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.