Monona council approves budget amendment and contract to demolish structures at 4539 Winnecourt Road; execution contingent on zoning-board outcome

The Monona City Council on March 17 approved a budget amendment and a contract to remove dangerous structures at 4539 Winnecourt Road, commonly referred to in materials as the Kinsler property. The actions follow a multi-year enforcement process and several court appeals.

Why it matters: The property has been the subject of repeated municipal enforcement actions and neighbor complaints. The city says the site poses safety concerns and has exhausted other remedies; court rulings have allowed the city to proceed, and the council approved funds and a contractor to carry out demolition.

Budget amendment and contract - The council approved Resolution 25-3-2792 amending the 2025 operating budget to fund demolition work at 4539 Winnecourt Road. City staff said the work will be paid up front by the city and that the city will seek to recover costs from the property owner later; recovery could take years. - The council also approved Resolution 25-3-2793, awarding the demolition contract to the lowest qualified bidder. Staff reported that the lowest-priced proposal was disqualified because the proposer either missed the mandatory walk-through or submitted a scope inconsistent with the RFP (for example, not removing a garage foundation as specified). The selected bidder’s price (reported to staff as $71,000) formed the basis for the requested budget amount.

Legal and procedural context City staff and legal counsel summarized the enforcement history: the city issued a raze order after the property became a persistent nuisance, the owner appealed through the circuit court and to the court of appeals, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to take up the most recent appeal. Staff said a motion for a temporary restraining order filed most recently was denied by the circuit court. The property owner has also filed an appeal to the city’s Building Inspector decisions with the Zoning Board of Appeals; the council added an explicit amendment making the city administrator’s authority to execute the demolition contract contingent on the outcome of the zoning-board hearing scheduled for March 20.

Council debate and considerations Councilmembers asked whether there was any practical way to recover the city’s legal costs; staff explained that under the American rule attorneys’ fees are not generally recoverable except in limited statutory circumstances. Councilmembers also questioned whether a deconstruction approach (salvaging materials for reuse) might be appropriate; staff noted the RFP transfers salvageable material ownership to the contractor and that salvage could reduce net demolition costs but the selected contractor is a demolition firm and the structure’s condition may limit salvage opportunities.

Outcome and next steps The council approved the budget amendment and, after adopting an amendment that conditions contract execution on the Zoning Board of Appeals outcome, approved the contract award. Staff said they will not execute the demolition contract until after the ZBA hearing on March 20; if the ZBA allows the owner additional remedies the city may pause execution. If the city proceeds, it will fund the demolition up front and then invoice the owner; collection, staff said, could take years.

Meeting context: The demolition item was taken up out of order and discussed in detail given the multi‑year legal history. Staff said four firms submitted proposals after a mandatory site walk-through; the council selected the lowest qualified proposal and added the ZBA contingency.