Tonight's Constitutional Resolution

Tonight our County Board will vote on Resolution 17, supporting the Constitution.  Some have called it a "sanctuary" resolution, and I think that is a matter that is up for interpretation.  I will be voting in favor of this resolution.


A lot of controversy has been stirred up, based on the issue of whether or not our County would use this resolution as the basis to resist a state or federal mandate that everyone wear masks.  While we are not directly voting on the issue of mask mandates, we are voting on a commitment to protecting our rights, which could include opposing a mask mandate.


I very strongly believe that the wearing of masks is a personal choice.  If someone feels vulnerable, and wants to wear a mask to protect themselves, that is their choice and I will support it.  If someone does not want to wear a mask, or has health conditions that make it less viable to wear a mask, I support them choosing to refrain from wearing a mask.  I view that as being the freedom and responsibility that comes with being an American.


A government's role right now should be to provide advice while supporting the rights of everyone to make their own personal decisions.  A government should not be imposing mandates that infringe upon personal our personal liberties.


I have seen some concerning things from our state government over the last 4 months, some of which seem to rise to the level of constitutional overreaches.  Times of crisis are when we need to be the most vigilant about protecting our constitutional rights, because that is when it is easiest for government to rationalize and justify infringements on our rights.  Once we give up a right, it is difficult to get back.

UPDATE---The resolution passed unanimously.

Article on Samaritan from West Bend Daily News

About 4 weeks ago I had a good conversation with Brianna from the Daily News about Samaritan Campus.  Last Saturday she wrote up an article about our conversation for the Newspaper.


I have highlighted in yellow a correct, where the newspaper accidentally misquoted me.  The newspaper article stated that I wanted to maximize costs, which is absurd.  Ironically, in the next sentence I talk about being cost effective.  I have corrected that phrase to what I think I must have said (based on my memory 4 weeks later of the conversation).




WEST BEND - The coronavirus may be the top issue on people’s minds now, but there are other challenges facing the county. Senior care is one of these challenges, including the government’s role in helping aged residents who cannot afford to pay out of pocket but require medical assistance.

As the former human resources director for a few assisted living facilities, Washington County Board District 3 Supervisor Chris Bossert has some knowledge of the industry and understands the challenges.

At the core is funding, with Samaritan Health Center and others accepting Medicaid exemplifying the tough decision. Medicare does not cover longterm care services, and in Wisconsin, the Medicaid waiver model covers some services but not room and board. Many senior care businesses have to decide between helping those in greatest need at a financial loss or turning those away to stay profitable.

For now, Samaritan’s current cost model is able to afford Medicaid residents, although the government reimbursement is low. By accepting Medicare, the facility, in this case Samaritan, receives a fraction of the payment from the state and has to look elsewhere to recoup the rest.

“It partly involves using the independent and assisted living projects’ proceeds that are beyond operating costs to help supplement the skilled nursing facility operations,” Bossert said. “We need to look at ways to maximize reimbursements and be able to get more reimbursement from Medicare to help out, maybe looking at staffing ratios and making sure we have correct proportions that are cost-effective.”

More of a bubble

Long-term funding will be difficult if the present health care shortage continues without any increase in financial assistance from the state or federal government. And neither are committing to greater contributions, Bossert said.

“We’re in a period of peak employment, so competing for skilled, quality staff is challenging, and the cost of staffing is going up at a far quicker pace than the Medicare reimbursements are,” he said.

Many look at the baby boomers and see a fast approaching influx of seniors needing care. This group will be larger than in the recent past and will require adjustments. But Bossert sees it not as a sharp incline, but a wave.

“Looking at 30 years from now, after the baby boomer bubble passes, the need will decrease,” he said, “so if we build for the short term and don’t look at the long term, in 30 or 40 years we might have a half-empty facility.”

Working with consultants is key, Bossert said, to make sure both short and long term needs are considered.

Independent review of Samaritan

An independent review of Samaritan is underway to help the County Board determine if an expansion or reduction is needed, and until this information is presented, Bossert said he is keeping an open mind. He is encouraging residents to share their thoughts on the matter, and many have expressed an interest in supporting Samaritan.

“Being in county government, there is an expectation we will provide a little bit of a safety net for those who have exhausted their 401K, or didn’t work for an employer who provided a guaranteed pension,” he said. “For some people, when money runs out and their health starts to decline and they need a higher level of care, there is an expectation the government won’t just tell them they’re on their own.”

There is a limit to this, he said; it must be viable and able to fit within a balanced budget.

“We have to do this in a way that’s fiscally prudent to the taxpayers,” Bossert said. “Ideally the amount of taxpayer money you want to waste is zero dollars; it should be a meaningful investment.”

But to keep Samaritan open, health and safety needs are pressing. There are problems with the air conditioning, requiring a temporary unit on site in summer to ensure safe climate control. The elderly are more sensitive to climate issues, Bossert said, and this can be potentially life-threatening. So if the 53-year-old facility is not rebuilt, it needs a new air system and the original generator must be replaced.

“In terms of construction, it needs to significantly improve quality of care, or I’d lean toward a different plan that sticks to the essential issues,” he said.

County Sales Tax---Thieves Fighting Over the Loot?

Right now, our County Executive race is focusing on a discussion about the Sales Tax.  Adam Gitter is proposing that the County share sales tax revenue with municipalities.  His hope is that it will provide extra revenue to fund road repairs.  Josh Schoemann wants to maintain the status quo, and raises legitimate concerns about how Gitter's proposal would impact County Finances.

To be blunt, if you believe that excessive taxation is theft (a belief I have) then the whole issue can be compared to two thieves arguing over how they will share the loot (The COunty and Municipalities begin the thieves in this analogy).

Long before I was elected to the County Board, and long before Josh Schoemann was appointed as County Administrator, the County Board made the decision to implement a "temporary" sales tax.  A few years later, still long before Schoemann came to the county and still long before my election, the decision was made to start using the sales tax to fund routine operations.

In January of 2017, after being on the board for only 9 months, I was confronted with a vote about renewing the sales tax.  There was no plan on how we could get rid of it, just a default assumption that we had to renew it.  In short, County financing was dependent upon continuing the sales tax.  To be blunt, it seemed like we were trapped in a situation of renewing the tax or destroying county operations.

While I would love to end the County sales tax, it doesn't seem realistic.  In my 2018 reelection campaign, I promised to push for plans for how we might end the sales tax.  This is the one promise I have made that I have made no progress on.  In a private discussion with one county official, the picture looked bleak.  Massive cuts to the sheriff's department, massive delays in repairing county highways, and massive cuts to County Administration.

What does seem realistic is to fight any effort to implement new taxes.  There was talk in 2017 about a wheel tax, and I made my opposition to that idea known.  I voted no on the POWTS fee (tax) every time it came up for a vote.

Regarding the sales tax, the lawsuit against Brown County may settle the issue.  The Wisconsin Institute of law and Liberty is suing.  The basis of their suit---Wisconsin law states that sales taxes cannot as an additional revenue source to fund new spending, but instead must be used entirely for property tax relief.  If the suit is successful, the sales tax sharing scheme can't fund more road repairs.

In the end though, the whole sales tax discussion really does look like a bunch of thieves fighting over the loot.

Bossert: Yet Another Promise Being Kept

When I ran for re-election in 2018, one of my promises was to support reducing the size of the County Board.  My hope was for a graduated plan, starting with a reduction to around 21 for the 2022 election.  That promise looks like it will be kept, and earlier than anticipated, as the County Board formed a structure advisory committee that has now recommended a reduction to 21.  Over the next month or two, the proposal should come before the full board for consideration, and I will support it.

To see that promise, review my original statement from march of 2018 here:  Promise to Reduce County Board Size

Some members of the community, primarily from the towns, are worried that the redistributing will be done in a way that will diminish the influence of Supervisors from the town.  I don’t think that will happen.  There are rules on how districts get set up, and those rules in general favor structuring districts with similar groups together.  With that in mind, it is likely that districts that encompass the City of West Bend would not have large chunks of township lumped in with them.  Instead, the City of West Bend would likely go from 6 Supervisors to 5 (or possibly even 4).


To be frank, I will be very skeptical of any redistributing plan that would retaining 6 Supervisors for West Bend.  For those who live in the towns, that should be the yardstick by which you measure the fairness of the 2022 redistricting proposals.  If the County Board goes down to 21, but West Bend keeps 6 Supervisory districts, then it is time to be skeptical.  If instead West Bend goes to 4 or 5 Supervisory districts, then the plan is probably pretty fair.

While we can vote to reduce the number of Supervisors to 21 in the next few months, it cannot take effect until after the 2020 census is complete.  Likewise, the redistricting cannot occur until after the 2020 census.  Redistricting will happen in 2021, and be effective for the 2022 elections.

United Way---Contibuting 1 Month of my County Board Salary for 4th Year

For the 4th consecutive year, I am donating at least one month of my County Board salary to the United Way.  My donation this year will be split between organizations like Friends Inc, the Heroin Task Force, Elevate, and Family Promise.  As an elected official, it is part of my role to be a leader in charitable giving, and this is a way I can demonstrate that leadership.

Why We Have Park Entrance Fees

There has been a lot of discussion over the last 2 years about park fees, and why we have them.  Some wrongly assume that this is just a money grab by the County.

This is an important discussion to have.  The simple answer to why we have park fees is, park fees enable us to fund our parks in a sustainable way.  I am not a big fan of having park fees, but understanding how they protect our parks is critical.

My Background in Valuing Parks
To understand why I value parks, you need to look at my childhood, and a couple of key experiences.

1. I grew up in Greendale, a community that was designed by Eleanor Roosevelt.  When it was designed, she embedded a system of parks into the very fabric of the community.  She designed it to be a small rural community, with four small housing sections.  Each section was divided from the others by a small parkway, most with walking paths, and the entire original village was surrounded by a ring of trees.  As the village grew, the County embedded several parks into the growing community, including the Root River Parkway, Scout Lake, the Wehr Nature Center, Whitnall Park, and the Boerner Botanical Gardens.  Those parks were an essential part of my childhood.  Scout Lake was within walking distance of my home, and I often explored the park during summer vacation.

2. I also grew up with family trips to Muskego Park every year.  We would go once or twice a year.  Admittedly, I am going from memory (and my memory as a child) but I recall us buying a daily pass each time we went.  Muskego Park is part of the Waukesha County Park System, which has for decades had park entrance fees.  Those park fees enable them to sustain and grow their parks.  Muskego Park had a great beach with lifeguards, a beach that would be packed on hot summer weekends (with people who all paid the park fee).  It also had camping, hiking and horse trails, and various picnic areas.  Muskego Park was and still is a destination in Waukesha County, as are many of the county's other parks. 

How Do We Fund Our Parks?

Right now, we really have 2 ways to fund our parks.

1. Tax levy
2. Park Fees

Funding our parks through the tax levy is becoming inherently risky.  Each year we are cutting more than a million dollars from our budget.  Parks are a non-mandated service, meaning we don't have to have parks (though I believe we should have parks).  Mandated services are increasingly eating up more and more of our budget.  Funding the parks through the tax levy makes it easy for the parks to be cut entirely from the budget, and I don't want that.  Parks are essential to a thriving community.

Funding the parks through entrance fees is a proven model for ensuring that we continue to have parks.  It does require us to invest in our parks with amenities that people are willing to pay for.  So far, we have put in a wedding barn at Glacier Hills, a dog park at Homestead Hollow, and a new disc golf course at Sandy Knoll.  The dog park and wedding barn have proven to be particularly well-utilized.  We are currently looking at adding another wedding barn and dog park, and long term would like to add a campground and other high-demand amenities to our park system.  Following this model, funding for our parks will never be in doubt.

Milwaukee has been discussing how to fund their parks, and whether or not to sell off major parks.  https://www.cbs58.com/news/group-posts-for-sale-signs-posted-in-milwaukee-county-parks.  While we have sold off some land that had been designated for future parks, we want to protect our priority parks.  Park fees enable us to do that.

The reality is, good parks are worth paying for, and park fees ensure the future of our parks.  While park fees are not popular, while I wish we didn't need them, and while they are new in Washington County, preserving our parks is critical.  I am open to any other alternatives for funding our parks, but I understand the unsustainability and danger that comes with relying on the tax levy.

Saying NO to a $10 Million Tax Hike

Refused to raise the tax levy

In August of 2018 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.