Refused to raise
the tax levy
This week we held to our fiscally conservative values and refused to raise the tax levy.
We made a responsible decision to borrow $10 million
dollars. Many municipalities and
counties use borrowing as an avenue to raise taxes without a referendum. Our County Controller calculated that, if we
chose to raise the levy, tax rates would go up by $.12 per thousand dollars in
home value for 2019, instead of decreasing by $.09 per thousand dollars, a swing of $.21
per thousand.
An amendment was put forward to raise the levy, instead of
making our debt payments out of existing funds.
Only 6 supervisors voted for that amendment, while I was one of 18
Supervisors who banded together to vote no to increasing taxes. While some of my neighbors would prefer that
we begin to raise the tax levy, more of them have expressed a desire for fiscal
restraint and discipline.
Why is this
borrowing decision good?
The simple answer is, we save taxpayers money while fixing
our County highways quicker.
I am cautious about borrowing, and certainly don’t want to
engage in massive borrowing sprees. I
recognize that responsible borrowing has its place in funding capital projects
like our County highways. After
researching this extensively, and asking County Administration to prepare
estimates on what costs we would incur if we delayed construction and saved
money under a “pay as you go” plan, some key facts that stood out to me:
·
Our County has a very low debt, currently only
about $8 million.
·
Our County’s legal debt capacity is $730,717,405
($730 million), a limit I never, ever, ever want to get anywhere close to
approaching.
·
We will pay about $4.5 million in interest over
the life of the loan. This compares to
an estimate of about $5.7 million in deferred maintenance costs if we delay
reconstruction to do a “pay as you go” approach. We save $1.2 million by borrowing money now.
·
The loan is for the minimum allowable time
period, 10 years.
·
The loan is part of a 2 step plan, with a second
loan of $12 million in 2023.
·
We will have the option to pay off each loan up
to 3 years early, and potentially save taxpayers another $700,000 dollars.
·
The 5 County Highways being reconstructed will
be good for 50 years (with resurfacing after 25 years).
·
Per Administrator Schoemann, this plan will fund
all needed road reconstructions through 2050.
·
We are not increasing taxes in any way to pay
for this borrowing.
Simply put, we are doing $22 million in highway
reconstruction without raising taxes.
Audit
Baker Tilley reported on their audit of our financial
statements. They were extremely
impressed with the County’s fiscal health, including our spending restraint,
low debt, and ample financial reserves.
When I add in that our County has the lowest County tax rate (the County
portion of your property tax bill) in over 100 years, and has the 4th
lowest County tax rate in the state at $2.70 (per thousand dollars of home value) it is clear
that we are living out our conservative values.
The counties that are lower than us are Waukesha ($2.07),
Ozaukee ($1.86), and Vilas ($2.28). The
highest was Menomonee at $9.07.
Milwaukee County is at $5.10, which is above the statewide average of
$4.40. (WCA Green book, based on taxes levied for 2016)
Consolidations
I am guessing we all read the editorial on social media from
Sheriff Schmidt. While I respect him
tremendously, I was disappointed by the misportrayal of our efforts. It almost seems like he is using scare
tactics to pit the public against the County Board.
We as a County Board have been pretty clear about our
willingness to work collaboratively with other nearby governments to
consolidate services and save tax payers money while preserving service quality
and accountability. I have often
wondered why Washington County has a shared-ride taxi service that is largely
redundant with the shared-ride services of West Bend, Hartford, Ozaukee County,
and others. One of my neighbors who does
not own a car specifically talked about the hassle in coordinating a
shared-ride trip to Port Washington, and the long wait at the Newburg gas
station. This is one of many examples
where I am sure that we could find a way to consolidate services for the
benefit of taxpayers, without reducing the level of service we provide (we
might even be able to increase it).
When we begin exploring any idea, we recognize that there
are benefits, and that there may also be adverse consequences. Exploring options is in no way a commitment
or obligation to enact an option.
Moreover, the portrayal that we are trying to engulf local communities
and coercively force them into unwanted consolidation is, to be blunt, a
complete load of horse-#$%#%&#$.
I would have an extremely difficult time voting to dissolve
the West Bend Police and roll them into our Sheriff’s department. Law enforcement is usually best when it is
local. I suspect that many other Supervisors
would agree with me on that. If the
Mayor of West Bend and Police Chief of West Bend were both saying that this was
a great plan, then maybe I could be persuaded, but otherwise I would be pretty
reluctant.
I am also not sure that the County would even have the legal
ability to consolidate services with a local government against their
will. Maybe we do, but I doubt it.
On the other hand, is it possible that we could consolidate
911 services in a way that improves service while saving the tax-payers
money? Maybe, or maybe not. Is it possible that 3 or 4 Counties could run
a combined jail, again saving the taxpayers money while still running a secure,
quality jail? Again maybe we can. What about our court systems, could they be
combined? Again, I think it is worth
researching and considering. I think we
are always prudent to consider such possibilities, without committing to any of
them until we have fully researched them and have all of the facts.
Should our new sheriff be a key part of that
conversation? Absolutely. Quite frankly, I
hope that whoever is elected sheriff will be willing to openly look at these
options, without being fearful of seeing his “fiefdom” diminished. If there are consequences that we need to
consider, I encourage our next Sheriff to raise those so that they can be
considered. We want to work
collaboratively, because quite frankly, consolidation never works if it is not
a collaborative effort. Solutions to
problems can never be overcome if we can’t work together collaboratively.
Administrative
Staffing
I voted in support of the staffing change. It reduced overall staffing by .5 FTE, and
puts us in a better position to meet our upcoming challenges and
initiatives. Since we are clearly being
so fiscally responsible, I ask you to join me in recognizing how this position
can help us further our efforts to remain fiscally responsible.
The position that was created, and I stand by my vote in
support of it, will spend a portion (but certainly not all) of their time
working to explore these and other possibilities collaboratively with other
local governments. They will also work
to support organizations that are being transitioned away from the tax levy,
including the History Center and AIS, so that those organizations will be in
the best position to sustain themselves as privately-funded entities. I want to give those organizations the option
of having additional county support as they make that transition.
Most importantly, Administrator Schoemann is promising that
he will fire this person if they cannot produce taxpayer savings totaling twice
their salary by 2020. As the Hartford
Mayor, Supervisor Michalek, said during our meeting, “If we can spend $2 to
save $4, I’ll take that all day long.” I
wholeheartedly agree.
We continue to live
out our Conservative values in Washington County. Our commitment is to continue to explore ways
to make government smaller and more effective, to maintain fiscal
responsibility and spending restraint, and continue to sustain our County as a
great place to live and work.
No comments:
Post a Comment