Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Acquisition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kenosha County committees approve $425,000 purchase of adjacent Burlington Road property despite questions over inspection and price
Summary
Corporation counsel presented an agreement to buy a residential lot at 11308 Burlington Road for $425,000 to control development adjacent to county‑owned property used for supervised‑release housing. Committees approved the purchase but several supervisors pressed for more due diligence and an inspection report before the full board vote.
Kenosha County’s Public Works and Finance committees voted to advance a proposed purchase of a house at 11308 Burlington Road for $425,000, a purchase corporation counsel described as a strategic step to control the immediate neighborhood around an existing county‑owned residence used for supervised‑release placements.
Corporation counsel said the parcel sits on about one‑third of an acre and that buying the lot would allow the county to 'control our own destiny' next to the property the county bought previously. "It sits on approximately a third of an acre…from the county standpoint, I think the two main reasons for acquiring this property…is to control whatever's going on next door," counsel said.
The proposal prompted prolonged questioning. Several supervisors asked whether the county performed a home inspection, what the market analysis showed and whether the county was overpaying; one supervisor urged an inspection contingency, citing prior examples where problems were discovered after purchase. "I don't know how we know what's in the house…Do they have a furnace? Do they have a floor?" a supervisor asked. Another supervisor said a market analysis appeared to have been paid for and questioned its methodology and whether the property had ever been listed publicly.
Counsel replied that a market‑comparative study was done and that it was their understanding the consultant had been inside the house; counsel offered to have the county facility manager brief the board on what he observed. Finance committee members raised similar concerns but ultimately approved the purchase; the item will go to the full County Board for final action.
Supporters argued controlling the adjacent lot reduces the risk of incompatible neighboring uses and improves long‑term redevelopment flexibility. Several supervisors asked staff to document inspection results, demolition estimates and potential reuse scenarios for the County Board packet.
Next steps: corporation counsel and county staff said they would prepare supplemental materials and make staff available to answer committee questions at the board meeting.
