A month after Shawano County supervisors agreed to spend up to $121 million for a new courthouse, jail housing pod and jail auxiliary services, some officials are now saying the county is moving too fast.
“There are many missing pieces that haven’t been outlined to us or considered,” Supervisor Jeremy Gretzinger said at the April 21 meeting of the county board.
Current plans are to build on property directly west of the courthouse and jail, then raze the existing courthouse for parking.
He said he supports the building plan, but he has questions that need to be answered.
“I just want it to be done right — not rushed and, most importantly, to make sense,” he said. “Unfortunately, there are some important steps that I feel were skipped over a couple years ago.”
For example, for years the county has been buying residential properties west of the courthouse in anticipation of building there someday. Gretzinger said if the board doesn’t approve the actual borrowing of funds for a new courthouse, the purchase of those homes is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
“It seems as though the cart has been put in front of the horse,” he said. “If a business wants to start up in the city of Shawano, the first thing they need to do is put together a proposal to the city of what they want to do. This project should have went in front of the city four years ago.”
County Board Chairman Tom Kautza said zoning changes, vacating streets, changes to infrastructure and more are part of the next step in working with city officials.
“They’re not going to come here and say, ‘Yup, you guys do whatever you want,’” he said. “First thing we gotta have is a set of plans. Then they’ll know how much street they gotta vacate. There are so many things that have to happen.”
Gretzinger asked that Mayor Bruce Milavitz and City Administrator Eddie Sheppard be invited to the next meeting to share the city’s views on the proposed building plans.
That request was approved by the full board 24-2. Dennis Knaak and Al Kuhn opposed the request, and Collin Pomplun was absent.
Gretzinger warned against rushing the project and said he feared the county could find itself landlocked in the future.
He also wants the issue of what to do with the public library back at the forefront of building discussions.
Finally, Gretzinger questioned the loss of off-street parking with the new plan.
“We can’t be lining the city streets with cars,” he said. “What if we do build a future sheriff’s department and jail pod? Will we still have adequate parking? What kind of extra traffic does this create on all the city streets? Has any of this been approved by the city yet?”
Earlier in the meeting, County Clerk Raymond Rigsby read a letter from Bonduel resident Richard Kucksdorf who proposed buying 10 acres south of County Road B and annexing it into the city for the courthouse complex.
Kucksdorf claimed that to do so would be cheaper, allow for future expansion, not displace a residential neighborhood and have modern and scalable parking.
“You should be able to calmly say to your constituents that you evaluated all viable options and choose the one that delivers the greatest value for taxpayer dollars and serves future generations,” Kucksdorf wrote in his letter.
The sale of the current courthouse, sheriff’s department and county-owned home west of the courthouse would generate $8 million to $15 million, he said.
Supervisor Steve Schinke noted that picking another site means moving a lot of things currently used.
It’s unclear whether Kucksdorf’s estimated total project cost of $110 million to $120 million includes the cost of a second jail housing pod (estimated at $32.5 million) or a new sheriff’s department (another $30 million or so). Neither are part of the county-proposed plan, as the existing jail and sheriff’s department would continue to be used for several years.
Kautza said Julie Hasser, human resources director and interim administrative coordinator, has talked to city officials, but Gretzinger said he wants to hear directly from them.
Hasser said the county has been following the recommendations of its consultant.
“Many of the concerns and ideas that have been circulating and have been discussed have already been evaluated through The Samuels Group and through the different assessments of options,” she said. “Through that extensive time period when they were doing all of that, it was then finalized and brought to county board where you all approved it.”
Supervisor Randy Mallmann agrees with Gretzinger that the county needs to be sure all the i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed.
“But we also got to understand, this is still a process,” he said. “It is a long process, and unfortunately, we haven’t gotten to this point in a lot of years. I think it’s important that we keep moving forward.”
He said that when sites were being evaluated, the 10 acres on County Road B were not available for purchase.
“This property still looks like the best thing for the city, for the county,” Mallman said. “We can’t go off a speculation that somebody might sell their land.”
However, he did agree with Gretzinger that parking needs to be reviewed. He said the county would lose 43 parking spots according to the existing plan, and that needs to be addressed.
Supervisor Joe Miller suggested building a two-story parking ramp.
Supervisor James Przybylski asked why these questions and concerns weren’t raised when the county hosted three informational meetings about the proposed project in March.
“It would have been super great to have these come up at the meetings,” he said.
