Guest Opinion - UW Campus Needs to Focus on Actual Proposals

Below, please find the Guest Opinion column I submitted to the West Bend Daily News, which was published in today's edition.

We all want to find the best use for the vacated UW campus building.

John Torinus, in his column on 8/20, talks about the West Bend School District’s idea of a Smart-Start center, but he refers to it as a proposal.  To be completely clear, there is no such proposal from the School District.  They have talked extensively about the idea of a Smart Start center, but there is no proposal and the idea appears to still require a lot of time to develop.

The timeline the school district talked about for implementing this idea is still at least a full year away, and that may be overly optimistic.  This is after having more than a year to put together a formal proposal.  The idea seems to depend on all 5 school districts within our county pooling resources, and the School Board member I have talked to, who is from a district outside West Bend, has serious reservations about diverting their district resources to this idea.  I am hearing that school board members in other districts share the same concerns.  So while it is an interesting innovation, the plain truth is that it might not be workable.

Right now, the County is spending approximately $600,000 per year on utilities and basic maintenance for an empty building (the UW campus building).  That’s roughly $50,000 per month.  The rent from UW used to cover that expense, but we no longer receive that rent.  We now only have the expense.

The County cannot continue to spend $50,000 per month waiting on the possibility that at some point the School District might submit a proposal, with no guarantee that they will ever submit a proposal.  In my mind things are that simple, the time to move forward is now, and the best proposal we have is from OCS.  Our county government has always been fiscally responsible, and investing that much in upkeep expenses on an empty building is not at all a responsible use to taxpayer dollars.

I have been on the County Board for 9 years, and during that time the County has divested itself of several buildings.  Annex II, the old courthouse, and the Samaritan Health center (which I actively tried to keep) are the three that come to mind.  We are also discussing divesting ourselves of the Public Agency Building.  For governments, buildings are nothing but giant cost centers that suck up large amounts of tax money for capital maintenance, routine maintenance, and utilities.

We have received only 2 proposals, one from Ozaukee Christian Schools (“OCS”) and one from Accel Learning.  The proposal from Ozaukee Christian Schools seems to be the better of the two proposals.  They are a local, non-profit, high-performing parochial school and an established community partner.

I know one family who sends their children there, and the parents absolutely love the education their children receive.  That family was there at the listening session, quietly listening and supporting OCS, along with numerous other families who send their children to OCS.  I have heard only positive things about OCS within the community.  OCS comes to my church every year to present on the great work their school is doing.  Fifty-five percent of the residents of our community are Christian, and right now West Bend has no parochial high school option.  The proposal from OCS would change that, as they were already planning to expand to include a high school at their existing site in the Town of Trenton (and had bought land for that purpose).  

We didn’t choose for U.W. to shutter the campus.  Instead, this is a situation we inherited.  We are now stuck with a building whose original purpose has ended.  We have already invested a year and a half to try to determine how to repurpose this building.  At the end of all of that, the OCS proposal is the best solid proposal we have.

Overall, I do like the idea of a Smart Start center, and I think the idea holds a lot of promise.  I also like that the school district is looking at innovative strategies like this. I sincerely hope the school district will work to fully develop this idea and at some point implement it.  

But something important is being forgotten.  Nothing in this idea is dependent on the County retaining ownership of the UW campus.  Likewise, nothing in this idea is dependent on the Smart Start center existing at the UW campus.  West Bend schools will soon be vacating 2 elementary school buildings, and either of them could be great locations for a Smart-Start center that would help high school youth earn college credits.  West Bend can also lease space within the community, which may be a better option for an innovative but unproven program.  And perhaps OCS would be willing to lease space to the West Bend School District inside the UW building.

The County Board, in my view, needs to do the responsible thing and divest itself of this building.

UWWC Campus Developments

In the Nutshell

Just a quick synopsis.  The building is zoned and built for educational purposes.  We only really have 2 proposals, one to buy the building and 1 to lease a significant portion.  Since the proposal to purchase the building appears to be a good proposal from a local, faith-based non-profit, I am very likely to support it.  I do have a few questions about it though.  Ideally, I would like to maintain some use of the building for the community, including the theater.

Quick notes

Before I get started, I do want to mention that I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.  I might correct a grammar mistake, or reword something that I realize was worded unclearly.  I might also add a few thoughts that I forgot about while originally writing this.

I should also mention this.  About 3 years ago, I switched churches, due in part to COVID protocols, but also due in part to shifting ideological priorities of the church I left, including their wholesale support of illegal immigration.  The new church I attend is supportive of Ozaukee Christian School (“OCS”), and every year OCS comes to our church to report on the good work they are doing in providing a Christ-centered primary-school education for their youth.  As such, I begin with a very favorable view of OCS.  When I learned that they were submitting a serious proposal to purchase the building, I was excited and saw it as a positive development.

I know that OCS is a growing school, and they recently bought land to facilitate that growth.  And then this possibility came around.

Last Thursday’s Meeting

Last Thursday, the UWWC Campus Task Force held a meeting to review a proposal by Ozaukee Christian School (“OCS”) to purchase the building and a portion of the property.  Cedar Lakes Conservation Fund (“CLCF”) would purchase the remaining 55 acres.

At the meeting, I was very disappointed by the behavior of several individuals who came to the meeting already opposed to this proposal.  They interrupted board members, shouted out random questions whenever they felt like it, tried to argue with board members, and in general tried to disrupt the orderly flow of business.  At one point, I admonished them for their disrespectful and inappropriate behavior. 

After the meeting, several people thanked me for challenging their behavior.  A few of them had attended the meeting to learn more about this proposal, so they could decide whether or not they thought it was a good proposal, and they were shocked by the behavior they saw from these individuals.  A few others were supporters of OCS, who were glad someone stood up against this bad behavior.  I also ran into one gentleman over the weekend who had left the meeting after only 10 minutes, due to the bad behavior he saw.  He had wanted to learn more about this proposal.  When I mentioned that I had challenged their behavior, he thanked me.

I was also surprised by how quickly this group decided they were against this proposal.  Prior to this, when Accel Learning had submitted a proposal, they had stated that they were only against Accel because they were out of state, and because they were not completely non-profit (they were only mostly non-profit, their oversight board is for profit).  OCS is a local school that is entirely non-profit, so their sudden opposition to OCS raises questions about their true intentions, at least in my mind.

I should also mention that there were individuals at this meeting, who are opposed to the sale to OCS, who did behave respectfully and with appropriate decorum.  They either sat there as quiet observers, or they raised their hand and waited to be recognized to speak.  One such person asked a very good question, and in the ensuing dialog, I learned that options to sell the property to a developer had been thoroughly explored, but that none of the developers had expressed any interest in pursuing the purchase of the property after reviewing the property in detail.

One rumor I have heard is that some of the opposition to this sale may be based on anti-Christian sentiments amongst some of the opponents.  I have also heard a lot of speculation to this effect.  Christian schools tend to do a much better job of educating students in reading, writing, and math.  In my view, a better-educated community makes a better community.  Additionally, there are laws prohibiting discrimination against religious institutions.  For all those reasons, I remain very open to the sale to OCS. 

The Current Situation

In looking at the current situation, here is what I see.  We have already invested 16 months into the process, while all of the other counties who lost UW schools have already moved forward with their plans for the obsolete campuses.  During that 16 months, there has been a ton of community discussion and outreach, and there will be more opportunities coming.

We are spending about $500k-$750k per year in regular maintenance and utilities for the building.  Previously, the lease with UWM covered those expenses.  As well, when UWM decided to vacate the building, since we didn’t know whether we would be leveling the building, keeping it, or selling it, we put a halt to some upcoming maintenance items that are rather expensive, including over a million dollars to repair the electrical system.  The building is zoned for educational/institutional.

If we want to keep the building, we need an anchor tenant who will pay about $750,000 per year in rent.  The only proposal we have received to that effect was from Accel.  If we sell the building to OCS, we will unburden the tax-payers of this recurring expense (and in government, managing recurring expenses is a critical component to keeping the tax rate low).  We have no other substantial proposals to consider, and the task force recommended selling to OCS (with some poison pills thrown in by 1 task force member).  In my mind, this makes sense.

Some things I do want to learn about:

• Is there still and opportunity to have a social capital center within that building (probably leased from OCS)?
• Will the community retain access to the theater (probably by leasing it from OCS)?
• Would OCS be willing to lease space to the public schools, or to the City of West Bend.
• I do know that OCS. in their proposal, mentioned that they would need to team up with some community partners, but I would want to learn more about what that would look like.

John Torinus brought up the idea of giving the northern third of the building to the City of West Bend (along with the land CLCF wants).  Since that would contain the gym, and every grade school needs a gym, that would essentially destroy the deal with OCS.  I recognize a poison-pill when I see one, and would oppose this idea.  His idea would also mean giving the city 40% of the value of the campus, when they are only 26% owners of the campus.  I also don’t know how the county would sell or lease 67% of a building.  What I could see the county being willing to agree to is giving the city the land CLCF wants and some cash as a way to buy out their equity.

Invalid concerns

A few concerns were brought up that I don’t put much validity in.  One of them was OCS' staffing, and whether they currently have the positions they would need to service a much larger student base.  This concern, surprisingly, was put forward by Joh Torniuus.  Of course, currently they don’t have that staff, because currently they don’t need that staff.  As they grow, they will ramp up their staffing to meet their needs.  

Another concern that was brought up revolved around whether or not they can financially support such a large building.  As Adam Williquette mentioned, that’s an issue between OCS and the bank loaning them the money.  In other words, banks have responsibility for vetting loans before making them, and they proved themselves to the bank.  As I side note, I know that OCS has deep community roots, and will likely be well-supported.

WBSD

This issue is not in any way a referendum on public schools.  I attended public schools, and got a very good education.  That said, I stand against any idea that we must reject any proposal from any private school, as a show of loyalty to the public schools, especially for property that is zoned and designed for educational use.  While I am not opposed to public schools, I reject any contrived "loyalty test" to them.

Regarding the West Bend School District (“WBSD”), the only proposal they submitted was un-actionable.  They proposed leasing around 10,000 square feet, a proposal that would leave 95% of the building vacant.  The rent on such a small lease would not provide adequate funds to the county to cover its costs associated with the building, and therefore do not qualify as an anchor tenant. 

WBSD has floated other ideas throughout this process, but has never made any actionable proposals regarding those ideas.  These options involve other school districts, with West Bend as the primary  agent, and coordinating a proposal between 5 school districts would bring its own challenges.  

It is important to realize that in the last 10-15 years, WBSD closed 1 grade school and will soon be closing 2 more.  In the upcoming years, the demographic models show a continuation of the trend of declining enrollment for WBSD.  Based on these factors, I can’t imagine WBSD being able to support the lease of a substantial amount of space within the UWWC campus building, and as such don’t see them as a viable anchor tenant.  It is also worth noting that $750,000 per year is a large line-item to add to their budget.

So given all of this, how could I or any other board member reject this proposal based on the possibility that WBSD will come forward with a proposal of their own that would meet our needs.  WBSD has had 16 months, and they’ve talked about a lot of interesting ideas during that time, but at no point have they put forward a meaningful, actionable proposal.

The Future of the UWWC Campus Building

A little over a month ago, I sent this Letter to the Editor in for publishing with the Daily News:

As we discuss the future of the vacated UW campus, some confusion seems to have emerged about the county’s focus.  The county is not in the business of creating competition for the public schools.  At the same time, we are also not in the business of preventing competition for the public schools.

We are in the business of managing the UW Campus building and grounds.  For several decades, we have managed the maintenance and utility costs for this campus while UWWC occupied it.

We are also in the business of addressing the mental health needs of our community.  This is a mission I view as a major priority.  The social capital hub Josh is proposing could significantly improve the delivery of mental health services effort.  To make this work, we need an anchor tenant that pays a significant rent, and our annual costs to maintain the campus are around $750,000 per year.

Our County Executive has assembled a task force, which is charged with looking in detail at all of the available options.  I anticipate that they will be thorough in their work and closely examine all of the options.  I know there are a lot of options and details for them to review, so it will likely take them some time to complete their work.  Once they have completed their work, they will make a recommendation, which will then come to the County Board for review.  We can accept or reject their recommendation as we determine appropriate.

During this time, I ask for the public’s patience and understanding.  I also ask for their input and welcome dialogue about the options being considered.  I can be reached by e-mail at Christopher.bossert@washcowisco.gov or by phone at (262) 404-5158.

Thank You

Christopher Bossert

County Board Supervisor, District 4

Over the last month, I have heard from numerous constituents regarding this issue, and their comments all fall into 4 groups.

• One group of constituents believes that we are best served by tearing the building down and allowing a redeveloper to build housing or a mixed-use complex on the property.
• Another group believes very strongly in Josh's idea to make the building a "social capital hub."  Our County Executive envisions this as allowing for improved delivery of mental health support services by putting a lot of the county's non-profit organizations in the same facility.  The belief is that this will facilitate more collaboration and cooperation.  This idea would also keep the campus' theater available to the various cultural and theater groups within the community.
• Another group believes that we should primarily focus on plans that protect the Public Schools from competition, by not allowing private or charter schools to have access to using any portion of the facility.
• A final group believes that we should actively recruit a private or charter school, especially one that will offer a tuition-free option, in order to support parental choice in education.

From my perspective, the County is not in the role of either shielding the public schools from competition or promoting competition with the public schools.  So the County should really approach this decision without regard to how it impacts the public schools and let the chips fall where they may.

With that in mind, between the two remaining options, I would tend to support the approach of transforming the building into a social capital hub.  I have always been a strong advocate for supporting the mental health needs of our community.  If we have the opportunity to improve the deliver of mental health support services, we should do it.  Josh's social capital hub idea is dependent on having an anchor tenant.  West Bend Schools did not submit a meaningful proposal related to being an anchor tenant (they are requesting about 5,000 square feet).  We have one proposal from a national charter school, and may have proposals coming from a local charter school and a potential catholic school option.

The social capital hub would also ensure that the theater remains available to the community.  While the county is not really in the business of providing theater access, this is a nice perk for the community, and in this case something we should do since we easily can.  This option also supports parents who want more choices for their children, and don't have the financial resources to afford private school.  While the county is not in the business of expanding school options, that seems to be where our anchor tenant options are coming from.  Personally, I am empathetic towards parents who are frustrated with the poor performance of West Bend Public Schools, and like the idea of expanded the choices available to parents.

If we cannot find a viable anchor tenant, are only remaining option is to sell the building and/or land.  While I would prefer to implement the social capital hub, if it is not viable, then I have to accept that.

One final note: If the West Bend School District is truly worried about losing students, maybe they should focus on improving proficiency ratings (and not just on lowering the standards to inflate the numbers.  West Bend currently loses a few hundred kids every year to open enrollment, with many of them enrolling into Germantown or Slinger while others get homeschooled (and we have a lot of children in our community who are being homeschooled).  

When I looked at their proficiency rates, for the last year of the old (higher) standards, only 47.3% of kids in West Bend Schools can read at grade level (which they call "English Language Arts"), and only 50.9% of kids can do math at grade level.  Under the revised, lower standards, for 2024 the numbers jump up to 59% reading at grade level and 64.9% performing at grade level on math.  Those results make sense, as anytime you lower the standards, more kids will be able to meet that lower standard, so that's a great way for the state to hide declining academic outcomes for public schools in Wisconsin.  In fact, statewide the proficiency averages for reading change from 40.4% to 50% and for math from 38.5% to 51%.  Interestingly, West Bend schools had the lowest proficiency scores of any district in the County.

What Fiscal Responsibility & Fiscal Restraint Looks Like

Washington County has kept its levy flat for at least the last 8-10 years.  We've done this through exercising fiscal restraint and fiscal responsibility.  Below are some of the key principles we have focused on.  Some of these may sound remedial, yet so many governments ignore these principles. 

Overriding Principles

"The problem is not that government taxes too little, the problem is that government spends to much" - Ronald Reagan

In Washington County, we live within our means.

Annual (Bi-Annual) Budgeting

Most local governments, when it comes time to budget, start with their expenses.  They then invest their efforts in trying to stretch their revenue to cover those expenses.  When that fails, they raise taxes to cover the shortfall.  They remind me of the carpenter whose only tool is a hammer.  That carpenter will quickly come to see every problem as a nail.  These municipalities only know how to address budget problems by raising taxes, so every budget gap starts to look like a revenue shortfall.

Our County has taken the opposite approach.  We start with our revenues, and identify ways to shrink our expenses to fit within those revenues.  That approach has allowed us to keep our levy essentially flat since 2014 despite starting each budget cycle with a $2.5 million dollar gap between expenses and revenues. 

We also recognize the distinct difference between recurring expenses and one-time expenses.  If we cut a $100,000 one-time expense from the budget, that's a nice savings for that year, but it has no effect beyond that.  If we cut a $100,000 recurring expense from the budget, that's a nice savings for every year going forward.  Over 10 years, it is $1 million in savings, over 20 years it is $2 million.  Likewise, if we add in a new expense, and it is a recurring expense, that's a new expense that will need to be funded every year going forward.  A new $100,000 recurring expense we add in will cost us $2 million over the next 20 years.

Rule #1: Start with our current revenue, and finds ways to trim our expenses to fit within that revenue.

Rule #2: During budgeting, think of recurring expenses not just in terms of their cost in the current budget cycle, but also in terms of their long term financial impact.

Recurring Money vs. One-Time Money

One thing our county has been very focused on is pairing one-time revenue with one-time expenses.  The "American Rescue Act" was a great example, where we received a ton of one-time money (roughly $26 million).  Many governments took that one-time money and used it to justify all sorts of new recurring expenses, including pay raises or additional staff.  Once the one-time money runs out, they still have the recurring expense, with no revenue to fund that expense.  Our county has always been disciplined about recurring expenses, they are only allowed if they are paired with a recurring revenue source.

Rule #3: don't fund recurring expenses with one time money.

Staffing

One of the largest expense items in any government is staffing.  Our county has been diligent about finding efficiencies and reducing staff.  In other government agencies, especially at the state and federal level, all too often when positions are no longer needed, no action is taken to correct the overstaffing.  

Rule #4: We will never create a position unless we eliminate a position (even if that position is eliminated from another department).

Rule #5: When we eliminate a position, we will never use that as an excuse to create an additional position.

Shared Services Creates Efficiencies

In many communities in Wisconsin, multiple government agencies perform the same tasks.  In Washington County, we have focused on finding ways to eliminate that duplication of services, and we continue to seek out more.  If towns, villages, and cities and doing the exact same thing we are, let's combine forces and either save the taxpayers some money or allow the municipality to use that savings to fund other things.  We reject the old axiom that many other governments have lived by, "why have one, if you can have 2 at twice the price."

Rule #6:  Seek out cooperative agreements with local municipalities that reduce duplication of services and provide a net savings to the taxpayer.

Borrowing Money

Many local governments, when they borrow money, use it as an opportunity to raise taxes.  Sometimes, governments fund recurring expenses through borrowed money (which is one-time money).  Washington County has adopted a different approach.  First, when possible, we plan for major expenses and save up for them.  Second, when we do borrow money, we attempt to pay for that out of our existing operational budget.  This fits our "live within our means" approach to government.

Rule #7:  Do not ever borrow money to pay for recurring expenses.

Rule #8:  Work diligently to fund any borrowing from within the current budget.  Raising taxes to fund borrowing should be a last resort.