I Oppose Legalizing Marijuana

A few Counties have put advisory referendum on their county ballots.  The referendums are seeking support for asking the state to legalize marijuana.

Today, as I left a restaurant after eating dinner, I found a card on my windshield advocating for the legalization of marijuana.  Similar cards had been placed on all the cars in the parking lot.

I absolutely oppose legalizing marijuana, and would oppose any ballot initiative related to the legalization of marijuana.  I know this is an issue in which many of my Republican and Democrat neighbors will agree with me, and a few of my Republican and Democrat neighbors will disagree.

Rationalization is the strongest human drive.  Marijuana users want to rationalize their favorite vice as non-addictive and non-harmful.  Research does show that marijuana has harmful health effects, and is addictive.

Moreover, a recent trend that has emerged is extremely alarming.  Drug dealers, seeing marijuana as a low profit product, are finding ways to turn it into a high profit product.  Lacing marijuana with heroin or fentanyl is one method they have employed, with the hopes of turning marijuana addicts into heroin addicts.  Creating artificial marijuana, often laced with chemicals like rat poison, is another emerging method to increase the profitability of marijuana sales.

I will also oppose medical marijuana, which is the smoking of marijuana for allegedly medical reasons.

What will I support:
I will support research into medications (in pill form) that provide no recreational value, have no addictive qualities, and help treat diseases.  There is some promising research related to pills that treat epilepsy, that use a part of the marijuana plant in a non-recreational form.  If I had a kid who had epilepsy, and there was a pill that would help control it, I'd want him to have that pill (assuming it had no addictive properties).  So I support research into learning more about these potential medications, including potential benefits and side effects, along with addictive qualities.

Shared Services Work, Our Public Health Department Continues to Earn Recognition

Today our County announced that our combined Ozaukee County & Washington County Health Department achieved level III designation.  This is a higher designation than either county's department had ever achieved on their own, and a recognition of the outstanding work our combined health department is doing.  It is also proof that we can combine government services to be both more effective and efficient while saving costs.  Consolidation if done correctly does not mean a diminishment of services, it means better service.

There are a lot more opportunities for our County government to consolidate services with local governments and nearby counties, and I will continue to push for us to explore those opportunities.  While the health department merger happened shortly before I was originally elected, I immediately recognized the benefits of this opportunity and fully supported it.

Read more about this news here: http://www.co.washington.wi.us/inner.iml?mdl=news.mdl&ID=252

School Referendum (West Bend School Board)

While the County Board has no jurisdiction over the West Bend School Board, I am a West Bend taxpayer.  I thought Owen Robinson's analysis of the school board's proposed $50 million referendum to increase taxes was spot on, especially when contrasted with the County's decision to borrow $10 million without raising the tax levy.  To add to that contrast, Washington County's total debt before borrowing $10 million was only $8 million, compared to the $130 million in debt the West Bend School Board currently has.


Here is Owen's article: https://www.bootsandsabers.com/2018/08/21/west-bend-referendum-fight-is-not-over/


The key takeaway is summed up by Owen best:

"It has been proven time and time again that once the basic safety and space needs for school buildings are met, spending more on buildings does not result in better education."

This Week's County Board Meeting.

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 4^th 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.

Upcoming Primary Election (My Thoughts)

For the upcoming primary election, I think we all know that we can only vote in the primary for 1 party (but a reminder doesn’t hurt).  I also think all my neighbors know that I’ll be voting in the Republican primary.  I thought I would quickly highlight a few contested races, and how I intend to vote, as some of these races have candidates who are somewhat obscure.  If you are not sure who you are voting for in one of these races, you are welcome to follow my lead.

Secretary of State---While the job itself is powerless and unneeded, somebody is going to occupy the job.  I recommend voting for Jay Schroeder, as he seems to be the serious candidate in this race.  A few years ago Jay ran for Assembly against an incumbent in his district (the 55^th), and earned 2,487 votes (35%).

We all remember his opponent, Spencer Zimmerman, who moved up here from Janesville for a month to run for Assembly after the death of Bob Ganon.  He ultimately garnered a total of 37 votes out of 3,217 cast.  As soon as he lost, he was gone, only to resurface a few months later to run in the 42nd Assembly District.  There he again came in last in a Republican primary, though he garnered 81 votes there.  His past history includes never winning a contested race despite running in various races in Wisconsin and Nebraska.  You can see it for yourself in my source material here (link here).  I don’t regard him as a serious candidate.

Treasurer---With 2 good candidates here, I lean towards Travis Hartwig.  This is another powerless job that should be eliminated, but somebody is going to occupy the job.  Hartwig has a stronger background in finances, though both candidates seem like good people.

Senate---I am wholeheartedly endorsing Leah Vukmir, as she is so much more experienced than Kevin Nicholson.  I began endorsing her very early, in January or February of this year.  Leah was elected to the Assembly in 2002, to replace Scott Walker.  In 2010 she defeated an incumbent Democrat to earn a seat in the Wisconsin Senate.  Kevin is a good guy, and I am glad he became a Republican, but U.S. Senator is too big of a post to start your political career in, with rare exception.

Governor---Scott Walker

Congress---Jim Sensenbrenner

Sheriff---This is the toughest pick for me, as both of the individuals running are excellent.  It is for that reason that I have waited so long before deciding who I will vote for.  Jason Guslick has a willingness to speak very frankly about the issues we face, which I appreciate and relate to, and which I believe we often need.  He is strong on 2^nd amendment issues and tough on crime.  Marty has the respect of a lot of people who I trust, including several very conservative County Board Supervisors who have served on the Public Safety Committee and worked directly with Marty.  While I will be thrilled to support whoever is elected, and love having 2 great choices for this important office, in 2 weeks I’ll be casting my vote for Marty Shulties.

Big Borrowing Decision

From a fiscally responsible viewpoint, borrowing is something we need to be cautious about, but something we may sometimes need to do.  In our personal lives, most of us would not own a house or car because without borrowing money.  On the other hand, a minimum wage worker should not be borrowing money for a $300,000 house and a Cadillac Escalade while owing $30,000 in credit card debt and $60,000 in student loan debt.

Key point---There is a place for responsible borrowing, but great care is needed to ensure that we are not putting ourselves in a bad financial situation.

The County Board is being asked to consider borrowing $10 million dollars to fund road improvements, and another $12 million in 2023.  This represents almost 20% of our annual budget, so this is a big decision.

I was at this week's Executive Board meeting, where the resolution to pursue this borrowing was passed.  The resolution supporting the borrowing proposal will come before the County Board in August.  Some of the key things about this borrow:

• We will decline to increase the tax levy.  With levy limits, borrowing money is an exception that allows a government agency to increase the tax levy.  We will not be electing to do this.  Instead, we will repay the loan using existing tax revenue.
• The bonds are each 10 year issues, with the 2018 bond around 2.68% interest and the 2023 bond estimated at around 3.87%.
• Repaying the bonds back early would be an option after 7 years.
• The current County debt level is extremely low.  At last check, we had the 2nd lowest debt per capita of any county in Wisconsin.
• What future borrowing would we anticipate after 2023?
• If we chose to do a "pay as you go" approach, it would require deferring some road maintenance until around 2030, and there would be additional costs associated with that.  Besides the increases in prices for labor and supplies, there would also be additional routine maintenance for the years between 2023 and 2030.  I have asked for some information on what those additional costs might reasonably be estimated to be.  Whether or not it exceeds the $4.5 million in interest payments will be a key consideration for me.
• The Executive Board rejected the idea of a referendum for a 1-year tax increase to cover the maintenance costs.  That 1 year increase, using "back of the napkin math," might cost taxpayers an additional $10 for every $100 on their tax bill.  So for example, my tax bill is about $2,600 so this would be an extra $260 on my tax bill for 2019, with taxes returning to 2018 levels for 2020.  As I mentioned, the executive committee rejected this approach.

I am going to continue to review the information on this very closely as I consider whether or not this is a good move for the county.  In the meantime, I also welcome feedback from any of my neighbors in District 3.

Productive Night for the County Board

Tonight was a very productive night for the County Board.  Some of the things we got done:

Meeting Per Diem Pay---My campaign promise was to reintroduce a proposed ordinance to end per diem pay for meetings.  That proposed ordinance came up tonight.  In order to pass, it would need a minimum of 18 votes (2/3rds of all Supervisors).  Based on how people voted on this issue when it came up before, as well as a recent vote on this issue, it looked like it would be a close vote.  On top of that, 2 supervisors were absent, which reduced the likelihood of getting the necessary 18 votes.  After assessing that, I didn't think the votes were there to get this done.

When the issue came up, Supervisor Deiss quickly offered a compromise, which Supervisor Schleif gave a quick 2nd to.  The compromise moved per diem payments to a heavily reduced flat rate of $20 per meeting.  Besides saving the County money, this also removes a financial incentive to unnecessarily prolong meetings (the system we just voted out increased per diems if meetings ran longer, which hypothetically could be an incentive to stretch out meetings).

While my preference would be to eliminate per diem pay altogether, I recognize the value of getting 80% of what I want through compromise.  This value is even greater when the alternative is seeing an issue fail for a 2nd time.  We still have Obamacare because we couldn't get 52 Republican Senators to compromise, I wasn't going to repeat that mistake on this issue.  I gave my support to this compromise, and got 80% of what I wanted.

By a vote of 21-3, the amended ordinance passed.  This is undeniably significant progress on this issue.

I thank every County Board Supervisor for working together on this issue, to get it done, and I especially thank Supervisors Deiss and Schleif for proposing the compromise.

One additional note:  The Washington County Daily News referred to this reduction as a "change in compensation."  While a reduction is a type of change, so that technically is true, it doesn't tell the whole story.  The fact that this is a reduction in pay is an important detail, and I am disappointed that the paper didn't highlight that.  Had we voted to increase our pay (as if we would ever do that), I am certain they would have used the word "increase."   Why hide the fact that we did something so good?

Levy Limits
A proposed resolution would support ending levy limits.  While I think the levy limits may be overly harsh for counties like ours, who would still be fiscally responsible and reduce taxes without levy limits, I can't support abolishing levy limits statewide.  I was an absolute no vote.

Executive committee had originally voted this down unanimously (0-7), but wanted every Supervisor to have a chance to voice their opinion.  In the end, this resolution failed a second time, with 6 yes votes and 18 no votes.

I thank every County Board Supervisor who joined me in opposing ann effort to end levy limits state-wide.

Milwaukee's Trolley
SEWRPC presented their annual report tonight.  It included mention of the VISION 2050 plan, which included a regional tax for several rail-based projects for Milwaukee, including their trolley.  I had led the effort to withhold out endorsement of any regional tax or rail-based passenger transportation (like the trolley).  SEWRPC's proposal made no mention of that, instead referencing our approval of the plan.

I specifically queried the SEWRPC representative about that, and was assured on the record that Milwaukee fully understands that we have zero interest in any regional tax to fund their rail projects.

Darkstore Resolution
By a vote of 23-1, we passed an ordinance affirming our continued support of efforts to end the dark-store tax loophole, which allows national retailers to skirt their tax obligation by shifting their burden onto small businesses and homeowners.

I thank every County Board Supervisor for working together in support of this issue.