Kenosha County previews roughly $1.9 billion five-year capital plan, highlights shoreline, tower, law-enforcement gear and facility projects

County staff on Tuesday evening presented a draft 2026 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that lays out roughly $1.9 billion in planned projects over five years and details near-term priorities including design work for a Lake Michigan shoreline revetment, upgrades to county facilities and a large law-enforcement technology package.

Chris, a county staff member who led the presentation, said the packet on the meeting table provides a five‑year overview and stressed the numbers are not final. “What you see on the first page, is the 5 year overview,” Chris said, noting that staff will continue to refine bonding and project timing ahead of the formal budget cycle.

The shoreline revetment emerged as one of the meeting’s largest single projects. Wyatt, a county parks staff member, described two design options from a consultant hired for the work: a rebuild around the existing shoreline and a less‑intrusive approach that would “cut through the contours of the shoreline using what is currently there,” reusing large granite where possible. The packet shows $140,000 for design work and a placeholder of $15.5 million for construction in 2027, with a $400,000 revenue offset noted as a “realistic approach.” Wyatt said the county will pursue design through 2026 and aims to move to construction as soon as practicable.

Staff framed the shoreline work as a legacy project likely to be phased and financed through bonding. Chris said the county will prepare design‑phase reports and bring them to committee as the work progresses; supervisors asked for a public‑works committee report showing levy and levy‑impact scenarios before committing to construction.

Facilities and buildings featured multiple items. Staff discussed a new generator at Brookside and smaller equipment needs at Willowbrook, and flagged courthouse work including ballistic security partitions, a ceremonial courtroom window project and a planned roof replacement for county buildings. Chris described the planned West End Tower as a building option priced in the packet at about $1,000,002.60 for constructing a new tower, and noted the county also explored leasing and grant options but had not secured grant funding for the western‑coverage gap.

On the county’s Human Services building move, staff said equipment and finishing costs remaining in the budget equal about $38,000. The presentation also proposed capitalizing engineering and project‑management costs into capital accounts for positions that spend nearly all their time on capital projects.

Highway and transportation projects include a multiyear reconstruction of County Trunk Highway K. Staff said design is underway for a phase that would run from 90th Street (end of phase 1) to 115th Avenue, with construction estimated at about $10.103 million in 2029 and a Wisconsin DOT funding offset of roughly $3.7 million. Highway staff also described a wash‑bay renovation that could be a modest $30,000 remodel or, in a worst case, a new facility at about $1.4 million, and a salt‑shed door and HVAC change the state is requiring; staff said they expect partial or full state reimbursement for the salt‑shed work.

Parks projects highlighted license‑plate readers at Petrifying Springs and Old Settlers Park for security and vandalism response, smaller equipment such as a lift truck, and the shoreline planning described above. Staff said the earlier, higher cost estimates were from a different consultant and that the current consultant’s approach should reduce construction impacts and cost.

Law‑enforcement equipment drew sustained attention. The packet lists a 2026 entry of $480,000 for body‑worn cameras as the final year under the county’s current multi‑year contract; staff and the sheriff said a broader package that would add squad cameras and new tasers could be as high as about $1.2 million as a worst‑case estimate. The sheriff and supervisors requested a more detailed breakdown of current equipment costs, the proposed new equipment, contract length options (five to ten years were discussed) and how the department would phase purchases and debt service into future budgets.

Debt and financing context was discussed. Staff noted the county’s debt policy metrics (including a county policy cap at 0.8% of equalized value), said the county monitors debt‑service measures used by rating agencies, and reported a recent bond sale with a 10‑year interest rate of 3.1448%.

No formal votes were recorded during the meeting; staff characterized the session as informational and asked supervisors to review the packet and return questions as departments refine numbers ahead of the October budget address and the county board’s consideration next month. Chris said staff will flag any substantial changes between this draft and later versions so supervisors do not have to compare documents line by line.

The county plans to bring design‑phase reports and initial resolutions back to committees as projects move forward; for the shoreline revetment staff indicated a separate initial resolution and a phased financing approach are likely steps next year.