More Shared Services

When you read today's Washington County Daily News, you'll see that the County is looking to do more partnerships with neighboring Counties.  This could be similar to the partnership we formed with Ozaukee County where we merged our Public Health Departments.  It could also be more extreme, to the level of merging county government with another county (Ozaukee makes a lot of sense here).  The goal is to maintain a fiscally sustainable financial model for County government.

For me, the only thing that is off the table is partnering with Milwaukee County.  That is a non-starter for me, and I suspect that many other Supervisors share this sentiment.  Milwaukee only looks to form partnerships for the purpose of dumping their out-of-control costs on other communities.

Our County Administrator is inviting several other Counties to open a dialogue with him on potential shared services arrangements.  The Counties he sent this invitation to include Ozaukee, Waukesha, Fond Du Lac, and Dodge. 
Since this is all in the very preliminary stages, the timetable for any changes in fluid, and it would probably be at least a few years before any changes would be implemented.

Why is our fiscal situation unsustainable?
The simple answer is tax levy limits. 

A normal organization, any organization, experiences an increase in costs of about 2% each year.  For our County, this cost takes the form of increased costs for purchasing sheriff's patrol vehicles, pay raises for employees, increases to costs in service agreements, etc..  Since our County's budget is $125 million dollar, this equated to about $2.5 million in new expenses each year.

On the revenue side, levy limits only allow us to raise the tax levy based on the net new construction in the community (excluding TIF districts).  This typically works out to about $350,000 per year.  Any other increases in tax evaluations go back to county property owners, people like you and me.

The difference between our increase in revenue (about $350,000) and our increase in expenses (about $2,500,000) is a gap of about $2 million in unfunded new expenses each year.  So far, we have utilized various cost-cutting processes to make up that gap, and we know we can keep doing that for a few years.  I was just assigned to a committee that is geared entirely towards moving organizations like the History Center, EDWC, AIS, and the visitor's bureau off of the tax levy.  In a few years, we will reach the point where there is nothing we can cut without severely impacting the core services we provide. 

What's the alternative? 
The alternative is, in my view, a bad one.

We could follow Illinois' example, fund the excess out of our reserves, and then when our reserve funds are exhausted we could borrow lots of money.  Ultimately, we would end up in the same situation Illinois is in now, broke and with bills we can't pay.  I believe in fiscal responsibility, so I could not support recklessness of this sort.

New Committee Assignment

While I was disappointed with the outcome of yesterday's meeting in relation to ordinance 13, I am excited to report that I have been assigned to a new ad-hoc committee.  The committee is the Quasi-Governmental Review Advisory Committee.  The purpose of the committee, as determined by the Executive Board, is:

The purpose of this advisory committee is to review the level of county funding for quasi-governmental entities such as: A.I.S., E.D.W.C., History Center, and Washington County Convention & Visitors Bureau. The committee’s objective is to work together with members from each entity and develop an effective financial sustainability plan that will help them become independent of property tax levy. A recommendation will be forwarded to the Executive Committee for review before sending to the full county board.

Supervisor Pay & Per Diem

You may have read in Saturday's newspaper that we are looking to trim down our pay a bit.  I had noticed that eliminating Per Diem was on the agenda for last Thursday's Executive Committee meeting.  Supervisor McCune also threw in an amendment to reduce supervisor pay by $600 per year (currently we are paid $6,600 per year).  I support both of these and commend Supervisor McCune for addressing Supervisor pay.


Per Diem pay, for our County government, is extra pay Supervisors receive if they attend more than 30 meetings in a calendar year.  In my view, if you are serving as a County Board Supervisor, and you are engaged with trying to serve the community, you shouldn't be concerned with receiving extra pay for attending a lot of meetings. 


It is conceivable that I might be eligible for per diem pay for 2017, due to my appointment to the Meeting Times Advisory Committee, along with a potential upcoming appointment to another committee.  I would turn down per diem pay if I became eligible.  I didn't run for this position with the goal of milking extra pay from the taxpayers.  Some other areas where I have exemplified the commitment to service rather than self-service include:

• I have never claimed mileage during my time as County Board Supervisor.  This includes a seminar in Green Bay where a carpooling option was available, but due to a schedule conflict I had to commute separately, consequently I did request mileage.
• I donate through direct payroll deduction 1 month of my County Board salary to the United Way, specifically targeting worthy organizations who partner with our County Government in some fashion (this is done through monthly deductions that equal 1 month of my salary.
• I will be purchasing a Parks sticker next year to support our very important park system.

For Supervisor pay, I know that City Alderman and School Board members receive significantly less than County Board Supervisors do.  It is quite probable that we are overpaid, and making a reduction of $600 per year in our pay rate is a healthy step towards changing that.  I think this is especially important when we are making tough financial decisions including the elimination of funding to worthwhile organizations like Friends of Abused Families, Big Brothers & Big Sisters, and Boys & Girls Club, and when we are asking our neighbors to buy annual park stickers to fund and support our wonderful park system,

Today's Board Meeting (Night Meetings, Parks, and the Homeless Shelter)

Today was an action-packed meeting.  Here are some highlights.

Night Meetings---This passed by a vote of 16-9.  The resolution will take effect in May of 2018, when the new board takes office.  One Supervisor, Supervisor Schleif, expressed concern about his own schedule conflict with the new time.  I enjoy working with Supervisor Schlief and hope that he can find away to still serve on the County Board.

I, along with fellow committee members Supervisors Kelling, Otten, and Heidtke, faced an unfair and vindictive accusation from Supervisor Merten, who is still bitter that I held her daughter (County Treasurer Jane Merten) accountable for several severe acts of negligence.  The most recent of these was the mishandling of 4 tax-deed properties where the mortgage-holder was never notified of the tax delinquency.  Supervisor Marilyn Merten's accusation was that we deliberately and strategically tried to push Supervisors out of office by choosing the date and time we did.  A review of the agenda packet for our last meeting will show that we chose the evening with the fewest conflicts.  I will continue to deflect these barbs and as well I will continue to hold County Treasurer Jane Merten accountable for any future acts of gross negligence she engages in.

Homeless Shelter---This was passed, by a vote of 22-3, allowing the homeless shelter to be built on County Land.  The only cost to the County is $10,000 in landscaping, which is very small 1-time cost.  I like the new design of the building, and look forward to seeing Family Promise break ground.

County Parks---This was the tough issue of the day, one we spent almost 2 hours on.  We as a board were considering (and ultimately approved) a conceptual plan for making our parks self-sufficient.  A major component of that plan involves user fees for people who use the park.  Much like the $20 user fee I pay every year so that I can take my dog to Rolf's park, this plan would require park-goers to buy a daily or yearly pass. 

Being one of the newer Supervisors, I petitioned the Supervisors who opposed this plan to show an alternative plan for preserving our parks.  None of the Supervisors who objected to the user fee presented any alternative.  Since I want to preserve our park system, and since there was no other plan presented that would do that, I voted for this plan.

Other key points to the plan:

1. A few small parks and undeveloped properties were classified as low priority, and will be sold off.
2. Other revenue options including a beer garden and corporate sponsorship are being looked at.
3. The major parks in our park system will all be maintained or even improved upon through this plan.

Night Meetings May Again Be On The Horizon

The County Board is forming an advisory committee to look again at night meetings.  As you might recall, I made a motion from the floor last spring to change the meeting times from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and my motion fell just 2 votes short. 

This time, a committee composed of Supervisor Kelling, Supervisor Otten, Supervisor Heidtke, County Clerk Ashley Reichert, and myself will review this issue.  My hope is that we can work as a team to put forward a proposal that will win even stronger board support and ultimately be successful in changing our meeting times to increase public accessibility. 

I firmly believe that it is right and best to hold meetings when the broadest spectrum of the community can attend, rather than holding meetings at times when only a smaller portion of the community can attend without taking time off from work.  With the reliever route, I spoke with several concerned citizens who wanted their voice heard, but couldn't make it to the morning meetings due to work conflicts.

Our first meeting is April 10, at 7:00 a.m.  The irony of meeting at 7 in the morning to talk about night meetings is not lost on me.

I Oppose a Potential $253 per Year Property Tax Increase

Now that I have your attention, let me tell you what is going on.  National retailers like Walgreens, Shop-Ko, and Menards are all trying to skimp on paying their property taxes, by shifting part of their property tax bill to us.  They are using a legal theory called the Darkstore theory, which bases the property value of profitable stores on the value of vacant stores.

The League of Wisconsin Municipalities estimates that if every national retailer in West Bend is successful in adopting this strategy, the average property tax bill for homeowners like us in West Bend will go up $253.89 per year.

Walgreens has already succeeded in pushing $160,000 in property taxes onto us.  Their 2 West Bend stores were valued at $7.5 million and $6.8 million, but they have succeeded in getting those values reduced to $2.5 million.

Luckily, help is on the way.  County Board Resolution 64, which I proposed, works to support State Legislators from our area, like Senator Duey Stroebel, who are seeking to end the Darkstore Theory.  It mirrors a similar resolution put forward by West Bend Alderman Chris Jenkins.

Releiver Route Updated Schedule

In my post on January 22, I had posted the schedule that was published in the agenda packet for the January 14th Joint meeting of the Executive and Public Works Committtees.  That schedule has been changed.

The change of the 2050 plan to Route 11 ill now be voted on at the February Joint meeting of the Executive and Public Works committees.  This meeting will occur on February 7th, and if the changedis passed, it will g to the full County Board on February 14th.

Right now, looking at the old route and comparng it to Route 11, Route 11 is a more effective route so it makes sense to change the plan.  The old route gets off at Highway K, just like the new route, but works its way towards Arther Road and is much less efficient.

Having this plan in place will also enable us to quickly submit a proposal for federal grant money if any new federal funding for road-building, similar to President Obama's 2008 stimulus plan, becomes available.  In a discusson with the County Administraor, he mentioned that if we had pursued this in 2008, the Federal Government would probably have covered 80% of the construction costs.  We know that President Trump is considering enacting a similar stimulus plan.  While I am generally against stimulus spending, as it is our money that it being taxed and is equivalent to park barrel spending, if Trump is going to do it we should at least be ready to try to get our fair share.  If we can turn a $25 million dollar project into a $5 million dollar project, that is worth pursuing (setting aside the issue of whether we should be build the reliever route or not).

For these reasons, changing the route is something that makes sense to support, and it might be fiscally irresponsible to not keep this option open.  I do want to investigate the intersection of Highway K and 175 before finalizing my decision on how I will vote on this.

Approving this plan would not mean that we start building, it just means that the official plan would be updated from the route approved more than a decade ago.  It also would not mean that I will support the reliever route when it comes before the Board.