First 6 Months

In October I completed my first 6 months on the board.  What have I done with my time so far?

Fiscal Responsibility:  I worked with the County Administrator and the other 25 County Board Supervisors to approve a budget that reduces taxes and, to the maximum extent possible, preserves funding of quality of life items.  I have also supported ways to provide services in ways that are more effective and reduce costs.

Quality of Life:  I worked to ensure that important quality of life programs like 4H and our parks would not experience any financial cuts.  I have also worked to ensure that the privately-funded homeless shelter is supported by the County, while working with the Homeless Coalition to ensure that it is built in a way that works well within the community.

Reliever Route:  I have invested an extensive amount of time into learning more about the reliever route, so that I can be prepared to make an fully informed decision on this $20 million dollar proposals.

Promoting Citizen Access:  I worked to try to move County Board meetings to the evening hours, to give everyone better assess to our proceedings.

Vote of No Confidence Delayed

Due to a couple of technical issues with the written proposal, the vote of no confidence on County Treasurer Jane Merten had to be delayed.

One question that has come up is what this resolution would actually solve.  First and foremost, it would put the County Treasurer on notice that we have higher expectations for her related to the County's internal controls.  It would also set the stage for additional action, if the Board decides that it may be necessary.

My comment in today's Washington County Daily News sums up my feelings.  Anyone can mistake a spoofed e-mail for a real e-mail, that's not the real issue.  Had she followed proper procedures, and refused to process the transaction until she had the correct paperwork, it would have been a non-issue.

The real issue is that she processed the transaction, with no invoice or other paperwork, based solely on an e-mail that went to her spam filter.  In doing this, she ignored the processes and controls that are put in place to prevent theft and fraud.  Since she is the person responsible for implementing those controls, this is in my eyes very concerning. 

Everything I have heard about Jane as a person is very positive.  This is not a referendum on Jane as a person, but on her handling of this incident and her operation & oversight of the Treasurer's department.

United Way

I don't normally talk about my giving, so this is unusual for me.  I received from the county a card with the opportunity to donate part of my salary as a County Board Supervisor to the United Way.  Looking at the groups I could dedicate my money to benefit, I saw several worthy groups that I have become more familiar with through my work on the human services committee, including the Heroin Task Force, Boys and Girls Club, Big Brothers & Big Sisters, and Friends of Abused Families.

I have done some work with the Heroine Task Force.  I also know that Boys and Girls Club, Big Brothers & Big Sisters, and Friends of Abused Families all lost some or all of their county grant money.  So I have decided to donate 1 month of my salary as County Board Supervisor, approximately $550, to the United Way.  I also chose to direct those contributions to these organizations (Heroin Task Force, Boys and Girls Club, Big Brothers & Big Sisters, and Friends of Abused Families).

I am doing this because, now that I am in the public eye a bit more, I decided that this would be an opportunity for me to lead by example.  I ran for County Board with the interest of serving our community.  Sharing part of my salary is one way I can do that.  These are all very worthy organizations, and I encourage everyone who can give to the United Way at their workplace to consider increasing their donation, and directing that increase towards these organizations.

October 25 County Board Meeting

There is a very important agenda item on the October 25 County Board Meeting.  Now that the investigation is complete, a motion has been brought forward calling for a vote of no confidence in County Treasurer Jane Merten.  You can read more about the motion on Washington County Insider at washington-county-board-calls-for-no-confidence-vote-in-county-treasurer-merten/.

My perspective on this:  The core responsibility of the County Treasurer is to safeguard the county funds.  Basically, she is there to make sure that other county officials, like the County Administrator, the County Clerk, the Register of Deeds, etc... are not stealing money. She does this by setting up and enforcing internal controls.  Internal controls are the accounting language for procedures to check and make sure transactions are legitimate.  Since this transaction was spoofing Josh's e-mail, her job was to make sure Josh wasn't stealing money, by closely reviewing the paperwork (such as an invoice).  How can she do this if there was no paperwork?

This is concerning to me.  While it may be the first incident that we know of, I am concerned that there either might be more incidents that we have not discovered yet.  Worse yet, I am concerned that there will be more incidents in the future.  In my H.R. background, I have fired people for less than this, both as a consequence for what happened, as well as a preventative measure for what could happen.

These thoughts form the core of my mindset as I prepare for the upcoming County Board meeting.

More Reliver Route Work

The reliever route is a proposal that carries a significant pricetag, with many of the alternatives coming in around $20 million.  With a pricetag that high, I don't want to make any mistakes, so I am putting in a lot of time to gather as much information as possible.



This afternoon I spent almost two hours meeting with Scott Schmidt, the County's Highway Commissioner.  It was a very informative meeting, and I am very thankful to Scott for dedicating so much time.



We discussed each of the 5 routes that I see as viable, and what the benefits and challenges of each route were.  He also showed me maps and costing analysis for each of the routes that were looked at back in 2005, which included some southern options.  We talked about the southern options, and the potential costs ($20 million in 2005 dollars, probably $30-$40 million in 2016 dollars) and challenges associated with these options.



I walked out with new concerns about the reliever route, and whether it makes sense from a cost/benefit perspective.


Based on our discussion, I have decided to eliminate route 1 from my priority list.  That makes my current list:

1. Route 4 (inside Hartford route)
2. Route 7 (Arthur Road route)
3. Route 9 (Exit Highway K, transition to Arthur Road)
4. Route 11 (Highway K)

Merit Pay for City of West Bend Employees

I want to give a quick kudos to the City of West Bend, which is taking another step towards adopting a merit-pay system.  You can read more about it here:

http://washingtoncountyinsider.com/2016/10/west-bend-mayor-suggests-merit-pay-increase/

Reliever Route Information

I know that many people in my District may have concerns about the highway 60 reliever route.  I have not decided yet whether or not I will support the reliever route, especially since there currently is not 1 route to support or oppose (instead there currently are 11 possible routes).  I welcome any contacts from my neighbors in district 3.

For any of my neighbors who oppose the reliever route, there is a group based out of the Town of Hartford who is engaging in a coordinated approach to resisting the reliever route.  You can find them on the web at http://www.norelieverroute.com/.

Heroin Task Force Legislative Breakfast

Picture courtesy of the West Bend Daily News

Heroin use/abuse is an epidemic that is damaging a lot of lives in our county, our state, and our country.  Since being first elected 5 months ago, I have been getting involved with the heroin task force, a group that is focused on finding solutions to this epidemic. 

Last Friday, I attended a legislative breakfast, where a panel that included our State Senator Duey Stroebel, our State Assemblymen Bob Ganon, Dan Knodl, and Jessie Kramer, our Mayor Craig Sadownikow, and almost a dozen County Board Supervisors.  I want to thank all of the publically elected officials who came out for this event.

One of the topics that was brought up involved TAD grants.  TAD stands for Treatment Alternatives to Prison.  Our County had to decline to reapply for our TAD grant, as the TAD program has a new requirement that we form a drug court.  Our Circuit Court Judges have told us, and all evidence confirms this, that they do not have the resources to devote to a drug court until our county is given a 5^th Circuit Court Judge.  The State Government of Wisconsin grants the funding for circuit courts.

Another topic was where heroin prevention and treatment fell in the County’s priority-based budgeting.  Most of the heroin prevention and treatment items scored very well, and were rated as priority 1 or 2 items.  For example, the Heroin Task Force was rated as a priority 1 item.  A couple of smaller programs related to heroin were rated as priority 3 items.  The only major program that was ranked as a priority 3 item was the DARE program, which is viewed by some a redundant with the Human Services Program that relies on evidence-based practices that have been demonstrated to have much higher success rates.  Overall, the priority rankings reflect a commitment to the prevention and treatment of heroin addiction.

Another topic that was brought up was the legalization of marijuana.  Every one of us opposed legalization.  I made a point to mention that there are some parts of the plan that have no recreational value, and are being researched for potential medical benefits.  For example, cannabis oil is being shown as potentially helping children control seizures.  So far, the research seems to be showing that an individual cannot get high from taking cannabis oil pills, so I would support legalizing that.

A question was asked about when we would start treating heroin as a disease, and not a criminal matter.  In my view, heroin addiction is both a crime and a disease.  While we are treating the disease through prevention and treatment (over $500,000 in priority 1 & 2 prevention and treatment programs), I saw that question as laying ta dangerous framework for legalizing heroin under the presumption that it is a disease and should be treated only as a disease, a viewpoint I disagree with.  I absolutely oppose any effort to legalize heroin.  I support efforts to treat heroin addicts, and I am open to supporting allowing a judge to expunge heroin convictions for individuals who remain drug free for an extended period of time.  I also believe that the criminal penalties are a necessary deterrent and consequence and especially for heroin addicts who have no interest in treatment or recovery, we need to enforce those consequences.

Here is some info on Heroin-related programs at the county level, and where they fell on the priority-based budgeting:

Health

Public Health

Heroin Task Force

32,302

1

Human Services	Behavioral Health	Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse  Female Residential Treatment	150,316	2
Human Services	Behavioral Health	Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse High School Youth Prevention and Education Programs	172,908	1
Human Services	Behavioral Health	Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Male Residential Treatment	150,316	2

Sheriff's Office	Drug Unit	Community Drug Presentations	14,630	3
Sheriff's Office	Drug Unit	Drug Clean Sweep	6,273	3
Sheriff's Office	Drug Unit	Drug Unit Grant & Asset Forfeiture Programs	29,309	3
Sheriff's Office	Drug Unit	Narcotics Investigation	301,414	1
Sheriff's Office	Drug Unit	Undercover Operations	205,869	2
Sheriff's Office	Public Relations	Drug Abuse resistance & Education (DARE)	84,986	3

Time to Choose a Highway 60 Reliever Route

The Public Works Committee refused to recommend a specific route, instead kicking the issue up to the full County Board.  I am guessing that we will see it at our October meeting, but haven’t confirmed that yet.  So this means that I and my fellow Supervisors need to look over all of the info I have to pick out a route that we should study (not build, just study with the interest of possibly building).  Picking a route does not commit us to moving forward with the project, but it is best to study the most likely route.

The first thing I did was make a list of all 11 routes.  I also added the current route to the list.  I then began to look at which ones I could easily eliminate from consideration, and settled on eliminating 4 options:

·         Option #2---This is just a completely stupid route.

·         Option #8---This is in my mind the stupidest route on the map, especially since it continues past Clover Rd.

·         Option #3---This route is basically a version of #7, but with and extra 2 miles on the freeway followed by an extra 2 miles on the frontage road to avoid exiting directly onto Arthur Road.

·         Current route---This is basically the same as #5 except that it does not account for the efficiencies built into all of the route north of the Hartford Business Parks.

I then looked for other factors that could eliminate routes.  Environmental impacts, in my mind, negated options #5 and #10.  I then looked at efficiencies, and decided that option #6 was too much like option #9, but less efficient near St. Lawrence, so I eliminated that one.

That brought me down to 5 practical routes.  I would support any of these 5 routes for additional study.  But which ones is best?  I decided to prioritize the 5 routes based primarily on which route I as a driver would be most likely to take.  After all, if the truckers don’t use it, what’s the point of doing this project? I looked at it as if I was going from Downtown Milwaukee to the Hartford Industrial Park and wanted to avoid the intersection of highway 60 and highway 83.  Based on that, I prioritized those 5 routes this way:

1.       Option #4.  It is very low cost, the least extra miles, and has the lowest impact.

2.       Option #7.  It only goes up 1 freeway exit, and is a straight shot west.  A frontage road between the freeway exit and Arthur Road might increase efficiencies.

3.       Option #9.  It avoids St. Lawrence.

4.       Option #1.  It primarily uses existing county roads.

5.       Option #11.  It follows option #1, and while it adds efficiency, it splits more farm fields.

As I continue to look at the info on these 11 routes, I might change my priority list a bit.  I have not met with Scott Schmidt yet, and that will be a very important meeting that might cause me to change my priority list a bit.

Update:  Since writing this, I have already gotten feedback that there is a need for modification of option #4, as the existing plan would significantly impact a church and several houses.  I plan to stop out there later this afternoon to visually survey the area where 83 connects to Main St.

I am also open to hearing any other feedback from any community members.  You can contact me through either my personal e-mail ( cluke04@yahoo.com ) or my County e-mail ( christopher.bossert@co.washington.wi.us ).

The other thing to note is that, when we as a County Board meet, there might be some need to compromise in order to reach a consensus, so while I go in with my priority list, that doesn't mean that I am locking myself into any specific route among the 5 that I see as viable.

2nd Update:  I drove out to Hartford, and explored Option #4.  I drove back home following Arthur Road to learn more about Option #7.  Each one had some obstacles, and yet if the reliever route is worth doing, it is worth doing right (I define doing this right as creating a route that truck drivers will want to use).

Option #4 would involve dislocating a couple of multi-family apartment buildings, a few homes, and possibly impact a church.  I would push for a redesign to avoid the church if we decide upon this route.

Option #7 looked like it had a lot of potential.  It was a straight shot that practically drove right into the Hartford Business park.  For challenges, Arthur road is currently split by the freeway, so an overpass would have to be built.  Just to the west of the freeway, there is an old bridge that has a weight limit and a 10 MPH speed limit on it.  The roads were not anywhere close to being ready for semi-trucks, and would need massive improvement.  But as far as potential for what it can become, I saw a lot.

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.

Night Meetings---2 Votes Short

At today's county board meeting, I took a bold step.  A proposed ordinance would move the county board meetings from 9:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m.  I proposed an amendment that would instead move those meetings to the evening at 7:00 p.m.  Supervisor Kelling was quick to step up and second the motion.

I have heard from many of my neighbors regarding the desire to move meetings to the evening, to increase public access to our proceedings.  I am working to try to make that a reality.

I knew going in that there was fairly strong support for night meetings.  While the amendment was 2 votes short, it was closer to succeeding than any previous attempt at making night meetings permanent.

The fight on this issue is not by any means over.  Instead, there are a lot of positives.

1.      I now know for sure that I have 10 other Supervisors who definitely share my view on night meetings.

2.      Three of the other Supervisors who voted in favor of this motion were on the executive board, including Mike Bassill, Tim Michalak, and Kris Diess.

3.      I also know that, if our rules would have allowed for an amendment to move the day of our meetings to Thursday, the amendment might have picked up another vote or two.

4.      Most importantly, the old guard knows how close that motion was, and can guess that the days of meeting during the daytime, away from public scrutiny, are coming to a close.

I plan to look at options for bringing this up again next summer.  Worst case scenario, we might pick up a vote or two in the April 2018 election, depending on how those elections go.

Theft of County Funds

Yesterday, I was notified by County Board Chairman Rick Gundrum that there was a theft of County Funds.  This afternoon, County Administrator Josh Schumann sent out a press release, which has been reposted on Washington County Insider at this link: http://washingtoncountyinsider.com/2016/07/washington-county-victim-of-wire-transfer-fraud/

This incident is still being investigated, so the information I have is heavily limited until that investigation is concluded.  I basically don't know any more than what is in the press release.

I want to apologize to everyone in Washington County that this happened.  Anytime something like this happens, an apology is due, no matter what precautions were in place.  I can imagine that each of the other 25 County Board Supervisors was just as surprised and dismayed as I was at this news.

I am gravely disappointed that something like this occurred, and that our county government failed to prevent it from occurring.  While many precautions were taken, they simply were not enough in this instance.  Rest assured, changes will be made to reduce the likelihood that this will occur again.

When I was first elected 3 months ago, I sought to be an advocate for responsible government.  That hasn’t changed, and in this case that means ensuring that additional precautions are taken.  While the county will never achieve perfect security to protect our financial resources in this digital age, we need to take the most reasonable and prudent steps possible.

I have submitted a request to the County Administrator, specifically requesting that our digital security be audited by an outside firm on at least an annual basis.  This will help to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence of an incident like this.  I will also be encouraging the County Board Supervisors who are on the Administrative Committee, as they oversee our Finance Department and I.T. Department, to make sure the funding is in place for these audits.  I also know that Josh and he County’s financial team are working to put other safeguards in place to further reduce the likelihood of another theft of this nature.

I also want to look at the positives from this incident, including:

1. This could have been much worse than it was. I say that not to minimize what happened, but to recognize that there was the potential for this to have been much larger in scale. We have been a fiscally sound county, with adequate financial reserves. While this theft was significant, it was not anywhere close to being as catastrophic as it could have been.
2. This appears to have been found relatively quickly, within two weeks. Many times, a seemingly isolated incident is a test, to see if the theft will be detected. If the theft is not discovered, the thief will return and begin to escalate the theft levels. One such incident at a previous employer persisted over 4 years. That didn’t happen here, because the incident was discovered so quickly.
3. Our response to this incident was quick. Immediate safeguards have been put in place to prevent these particular hackers from using the same tactics to return and victimize our County Government again.

I apologize again to all of the taxpayers of Washington County for this unfortunate incident, and hope the perpetrators are brought to justice..

June 14 Board Meeting (Wrap-up)

I questioned the SEWRPC regarding their involvement with Milwaukee's trolley.  The director stated that they definitively were not involved in an aspect of the trolley project.  He stated that they were being considered for involvement in the planning of the trolley, but ultimately the city went with a different vendor.  The director pledged to inform me if that changed in any way.

If this is true, it is great news, as it means that we don't have to worry that money we contribute to SEWRPC is being used to fund Milwaukee's streetcar debacle.  I plan to keep a watchful eye for any involvement, just to make sure.

The plan to help E.H. Wolf & Sons in Slinger with a 0% interest loan went through.  Slinger is also providing help.  The County will be repaid through a TIF district.

The Shoreline & Wetlands revisions were approved as well.  I did ask some questions about a 3 foot setback requirement, as it seemed too close.

June 14 Board Meeting

There are a few significant items that will be addressed in the June 14 board meeting.

SEWRPC (South-Eastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission)

SEWRPC will be giving their annual report.  In addition, Resolution 15 will fund the assistance of SEWRPC in develop a plan we are required to maintain for the state, the Washington County Multi-Jurisdictional Plan.  The cost for their assistance will be $43,700 for their assistance in 2016-2018.

Since they are involved in regional planning, I checked in with the County Administrator to find out if they have any role in Milwaukee's trolley project.  I have always maintained that the trolley project is foolish, but as long as Milwaukee is only spending Milwaukee's money, they have every right to be foolish.  I have also maintained that no Washington County taxpayer money should ever be used to fund Milwaukee's trolley in any way, ever.  All of the neighbors I spoke to about my position on Milwaukee's trolley were in complete agreement with me.

I found out that the SEWRPC has been retained by Milwaukee to help in the planning for their trolley.  I also found out that the County currently gives roughly $250,000 per year to the SEWRPC, and that we have no concrete assurances that some of this money is not being used to fund the planning for Milwaukee's trolley.

So there are really 2 issues here:

• Resolution 15, which ONLY funds the assistance of SEWRPC in developing our multijurisdictional plan, a document we are required to maintain.  This plan must be updated for 2018.  I will probably be voting for that resolution, so that our county employees have the resources they need to put together a satisfactory plan.  I would not want us to lose any state funding because we did not put together a satisfactory plan.
• County contributions to SEWRPC.  I will be questioning the SEWRPC about their role in the planning for the trolley, and more specifically how that planning is funded.  Unless Milwaukee is paying for the trolley planning above and beyond their normal contribution, I will be pushing to drop the county's contribution to the SEWRPC from the 2017 budget.

E. H. Wolf & Sons

Resolution 16 would give economic development funds in the amount of $260,000 to help a company named Edward H. Wolf & Sons to grow their business.  You can view the company's website here: http://www.ehwolf.com/

They have acquired property adjacent to one of their existing facilities, and need some financial help with some site preparation expenses including an environmental assessment, environmental remediation, and tear down of the existing structure.  If it is the property I am thinking of, it is currently useless property that has been an eyesore in Slinger for years.

The belief is that, with this expansion, Edward H. Wolf & Sons would be able to grow their business, bring more jobs to Slinger, and strengthen the tax base for Slinger and the County.

This proposal has already passed the Executive Committee, and generally seems like the type of economic development we should be looking to support.

Shoreline & Wetland Legislation

In April, the outgoing county board attempted to review changes to chapter 23 of the county code, which impacts the use of shoreline property.  Because the legislation had been given tot he board only a day or two before the board meeting, the board decided to refer it back to committee.  At that time, there were concerns that the new ordinance was too restrictive.

Ordinance 4 will be a new version of the Chapter 23 amendment.  In checking in with the County
Parks and Planning Director, I learned that the new version of chapter 23 will be more favorable to landowners and less restrictive than the current code. 

Unless I hear that the new code will trigger lawsuits, unduly trample the rights of landowners, or require landowners to tear down existing structures, I plan to support this legislation.

Those are the major things with the upcoming board meeting.  Please feel free to e-mail me with questions, comments, or concerns.

Request for Public Input

This morning for the Executive Board meeting, one agenda item struck me as one that I would like to get some public opinion on.  There is a proposed ordinance change that would adjust the time for morning meetings from 9:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m.  The times for afternoon and evening meetings would not change, and nothing in this ordinance addresses which meetings would be done during the morning, afternoon, or evening.

I need to check and see if that ordinance passed and whether or not it was amended.

So I want the thoughts of the people I serve.  Please e-mail me at either my county e-mail address or my personal e-mail address and tell me if you see this as:

• A good change
• A bad change
• A meaningless change
• A weird change

Thank you in advance.

Today's Human Services Committee Meeting

Prior to today's Human Services Board meeting, I spent almost an hour and a half meeting with Eric Diamond, the Human Services Administrator.  Eric gave me a lot of great and useful information about the department, and it was a very productive meeting.  He also gave me a tour of the department's facilities.

Vice Chair.
Today we elected the Vice-Chair, and chose a citizen member of the Human Services Committee and a past County Board Supervisor who was the chair of the Human Services Committee at one point in his tenure.  Leslie "Les" Borman is our Vice-Chair.  In talking with him, he seems like a very experienced and knowledgeable resources, so I am glad we have him on the committee.

High Risk Client.
We approved an extra 2% profit for an organization that is assisting us in transitioning a high risk client out of the Winnebago Mental Health Institute ("WMHI") to a residential facility.  The extra profit works out to about $550 per month, and will cover some of the provider's costs in making upgrades to this facility.

For some additional background, WMHI charges $1,289 per day, and this client has been there for 14 months.  So far the county's costs since March of last year for this one case exceeds $500,000.  As well, WMHI is at full capacity when they have 189 patients, and they currently have 210 patients.  With the new arrangement, the daily charge will vary, however a good working estimate is $700 per day.  In discussing this case with Eric prior to the meeting, he gave me every assurance that this new arrangement will very likely improve her recovery prognosis, and that everyone involved in the case agrees that this is a positive step for her.

The net outcome is that we improve the client's prognosis for a recovery and save the county roughly $600 per day.  That works out to $18,000 per month, or $126,000 for this year if the client moves in on June 1st.  This is a win for both the client and us taxpayers.

Thank you to Eric and Jackie, and everyone else on their team, for their hard work in helping this client!

Closed Session
We did go into close session related to a contract negotiation.  I cannot speak to the specifics that were discussed. 

When we came back into open session, I did report that I previously had an employment relationship related to the vendor roughly 2 decades ago for a period of approximately 6 months.  Since I have no current financial arrangement with the vendor, the County Attorney saw no reason for me to abstain from voting on the issue.  Our County Attorney is very ethical on these matters, so I am confident that if there was a conflict, she would have advised me to abstain from voting on the issue. 

Human Services Committee---First Meeting

This Thursday will be my first meeting on the Human Services Board.  For me, I plan to ask a lot of questions so that I can get up to speed as quickly as possible.

There will be 2 key items on the agenda:

1.  Election of a Vice-Chair.  From a realistic perspective, I would be surprised if I received consideration for this position.  That said, I would not turn down the Vice-Chair if neither Dawn or Joe wanted it.

2.  Residential Services for High Risk, High Need Client.  Essentially, right now the county is paying $1,289 per day for this client to be treated at Winnebago Mental Health Institute.  He is being allowed to transition into a community-based arrangement that may help his recovery while providing some cost savings to the county.  Coming into this situation mid-treatment, I want to make sure that we have fully reviewed this arrangement to make sure that it presents more positives than negatives in relation to the treatment, and make sure that any risks have been minimized.  I also want to look at the additional profit the vendor is requesting, and see if that is appropriate.