Update: The Miller Park Sales Tax---Fitzgerald & the Senate Have Ended It

When I was campaigning in the spring of 2016 and 2018, I heard time and time again how frustrated people were that we still had the Miller Park sales tax.  When is it going to end?  Will it really end?

This is an issue that is controlled by the state Legislature, so I had no real answer that I could give, other then "I hope the legislature does the right thing."

Hope on the Horizon
And then, in July of 2019, I came to our Monthly County Board meeting to find something unexpected.  I found a brochure laying on my desk, titled "Ending the Miller Park Sales Tax."  This brochure had a schedule for ending the tax, one that culminates on March 10, 2020 with an official end to the tax.  This sounds like great news!

A quick google search turned up a news release that the Assembly had voted, unanimously (by voice vote), to end the Miller Park sales tax.  Thank you to Representatives Rick Gundrum, Janel Brandtjen, Dan Knodl, Robert Brooks, and all of the other 95 representatives for getting this through the Assembly.  This is another example of bipartisanship at work.  Read more about what the Assembly did here: https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2019/06/21/wisconsin-assembly-sets-same-miller-park-tax.html

Stalled Due to Fitzgerald

Before the Governor can sign the bill ending the sales tax, it has to pass the Senate.  With the Assembly passing the bill unanimously in June, this seemed like an easy issue for the Senate to approve.  Unfortunately, for some inexplicable reason, Scott Fitzgerald had delayed the bill, by refusing to put it on the Senate calendar.

It Has Now Passed the Senate
The stall has ended.  Today the Senate voted 33-0 to end the Miller Park sales tax.  We are now one step closer to getting this done.  It now falls to Governor Evers to show that bipartisanship can work by signing this into law and ending this tax.  Thank you Scott Fitzgerald and Duey Stroebel for getting this done!

I Opposed County Executive Pay at $140,000

I opposed paying the incoming County Executive, whoever that will be, $140,000 per year.  At this week's County Board meeting, I made a motion to reduce that rate to $125,000 per year, and that motion fell just a few votes short of passing.


I look at what has happened, along with what will happen, and see 3 main issues:

1. Should we have a County Executive?
2. What should we pay that County Executive?
3. Who should be that County Executive?

1. Should we have a County Executive?
I have been on record numerous times, and voted twice in favor of having a County Executive.  I think this is the right thing to do.  As Americans, I think we are always best served by electing our leaders, rather than having a small group entrusted to choose our leaders for us.  That's a fundamental concept that our country's government was built on, and it is the bedrock principle of our democracy.


2. What should we pay that County Executive?
As I mentioned above, I made a motion to reduce the pay rate to $125,000.  Compared to the pay range for department heads (starting at about $112,000, midpoint around $127,000), that seemed more appropriate to me.

I have been involved in a lot of salary decisions, and in those decisions you have to start with a focus on the position, and not the individual you are seeking to hire or promote.  In this case, that means starting with the position, and not the individual who is most likely to win the election or who we might want to win the election (and I think we all understand that Josh is likely to be the front-runner in this upcomign election).  While I support Josh as County Administrator, I felt that I had to stick to my principles.  It is easy to stick to your principles when it involves saying no to someone you don't have a strong respect for, but it is much tougher when you are sating no to someone you have a strong respect for.  I have a strong respect for Josh.


3. Who should be that County Executive?
That's a decision for all of us voters to decide, and I am just one voter in the Upcoming April election.  So far, Josh Schoemann is the only declared candidate that I know of, and he has done a good job for our county.  I know that Washington County, with Josh as our County Executive, would be a well-run county.

While I don't know yet who the other candidates are, I am very favorable towards endorsing him.  I have worked with him over the last 3 1/2 years, gotten to know him well, and have seen how his approach has been effective in managing the County's resources.  Once I know who else is running, I'll finalize my decision on an endorsement.  The filing deadline is around January 3.


Closing thoughts---It is not by any means a foregone conclusion that Josh will win.  While he is most likely the front-runner, there may be other candidates out there who will bring forward a strong vision for our county.  One of the great things about a democracy is that candidates have to prove themselves to the electorates.

Bipartisanship: Evers, Gundrum, Stroebel Allocate 1.6 FTE in New Prosecutors for Washington County

While I believe that most of my neighbors know that I lean Republican, I won't shy away from giving credit when a Democrat does something good.  Governor Evers increased the allocation for funding additional Assistant District Attorneys for Washington County from the 1.0 FTE (full-time equivalent) the legislature had allocated to 1.6 FTE. 


I also commend our legislature including Representative Gundrum and Senator Stroebel for reviewing this issue and originally increasing the funding for County Prosecutors and allocating 1 FTE for Washington County. 


While there wasn't total agreement on this, there was in general bipartisan support for increasing funding, and bipartisanship worked.


A few nuts and bolts about this:

• The State of Wisconsin mandates that the County have prosecutors, specifically including a District Attorney.
• The State of Wisconsin provides funding for the District Attorney as well as Assistant District Attorneys.
• The State of Wisconsin has traditionally under-funded this department, leaving counties to either fund additional needed positions or overwork existing staff.
• The State of Wisconsin had not added any funding for any additional positions for more than 10 years.
• County case loads are growing.
• Washington County felt like we needed funding for 2 additional prosecutors (who are already on staff and currently funding by the County).
• Washington County currently gets funding for 5 positions but has 7 on staff.  Those 2 additional positions are paid for by our County.
• The Legislator reviewed staffing levels and proposed funding 1 additional position for us.
• Governor Evers had the Department of Administration study the issue further, and is giving our County 1.6 FTE, on the presumption that we could share 1 person with Ozaukee County.  I am guessing we will still fund the additional .4 FTE to keep that 7th position fully in Washington County.

This is undeniably a win for Washington County.  Now, if we can get a 5th circuit court (we currently have 4) we'll really be making progress.

Investment in County Administrative Staffing Pays Off Big

Last year, we made the decision to add a position to the administrative staff.  This cost the county $100,000 in pay & benefits per year.  If all you look at is the expense, this looks like a bad deal for Washington County.  This wasn't just an expense, this was an investment in our county, and one that has paid off big.

The promise we were given at that time was that, during the first two years, this position would pay for itself two-fold.  While the cost would be $200,000, the funding recouped from that cost would be at least $400,000.  Spending $2 to save $4 always makes sense, so I supported it, along with the majority of the board.

Ethan Hollenberger was hired into this position, and at this week's County Board meeting, we got our update on the first year's results.  Surprisingly, Ethan has far exceeded the promise we were given.  In addition to additional funding for new positions and programs, Ethan has brought in $500,000 in funding for County operations.  We made back $5 for every dollar we invested in Ethan. 

How has he done this.  Some of it comes from a deal her put together to rent county space for a field of solar panels.  The County bears no risk, while getting revenue based on the energy that is being produced.  he has also been working with various federal officials to find federal grant opportunities, including additional funding for TAD programs we currently pay for, for our drug court which Judge Mertens is implementing, and various other programs.  he also worked to get some of our roads projects funded only by state dollars, which help us avoid very expensive federal road-building requirements.

Having the right positions, and hiring the right people into those positions, is critical for any organization.  Successful organizations are not afraid to spend money on new positions when those positions make fiscal sense.

I would encourage the City of West Bend to consider this approach, and explore what opportunities a professional lobbyist could bring to help resolve their budget challenges.

Spending $1 to make $5 is always smart.  We can't just look at the expense, we have to look at the return on that investment.

Another Major Reform Accomplished for Washington County Government

Another major reform of Washington County Government was accomplished tonight.  The executive branch of our county's government will no longer be an unelected bureaucracy, accountable only to the County Board Chairman and subservient to the County Board.  Instead, we will have 3 equal branches of government, with the head of the executive branch of our government elected by "We The People," the voters of Washington County.

Tonight, I am proud to proclaim that we voted to install the position of County Executive.  No longer will County Board Supervisors quietly meet to choose a County Administrator.  No longer will discussions about the future of our county be limited to a few contested county board races, while the majority of County Board Supervisors run unopposed.  Instead, we will now have a county-wide discussion about the future vision for our county, backed by an election.

"We the People" now get to pick our leader.  While I am a County Board Supervisor, I am also one of the voters that comprise "We the People."  I am proud of our County Board and the vision we displayed tonight, along with the trust we put in "We the People."  Less power is in the hands of County Board Supervisors, and more power is back in the hands of all the voters in our County.  Despite an argument that we should listen to members of the Milwaukee County Board and "keep a good thing going," we moved our County forward.

While a few members of our community remain apprehensive about this transition, I am confident that in 20 years, we will all look back at this moment and decide that it was one of the best decisions our County Board made. 

I have seen how contested elections can create a great discussion about our government.  In December 2017 we had several local candidates running in the special election for the 58th assembly district.  In spring of 2018 we had two experienced candidates, former Supervisor Ralph Hensel and myself, running to be the County Board Supervisor for District 3.  Both of those races featured a lot of good discussions about the future direction of our county.  In the District 3 race, both Ralph and I presented ideas and accomplishments for our County.  In contrast, there are some parts of our County that have not seen a contested County Board race in more than 10 years.

The next major reform we need to look at is reducing the size of the County Board.

Too Many Supervisors, Let’s Make the County Board Smaller

Our County Board currently has 26 supervisors.  One of my campaign commitments from 2018 was that I would support reducing the size of the board, and I remain unwavering in that commitment.

During my recent trip to Washington D.C. for the White House conference, I met with several County Board Supervisors and County Commissioners from other counties and states.  One of them had a unique perspective.  She was a Commissioner in Minnesota, and her county had only 5 Commissioners (Supervisors) on its board.  She was also serving on several board within the County, including the library board and the agricultural board, and those boards all had 20-25 members.  She was frustrated with how little those boards got accomplished, and how much the smaller County Board could get accomplished.

This unique perspective confirms, at least in my view, that I am right in my belief that we need to reduce the size of the board.  The strong support I have received from many of my neighbors in district 3 also confirms my belief.

So the next questions are, how much smaller should the board be, and how quickly should it be reduced?

County Board Size
For a County our size, I could see the board being as small as 13-14 supervisors.  I think a smaller board like that could be very effective, while still ensuring adequate representation of the constituents.

Speed for Reducing the County Board
In May of 2018, the idea I proposed to my neighbors in District 3 was to do a series of incremental reductions, starting after the 2020 census.  My idea was to reduce to around 21-22 after the 2020 census, reduce again around 2026, and make a final reduction after the 2030 census.  I know, from previous instances in which this topic came up, that some supervisors favor reducing the board on a more drastic timeframe.  I also know that some supervisors opposing reducing the board.

Ultimately, some compromise is going to need to happen, but I plan to vote for reducing the board.  We simply don't need to have so many supervisors, 26 is far too many.


.

White House Conference Recap

As a reminder, I bore the full cost for attending this conference.  The cost to taxpayers was $0.

I wanted to post a recap on my visit to the White House, where I represented Washington County at a conference held by the White House.  They held the conference in the Eisenhower Executive Building, which is on the White House property, next to the West Wing.

The highlight of the event was hearing from our Vice President, Mike Pence, who is an amazing speaker.  We also heard from Scott Turner, a former NFL player who now leads the President's efforts to revitalize opportunity zones.

A few key themes I took away

• New levels of engagement with local communities.  Previous White Houses have not engaged local leaders in a capacity that is anywhere close to the engagement of this White House.  Not only is the office of Intergovernmental affairs very actively engaging with local leaders, but they have embedded staff with each federal department so that we have direct contacts on any questions we may have.  More importantly, we have been given the full list of those people.  In other words, we don't have a barrier with knowing who to ask, which is often a large barrier in dealing with the federal government.  I hope future White House Administrations (both Democrats and Republicans) will continue these effective inter-governmental practices.
• Commitment to 2-way communication.  This White House is committed not just to talking to local governments, but also to hearing from local governments.  Half the time at this conference was spent letting us ask them questions that we had.
• Support USMCA.  The only thing the White House is asking from us is our support in engaging congress to pass the replacement for NAFTA, called the USMCA.  For Washington County, we have quite a few dairy farmers who will benefit from the ratification of this agreement.

The topics they discussed with us included:

• Small Business Support
• Agricultural Support
• Disaster Recovery and Resilience
• Community Revitalization

Meeting Other Elected Leaders

I met several other County Board Supervisors & County Commissioners, and had some great discussions.  The most interesting was with a Lady from a rural County in Minnesota.  Her County Board has only 5 Commissioners.  She also serves on several boards, including a Library Board and Agricultural Board, that have more than 20 members.  She saw the smaller board size as more effective in getting things done, and is trying to reduce the size of the other boards she is on.  Given our current discussions on County Board Size, I thought this was a very informative discussion.

Eisenhower Executive Building

Myself and William Crozer, Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director

Attendees with our Vice President

Vice President Mike Pence

Fellow Washington County Supervisor John Bulawa, who

also represented our County at the conference

The 10 County Board Supervisors from Wisconsin who attended the conference

Here is my original post about the White House Conference, from when I was first invited: http://district3bossert.blogspot.com/2019/07/white-house-bound.html.

#stateleadershipdays