County Board - Regular Meeting

evening everybody i'm going to be calling the racine county board meeting for tuesday july 28th to order and customarily we have one of our supervisors lead us in prayer and tonight it would be supervisor spencer this is with credit to michael killingsworth

Let us reflect upon our gathering. Let us celebrate what we have discovered already, and let us be grateful for what we have not yet discovered. Let us contemplate what it is that we need to find during this hour. Let us remember all those previous occasions when our goals have been met, especially when we thought that it would have been impossible. Let the air and the fire of the Spirit renew the water of our souls, and let the presence of each of us create the community in all of us. May we walk this path with grace, with purpose, and with sincere commitment to the common good. Amen.

And now the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States

So if the clerk could take the role.

Supervisors Kelly, Shakur, Nielsen, Trottier, Hoffman, and Prisker are excused. Supervisor Coleman has joined us virtually. We are anticipating Supervisor Varanth, and everybody else is in the chambers.

Thank you. Item number four, public comment pursuant to section 2-71 of the Racine County Court of Ordinances. Each speaker shall be allotted a maximum of three minutes. And we do have one person for public comment. That would be Robert Erd. And Vice Chairman Meyer is going to be keeping time and he'll give about a 30 second wind up. Go ahead, why don't you state your name and Address here, Robert.

My name is Robert Erd. I live at 1238 Kingston Avenue in the city of Racine, District 3. Distinguished members of the board, thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of concerned citizens and fellow taxpayers. We stand in trying times. times that demand not just administrative oversight, but a profound commitment to the foundational principles of fiscal integrity. A great deal of trust is placed in this board by the hardworking individuals in this community to make decisions regarding fiscal responsibility. Every dollar overspent is a dollar that could be spent on other services. To honor the obligation each board member undertakes, the board must embrace its role as stewards of taxpayer dollars. Budgets represent promised priorities to the public. To deviate from this path without extraordinary cause is to breach that trust to those who empower the board to make important and oftentimes difficult decisions. Staying within the budget is an essential step in demonstrating responsible spending and strong leadership. Being a steward of taxpayer money requires relentless focus on efficiency and value. Every expenditure scrutinized. Does the investment directly benefit the taxpayer? Is it meeting the objectives? Is there another way to achieve the objectives while staying within the budgets? Pressure to spend more than what is budgeted will always be present, but the board needs to prioritize. The goal should be to leave the county in a stronger financial position than it was found while providing needed services. In the recent past, we have seen extra spending that has not been in the budget, computer software for one. And we've just seen $4 million added to the $40 million budget for the public safety building project. It seems like there's a there's a type of a pattern that I see. Overspending or spending more than what's in the budget. And now the board is tasked with finding resolution for the county share of service contracting templates. These contracts with other municipalities need to be in line with the actual cost of service provision, ensuring that the taxpayers are not subsidizing those needs. 30 seconds. I'm sorry 30 seconds. Okay. Thank you. I have seen some highly spirited discussions on matters like these and appreciate the hard work that the board and these committees do. We have good, smart people on this board, and I believe we can come together to find solutions. In conclusion, please reaffirm your pledge to the taxpayers. Lead with discipline and stay within our means and the integrity to treat every cent as if it was your own. Becoming true stewards of public funds, we do more than balance the books. We build a foundation of trust that will sustain the county for generations to come. Thank you all. Godspeed to you all.

Are there any other further comments from public comments? Seeing none. We're gonna go on to item number five, informational update on Opiate Advisory Council and Recommendations Report. Director Otto, Chief Deputy, only executive.

Surprise. Good evening, supervisors. We're here, actually, they're here. to share the opioid task force recommendations packet and the current recommendations based on the committee. It incorporates emergency response, families, corrections, and treatment systems, and reflects a collaborative county-wide approach. With that, I'm done till the end now, and I'll turn it over to Hope Otto, director.

Okay, you can advance. So, thank you county executive. I'm going to start the presentation by just refreshing the board about what the opioid settlement was and what the intended uses of those dollars are. So, these dollars resulted from a litigation amongst opioid manufacturers and distributors over practices that were found to have contributed to the nationwide opioid epidemic. Racine County joined that litigation that was led by the Wisconsin Counties Associations. A corporation council did extensive work on this, and it was about municipalities as well as counties that were most impacted by the opioid crisis. pandemic or epidemic. So through this, we are going to receive settlement dollars over the next 12 years. And an important point of these funds is that they are not unrestricted general purpose dollars, they are generally intended to be used for the prevention, treatment, recovery and related responses to the opioid epidemic. Next slide. So just to elaborate a little bit more on what the funds can be used for, the settlement agreement identifies very specific allowable expenses. So those include overdose related reversal medications like Narcan, medication assisted treatment or MAT, something that we do in our jail as well as in the community, recovery support, services for justice involved individuals, prevention, diversion, and first responder training. Because these payments are received over time, I'm sure it is of the interest of the board and the county executive to make sure that we are distinguishing between sustainable commitments as well as one time investments. And it is over 12 years. So there is some predictability related to the funds. But we also want to be very conscientious of that. So next slide. Uh, what we're seeing county can expect so we are anticipating approximately 14.5Million dollars through 2030. we have received to date about 5.3Million, including earned interest and have spent 68,000 dollars to date. As I mentioned just previously, we've deliberately avoided recommending allocating the entire balance. These payments that we have that we're recommending for the substance abuse residential treatment facility will be extended over many years and the needs surrounding opioid use we're expecting to evolve. Our goal is to make disciplined investments that closely are identifying gaps, leveraging existing resource so we can maximize all of our existing community resources rather than creating Standalone solutions and so next slide the way we did this was having a, an advisory council that initially was started by a county interim county executive own house and continued by county executive. I chaired these meetings over a year and a half period and included representatives from health and human services, behavioral health law enforcement, fire, EMS and county board leadership. The packet that I have that you have on your desk here highlights the members of that advisory council on the back. I think it's really important that we have that cross sectional council, because as we well know that not 1 single entity is responsible for addressing this epidemic and it's the entire experience and perspective of all the partners involved, which lead to a long term solution for our community. So the group has identified just for high level themes for reoccurring gaps, the fragmented transitions between services. So disparate services amongst treatment, inconsistent follow up after an overdose, and uneven across the county, education and training and unmet harm reduction needs. Next slide. One of the other things that I wanted to highlight out of the book in front of you is the recommendations framework, which is following a decision tree. So the five questions that we're asking is number one, and most importantly, is it an allowable use? Does it address a documented need? Does it improve coordination rather than add fragmentation or layers? And is it evidence-based or evidence-informed? And are there measurable outcomes? If the proposal that is given to us does not meet those standards, it either has to be revised or it will not be considered. And that framework will continue to guide future recommendations that will be brought through the Health and Human Development Committee or government services, depending on the applicable request and ultimately to the County Board. And the most important part of this is the final decision remains with the County Board. Next slide. So, the phase 1 requests, in addition to the 68,000 have been spent to date and perhaps the most important is the 423,000 annual debt service payment. That is approximately 25% of the overall debt services for the behavioral health building for the residential construction. And this is more than a capital investment. It's really creating a building. That is the location to provide all those integrated services for individuals who are experiencing opioid crisis. And this will be long standing for years to come past the initial capital investment. This approach also involves, as I mentioned, not creating a whole new space, but rather integrating into the services that are already being rendered from behavioral health. And the second is our peer support and overdose response. And Chief Deputy Widener is here to talk about the benefits of that for law enforcement.

Good evening everyone. Um, so the 2nd request is for a peer support specialist, and this is really meant to address 1 of the gaps that were identified during the task force, which was post overdose. So, the peer support specialist, it has a combination of lived experience and training. So, when we respond to emerging calls specifically with overdoses between. Law enforcement as well as fire and our, our primary goal there is to render life saving aid and medication to that individual to get them stabilized. Unfortunately, oftentimes during those situations, it does not really lend itself to really building strong, long lasting relationships with the individual who oftentimes is unconscious and being transported to a hospital. What we're looking at doing is is implementing this peer specialist. So post overdose, this individual would then go out and meet with both the affected individual as well as their family and assist them in navigating resources within the community and getting into treatment. The goal of which ultimately is to reduce any future overdose related events that would occur with that individual. So the request is for the $76,000 to support this position and fund the individual, the peer support individual that would provide overdose response immediately following the overdoses and that identified gap from the task force.

And the last request would be a relatively modest investment of $3000 to support a countywide symposium. I believe that some of the saved of the dates have already gone out. It was through constant contact, so it may be in your junk folder. We're going to be sending out an additional Request out to everybody to RCP for the date in October, but the goal is, and 1 of the things we heard repetitively from the advisory council is the lack of awareness and education about the epidemic and how it impacts the community and solutions evidence based solutions to help address that from law enforcement perspective, fire, all the way to the treatment end of things. So we're hoping to utilize this as some of the seed money in addition to a grant from public health to support the remaining parts of the symposium. So we can have a no cost educational symposium for attendees. Next slide. Um, so moving forward, just this is the informational piece of that, but we would be going to the and obviously the county board for official readings for those 3 items on the previous slide. And we intend to use that guideline and we applied that the decision matrix for these requests and for any moving forward. So, the would be August 5th along with the county board readings on the 11th and 2nd reading on the 25th. hoping to implement those things by the end of the year.

Next slide.

So as far as some some future opportunities that we have in this space, one of those is correctional health care. So currently correctional health care for the jail is a very large item within our budget. It is very costly. We've been here over the last several years because it is becoming more difficult every year to really find quality providers within this space. And what we have seen over time is that mandates from the courts coming down for providing additional resources, specifically surrounding MAT or medically assisted treatment, are continuing to grow. So a significant portion of our overall medical contract is for medically assisted treatment as well as mental health services for the inmates within the Racine County Jail. So one potential opportunity that we have, and we've begun to have some conversations about this between HSD and the Sheriff's Office with opioid funding, is looking at the contract services. How can we look at potentially coming together and sharing resources or collaborating to provide a better operational, more effective solution in the area of medically assisted treatment and mental health because it is a very large cross-section. Yeah, so perfect. So, so this is something that just kind of just giving you a quick preview. You will be hearing more about this as we continue to have these discussions. So, not only increasing operational effectiveness, but also potentially looking at some cost savings when we start to look at it, the ever increasing and escalating costs in the medical and mental health. Corrections area.

One of the other items that came up pretty consistently, we had all of the jurisdictions from the school districts, including private schools, attend one of our meetings and they talked about the lack of standardized curriculum and even as approaching what is the most impactful age group and when should we start this and what are evidence-based practices to help early on with prevention and education. Um, so 1 of the things that we think the county could do is help to provide a role within public health to standardize some of those curriculum, do the research and help with empowering the school districts and doing better prevention based care and standardizing it across the county. And lastly, 1 of the things that we noticed by having 2 different health departments is just the benefit that we could have of improved collaboration and decision making. As long as we have 2 different health departments, we do see some. a level of incongruency of the way decisions are made so an example of an item that has come up several times at our health and human development meeting is the vending machines and the decision of where to place them which was independent obviously the city had their own choice with that as did we but just looking at ways that we could do a better job of looking at us as a whole county and as a system You want to close it out? Okay.

I get the bad clean up in my short and concise manner. So, a coordinated response gives our law enforcement partners better options, improves services after an overdose and increases the chance that an emergency contact becomes a pathway to recovery. overall improving the safety of our community. What I've heard several times in this room, especially from Supervisor Miller, is how our prevention services save us money over time. And that, as I see it, is a big part of this. It's a lot of prevention services that in the long run save the county money over a period of time. So something to think about.

And that concludes our informational overview.

Any questions or supervisor wish thank you.

Mr chairman 2 questions 14.6Million over 12 years and you're spending about half a mill every year, but that's going to flex. I'm assuming from year to year. What's there's going to be a carry over of 1Million or 2Million. You're not spending. 500 000 every year correct that's first question yep second question is the 76 000 person coming from existing staff or are you hiring someone recruiting you're recruiting now no we're not unless if it's passed we haven't even asked for it yet that will be you will be correct okay so that person obviously is going to be locked in for 12 years at depending on inflation or whatever, somewhere between 76 and maybe 90, that the

If they continue to have a need and there aren't additional grants that support that position. So that's a lot of the unknown. But as of now, that's something that we see as a need and do not have the ability to secure that with a state grant.

So, okay, back to my first question, what happens? I mean, obviously that dollar amount per year, you're looking at probably adjusting or changing.

We would come to the board for approval for any changes to that.

So it could be more or it could be less than $500,000 a year, minus the $76,000 or $80,000 that's going to be consistent.

It would be that or less.

Okay. About any other questions, if I have more, I'll ask.

Supervisor Caprellian?

Thank you. Just really briefly. First, thanks for including us on some of the discussion of possibilities that you laid out there with the shared curriculum and such. But just to follow up on or piggyback on the questioning that Supervisor Wish has done with that peer support specialist position. So which department would we see that under then?

Behavioral Health. Okay.

That was it. So thanks.

Supervisor Osterman.

Thank you. Mr. I'm sorry about my thought. I got hit 3 times with that wildfire smoke drove to Michigan. Got hit twice over there. I'm really encouraged by the presentation. It feels like it is very comprehensive and very collaborative. I like that a lot of people involved into that question. Um, these particular initiatives that you've outlined, um, in the, with the, the budgetary priorities. I'm assuming that the committee was fully involved in that. As far as putting company to put that together.

No, nope. It was an independent advisory committee that the county executive.

It went before the HHD committee at some point.

You're getting it first.

Oh, okay. Interesting. All right. Thank you. That's, uh, that's my question. Thank you.

And just to elaborate on that, it's kind of a cross-sectional, uh, group. So it's not necessarily dedicated to just health and human services, law enforcement. I mean, it could be other areas within the county.

Supervisor, thank you.

Mr. Chairman. So I understand then that this will be a budgeted item that you will be putting into the 27 plan and beyond that. There will be no cost that will be incurred this year.

That we are doing a request through FHR to utilize funds with the start date. The fiscal notes are still being developed, so I'm not sure the exact start date yet. We're just foreshadowing the asks. And they would be starting this year and then continuing on with opioid funding through 27 into the budget, if the budget passes that way.

Okay, so it would be built into your budget starting in 27th.

but we will always take out and report back. One of the requests from the chairman was to have it clearly identified of what is an opioid expense and what is not. And that's the point of this presentation is to let you know what is gonna be approved and recommended to be put in.

I think the reason for my questioning in this direction is so that when we get to see the budget for 2027, we will know what expenses are in there based on this type of discussion. Also, we'll be able to understand what the increase or decrease of your overall budget or the Sheriff's Department overall budget is using this as a part of that understanding. See, because you're talking about, Supervisor Wish, I believe, if you're correct, a half a million dollars a year is going to be increased in cost in this area.

The debt service will be paid down by this in that $423,000 annually.

Explain paid down.

So the debt service is going to be paid by the opioid litigation dollars when and if you pass this.

So then that's not an expense that the county will bear. The county will bear the expense for the 76,000, which was the additional staffing requirements. And then the request, I think it was 3,000 for something else.

It's a revenue source for the bonding. That's what will be brought forth.

Thank you very much.

Any other questions? And I've got just a couple of questions. So we've earned quite a few dollars on interest, and this is considered a segregated fund. It can only be used in certain areas. And you may not know, it may be a Gwen question or. A Michael question, but can the, can the interest. Be used in other areas in general purpose revenue, or they still are they segregated to the. Yeah, I have no idea. No. Okay. That's just a question. When can. When can answer that, you know, and then, you know, what. Our bonding, this is going to be bonding for the behavioral health center, right? That extra half a million dollars.

For the residential side, for SUD.

For SUD, okay. So it's going to decrease our debt service.

Yep, by 25%. By 25%.

But that hasn't hit the levy yet. So... it's kind of a it's kind of like what we did with the property tax relief exactly just to make everybody aware of that so is there any further questions

Mr. Chairman, can I just add something?

Sure thing.

Um, 1, I, to your question, Mr. chair, I, I do think that that's best addressed by the finance director, but what makes the debt service payments eligible is the fact that that facility is providing these types of services that are considered eligible costs under those settlement settlement, um, decrees. Um, and so to your question, theoretically, there could be other. Uh, forms of debt service that would be eligible, but it would have to check those necessary legal boxes under the documents. The other thing I just wanted to call attention to. So there is many confusion. I believe if I'm not mistaken, there was a slide that made reference to the next county board meeting being Tuesday, August 11th due to the primary. That next meeting is on Monday, August 10th.

Thank you. Sorry about that.

So all righty, I'm excited about this. Hope was there every step, Michael was every step when we started this project five years ago almost. And it's coming to fruition and of course the LPH settlement is kind of the frosting on the cake that helps us move this along.

Mr. Chairman.

Supervisor Wish.

Thank you. One last question. What happens to the excess if we don't use the 14.6 million?

I mean, you mean there's no expiration date.

So, we, it could be go beyond 12 years.

Yes. It's just the amounts of payments that we're getting in are projected out to 2038. That could go long beyond. We could continue to get settlements beyond 2038. Okay. And there's no deadline to spend it.

But it still has to go to what is stated in there.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, that and that has to do with different settlement. Timeframes with different companies, so. Yeah, so are there any further questions? Well, thank you.

Yeah, you're welcome.

Item number 6 reading of the minutes of the previous meeting, which is automatically waived unless requested by a majority of the members present. No objections. Item number 7 resolutions and ordinances referred to committees.

There are none.

Item number 8. Introduction of resolutions and ordinance for 1st reading and referral.

Resolution number 2026 dash 31 by finance and human resources committee, authorizing the acceptance of a state and local cybersecurity grant to the amount of 100,000 dollars and transfer funds within the information technology department. 2026 budget resolution number 2026 dash 32 by finance and human resources committee, authorizing a new capital project for the purchase of it. MTM dump trailer and the transfer of $55,000 within the 2026 Public Works budget. Resolution number 2026-33 by Finance and Human Resources Committee authorizing the creation of a new capital project for Sanders Campground water upgrade and transfer of $150,945 within the 2026 capital budget. Resolution number 2026-34 by Finance and Human Resources Committee denying the property damage claim of Veronica Devalos. Resolution number 2026 dash 35 by finance and human resources committee, denying the property damage claim of we energies. Resolution number 2026 dash 36 by finance and human resources committee, denying the property damage claim of Maria Rodriguez resolution number 2026 dash 37 by finance and human resources committee, authorizing a compromise of Racine counties claim against Elena Taylor, progressive casualty insurance company, and it's insured Andre Aguilera. Ordinance number 2026-38 by Economic Development and Land Use Planning Committee to amend the Town of Waterford land use map of the Multi-Jurisdictional Comprehensive Plan for Racine County 2035 as it pertains to parcel ID number 01604192001000. Ordinance number 2026-39 by Economic Development and Land Use Planning Committee to rezone from A1 Farmland Preservation District to A2 General Farming and Residential District 2, Section 20, Town 4 North, Range 19 East, Town of Waterford, Applicant Benjamin G. Heimbau. Ordinance number 2026-40 by Economic Development and Land Use Planning Committee to rezone from B3 Commercial Service District to R4 Urban Residential District 1. Section 5, Town 4 North, Range 20 East, Town of Norway. Owners Chad and Jill Passler.

Item number 9, Communications and Claims.

Number 1, Resolution supporting sustainable state funding for local public health departments from Greene, Clark, and Monroe counties.

Item number one is referred to the Health and Human Development Committee.

Number two, annual comprehensive financial report for 2025 from the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District. And number three, letter regarding the annual contribution from Racine County to the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.

Items number two and three refer to the Economic Development and Land Use Planning Committee.

Items number four through six are notices of claims and hearings. Items number... Excuse me number 6 is a complaint. A partition related to a mortgage and items number 8 through 23 are notifications for the United States bankruptcy court.

So, items number 4 through 23 are referred to finance and human resources committee and corporation calls.

Request for any copies. Supervisor Miller, thank you.

Mr. Chairman number 3 please.

Supervisor, thank you chair copies of 4, 5 and 6, please.

Surprised of course, thank you.

Mr. chair copies of 2 and 3, please.

Sure, thank you. Mr. chairman is 1 and 5, please.

Supervisor, thank you.

Mr. chairman copies of 4 and 5.

I would take 2. 4, 5 and 6. Any further requests hearing none we'll move on.

Communications from the county executive report number 2026 dash 29 by county executive, appointing the Racine county information technology director.

Okay, so supervised vice chairman, this was taken up last week.

Correct. It was taken up by FHR and it was passed unanimously for the appointment for Mr. Shoemaker for our IT director. And I believe he's here this evening. If you'd like to speak on his behalf.

Good evening, everybody. So we have a motion.

So we'll make a motion to bring this to the county board.

Motion has been made and seconded. Go ahead, Mr. Shoemaker. Board. Please introduce yourself. Sure. Sorry.

I'm Andy Shoemaker. I'm currently the interim IT director here at Racine County. I came from private industry. I was at Volrath up in Sheboygan for three years. Prior to that, I was at Mitchell Airport for seven and a half years. So I have both county and private industry experience, and I'm looking forward to helping Racine County move forward.

Are there any questions and then you can't ask if we have to do the security trading. That's not 1 of them. Mr. chairman supervisor Miller.

Yeah, the interim director did discuss with the committee. Some of his goals, and I think it might be appropriate for the board and the public to hear a little bit about your goals.

My goals? Sure. So the first goal that I had coming here, I kind of evaluated the team. And one of the things that I noticed was our asset management is in need of some repair and some fixing. So that's one of my first goals. We are already working on that. We're working with Microsoft Intune, a piece of software to ingest all of our assets and get a better management of our assets. So that's my first goal. Second goal that I have is a major goal is both standardization of our IT equipment and centralization of the purchasing of IT equipment. Currently, all the departments can purchase their own IT equipment using P-cards and not high-end equipment like laptops, but keyboards, mice. As the first speaker tonight kind of mentioned, it's our fiscal responsibility as county departments to watch that money. And when IT allows somebody to go buy an expensive keyboard and we have no oversight over that, Let's just make up some numbers and say $100 for a keyboard that's being spent by the finance department. Not only is that department having to research their keyboard, choose their keyboard, and then purchase it, they're spending all this money on a keyboard where IT can standardize that equipment and then decide, okay, we can buy 10 keyboards for that $100 and supply those to those departments. So that's a major goal is standardization and consolidation of IT purchasing.

Any further questions well.

Supervisor Miller sure, I think the motion was to bring it to the board, but I'd like to make. If you would withdraw that, I'd like to make a motion to confirm the nominee.

A motion has been made in the 2nd to. Confirm the nominee. Are there any further questions. So, be a voice majority vote all in favor say, aye. Opposed motion carried welcome aboard.

Thank you.

Thanks.

I remember 11 standing committee reports containing recommendations and items referred.

There are no reports item number 12.

2nd, reading resolutions and ordinances.

Under majority vote this evening, we have ordinance number 2026 dash 21 by economic development, the land use planning committee to rezone from a 1 primary and preservation district to be 3 commercial service district to section 25 town for North range. 19 East town of Waterford applicants. Smalls Realty LLC. Ordinance number 2026-22 by the Economic Development and Land Use Planning Committee to amend the Town of Waterford Land Use Map of the Multi-Jurisdictional Comprehensive Plan for Racine County 2035 as it pertains to parcel ID number 016-041-925-021002. And resolution number 2026-30 by Finance and Human Resources Committee and the Government Services Committee authorizing police services agreements with Racine County municipalities.

That's all for law.

Motion has been made in a 2nd for approval.

Supervisor horse chairman. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yeah, by unanimous decision, the economic development land use planning committee did approve this request for the rezoning. I will say that the proposed rezoning meets the future decision or division and are consistent with the development patterns that are in the surrounding area. The proposed parcel contains a large wetland pond area, which I know was brought up during our conversation and is going to be addressed as a part of the work that will be done. This decision was basically reviewed in detail and certainly again on a unanimous decision, it was approved to move forward. So, with that, I'd like to go ahead and continue with the process, or certainly answer any additional questions that I might be able to answer. I did have a conversation earlier with Brian Jensen from the staff staff, of course, has recommended that this be moved forward on and I'll do my best to answer. If not, we'll move forward.

Just just a question. This is right down the street from me. What is there any idea of what that's going to be here?

Yeah, I apologize. I should have said that. Yeah, they're actually going to be using it for landscaping.

Oh, very virtual apologies. That was just curiosity. Go ahead. Any further questions go ahead with number 22 chairman.

No question that's what point of order, but just requesting separate consideration for 2026 ish 30. okay.

Go ahead with number.

Thank you again by unanimous decision. It was approved by the committee to move forward with this request as presented. Um, once again, the information I've already shared is consistent. So there wouldn't be any additional except to add to it that this is going to be a landscaping business that I should have mentioned in the 1st 1. Nothing further on my end. Thank you.

Okay, so with separate consideration, we're going to take and vote on ordinance 202621 and 202622. it's a voice majority vote. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion is carried. Vice chairman.

Thank you Mr chairman resolution 202630 was brought forth with the finance and human resources committee and government services in regards to setting forth a template for the municipalities contracts with the sheriff's department and for the services that they offer. This option is a 1 year, a 3 year agreement. This is the 1st time we set forth with a template such as this, and I believe chief deputy whiteners here too. If there's any questions for the group.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Jim Weidner. I'm the Chief Deputy of the Sheriff's Office. This evening with me, I have Kelly Goetzke, our Support Services Division Captain. So, as was stated, approximately two weeks ago, before the Joint FHR Government Services Committee, we presented a new template for law enforcement municipal contracts. As was stated, there was two different versions, a single year and a multi-year. Really, a lot of this came out of the discussion that started last year when the serving contract began to move through the board. And at that point in time, we started to have a number of discussions, both at subcommittee and at the county board, as well as with the executive elected members of the county board about what a new contract would look like. So we did continue those conversations. We work closely with Corporation Council as well as finance in developing a new standard of a template and that's what you have before you this evening and what we presented two weeks ago. So the goal of it was really to standardize the templates and to address the needs of both the county and the municipalities and strike a balance. There's a one year option and a three year option. Some of the big updates to the contract is really through Corporation Council was the formatting and legal updates and then identifying and making sure that we built in mechanisms for recovering costs for the county. So this year, and this was in our previous contract, we implemented a 5% administrative fee. This was the first year that that was done. So we have put that into this new contract and really using that as an umbrella for being able to recoup costs moving forward as costs escalate or new costs are identified. So, what we are asking for and recommending with the template right now is keeping that 5% administrative feed locked for the 1st, 3 years of this contract. This is a new fee to the municipalities and really about striking a balance and giving them a runway to absorb and manage this new fee. But also, at the same time, allowing. The sheriff's office in working with our partners with Corporation Council and finance to really take a deeper dive into what the costs are for providing the law enforcement services and really itemizing those to ensure that we are collecting those true costs. So, what we're going to be doing is once we get beyond that, those 1st, 3 years that we have built into the contracts, a mechanism to allow an increase in those administrative fees. to address any increases in costs or new costs that are identified. The other piece that throughout our conversations this last year that we really heard loud and clear, we identified as a need to be able to address it was overtime. And again, striking a balance when it comes to the overtime, the most clearly connected overtime for municipalities that we contract with is late call overtime. So, what we've been able to do now, uh, with the assistance of Travis and his team is be able to build out a, uh, a system where we can draw out reports that are much more detailed to what we would need to draw out late call over time by geography by municipal area and contract area. So the goal would be that we would utilize this newly developed system, refine it in 2027, and then at the end of the year in 2027, identify what the average expenditures of overtime are for each of our contracted areas. and then starting in 2028, billing them for what that average is per month. All the contracts are billed on a per month basis, but then finance would work with those municipalities and then they would true up those numbers as they moved through the contract to reflect the actuals on the overtime. Another piece that's new to the contracts that we've added into this template is an actual report that would be generated on June 1st of each year. That report would go to both from for the previous year to the municipality that contracts with us, as well as to the county board. to show what the true costs are, the actuals that were expended on each one of our contracts. Once we get beyond the first three years, the goal would be that that report would be the driver for any shift or within the administrative fees. If we needed to increase the administrative fees to address any additional costs that are identified in that actuals report, that would be the mechanism for doing that. So those are the highlights of the contracts that were presented to this body, and we feel it's a good template. It allows us, it strikes that balance, that goal of what the needs of the county are to make sure that we're making ourselves whole and recouping those costs and then also providing quality services at a good price point to the municipalities. And it allows us putting those mechanisms in place with the administrative fee as well as the overtime to be able to grow over time as we continue to look at this and identify those costs or a cost escalate over time. So with that, I'll open up any questions.

Are there any questions?

Supervisor weatherstone 1st of all, chief, I'd like to say, thank you for spending a couple hours with me the other day. Just going through all of the same rhetoric. Um, I. Truly came into that meeting thing, and there's some inequities and after talking to you for 2 hours, I think it was, I had gone come out with a different picture. So thank you very much for your time.

All right, thank you.

Surprise surprise reports.

Thank you. Mr. chairman. Deputy Chief, Captain, I do, as I said earlier tonight, thank you, first of all, for sending the copy. So I had a chance to review it. And admittedly, I didn't go through it in as much detail as I would have liked to have. So that's on me, not you. But I did notice one thing I wanted to check on. When I look at a one-year contract, obviously, the Sheriff's Department has to go through specific cost to ramp up, gear up, prepare for an agreement. What happens at the end of 1 year, if the town, or I'm sorry, the municipality decides, you know, it was fun. Thank you very much. But, um, we're going to try to go back to our own environment. Now, you've hired people you've, you've gone through the cost of resources and so on. How does that get addressed? In this agreement.

So, at the end of any contract term, whether it's the one or the three, if a municipality were to opt out of of that, then the funding for those positions that are associated with that, would that go away now currently? Um, I mean, historically we've had 1 year contracts and it and. Especially for our larger municipal contracts, this does become problematic because there is a larger investment. This is one of the reasons why we've wanted to move towards formalized multi-year contracts. I think it just is good business on both sides for the municipality as well as for the county. from a planning standpoint, from a stability standpoint. Now, as an example, a high-end example would be like Sturdivant. So that was a new contract. There was a large investment in manpower. Now, we also had a Basically a 3rd option, so the 1 year, the 3 year, but if we were to take on an additional municipality, that was larger where we had to hire a significant staffing numbers, then that would be a case by case basis. And we would have to have a longer duration commitment from a municipality to be able to do that to have that stability. And that is 1 of the driving reasons why the survey contract was for 5 years as opposed to a shorter duration.

Thank you.

Yes.

President, thank you Mr chairman. Thanks chief. I'm a little foggy on what's the difference between a 1 year and a 3 year contract other than 1's 1 year 1's 3. sure.

So the 1 year option, we really envision it for some of the smaller contracts that we have. So, when we look at our contracts, we have some that utilize full, like, at least 1 full deputy or multiple deputies that provide. Service to that municipality, but we also have a number of municipalities that just purchase a number a few hours from us. Yorkville would be an example of the most recent 1 that we just approved. They purchased approximately 8 hours per month. So, there may be a situation if they don't want to enter into a longer duration contract. There would be an option for a 1 year, but with the 1 year, we would bill at a top deputy as a step 7 deputy where to give a fiscal benefit to the municipality to enter into a longer duration contract that gives us greater stability as well as them. We would enter. We would lock in a step 5 deputy. So there would be some benefit to doing that. So, how many do you see going for 1? And how many do you see going for 3? I would like to see everybody go for multiple years. I think it just isn't the best interest both sides. It allows everybody to plan more. There's a fiscal benefit to it to the municipalities to lock in a lower step deputy a 5 step 5 deputy. So, ideally, that's where I'd like to see. But when we did this, because we did come from an era, a time when we had 1 year contracts, we wanted to provide continue providing that 1 year option as well as a 3 year option.

So you don't see. You don't have any any idea who's going to go for 1 and who's going to go for 3. we have not heard.

So, when we came and presented all of the information to the joint committee, that was the 1st time this information was presented in public and we wanted to provide it to the board. Once that was done, we did share and communicate to all of our municipal contract holders and provided them with that information. These are the templates that are right now before the county board that we're looking at changing to. So, to keep them informed, but ultimately. Um, once this board takes action, if this does become the standardized template that we use, this will be those individual contracts will be populated and the options will be provided to the municipalities for them to contemplate and then to respond back to us as to if they would like to engage in a contract with us. And which 1.

I guess I'm still not understanding why we're offering both. Other than you got an 8 hour shift for 1 guy in in the area here. I mean, why would we offer one year? Why wouldn't you offer if we prefer to see three? I'm assuming that's what you're...

Correct. So why are we offering one? We offered it as an option because that's what we had traditionally offered, was we had one-year contracts and then offering the solidified three-year contract.

But for your purposes, you're better off offering three, aren't you, for planning purposes?

I feel that there's advantages on both sides to the three-year.

Okay, thank you. Mr chairman. Could I add 1 thing?

Sure. Go ahead.

It doesn't address the underlying question, but 1 thing that I just wanted to make abundantly clear taking off for chief deputy wider left off. So, when the municipalities consider this upon authorization from the county board of those templates, those municipalities will. They need to take action on either the 1 or the multi year contract upon that authorization from that local entity. It'll come back before the county board. So the county board will be authorizing every individual contract with each of those individual municipalities. I just wanted to make that clear.

So, does that mean that it comes back before the county? We can say no.

The county could vote yes or no. However, if these are authorized as templates, there'd be some level of, I don't want to say bad faith, but it would be. It would probably not be expected from the municipality. If these templates have been authorized, it goes to the municipality. They authorize a 1 year only to have that 1 year not authorized by the county board. We'd be spinning our wheels for a period of time.

I guess what I'm afraid of is having most of them come back and say, we only do a 1 year contract. So that's a possibility.

I can't discount that possibility.

Thank you. If I could just make 1 comment. Just based off of our communication, there is a high interest in multi year contracts for the municipalities. Now, that's no guarantee that that that's going to happen, but just in our conversations over time that there appears to be a high interest that.

Supervisor Osterman. Supervisor was up 1st, sir, I think you spoke already on this issue.

Thank you. So, based upon some of our conversations that we had about the 1 year versus the 3 year, it seems to me like a 1 year contract is could could be advantageous to us simply because as we go through now, this new standardized. Process, we are now better able to determine our. True cost per hour of service and or cost per call and. Therefore, have an opportunity sooner to adjust that administrative fee if necessary. Beyond the 5%, that might not be enough. You know, after a year, maybe we want to change that. I suspect that with the smaller contracts, the cost for services actually more per hour than the larger contracts. We don't really know that until we go through some of this. That's my only comment about that. I don't have a problem with the one-year contracts.

Supervisor Horst.

I yield to Supervisor Wisch since it's probably about the same topic.

Okay. Supervisor Wisch.

Thank you. However, in your statements, The overtime and the administrative fee, you can adjust after the 1st year or 2027.

The administrative fee would be what is recommended as of right now is to keep the 5% administrative fee fixed in position for the first three years.

So 2029? Yes. Okay. So then you can adjust. And then it could be adjusted afterwards. What about the overtime?

The overtime, we would collect the data in 2027 now that we have the system built to be able to, and that would be enacted in 2028. Okay. That's a horse a piece.

Thank you. Thank you Mr. chairman. I do remember the other question. Insurance does the county pick up any additional cost on insurance as a part of coverage and protection for the department and for the county against lawsuits and so on as a part of these. Um, contracts.

If you want to touch on to Michael, there is I'll let Michael speak to it, but there is a line in there that does there is a cost associated with the contract in appendix a, which is the spreadsheet portion of the contract that does account for liability insurance, but.

Sure, so I'll just add that the county is self insured. So we are self insured for the 1st, 1M dollars of any individual claim. Beyond that, we carry an excess liability coverage for claims between 1 and 6M dollars. And so the line item that chief deputy wider is referring to, that's commonly referred to as either 65.90, or public liability that is broken out to that. Proportional responsibility for the municipalities is included in appendix a.

Thank you supervisor Rossi.

Thank you chairman. Um, I sent an email out earlier today asking. Chief, uh, deputy widener for a breakdown of the administrative costs and, um, that's 1 of the things that's a little unknown to me right now. And I've talked about this before is that, you know, reviewing other contracts and, um. central to southeastern Wisconsin, trying to find comparables, trying to see how other municipalities or other counties did this. I see a lot more categories for cost recovery. And so then with us lumping all of these items under what would be this general administrative fee, so this 5%, I was trying to understand what do we have under our 5%? Because what you find is that most other municipalities They recover the individual item, and then after all of the individual items are covered, then there's an administrative fee. So we're using our administrative fee to do a lot more. They said on the phone heavy lifting, but without understanding exactly what those costs were, it's hard to really understand if we've identified and then. Built in that recovery into the administrative percentage. Um, the, the response is really that. And chief deputy, if I. If I get this wrong, please correct me, but it's not fully identified right now what all of our individual line items are that go into the total cost of an officer. So, why this worries me. Is I find that we're in a situation very similar to what we were when we authorized the sort of in contract. We did not include overtime in the start of in contract and now start event will realize. with the $27,000 per officer times 10 officers, that's $270,000 in the first year that all of your constituents, if you don't live in Sturdivant, are paying by their taxes for Sturdivant to have county law enforcement. $270,000, that's the number that's in our new template. Moving forward, if you look at the full term of the contract is 1.4, assuming moderate inflation, $1.4 million just in the overtime, assuming it holds to $27,000 per officer with inflation. So $1.4 million. And back to why I say we're in a similar situation is, you know, adding this $27,000 is a major improvement. But once again, I don't think we're looking at a A total number here that reflects all the inputs that are needed for policing. I do find it odd and a little alarming that. We, we don't understand that and we're proposing an administrative fee of 5% to cover at this point. You know, partial unknowns. Um, I'd like to see that fully understood. I'd like to see a document in front of us that we can look at and say, okay, well, these are all the items that go into the 5% and hopefully it covers it. Why am I concerned? Because when I look at all the other contracts, you know, obviously, I don't have access to all of them, but at least the ones I looked at the base rate for an officer plus is what I found was 155,000 and they don't even recover. Overtime in that it's built completely separate. So you add on whatever their overtime is to the 155. so you can see these numbers. We're at well over what our contract template would be. So then once again, we, with all the examples that I found, we would be the cheapest per office or just the examples I found. I, I don't understand why we can't just. Get the costs that are associated with policing and make sure it's covered. I don't think we're that far off. I just see this as another example of, you know, we're close enough and let's just get this thing done when I'm tired of doing that. You know, it'd be nice to just understand every aspect of this and then move forward. I think that's that's about it and I guess I'd like to close with a question on this 1 and this 1 is for the finance chair and mostly because we didn't get the opportunity to bring us back to finance. So I'd ask now is, are you comfortable. With the administrative fee, given that it's not clearly defined what's all included and covered.

Yes, I am and I think it's a starting point because we haven't had one before. So it's a starting point and then collecting that data over the next 3 years is going to really give us a fine line of where those expenses are. And I've talked to chief deputy a little bit about it as well as it's a starting point. We haven't had it before. And now it's a start in the right direction. So, I'm thinking, yes, that's to give us more time to to find out if that 5% is enough or if it's not.

The reason I ask that is a starting point back in April was let's get the Sturtevant contract passed and now we're locked into a five-year, $1.4 million ride.

So I guess that's just my concern. Thank you. Any further questions, comments? Supervisor Spencer.

Thank you. I just have one. The Sturtevant contract, is not subject to the 5% administrative fee, or is it?

They do have a 5% administrative fee, but they have a locked five-year contract right now.

Right. Okay, so that won't change.

Correct.

Right.

Any further comments or questions?

This is a voice majority vote. Separate consideration. All in favor say aye.

Opposed? Motion to carry. Thank you.

Now, under the 2 thirds majority vote group, we have resolution number 2026 dash 24 by finance and human resources committee, authorizing changes to the greater Racine county revolving revolving loan fund policy manual resolution number 2026 dash 25 by finance human resources committee, authorizing the acceptance of a Wisconsin Department of justice grant in the amount of 62,660 dollars and transfer funds within the human services department 2026 budget. Resolution number 2026-26 by Finance and Human Resources Committee, authorizing the acceptance of a Wisconsin Department of Justice grant in the amount of $96,130 and transfer of funds within the Human Services Department 2026 budget. And resolution number 2026-27 by Finance and Human Resources Committee, authorizing the creation of four FTE sunset positions, including one FTE Supervisor 140 and three FTE Economic Support Specialists 125, effective August 24th, 2026. and transfer one hundred sixty six thousand eight hundred thirty five dollars within the human services twenty twenty six budget move for adoption chairman this has been made and seconded vice chairman

Resolution number 2024. Thank you, Chairman. It's basically language that's modified in the Revolving Loan Fund Policy Manual. This manual was designed back in 2017. It was focused on and around the Foxconn construction project. This updated language offers us more options for a wide variety of businesses that would be eligible for this fund and this loan opportunities. and more so even with the Microsoft projects and some of the support businesses that would work with Microsoft. And we also have Jenny Trick here from REDEC if there's any questions on the change of the language. It's pretty straightforward, but if there's questions for Jenny, she's here to answer them.

Mr. Chairman. Supervisor Miller.

I do not have a question, but I do have a commendation. I don't think I or we think Um, the leader of the Racine County economic development corporation enough. Uh, she has been a key driver for economic development for how many years? 32 and, um, I think. We should acknowledge that she was a key driver in creating the site where Microsoft now is. I think she was a key driver in bringing Microsoft to us. She's been a key driver with her staff. Of course, she has excellent staff of working with even the smallest businesses and reaching out, not only working with Racine County, but with every municipality in our county. so i just want to thank her was that her initiative that this revision is being requested it's taking a good tool and making it better making it available for more economic development opportunities so i i do want to thank jenny trick thank you supervisor millen thank you jenny are there any other

Questions or comments?

Seeing none, we're going to move on to item number 202625. All right.

Thank you, Chairman. 202625 and 202626 is kind of the same. It's a grant from, I'm going to kind of take them together if that's okay. It's a grant that we have from the Wisconsin Department of Justice grant, and it helps fund our initiatives for the path forward. Um, this really works together for important the path forward diversion program for our youth avoid engaging activity. 1 of the grants is for 62,660 dollars and the other grant is for 96,130 dollars. Both grants do not require any matching funds and this will employ 25 or a youth for a 6 months employment also providing mentorship skill building with their employees and. gives them other employment opportunities to keep them on the straight and narrow. And Administrator Lattice is here if there's any further questions on these two grants.

Any questions?

Why two grants? Is it two separate grants?

Correct. There's one grant for $96,130 and $62,660. Looks like they're from the same

Exact legislative law. They couldn't combine them or we had leftover money in the fund at the state.

The first one is a renewal. We have this grant currently for supporting 10 youth paying wages and mentorship. And then there was a new opportunity for another grant to support 12 youth. And so we applied for that grant as well and received it. So that's why there are two separate.

Okay, that's understandable. Any further questions?

All right, and then it brings us to resolution 202627 by the finance and human human resources committee, authorizing the creation of 4 sunset positions. The state issued legislation to allow funds to the consortium to ensure quality of assistance in our food share and snap benefits program. These positions will be responsible for review of the benefits and the calculations for the food share and snap cases before benefits are paid to our consumers. Keeping mindful of the payment error rate, which is very low for our county. The total would be 480,970 dollars and 30 cents for 2026 and 2027. these funds will support the addition of these at the call center and these funds are expected to continue into the future and administrator last is here. If there's any other questions on that funding source.

Any questions. It talks about the error rate. What is the error rate in WKRP, understanding it's two counties?

Sure. Our current error rate is about 4.2. There are 11 consortiums across the state at last count because that error rate fluctuates. We were, as a state, at the 5%. That is the... uh maximum that we need to be at if we go over five percent as of october 2027 um the state of wisconsin will have to pay into the federal government and the reason these funds are coming out is um to ensure that our error rates across the consortium stay low, stay at that 5% or below so that we don't have to pay. And just to give a little more information, I don't know if you need it, but we get about $8 million a month in Racine County alone in food share benefits. So if we have to start paying a percentage of that back, you can imagine the cost that that would that we would be incurring. Um, so these positions are to, um, ensure quality control, um, and they are funds that have been distributed to all the consortiums across the state.

So then then just a question on how this will show up in our budget. These will be like an economic support specialist. They'll have X amount of. funding and then these extra ones will be somehow designated for this funding.

Yes.

So we can track them and not lose track of when the funding stops or if it goes up and down. Okay. And I had to ask the Eric question because I think somebody at home will ask me. Any further questions? Supervisor Osterman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The statistics that you just size of percentages are not consistent with what is in the resolution. The state error is listed 7.66% and that we, uh, the target is 6%.

So when that was written, that number was accurate. I was just in a meeting with the state. And so that fluctuates based on the data they're pulling. Got you.

Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? Okay. So this is a two-thirds majority vote.

So you should fire us up.

Yep.

Supervisor Coleman, how do you vote? No, we fix that actually. Yes, thank you. Motion carries unanimously.

Item number 13, reconsiderations of resolutions and ordinance ordinances from previous meetings and or actions on vetoes. There are no items item number 14. Reconsideration of and and or notices of intent to reconsider resolutions and ordinances. There is no notice informational reports.

Report number 2026-30 by Finance and Human Resources Committee submitting investment report for the second quarter year 2026 by the Racine County Finance Director. Report number 2026-31 by Finance and Human Resources Committee announcing donations made to Racine County between April 1, 2026 and June 30, 2026. Report number 2026-32 by Finance and Human Resources Committee announcing grant applications applied for by Racine County between April 1, 2026 and June 30, 2026. Report number 2026-33 by Finance and Human Resources Committee submitting the Racine County 2026 bi-monthly large capital projects report. Report number 2026-34 by Finance and Human Resources Committee submitting claims against budgeted accounts for June 2026. Report number 2026-35 by Finance and Human Resources Committee announcing the distribution of sales and use tax revenue for June 2026. Report number 2026 dash 36 by finance and human resources committee, authorizing the settlement of the claim of state farm on behalf of Richard rivers report number 2026 dash 37 by financing the resources committee, authorizing the settlements, the claim of. Report number 2026-38 by Finance and Human Resources Committee authorizing the settlement of the claim of Mackenzie Tenner. And report number 2026-39 by Finance and Human Resources Committee authorizing the settlement of the claim of Phoenix Lost Control on behalf of Midwest Five Weird Networks, LLC.

And number 16, miscellaneous business announcements and oral reports. Supervisor horse Thank you.

Mr. Chairman. I just like to take this opportunity to recognize a good looking young man to my left. No, it's not Troy Reynolds. Just so, you know, Remy is 1 of our youth and governance representatives. And he's joined us this evening, and he's shown incredible interest in the program and has been attending a number of different meetings and not just the ones that he was assigned to. So, I just wanted to recognize Remy and say, thank you for being here tonight.

Okay, yeah, thank you. We have that on it on the attendance and, um. Any further okay, so remember. Before the end of this week, we need to have the security training in. Um, and also. It is going to be starting to contact you because we're going to be changing over on the voting system and the tablets will be replaced with laptops. So, to be able to vote, it'll be on the laptops as it was before August. 10th is a Monday. That's our next meeting. The 11th is the primary. And I would like to have about a half hour, 45 minute meeting that night for the committee as a whole. To talk about our bonding level for the upcoming budget. Any further comments or questions. Oh, the fair event is Thursday. Yeah, the. The appreciation dinner or sponsors dinner.

Motion has been made and seconded. We are adjourned. Thank you.