Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Auction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Kenosha County to honor accepted auction bid after finance committee reversal
Summary
Multiple residents urged the Kenosha County Board during public comment to reinstate an accepted auction award for parcel ending 229003 and to deliver a quitclaim deed after the county revisited and later awarded the parcel to a lower bidder.
Jacqueline Sum and several neighbors urged the Kenosha County Board of Supervisors during public comment to honor a bid the county previously accepted in an online auction and to provide the requested quitclaim deed.
"Once my bid was accepted, a binding contract was established," said Jacqueline Sum, who identified her address for the record and said she bid $6,586.22 for parcel number ending 229003 and submitted payment on Nov. 13 after being told her bid had been accepted. Sum said she was later told the Finance Administration Committee would revisit the auction and that the committee ultimately awarded the parcel to a lower bidder, Jennifer Hernandez, with Finance Committee Chair Jeffrey Gence casting the deciding vote, according to Sum.
Sum alleged county staff and committee members had prior contact with the other bidder and said the committee provided no substantive explanation for overturning the earlier acceptance. "This is not just about a parcel of land. It's about the integrity of Kenosha County's auction process," Sum said, asking the county to "honor the binding agreement" and provide the deed.
Multiple neighbors amplified Sum's account. Jasmine Militech described the parcel as part of longstanding family memory and said the reversal "left us blindsided and devastated." Sydney Militech, speaking on behalf of her mother, urged the county to award the parcel to Sum because her family has maintained the land. Neighbor Dave Firkin said the county provided receipts for Sum's payment and characterized the acceptance as a verbal contract.
No formal action on the complaint was recorded on the meeting agenda. The board closed public comment and proceeded to regular business; there was no on-the-record reversal or statement from the chair clarifying how the finance committee reached its decision during this meeting.
The residents asked for county follow-up to restore trust and accountability. The county clerk's office or the Finance Administration Committee were not recorded as responding during the meeting; the public record of the committee meeting that revisited the auction (Nov. 14) would be the next place to check for the committee's rationale.
