Update-Reliever Route

As I have previously stated, I have not yet taken a position on the reliever route.  My official positions remains:

Until a proposal is finalized and brought to the full county board for review, I am not going to take a position on this issue.  In the meantime, I am doing some independent fact-finding.

What I have done so far:

1. I met with the County Administrator, and the reliever route was one of the topics we discussed.
2. I have reviewed maps of the proposed route, as well as the locations of Hartford's industrial districts.
3. I drove the existing highways that follow alternative 11.
4. I have discussed the issue with 4 former County Supervisor three of whom were opposed to the reliever route and one who said he/she could support it if certain conditions were met.
5. I have reviewed the concerns expressed in the nearly 100 letters and e-mails I have received on this issue.
6. Today I spent an hour sitting at the intersection of highway 60 and highway 83 in Hartford observing traffic.
7. I remain in communication with residents in my own district, to gather their thoughts on this issue.
8. I have reviewed the previous proposal that came before the County Board in 2005.
9. I have been in communication with the Chairperson of the No Reliever Route Committee, Melissa Kratz.  We had an excellent conversation and I took away a lot of information about the potential negative impacts of the current proposed reliever route. 
10. Today I also reviewed the Town of Addison's resolution 2016-17, opposing the planned reliever route.
11. Today I also began reviewing the  information for next week Wednesday's Public Works Committee meeting.
12. I will be presenting some follow-up questions related to the reliever route to the County Administrator.

I continue to work on fully understanding this $15-$20 million dollar proposal, so that I can make the best and most educated decision on it.

Comments on the History Center (Historical Society)

I wanted to post her my comments that I read aloud during the County Board Meeting related to the History Center.  Key key take-aways for you, my neighbors:

• I want to keep the History Center in the old courthouse, and I want the County to continue to fund it.
• I want my neighbors to understand that part of our job is to make sure any agency that gets County Funding is putting that funding to good use.
• I have significant concerns about the poor attendance and lack of vibrancy at the History Center.

Here is what I said at the County Board meeting:

We are doing our due diligence when we review any program that receives county funds. We should be reviewing these agencies regularly, especially under-performing programs like the history center, that's what we have been elected to do. We should never be rubber-stamping anything.

But we also need to be mindful of the commitments previous boards have made. Through these commitments, the public has seen safety and security in donating land, money, and property to programs like the history center.

Over the last few months, this board has started to question some of these commitments. In doing so, we have gained a reputation among many in the community as a board that is out of touch with the community related to quality of life issues. This reputation started with a proposal to sell our golf course, and has gained strength through proposals to put fees on county parks. As we review the history center over the next year, we need to act prudently and careful to preserve the history center while improving its value.

To the history center, I share these thoughts. I have visited many very vibrant historical museums and centers including:

• Waukesha's Historical Society, which had about 75-100 visitors while I was there.
• Ozaukee County's Pioneer Village, several times on previous Labor Day weekends over the years, which often saw hundreds of visitors each day.
• Kenosha's Museum of History, which had at least 50 visitors while I was there on a cold January day.
• Several other very vibrant museums.

In comparison to these is Washington County's history center. Patricia Lutz informed me that the average annual attendance is 7,000, which equates to 23 visitors per day. By comparison, I can stop at the library, only 1 block away, and find at least 23 visitors anytime I walk in the door, and I have sometimes seen hundreds of visitors for an event.

This very low attendance makes the history center an under-performing center that is lacking in any sense of vibrancy. That needs to change over the next year. It is a complete disservice to the donors and the County to operate in such a low-key approach. It is also completely unsustainable and fiscally imprudent for the county to continue to invest $41 per visitor. I hope that over the next year, Patricia and her crew at the historical center can reinvigorate it and make it the cultural hub that it should be.

Big picture, our policy needs to be to continue to support the history center, but also to expect better outcomes from them.

Historical Society

This month's big agenda on the County Board Meeting involves the Historical Society.

Big picture, here is what is happening.  Some members of the County Board wants to review our partnership with the Historical Society, and that is going to happen during 2017.  Since their lease runs out at the end of 2016, the County Board is going to extend their lease for 1 year.

My Position
Continue Support-Based on the information I have right now, I would oppose removing the historical society from the County Budget, and I would like to keep the historical society in the Old Courthouse.  I would also oppose any effort to pay for the highway 60 reliever route by cutting programs like the historical society or our county parks.  While I have some concerns about the financial viability of the current operating model for the historical society, those should be deal with on their own merits and not tied to funding of the highway 60 reliever route.

I support ensuring that there are good educational programs related to history within the community.  When I saw the letter on Washington County Insider, as part of my effort to gather more information I decided to take my daughter to the historical center for a tour.  She learned a lot and was interested throughout the tour, cementing in my mind the value of the center.  I have also in the past visited Ozaukee County’s Pioneer Village on several occasions, and have taken my kids to several museums in the area.

Fiscal View-For the 2017 budget, the initial budget for the historical society is being reviewed by the Administrative Committee.  So far, it looks like it will be reduced by $7,000 per year, from $290,000 to $283,000.  The $290,000 represents a direct contribution to the historical society of $140,000 as well as $150,000 to maintain the old courthouse building, in which the historical society operates. 

My hope is that the Historical Society and County Board can work together to implement some changes that will increase efficiencies and reduce costs.  Right now, the historical society works with an average of 23 visitors per day, and the County cost is $41 per visitor.  I don’t have confidence that this financial structure is sustainable or financially prudent.

Highway 60 Reliever Route

We now have a rather controversial issue for the County Board.  The Public Works Committee is looking at the possibility of developing a truck route, called a reliever route, north of Slinger into the Hartford Industrial Park.  This would be for truck traffic coming from Milwaukee. so that they could skip the busy and narrow streets of the City of Hartford. 

11 possible routes are being explored.  The proposals range in cost from $3 million to $20 million, with most of the proposed routes costing more than $15 million.  The current proposal that is receiving primary review is alternative 11, which would cost $17 million.

Some of the concerns being expressed about this proposal include:

• Questions about whether trucks will actually decide to use this route, given that all 11 proposals increase the mileage and time.
• Questions about whether our County can afford this project.
• Questions about how it will impact homes along this route, including the community of St. Lawrence.
• Questions about why the state is not going to help fund this project.
• Questions about whether this project is necessary.
• Questions about why the project is not being put to a referendum.

I generally support economic development efforts, but am being very cautious in this instance because of the significant concerns being expressed by the residents of the Town of Hartford, the significant expense of the proposals, and the potential impact this could have on homeowners along this route.  At the same time, bringing more businesses to our county boosts are tax base, helps our economy, brings more job opportunities, and boosts the wages paid by those businesses.

Until a proposal is finalized and brought to the full county board for review, I am not going to take a position on this issue.  In the meantime, I am doing some independent fact-finding. 

1. Last week I met with the County Administrator, and the reliever route was one of the topics we discussed.
2. Reviewing maps of the proposed route, as well as the locations of Hartford's industrial districts.
3. Yesterday I drove the existing highways that follow alternative 11.
4. Today I briefly and informally discussed the issue with 1 former County Supervisor who is opposed to the reliever route.
5. I will be meeting next week with another former County Board Supervisor who is opposed to the reliever route.
6. I am reviewing the concerns expressed in the nearly 100 letters and e-mails I have received on this issue.
7. I plan to make time to observe truck traffic on highway 60, especially near the intersection at Main St.
8. I am beginning the process of communicating with residents in my own district, to gather their thoughts on this issue.
9. I will be posing some follow-up questions related to the reliever route to the County Administrator.

UPDATE

I have now discussed the reliever route with 3 past County Board Supervisors, one of whom is on the Town Board for the Town of Hartford.  Each of these discussions has been productive, and I appreciate all of the time and information these gentleman shared with me. 

I have also reviewed some information on the proposal that came before the County Board in 2005.

I have also been reviewing the information provided to the Public Works Committee at their last meeting concerning potential reliever routes.

Bike Lanes on 18th Avenue

This is less a county issue, and more of a city issue, but I think it is a positive for our community.  On Wednesday, I stopped at City Hall to see the plans for the reconstruction of 18th Avenue south of Decorah.  Since I live right on 18th, 2 blocks North of Decorah, I wanted to see what the plans looked like.

While there, I found out about an effort to gather private funding for a project to paint bike lanes on a few of the streets in West Bend, including 18th Avenue north of Decorah.  I'm not an avid biker by any stretch of the imagination, but I definitely like the idea.  If they can get everything together, the very wide section of 18th avenue in front of my own house would have a bike lane painted there, improving safety for bicyclists and created a marked parking lane. 

Since it would be privately funded, I see absolutely no negatives with this proposal, and think it would improve the quality of living.

For info on the group that is raising this money, visit their Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/groups/BikeFriendlyWestBend/

Compassionate Conservatism and the Homeless Shelter.

As many of you know, there is a plan being circulated to build a homeless shelter on county land.  When I first heard about this proposal, I decided to view this in relation to the concept of compassionate conservatism.  After reviewing and discussing the details of the proposal, I have expressed my support for it.

What is compassionate conservatism?  It is the concept that our countries social problems are best resolved through a partnership with private sector entities rather than through growing government, and solutions that are focused on reducing long term dependency.  We have a small homeless community in Washington County, and that community is already receiving a substantial amount of county services.  Scott Walker has frequently talked about measuring the success of government by the number of people who transition away from dependency on government benefits. 

Some key details about the proposal so far that led me to view this proposal as one that fits the umbrella of compassionate conservatism:

• 100% privately funded.  The homeless coalition, including partners like Family Promise and St. Vincent DePaul, are committed to providing 100% of the cost to build and operate the shelter.  The only thing they are asking is to build the shelter on county land.
• Fiscal Responsibility.  Final approval by the County, as well as construction of this project will not begin until 100% of the costs for the first 2 years have been fully secured.
• Path Towards Independence.  The homeless shelter would be the first step on a path towards independence, where the rest of the path is already in place.  The average stay would be 30 days, with a maximum stay of 60 days.  During that time, any mental health issues would be assessed, as well as any dependency issues.  Processes to begin recovery would be implemented.  Health needs would also be assessed.  Employment and employability options would also be assessed.  The goal during the 30-60 days would be to stabilize the individual and transition them into a more permanent & sustainable housing option using existing options in the community.  The other steps towards independency already exist within the community, and all of them are privately funded.
• Small Scale.  Because it is designed to be only a short-term, temporary housing solution, it is deliberately being built to be small in scale.  The building will have a capacity of 14 residents, which will enable it to serve approximately 100 people during the average year.
• Integration with Existing County Services.  Currently, the homeless who would be served by this project are scattered throughout the county.  As a result, the county employees who work with these individuals are forced to drive all over the county to reach them.  By centralizing them to a building that is footsteps away from the County's Human Services Offices, as well as the Sheriff's Department, it will improve efficiencies and response time for county employees.
• Increased Supervision.  This project will enable the homeless to be monitored and supervised during their 30 day stay at the homeless shelter.  The lack of supervision that exists in other models limits their ability to achieve successful outcomes.

In my eyes, this fits the definition of compassionate conservatism.  Not every individual will succeed in this program, but success will be significantly improved, and many more individuals will achieve long-term independence from government assistance in Washington County.

I welcome any feedback and concerns on this issue.

Human Services Committee Meeting

This week's human services committee has a couple of significant items on it.

Emergency Homeless Shelter---The Homeless Coalition is a group of local non-profits that have banded together to develop solutions to homelessness in Washington County.  The want to build an emergency shelter for homeless single adults, a need that is currently unaddressed in the community.  They believe they can get the funding for the building costs and operations of the facility.

They are asking the County for use of county land, either through a low-cost lease or no-cost lease.  The site they have in mind is within footsteps of the human services building, which would allow for a strong integration of long-term support with the emergency shelter.

Overall, my initial impression is that this is a good idea with a lot of positives, one that fits within the realm of compassionate conservatism.  I met with two key members of the homeless coalition on Friday to learn more about the program they are developing, and was very impressed.  Since the land is County land, it makes sense to offer the use of that land for a project that benefits the community.

The best part about this project is that they are not asking the County for any money, just use of county land.

Priority-Based Budgeting---We will be discussing the programs related to human services that were rated in the lowest quartile with the priority-based budget.  The goal of priority-based budgeting is to examine those programs and consider changes that will reduce the cost the county occurs.  Options may include staffing changes, users fees, identifying grant options, reducing the scope of the program, or any other logical solution.

As I looked through the initial results, I saw something unusual.  The human services committee spends 26% of the county budget, and the list of low-priority items totaled about 140 programs.  I was expecting about 25% of the programs on that list, roughly 35 programs, to be human services programs.  Instead, only 8 programs from the human services department made the list.  I think that speaks to the importance of everything that the Human Services Committee does.