has before they decided to disband their local force? I believe their staff was uh 15 sworn officers including a chief and several command members as well as uh uh police officers that provided law enforcement functions at the at the patrol level. Um they also I believe had two additional um administrative staff members. All right. So 15 officers plus two administrators roughly.

Correct. Okay. Um I guess I don't have another question. I would just um just restate that this is a topic that's been discussed in I think at least four meetings that I've been a part of and for about as many months going back to going back to last year. Sturdivan has already already you know seen this proposed uh template agreement. It's the standard that we've used, I believe, for all, you know, all eight other municipalities that are already contracting for uh sheriff's services. So, you know, I I hope that we hope that we approve this as is unanimously.

Thank you. Is that okay, Supervisor Rossi?

Thank you, Chairman. Um just following up on those comments and I've said this before in different ways. Um, just because we've been doing something a certain way doesn't mean you necessarily want to continue on just for the sake of keeping business as usual. Um, what's concerning to me is, you know, the administrative percentage that we're charging right now. And when I looked at other comparable contracts, I saw a range of anywhere between 10 to 22%. And we're at 5% with this. Um, I I've proposed an S resolution which I'll motion for shortly, but I just wanted to give a little bit more of the reason behind it. Um, I asked for some information about overtime. I did not receive that for the uh the deputies on the average amount of overtime work per deputies and I might have gone a different route had I had that information. Um but either way what this really becomes is other municipalities and conversations with another supervisor we we realize that one of the ones that gets it the worst is the city of Racine. This has become subsidized law enforcement paid for by other residents of of racing county. So when we take something at a loss operationally, which I believe this is because we do not take into consideration in this cost for this contract overtime, there are other items um fees that the chairman has brought up that aren't necessarily covered in this which really just putting those in makes it a pretty much a net neutral situation. Once you consider overtime and I'm sure there's other items, um it becomes a net loss for us. And I I' I'd caution everyone against adding any um contract to our operational load here that hurts the county overall. Um if there's going to be a contract, it should it should at least try harder to, you know, allocate the cost towards the municipality that the contract will serve. So, what I've done with this S resolution and the motion is um I'll

make the motion shortly is I dropped the um the amount of deputies that we would hire. We would still be hiring we would still be providing 10 deputies towards Sturdivan and I dropped the deputies that we would hire though to seven, but we would be providing 10. So, three would come from the existing staff and um I the argument might be made that well we're stretched thin. We've had in the past um two years situations where we've we've had open positions totaling at what was was the high point where we've had open deputy positions in the area of 17 18 deputies. Currently we have two vacancies been making very positive movements forward and filling all of our ranks.

Excellent. So given that we've had those vacancies and I don't ever remember reading the headline that you know they were short on policing or anything of that nature I think it's very reasonable reasonable to assume that we could allocate three deputy positions towards Sturdivan and that improves our net position. It doesn't necessarily make this a a winner in terms of revenues for the county but it does give us a positive net situation here. So with that then I move to substitute resolution 2025-95-S. Second. We have a motion seconded for the S resolution.

Supervisor Cobb.

Um just a comment on some of the because we were talking about doing these contracts and this is kind of the standard contract. Um, when we're kind of doing this at the net loss or break even, I think asking the municipalities when you're going from 2.1 to 1.3 and to start prepaying the service because like I say, every everything I think when we're doing contracts, we have to forget when you're borrowing money, there's 6 and a half% on top of everything we're spending. So, if we're carrying wages for 30 days, add six and a half% because you're carrying an interest for continuously throughout the year. So, I think prepaying, if we're offering a service and they're saving that much money, having them prepay would help us out more than what people think. Especially when you start doing over five, six years and that we're borrowing so much money. If interest rates ever keep going up, we're paying interest on that first 30 days, then we get the money. then the next 30 days it's still you're just kind of just continuously paying that interest on that first month forever. And I think it's just asking to be prepaid isn't that big a deal.

Supervisor Cole, are you're you're done. Okay. Supervisor Pricer.

Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't disagree that there might be changes we could make to our standard agreement going forward. My concern with this is I've heard supervisors on this very board say things that uh you know they voted against things that weren't approved in the budget that we just passed. Um and any spending that wasn't accounted for in that budget shouldn't be voted for. So we've already negotiated in good faith with Sturdivans to to the original resolution before us and I don't think it's fair dealing with them to now at the 11th hour after we've already had four months of negotiating and all kinds of meetings to now want to increase the administrative fee from five to 7 and a half% to now charge them for 10 deputies but only provide seven and increase the total cost when they've already budgeted for a lower cost. Um, honestly, if if I was Sturdivan, I would be highly offended by this. And and here's what I would say. I would say I appreciate what Supervis Supervisor Rossi has brought forward. I think that I think that maybe a difference in the administrative fee is fair. I'd like to know what backs it up more. like if we're going out to the basis point level of precision, why is it 7 1/2 versus 7.4 or 7.6 or 10, you know, what is that number and what's the rationale for a higher administrative number? Not disagreeing that it maybe should be more than five. Um, I would say I would say if the county already has three surplus deputies that they're paying for and already paying for their mileage, it isn't my job as as the village of Stervent to subsidize resources that the county already has and paying for. So, I would want to reduce the the contract from 10 down to seven deputies. I would want to keep the

5% admin that I already have and I would want to reduce the mileage cost to by 30% for the three deputies that the county is already paying for. So in my mind I would say that's great information. I would want to amend the contract if I were Sturdivans to 843,822. And I would say really what you don't understand is that Sturdivan holds all the cards here because they don't have to agree to this agreement at all. Uh we're going to have to still respond to to emergency calls there. So if it's 1600 calls, we're still going to have to answer. Yes, we won't be able to write local um parking tickets and noise violations. Um but they don't have to do this contract. We are the county is the law enforcement provider of last resort. We're the ones that have the statutory obligation to deliver it. Yes, I know I see some head shaking. They may need to I don't know the size of their village in particular. They may need to stand up their local law enforcement with a a single chief. They could hire someone for, you know, one hour, one day a week and satisfy that. But the reality is is we don't have a lot of negotiating power here. we've already gone this far and presented it with them. Should we make changes to the agreements going forward? Yes, I think we probably should to make sure we are accounting for overtime as we discussed in prior meetings to account for the administrative fee because we have higher fees with subscriptions uh for equipment as we've already discussed. But I don't think I don't think I don't think this is a good idea. I don't think it shows that the county is negotiating with underlying municipalities in good faith. And this is number nine of 17. And this is just the beginning because we're going to see more and more municipalities come to the county as they decide to disband their local services given levy limit constraints. Um, put yourself in their shoes. If you're the municipality and you have to

decide between going to an operating referendum and being accused of being, you know, fiscally mismanaging your community and having to do an operating referendum for millions of dollars, or you can outsource to the county and potentially save 700,000 or $800,000. You know, which one are you going to pick? You may decide to partner with the county. Um, and I'm just concerned about the message that this sends to the other underlying municipalities about dealing with the county. Thank you. Supervisor wish.

It's my understanding a lot at this point in uh renegotiating and so forth is a moot point. You can't increase a contract with Sturdivan and and then have all the other municipalities looking like what are you doing? We got to do it all at one time. You can't do it now. You can't do it with Sturdivan. uh it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Uh that's why they're going with the package that they are and meaning they the sheriff's department. Uh point two, um you cut the staff from 10 to seven, but you keep the money the same. Makes no sense to me either. Um you you you're going to wind up taking three officers out of the city of Rine or wherever they're coming from and you're going to be paying overtime for those officers. Um I I a lot of this I agree with Supervisor Prrisker, but this renegotiating the contract and the dollar amounts and the percentages not a good idea right now. You you do it all at one time. You do with all the municipalities at the same time and we get more money. We brought this up at the last meeting. I brought it up. You know, you can't do it. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It's not fair to anybody. We've voted on this in the finance committee. We've agreed to it. We believe that this is the right choice. We should stick with it.

Thank you, Supervisor. Supervisor Rossi.

Thank you, Chairman. And I did want to clarify because of the first comment or the original response by uh Supervisor Price. It seemed to be that I was um trying to reduce the provided officers from 10 to 7. And I think Supervisor Wish clarified it a little bit better than that. uh we we will still be providing 10 officers. So the net two um servant law enforcement would be the same. It's just that we would pro we would fill three of those officer positions from the existing total. So if we have vacant positions, it then just becomes a matter of hiring those last few positions which we have two right now. So there would be two once hired would potentially be allocated towards Sturdivan um then one from the existing um staff. Um, the second item I'd like to go over is that just because something is uh discussed, negotiated, we don't, you know, this body's job is not to just stamp everything that comes to us. If there's a concern, we absolutely have the right to change the terms. As a matter of fact, that's the whole, you know, point of the of this legislative body existing. Um, we have our amendment process. We have, you know, there's secondary motions that can be made. I mean, that's that's what we're here to do. Um, and I'm not trying to second guess the work that was done on committee level. I'm just saying, you know, in my situation here, from what I'm seeing, I do see the need to make a change. Um, Supervisor Pricer was asking about the logic behind going from five and a 5% to 7 and 12%. Well, it's truly just a midway point between what was the minimum amount I saw in other contracts of this nature, which is 7 10%. So, five to 10% 7 and a half%. It's a pretty basic uh approach. It maybe there's a better way to do it, but that was the simplest way I could think of doing it. Um the last point I would like to make is that you know we're talking about a $30,000 uh difference from the original contract to what I'm proposing. This is not a huge difference. And um you know, making a change on this contract at some we're going to have to start at some

point. The best time to do the right thing is now. I I've never been a fan of waiting to uh do something in the future. I really think this is a great opportunity for us to set a precedent that you know we are going to start uh looking for at least a higher percentage and this is a nominal percentage again $30,000 and a $1.3 million contract. Look at the other numbers that Mount Pleasant provide a a quote for policing services. There's was $1.8 million and they were looking at less officers. You know, there's a lot of warning signs here that we are providing very economical and I'm going to say that, you know, little quote there, air quotes, but you know, maybe we should be looking at increasing percentages. I'm not going from 5% to 25% or anything, you know, absurd like that. Um, looking at just making a slight adjustment to this one so that we can start really thinking about and introducing the other people that we provide law enforcement services to a uh higher cost. Supervisor Troutier.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I I am looking at 2.1 million from Sturdivan down to 1.3 showing that our sheriff's department is much more efficient than Sturdivans. Uh, I mean, we have the tools to do it at 1.3. So, we are that much more efficient. I'm repeating myself. To go from 10 deputies to seven, we're making an assumption that we're overstaffed. I I am reluctant on going from 10 to 7 due to removing those three could possibly hurt the safety of the other municipalities. We're taking three individuals away from seven and a half from 5 to 7 and a half. Yes, it's 30,000 increase on a $1.3 million contract. I'm looking at it the opposite way. Leave the contract in place. Now is not the time to do it. So, we have removing three would cause safety for other municipalities. Absolutely. We're more efficient at 1.3. I I I can't even consider comparing it to the 1.8 or 1.9 of Mount Pleasants. So I I'd like to see I agree with majority of the things Supervisor Pritsker said and what Supervisor Wish said. I'd like to leave this contract as originally submitted.

Thank you.

Supervisor Coleman. I was just thinking because you know in looking at the the 2.1 and going down to the 1.3 if we h if we hire the 10 people then maybe we can alleviate all the overtime but the thing is can we get all the positions filled. That's the whole thing about it. This is a we'll have to use for trial and error unfortunately but we can see if this will can work. So honestly, like great job, Rosie, for doing your due diligence, but we have to look at everything. And so I I have to agree that we should leave it alone and and see where it goes. And and it it just it leads to broader opportunities for other municipalities and we can just see where it goes. But you guys need to get the manpower and we need to um worry about alleviating so much overtime. So, we need to get the staff alleviate overtime and then we'll see where it goes.

I've just got a question and it was kind of from the committee meeting. Um, when we had the committee meeting, I was wondering if we could track overtime. The nature of the job of the sheriff's department, fire departments, there's going to be overtime. Uh and chief deputy and I have had exnazauseating discussions about this because my my I I look at this and there's no no way to accommodate for that overtime. We're we're going to give them 1,800 hours and I know we're going to have some overtime if somebody gets chapter 51 by a Sturdivan deputy. I know what happens in Norway. My guy might sit at the hospital 12 hours. Is that going to be counted as a as a sturd in deputy for overtime? Because I kind of asked, can we have the late calls and that type of stuff tracked to see where we actually end up? Because, you know, I I believe if I recall the number correctly, it's about 10% that they they look at for overtime. you you you have a million dollars of, you know, wages, you're probably going to have about $100,000 of overtime or more, you know. So, go ahead.

So, yes, to your uh your point in the question that you had asked last time was could we track it? Yes, we are going to track this the overtime that's related to Sturdivvent and being able to dissect that and delineate what overtime really is responsible such as late calls, things like that that are directly tied to certain versus what overtime really falls into uh I guess the classification of like overall services provided by the sheriff's office that we do to every community throughout the state throughout the county. um such as you know special teams calls um investigative uh you know efforts and things like that that we assist every municipality with. So really I'm not talking about we we've got an agreement as to understanding what a overtime is. It's not

you know it's not the SWAT call swatting call that we had there. We're not going to you know or if there's a train accident or something like that. I mean, I'm talking about going over to a house that is having a loud party at towards the end of shift that you need to, you know, arrest somebody and take them downtown, you know. So,

yes, we will be tracking that and again to help with the overall conversation that has been taking place with the executive- elected leadership of this board um for the past several months in regard to our contracts. We do understand that this has been the standardized contract that has been in place uh for for a very long time. It's very transparent. It lays out all of the costs of the deputy um and of the services that are provided. This last year we did implement a 5% administrative fee. Uh we understand that costs are rising, the equipment, the software, other things of that nature. And that was a mechanism that was put into place to help offset those costs. Now, in our uh separate meetings, which we will continue to have, again, looking at what does the true overtime related to that municipality look like and build that into potential models moving forward with our contracts.

Supervisor Preser.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I I agree with some of the comments of Supervisor Wish and Troier and Supervisor Rossi. I I do do understand your points. Um, I just don't want us to lose the fact that there is savings to the county and to county taxpayers here. The savings isn't necessarily mostly to the county government, but we are reducing the total budget here from 2.1 million to about 1.3 million. And we are reducing the number of staff significantly from about 17 down to 10. And I think going from 17 or even if it's just the 15 officers the to cut that in half to seven I think it I think is totally unreasonable. And if I'm sturdant it's a non-starter. I'm not accepting a contract where I'm going to be paying for 10 deputies with only a guarantee that seven are going to be hired to be dedicated to my municipality and that there are three that can just be found somewhere in county government and I'm expected to pay for them and pay for their mileage now when I guess all along the county has already been paying their salaries and paying their mileage. Um, for me that would be a non-starter and for me that makes the difference more than $30,000. is it makes it a difference of $400,000. I would look at it as you're not dealing with the village of Sturdivan fairly. You're asking them to pay $400,000 more than what they should be paying paying only for seven deputies only for the mileage of seven new deputies. And at even if you use the 7.5% admin fee, it'd be much lower on the 800,000 than it is uh the 1.2 million for the full 10 deputies. So I I agree. I think we should stick with the original contract. I think we can make changes to the contracts going forward as supervisor Wish mentioned as we revisit this annually with all municipalities that are already

participants in contracts like these the eight already plus hopefully sent as number nine and the ones that we may see in the future. But I just as our board doesn't like approving things that cost more that weren't approved in the budget. I think it'd be well it'd be a double standard I guess for us to expect Sturdivan to now pay more for a contract when we've negotiated for four months already and they already approved a lower amount in their budget. So So Chief Deputy

Oh, if I could just make one comment to the the staffing. So all staff that work for our our agency, everybody every position even if it's unfilled is assigned to a location. They have a full-time job, a full-time workload that they are responsible for. So, taking on the village of Sturdivan's contract requires 18,000 hours of additional service time for us. We do not have additional bodies that can be adjusted within the organization to take on that workload. They all have an assigned workload right now. Whether it is vacant currently, we're attempting to fill it or it's currently filled. It is assigned to a location and and a specific job. Supervisor Rossi.

Uh, thank you, Chairman. The one thing, well, first, um, Chief Deputy Widner, the 5% fee, is that something that's, um, new to all contracts or is it new to just the Sturdivan contract? This was the first year we implemented it across all contracts, all the contracts are kept exactly the same, they have the same language, the same breakdown on costs.

Okay, thank you for that. The second point um there was a discussion again about um Supervisor Priceer saying that um they'll be essentially only provided seven officers and and three would be pulled from the existing ranks. They're still getting 10 officers. Um whether they're new hires, whether they're existing, they still would get 10. So it's purely a matter of us then reallocating three of those positions which and I understand the argument being made but at some point. So then you know the implication is that there's a lack of coverage which I don't see that you've had demonstrated a lack of coverage. I think you guys do a great job and I think we need to start looking at you know the net position of the county. And the last point I'm going to make is people were talking about overtime. This isn't 10 officers that are going towards county policing. These are 10 officers that are going to Sturdivan and then we're picking up the overtime obligation. It's going to do the inverse of what everyone's talking about. It is going to add overtime to the county because Sturdivan's not picking it up right now. I just want to make that distinction clear. This will increase our overtime costs. We are taking on additional policing as well as maintaining our current county policing. So, it's a net plus no matter how you cut it because Sturdivan's not covering that overtime. It's not in the contract. We will be paying that the county taxpayers. And that's why I keep saying this is county subsidized law enforcement for one municipality. Thank you,

Supervisor Horse. Next,

I'm hoping that we're getting close to going to a vote on this. We have now all spoken about this and obviously there's a lot of passion about it. Um, one comment that I would like to offer um for the chief deputy andor captain is for I'm going to go forward with the assumption that yes, I'm in support of this agreement. However, I would expect that all of the agreements that we have with any of the other municipalities, we have the information as to exactly what is being spent for the services being provided to that municipality. And the reason I'm being somewhat deliberate on that is because I started this all with the question, how much did start pay for policing? And what we discussed was they paid no that they budgeted 2.1 million. That doesn't really answer my question as to what they paid for it. I don't know how much they actually ended up having. It cost them. That's okay. We have a number that they probably have built over history and so therefore it came out to 2.1. I would hope that we will be able to get from the sheriff's department the information on how much is actually being spent for these municipality support services. That way when we go forward for future contracts and future discussions like this, we have some additional information that will help us make an informed decision on it. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I hope we're ready to go forward.

Follow question. Captain Madric wanted to make a statement. No, it's okay. Okay. Supervisor Wish, I have been uh remiss I haven't been in Sturdivan for the last almost 20 years, but I worked in Sturdivette for about 16 years. I can tell you this much from experience. Our sheriff's department is a hell of a lot more professional than what the deputy police department was when I was in Sturdivant. So maybe that'll put you guys minds at ease a little bit. I think we're going to be providing them a lot better service with less money and probably less officers, but we always have backup. Thank you.

Okay. Is there any other further questions? Any questions or comments from the folks online? Chairman, Supervisor Caprellian,

thank you so much. Uh there's just been a couple comments this evening in regard to uh the timing of this S resolution. I want to push back gently on that idea. Uh because this is a five-year contract with an automatic renewal. The full board is voting on it tonight and every supervisor at the table has a right and frankly the responsibility in my opinion to raise concerns before we lock in on this vote. So, I don't want to ever deter a supervisor at any point of the process that it's not the right time. So, you know, I just want to make sure I say that. Uh, but I also want to bring up, you know, Supervisor Rossi had stated that the county eats the overtime and, uh, Sturdivan does not cover it. And so, as I was thinking, as I'm hearing the the discussion happening this evening, you know, that's exactly the problem. But the answer to the problem is, I think, is having enough dedicated staff to cover that contract on straight time. So if you have seven positions that are guaranteed, the overtime exposure that is being we're worried about here, the 10 position is how we end up avoiding it hopefully. Right? So that's just kind of my thoughts on it as I've been hearing the discussion and the arguments. We got a roll call vote anyways. It's two/3 majority.

So, we have to vote on the S, but we have to vote first on the S and that's a that's a majority. Is that correct? Yes. So, we're going to be we're going to we're going to be uh we have a roll call vote on the S resolution. That's the resolution put forth by supervisor Rossi that actually pro is uh reduces the sheriff's department request for 10 new bodies down to seven and it also adds 7 and a half or goes from 5% administrative fee to 7 and a half. Are we all clear on that? All right, Mr. Chairman, can I clarify one thing?

Go ahead. So what's before this body is the motion to substitute not actually the underlying substitute resolution. So what's before by majority vote is whether the resolution will effectively be replaced with the S resolution that supervisor Rossi has introduced. If that passes then it would go to the full board for a vote as to whether it should be approved. If it fails, the original resolution would go before the body for action. Okay, we are ready. So, I believe I heard a request for a roll call vote on the substitution itself.

Yes, that's true. And that is what we are asking. Supervisor Coleman. Supervisor Kelly.

No. Supervisor Watkowski. No. Supervisor Caprellian. No. Supervisor Spencer. No. Supervisor Shakur. No. Supervisor Rossi. Supervisor Hopkins. No supervisor Verance. No Supervisor Miller. No. Supervisor Trudier. No. Chairman Kramer. Yes. Supervisor Hoffman. No. Supervisor Wish. No. Supervisor Meyer?

No. Supervisor Cole? Yes. Supervisor HT. Supervisor Pricer, no. Supervisor Wishaw, yes.

Yeah, that motion fails. 14 in favor, 15 against. So that four four in favor. Oh, did I say that backwards? I apologize. Four in favor, 15 against. Motion fails. So then we would go to the original motion, the original proposal. This is a 2/3 majority vote. Uh it's 2025. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Yes. Go ahead.

Could the clerk please restate the votes when they're calling the role? I'm not able to hear everyone's votes online. We'll give the total at the end. You you can talk with the clerk who voted. So, we have a motion made seconded and we've discussed it. This is a roll call vote. Twothirds majority on the original resolution. Supervisor Coleman. Supervisor Kelly. Hi supervisor Rkowski. Yes. Supervisor Crowellian. Yes.

Supervisor Spencer. Yes. Supervisor Shakur. Yes. Supervisor Rossi. No. Supervisor Hopkins. Supervisor Ver. Yes. Yes. Supervisor Miller. Yes. Supervisor Troutier. Yes. Chairman Kramer. Yes. Supervisor Hoffman. Yes. Supervisor Wish. Yes. Supervisor Meyer. Yes. Supervisor Cobb. Yes. That was a yes. Supervisor HT.

Yes. Supervisor Pricer. Yes. Supervisor Wishaw. Yes. Okay, that motion passes. 18 eyes, one no. And we have to see

25 99. Super.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, as the clerk read a while ago, this is a tenative agreement between the Racine County and the Reine county's uh, command staff for the years 2025 through 2028. Um I do know that uh in discussion in committee and discussion with others this is a competitive competing uh agreement. Uh it competes with other counties. It consists of 22 individuals. It will help with maintaining the quality individuals and it will also encourage those to move upward in the ranks. I have uh the director here uh Sarah Street to answer any questions in regards to resolution 2025-99.

So are there any questions or director streak you want to make a comment? Um I think that supervisor Troier covered it pretty well. So if there are any questions I'm happy to take those questions. Are there any questions in the chamber? Is there any questions online, Mr. Chairman? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a question.

Thank you. I don't have a question so much as I as I have a comment. I do think that this has been um been negotiated for a while. I think it was negotiated in good faith. Um, I will I'll mention that or just note that next year in 2027, uh, the lieutenant the lieutenant rank will make over 127,000 almost 2,000 more than the sheriff will make in 2027. And in 2028, the lieutenant will germaine. It is because No, we're talking about lieutenants and captains, not sheriffs. It's gerine because it's part of

keep your We're working with the sergeants and lieutenants contract. Sure. for a bit. As we discussed in the in the pay survey discussion, part of our county philosophy for compensation is to make sure that we have fair raises and the amounts of the raises, that the rates are set at market rate, and that there is adequate spread between supervisor roles and subordinate roles. Um, so I'm just pointing out that that in 2028, the lieutenant will make 138,000, almost 9,000 more than the sheriff. And we're working sergeants and lieutenants.

Are there any further questions or comments? Seeing none, this is a a roll call vote. Supervisor Coleman. Supervisor Kelly. Hi. Supervisor Rowski. Yes. Supervisor Caprellian. Yes. Supervisor Spencer. Yes. Supervisor Shakur. Supervisor Rossi. Supervisor Hopkins. Yes. Supervisor Ver. Yes. Yes. Supervisor Miller. Yes. Supervisor Tadier.

Yes. Chairman Kramer. Yes. Supervisor Hoffman. Yes. Supervisor Wish. Yes. Supervisor Meyer. Yes. Supervisor Cobb. Yes. Thank you. Supervisor HT. Yes. Supervisor Pricer. Yes. Supervisor Wishaw. Yes. That motion carries and passes unanimously. Right. Then we

second reading for the first and second reading items. The items that were requested for first and second reading this evening that are all majority vote would be resolution number 2025-104 by finance and human resources committee authorizing changes to the public works and development services exempt salary schedule effective April 18th 2026 and use of sufficient funds within the public works and development services 2025 budget resolution number 2025-106 by public works parks and Facilities Committee authorizing the participation in the Department of Natural Resources Municipal Municipal Dam Grant Program and the resolution um number 2025-107 by the executive committee authorizing participation in the settlement agreement with remnant opioid defendants.

Second. Motion has been made in a second and Supervisor Troutier. Thank you. who I'd like to take resolution 2025104 first and and this is in regards to a position within public works specifically the county engineer which has been most difficult to hire and maintain individuals. Why? Because competition in the public private sector which pertains to the wages and number of qualified individuals that are out there. Um therefore we have uh this as a first and second reading and we have um uh the details that are going to be explained by um director street and our director Raleigh Bame.

All right. Good evening chairman and members of the board. Um tonight we are requesting the reclassification for three positions within the public works and development um department. It's for the civil engineer, the assistant engineering manager, and the um engineering manager. Two of these positions, the civil engineer and the assistant engineering manager, um we are requesting to take the salary study recommendations and apply them earlier than when the rest of the positions will be applied in September. We'd like it to be effective sooner so that hopefully we're able to fill the civil engineer position. And for the engineering manager position, we're taking a different approach and we're going above the salary study recommendations and this is based on feedback um from director Bame. Um so we are requesting to reclass this position to align more closely with the private sector. Um the timing of this request is not lost on me that we were just discussing the salary study a few weeks ago. Um but this is not a sign that the compensation study was misaligned. The study did give us a clear consistent framework and it's now helping us identify where the market is moving faster. Um so the engineering is one of those areas. Um so this is a specific pressure point not a systemwide failure as the salary study consultant said that we will have blips in the radar and I see this as being one of those rare blips. I don't know if director beame if you'd like to add any comments. Yeah, I think with with this one, some of the reason why we're comparing us to the private sector is that's essentially where we lost our fast past few engineers to was a private sector. Um, I've been here for 10 years and we are on our sixth engineering manager at this point. And so, we're trying to keep our people here. It's it's been about every year and a half to two years we've been losing an engineering manager. So, that's why we're going down this route and hopefully we can keep someone and also bring other people in.

Supervisor Rossi.

Thank you, Chairman, and I I appreciate the comments by the uh HR director about the salary study. Um, you know, maybe not having an issue with this, but I' I'd say it's the exact opposite. I'd say there's no greater proof that there was an issue with the salary study. As the author of the salary study stated in this room, the salary study is not taking into consideration specific turnover. This is a direct result of a fatal flaw in the salary study. I would not be surprised if there were more of these. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other positions that come up in the short term. But I'm going to be voting yes on this one. We have no choice. I just wish this is exactly what we did in the salary study. We we ignored one of the most important aspects of a salary study and adopted it. Thank you,

Supervisor Hor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh each of these positions has a predetermined or pre-established job description. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. And because when I read the original information, I didn't see which positions you were actually looking to hire for. It simply said engineer and I think six categories show engineer. So tell me again please or tell us again which are the three you said three positions. Sure. So the positions can be found on the fiscal note, but it's a civil engineer position, the assistant engineering manager, and the engineering manager. So all three of these were built into the 2026 budget. Correct.

So there's no change. There's no addition to the teams at all. These are existing um items in the plan for this year. These are existing positions. We are asking to reclassify them into a higher pay grade, but there is sufficient funds to cover that request. I'm sorry. All three of these positions are vacant at this time and you're looking to hire. Um, no, there's two of them are vacant right now. One of them is filled. Okay. I think we have probably a tornado warning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good thing we're in the basement. Yeah. So I just want to make one comment is it when I spoke about uh the road transportation funding that we got recently that's what engineers do uh they that was $1.5 million worth of road and we got $1.1 million back from the state because that's what engineers do. So, supervisor Wish, can you um give me a brief job description of the the uh head engineer, the guy who's in charge?

Sure. The the engineering manager, they work with municipalities. They manage the LRIP for the entire county. So, LRIP is is one of the things that each municipality, it's funding through the state and there's different types of funding in this LRIP and There's different types of funding in LRIP and basically these municipalities will apply for this LRIP to do these road projects and that will go through the county. The county will sometimes approve the count the LRIP projects or also hold committee meetings for these with that. Then then they submit the projects. County engineer is going to look through these applications that then it goes through the state. The project is then done and then the county engineer is also going to be distributing those okaying those projects and distributing those checks through uh the municipalities. That's just one function that they do. They also going to be overseeing all the county roads, the pace ratings, the conditions of these roads. Uh they're going to be putting making the budget for the roads. Okay. So, which roads are going to be uh going inside our 2027 budget? Right now, it's going to be probably me this year doing that. Uh because I don't think we're going to have someone sufficiently trained at that time. But that is also another project that they do. Um we manage bridges, we manage dams, we manage a lot of water projects, d uh different uh ditches that you know that's going to be going on, tiles. We have a big culvert system inside this county. Some of our culverts are 12 feet wide, 8t tall, and they carry a lot of volume of water. So we have a program with that. So those are just some of the few projects that the county engineer does for that.

And would do you have someone targeted for this position? We do not. Okay. And how far how much are you over the salary study? We are increasing it by one um pay grade. So, so what happens down the road when this individual now gets hired and uh other uh competitive situations arise where other engineers that are getting are getting increases in pay. What happens?

I mean, it would depend. Hopefully, they love the work culture and Raleigh's able to win them over and they just like having a purpose. Um otherwise I mean if if really push came to shove we would have to come back to this board to make another adjustment until it doesn't make sense anymore at some point. You know right now we're hoping to do this to actually save money um so that we're not paying a consultant more money but at some point that might even out. And how comfortable are you with that with getting somebody at this new increase in rate? Yeah, I really relied on director Bame for that and he felt comfortable with that rate.

I I feel like a lot of the you know the staff is leaving us just for money is what they leave us for. Um maybe not all maybe that might not be the sole reason for it. Some might want to work from home. Uh some might just be looking to get more uh in more hardcore engineering work is what I'm going to describe it as because at the county level we we're a jack of all trades over here. We wear a lot of different hats and if someone says I want to be a design engineer, well, the county might not be the spot for you because we have we have too many different roles that we do, but the past few have been paid.

And we are requesting on the fiscal note um authorization to use a sign on bonus as well. And we're going to structure it to not just give the candidate all the money right at once, but that they're getting it at six months increments to hopefully try to retain them for at least a couple years. Um, but hopefully longer than that. Well, Chief Deputy, sorry to break. So, we just got information there is a reported tornado on the ground in East Troy that's headed east. It's slated to be in the Burlington area about 8:43.

Okay. Any further questions? All right, supervisor. Go ahead, Supervisor Wish. Thank you, sir. I just uh want to say I'm in full support of this. This is something that is long overdue. I wish we would have done this um years ago. just uh the fact that we we've lost some really good people in these in these roles that I'm sure that Raleigh can attest to. So, I'm in full support. Super supervisor Troier resolution

25 105 105. Uh I want to thank you to the human service director and thank you to the staff for reaching out to the United Way. And I want to thank United Way for the $20,000 grant to support the Meals on Wheels service. Funds have experienced a reduction from the federal government, but our local nonprofits have come up to bat. This is a $20,000 grant from United Way. Again, thank you, United Way. It's a two/3.

That's a two/3. All right. Sorry about that. All right. Sure. Supervisor Hopkins. All right. So, 2025 106. This is regards to the Wisconsin Municipal Dam Grant Program, specifically the Rochester Dam. Um, this is more or less a uh an amendment. The Office of the DNR requested that we remove the cap of 750,000. um in order for them to complete this application. So that's all was done. We just removed the cap 750,000. We're still looking at 5050 split up to 2 million and it was immally approved by the uh committee.

Okay. Supervisor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um resolution 2025107 is another one of the opioid settlement. um agreements that we get into with a participation for six different dispensaries that are different than um the other settlements that we're involved with. So, this puts the county in good position to retain some of the money from the settlement and corporation council land surface here if there's any other questions on that um that may have come out from our earlier executive meeting. Are there any questions? It's a voice majority vote. All in favor say I. I.

I. I. I. Motion carried. Supervisor Troutier for 2/3. Great. Could you make a motion for the two/3? Yeah. Uh, I'll make a motion. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Go ahead. Supervisor Troutier. 2025 105. Lost my place. I got Lena next to me saying, "Let's go. Let's go." Wait, we're 10. Whatever. It's the United Way. It's the United Way.

Yeah. Okay. As I said before that I I just said that it's it's a human service. It's the grant to human services for $20,000 in support of Meals on Wheels. I thank the United Way. I thank the human service department. And I thank um everybody for stepping up to the plate to help our senior citizens and those that are in need of meals on wheels. Are there any comments? This is a two-thirds majority vote. The clerk will call the role. Supervisor Coleman. Supervisor Kelly. Yes.

Supervisor Rowski. Yes, supervisor Krellian. Yes, Supervisor Spencer. Yes, Supervisor Shakur. Supervisor Rossi. Yes. Supervisor Hopkins. Yes. Supervisor Varant. Yes. Supervisor Miller. Yes. Supervisor Trodier. Yes. Chairman Kramer. Yes. Supervisor Hoffman. Yes. We'll go back to Supervisor Wish momentarily. Supervisor Meyer. Yes. Supervisor Cobb. Yes.

Thank you. Supervisor HT. Yes. Echo. Supervisor Pricer. Yes. Supervisor Wisha. Yes. Right. Supervisor Wish is ex This is the resolution number 105 on the acceptance of the United Way grant. How do you vote? He votes yes. Um that is a unanimous um in favor. Thank you. All right. So item number 14, reconsiderations of resolutions and ordinances from previous meetings and or actions on vetos.

There are no items. Item number 15, reconsideration of and or notice of intent to reconsider resolutions and ordinances. There is no notice. Number 16,formational reports. Report number 2025-76 by Finance and Human Resources Committee announcing the distribution of sales and use tax revenue for March 2026. Item number 17, miscellaneous. Supervisor Aowski,

I would just like to say that uh besides learning a lot about cyber security, I've learned so much in the last four years about local government and I thank those of you who have helped me and I thank all of you for the good work you've done and I hope you have a safe ride home. Thank you. I thank Thank you, Supervisor Pricer.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was trying to interject during item 16formational reports, but just wanted to point out and I know some supervisors have been concerned about the pace of the sales and use tax keeping up with the expected 20 million per year. And I'm just wanted to point out that the quarter came in at 5.6, 600,000 above the expected 5 million for the first quarter this year.

So go moving on to 17 miscellaneous business announcements in the oral reports. Next week, Tuesday, we have our operational meeting, organizational meeting, and we're going to be starting at 5:00 because we have some supervisors that need to go to meetings at 6:00 and 6:30. And also, don't forget the security training is due by the end of the month, but not for Tom Tom and uh Gary. Supervisor Horth. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. You were kind enough to give your support and appreciation to this board, and I think we would be remiss if we didn't say thank you to yourself and Vice Chairman Meyer uh for all of the support and guidance and direction you were able to give us over the course of this year as well. So, I certainly think we we owe you our debt of gratitude and support of that. So, thank you very much.

Well, thank you. Again, I like I say, I I'm very proud of this group. And we are adjourned.

Thanks everyone. Thanks Tom and Gary. Byebye.