Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...

Tag: Washington County

Selling Samaritan

by | 0909, 23 Apr 2323 | | 1 Comment

Here is my full column that ran in the Washington County Daily News last week:

At the end of a very long and thoughtful process, the Washington County Board has voted to try to sell the Samaritan Campus to a private buyer. They believe that such a sale is the best solution for the residents and the taxpayers. It was not an easy choice.

 

Samaritan is Washington County’s long-term care facility for elderly citizens. It is largely funded by reimbursements from federal and state programs, like Medicaid, but as a county-run facility, any shortages must be covered by county taxpayers. For many years, this was not much of an issue as the facility was able to remain mostly solvent. Like so many other things, the pandemic broke the financial model.

 

Just like all other long-term care facilities, Samaritan is facing severe staffing challenges. It is a national problem. The increasing cost of paying for staff is outstripping the increases in funding. Even with paying higher wages and retention incentive programs, the facility remains understaffed and has a high staff turnover rate. The issue is driven by demographics where there are simply too few people willing to do the hard work of care givers. It is so severe that at least one other Wisconsin county is recruiting caregivers from the Philippines to fill the need.

 

This problem has put Samaritan over $4 million in the hole since the pandemic began. That is $4 million that county taxpayers are obligated to cover. In addition, the facility itself needs significant work. The building is sturdy, but it is old and needs to be renovated, if not replaced, to meet the needs of residents for years to come. Accumulating the information from two study committees and two financial analyses by Wipfli, the County Board considered three options: renovate, replace, or sell Samaritan. There was a fourth option to simply close Samaritan, but there was little appetite for that option and County Executive Josh Shoemann had promised to veto any closure. Replacing Samaritan was an expensive choice. At an estimated cost of $31 million, it would fix the issues with the facility, but still did not address the underlying staffing issues. Renovating Samaritan was less expensive at $15 million, but also did not fix the underlying issues. Also, the $15 million estimate was suspect. Whenever one starts to pull back the walls of an old building, costs tend to pile up. Selling Samaritan would not cost anything, but it is also unknown how much a private company would pay the county for the facility. The county still owes about $3.5 million on it, so hopefully any sale price would at least pay off that debt. Whoever buys it would purchase an old building in need of work and still have the staffing issues to manage. On the positive side, the building has a lot of unused space that could be used for private residents or other uses to improve the financial viability of the facility.

 

In the end, the decision was really about whether or not the county, and the county taxpayers, want to be in the business of running a long-term care facility. At one time there were over 100 county-run long-term facilities in Wisconsin. Now there are only 35. The private sector fills this care needs of elderly folks throughout the state and can leverage economies of scale that a single county cannot match.

 

For Washington County to continue to run Samaritan, they would need to figure out how to make the math work. They could try something like building out a private care facility in the unused space to subsidize the deficits, but that would put the county government in direct competition with several private care facilities in the county. Or the County Board could just accept that Samaritan would run at a loss and the county taxpayers would have to cover the difference in perpetuity. At a cost ranging into the tens of millions of dollars, this would be an expensive obligation that draws funds from other county obligations.

 

By voting to sell Samaritan, the County Board is seeking to protect county taxpayers from significant financial obligations while allowing a private company to bring significant resources to bear on behalf of the residents. All things considered, the County Board made the best choice.

 

I commend the County Board, the county executive, and all of the people who worked on a solution. Throughout the process, the focus remained on doing what they truly thought was in the best interests of the residents of Samaritan while, secondarily, protecting the taxpayers’ interests. That was the correct prioritization.

Selling Samaritan

by | 0745, 18 Apr 2323 | | 0 Comments

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. I think the decision regarding Samaritan was a tough one, but they got it right.

In the end, the decision was really about whether or not the county, and the county taxpayers, want to be in the business of running a long-term care facility. At one time there were over 100 county-run long-term facilities in Wisconsin. Now there are only 35. The private sector fills this care needs of elderly folks throughout the state and can leverage economies of scale that a single county cannot match.

 

For Washington County to continue to run Samaritan, they would need to figure out how to make the math work. They could try something like building out a private care facility in the unused space to subsidize the deficits, but that would put the county government in direct competition with several private care facilities in the county. Or the County Board could just accept that Samaritan would run at a loss and the county taxpayers would have to cover the difference in perpetuity. At a cost ranging into the tens of millions of dollars, this would be an expensive obligation that draws funds from other county obligations.

 

By voting to sell Samaritan, the County Board is seeking to protect county taxpayers from significant financial obligations while allowing a private company to bring significant resources to bear on behalf of the residents. All things considered, the County Board made the best choice.

County to Sell Samaritan Campus

by | 1100, 15 Apr 2323 | | 1 Comment

Tough choice.

WASHINGTON COUNTY — The Washington County Board of Supervisors voted 13-8 to authorize Washington County to sell Samaritan Campus during their meeting in the Herbert J. Tennies Government Center on Wednesday night.

 

[…]

 

According to the Ad Hoc committee’s recommendation, their first choice was to renovate Samaritan, the second choice was to replace Samaritan with a new facility, the third choice was to sell Samaritan and the fourth ranked choice was to close (closing was not an option put before the board on Wednesday night).

 

Carroll presented updated cash flow, income and nursing bed demand projections with the board after Roback’s presentation.

 

According to Carroll, the cash flow projections from Wipfli showed Samaritan Campus operating with a positive cash flow balance at a projected average of about $670,000 per year over five years.

 

The bedding analysis showed that with Samaritan Campus operating at 48 skilled nursing facility (SNF) beds, which it would if renovation by the county had been approved, the county would be under-bedded, when combining all SNFs in the county, in 5 to 10 years due to increases in the 74-85-year-old population (a 9.9% increase) and 85 and up population (a 31.6% increase) in the county over that time, showing an increase in demand for nursing beds is coming. At the current SNF bed number for Samaritan, which is 131, the county would be over-bedded by about 50 beds in 5 to 10 years, according to Wipfli.

 

Whoever purchases the bed licenses for Samaritan from Washington County will have the option to continue to purchase all 131 licensed beds.

 

[…]

 

“The reason [I am voting in favor of selling Samaritan] is because I do believe it will take care of everyone [at Samaritan,]” said Kelling. “You are our obligation, we are here for you and we will take care of you. I don’t like when people have been using scare tactics against you saying that you will end up in the street. Legally that is not possible, and morally I would not stand for it.”

I wrote a few months ago about how intolerable it is that this decision has been put off for so long. We’ve known about the issues at Samaritan for years and the County Board has been kicking the can down the road. I’m glad that they have made a decision.

For the decision itself, I think it is the right one. Taxpayers can continue to fund the residents’ care without having to own and operate the means of providing that care. While renovating the campus would have been a fix for the next few years, the taxpayers would still own a facility that will need ongoing maintenance and care down the road. I’d much prefer that taxpayers’ dollars be focused on resident care instead of maintaining facilities.

I do think that the supervisors approached the issue with compassion. There were no easy or perfect choices, but they had to do something. Some direction is better than no direction.

Now they just have to find a buyer…

What to do with Samaritan

by | 0902, 21 Jan 2323 | | 2 Comments

Here is my column that ran in the Washington County Daily News last week.

Washington County’s Samaritan campus is at a crossroads. The time for tough decisions is upon us.

 

What should county taxpayers do for the people currently housed in the crumbling edifice of neglected obligations?

 

The Samaritan Campus is a senior care facility owned and operated by Washington County that provides skilled nursing, assisted living, and a residential care apartment complex for elderly citizens who cannot afford private care. It is funded through Medicare and Medicaid with shortfalls being covered by county taxpayers.

 

The problem the county is facing is severe, but not unique. The cost of operating Samaritan is far exceeding the funding provided by federal programs. Further, the facility needs a major renovation or rebuilding that will cost tens of millions of dollars.

 

Last year, Washington County taxpayers were paying nearly $50,000 per resident (about $2 million) to cover expenses and that is without the expense of a new or renovated facility. The ongoing expense for county taxpayers is projected to continue to increase exponentially.

 

Some have floated the notion that the county could use available money from one-time funds like federal COVID relief funds or opioid settlement funds to rehabilitate or reconstruct the facility. This may be feasible in the short term, but it does not fix the long-term funding problem. Using one-time funds to patch a systemic problem simply obligates future lawmakers to fix something because current lawmakers lack the courage to act.

 

What is to be done?

 

First, we must ask ourselves some hard questions. Should county taxpayers provide elder care to citizens who cannot afford it? There is no constitutional prohibition or mandate for county government to provide such a service. If the citizens of Washington County want to subsidize care for seniors, it is a policy decision. To date, county citizens have provided this service, so there is an absolute obligation to the seniors currently being cared for at Samaritan. Whether or not the citizens should carry this obligation moving forward is a separate question.

 

The second question to ask ourselves is, assuming county taxpayers are committed to providing for the county’s impoverished seniors, should the county own and operate the facility to do so? Experience should guide our answer to this question. Our collective experience is that, with exceedingly rare exception, government is terrible at running things. Government is a convenient, often abused, mechanism for the forced pooling of resources to expend on collective needs, but is pervasively inefficient, ineffective, and unresponsive when in charge of operations. We can see this in action at Samaritan itself, where decades of poor management and neglect have forced the county to this crisis point.

 

In Wisconsin, only 36 Wisconsin counties currently operate senior care facilities according to the Department of Health Services. The other counties either partner with private facilities to subsidize senior care where needed or forgo the financial obligation altogether. Washington County should transition the current residents to private facilities and support that transition with adequate funding. Using the COVID relief or opioid settlement monies to fund this transition might be necessary.

 

Whether or not county taxpayers should, or can, subsidize senior care moving forward will take some further thought. In the current arrangement, the taxpayer obligation to seniors is capped by the number of available beds at Samaritan. It is a physical cap. If the taxpayers subsidize senior care in private facilities with flexible capacity, would such a program attract seniors from outside of Washington County and become an unsustainable drain on taxpayer resources? Such potential unintended consequences will need to be mitigated should the county decide to subsidize senior care indefinitely.

 

One thing is certain. The situation at Samaritan has become intolerable and inexcusable. The caregivers are doing tremendous work but they are understaffed and under-resourced. Washington County is falling short of providing the dignity of care promised to Samaritan’s residents. This year must be a year of decisions and action — not another year of kicking the can down the road.

What to do with Samaritan

by | 0858, 17 Jan 2323 | | 0 Comments

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here’s a part:

Washington County’s Samaritan campus is at a crossroads. The time for tough decisions is upon us.

What should county taxpayers do for the people currently housed in the crumbling edifice of neglected obligations?

[…]

The second question to ask ourselves is, assuming county taxpayers are committed to providing for the county’s impoverished seniors, should the county own and operate the facility to do so? Experience should guide our answer to this question. Our collective experience is that, with exceedingly rare exception, government is terrible at running things. Government is a convenient, often abused, mechanism for the forced pooling of resources to expend on collective needs, but is pervasively inefficient, ineffective, and unresponsive when in charge of operations. We can see this in action at Samaritan itself, where decades of poor management and neglect have forced the county to this crisis point.

In Wisconsin, only 36 Wisconsin counties currently operate senior care facilities according to the Department of Health Services. The other counties either partner with private facilities to subsidize senior care where needed or forgo the financial obligation altogether. Washington County should transition the current residents to private facilities and support that transition with adequate funding. Using the COVID relief or opioid settlement monies to fund this transition might be necessary.

Whether or not county taxpayers should, or can, subsidize senior care moving forward will take some further thought. In the current arrangement, the taxpayer obligation to seniors is capped by the number of available beds at Samaritan. It is a physical cap. If the taxpayers subsidize senior care in private facilities with flexible capacity, would such a program attract seniors from outside of Washington County and become an unsustainable drain on taxpayer resources? Such potential unintended consequences will need to be mitigated should the county decide to subsidize senior care indefinitely.

One thing is certain. The situation at Samaritan has become intolerable and inexcusable.

Washington County Grappling with Samaritan Campus

by | 2004, 7 Jan 2323 | | 6 Comments

The question of what to do with Samaritan has been bubbling for years. Samaritan is the senior living facility run by Washington County mainly for seniors who need advanced care and can’t afford other facilities. The building is falling apart and the facility is an increasingly expensive burden for county taxpayers. Former Washington County Chairman Don Kriefall has some thoughts.

We have a responsibility to protect our seniors. As County Board chair, I advocated to find a way to continue to fund Samaritan. But common sense must rule in this matter. COVID-19 has inalterably changed the health care induDonstry. We cannot find enough qualified individuals to properly staff the facility. This is not just a Samaritan issue; there is a nationwide shortage of health care workers. Up to $15 million in upgrades are needed just to make the 54-year-old facility functional. That likely would only prolong the facility’s useful life by no more than ten years, after which, the county would be faced with the same dilemma, with a much higher price tag. Constructing a new facility is estimated to cost $35-50 million, or roughly $1 million per resident, requiring the county to accrue debt, with taxpayers footing the bill for the interest payments. Neither option is fiscally responsible.

 

 

When we started this process in late 2020, our consultant WIPFLI told us that if Samaritan were to close, private nonprofit skilled nursing facilities would have the capacity to accept our residents. Families would still be able to visit their loved ones regularly without undue hardship. The private sector can capably handle this responsibility to our seniors. Once all residents are resituated, there will still be a cost for the demolition of the aging Samaritan facility, but the ongoing financial obligation to the taxpayers will end.

 

Closing Samaritan is not pulling the rug out from our seniors or ending our obligation to provide for those in need. Our responsibility to respect and protect our seniors does not end with the closure of an aging, dilapidated building. Placing each resident in a safe and secure facility is the objective, no matter who is providing the services. Maintaining our own skilled nursing facility would be nice, but it would not be judicious or practical to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to do so for less than 50 people. Government is not tasked to provide services that the private nonprofit sector could. It should provide necessary services only.

 

Taxpayers cannot be continually asked to make financial sacrifices. Taxpayers should not be required to support a continually burgeoning government. This is the state and federal governments’ making. Taxpayers have the right to demand that government spend their money wisely, and are not taxed twice for the same service. The time has come for cooler heads to prevail and to finally allow the private sector to oversee our aging senior population, as most Wisconsin counties have done. This way, the needs of the few will be fulfilled without overburdening the many. This is the most responsible and sensible solution for the future of Samaritan.

When faced with a range of bad options, sometimes you can only choose the least bad option. In this case, I think we can all agree that we need to find a way for these seniors to get the care they need. While I do not think that this is a core function of government, the fact that the county has been caring for these seniors to date imparts some responsibility on the county. I tend to agree with Kriefall on the necessary outcome, but I’d support a transition plan where the county taxpayers help transition the residents to new facilities both logistically and financially.

Concerns at Samaritan

by | 1821, 14 Sep 2222 | | 0 Comments

From the Washington County Insider. I’ve had some personal insight into Samaritan and it is in sore need of attention. One wonders when that shoe is going to drop.

What once appeared a priority in the county with a dedicated Task Force and study committee, now, as a Samaritan resident noted, did not even manage a reference during the county executive’s 2022 state of the county address.

 

So, what is the status of the Samaritan Home and what is the future?

 

[…]

  • Part of the discussion during the July 2021 meeting was financing and awaiting funds from the U.S. Treasury. A section of the story read; Washington County is in line to receive approximately $26.2 million in federal COVID relief funding. Schoemann said it is possible the federal money the County will be receiving could pay for this. “That’s why I said we have to let Matt finish all his work. By the time he finishes we should have final guidance from the U.S. Treasury.  I don’t know that it would pay for all of it, but it may be able to pay for a good portion,” he said.

 

The “Matt” referred to in the story is Matt Furno. Calls have been placed to Furno but recently a policy was enacted by the county executive and Furno said he cannot now speak directly to the issue. “I am not allowed to speak,” he said, “We could use your help in this whole thing.”

 

An email was sent to have a sit-down interview with Furno but so far there’s been no response.

 

[…]

 

Inside the Samaritan Home residents talk about the limited staff and some have mentioned how staff are paid with gift cards as incentives should they choose to work 7 days a week or more. Residents have also mentioned feelings of worry and insecurity about their living situation. Another wondered if the National Guard would be brought in to help with staffing.

 

County Supervisor Jodi Schulteis is Chairperson of the Human Services Committee, which in part, is informed about the Samaritan Home and its status. On the county board since being appointed in 2020, Schulteis said she has not been inside the Samaritan Home.

 

Questioned about the future of the Samaritan Home she said, “We continue to meet on it and discuss it and we continue to take the Task Force recommendation seriously but there has been no decision one way or the other.”

Tax increases coming in conservative Washington County

by | 0658, 3 Sep 2222 | | 3 Comments

Here is my full column that ran earlier this week in the Washington County Daily News:

What is going on in Washington County? The county that brags about being the most conservative county in the state is awash with proposals for massive tax increases. Several local governments and the county itself are lining up for huge tax increases during a recession when inflation is raging out of control. The numbers always tell the story. Let us dig a little into the numbers of Washington County, the city of West Bend, and the West Bend School District.

 

Washington County has put a referendum on the ballot this November asking the voters if they should increase the property tax levy by 9.9% to add positions to the Sheriff’s Department. County officials are selling the tax increase as necessary to combat an increase in crime and drug use that is spilling over the border from Milwaukee. Officials are also selling the notion that the tax levy rate will still decrease even with the increase. Free money, right?

 

Looking into the numbers, the crime and drug issues are certainly real. The portrayal of the budget is not. According to county budget information, in 2010 the county spent $118.38 million. The proposed 2023 budget is $135.37 million. That is a spending increase of 14.3% over the period. Over the same period, the county’s population increased by 4.5% according to U.S. Census data. The county has been increasing spending faster than the underlying population it serves has been growing. County officials are correct that the property tax rate has been decreasing for several years. How have they pulled off an increase in spending with a decrease in taxes? The answer is twofold. First, while the levy rate has been decreasing, the property values that it taxes have been increasing. Second, the county has been more and more reliant on the county sales tax. According to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, per-capita county sales tax collections in Washington County have increased by a whopping 63% between 2010 and 2021.

 

Washington County has been more frugal than most governments, but that is like bragging about being the smartest Bears fan.

 

The city of West Bend rejected the idea of putting a referendum on the ballot to ask for a big tax increase, but that is only because they chose to consider increasing taxes on their own authority. In West Bend’s case, they are arguing that they need to enact a huge tax increase to improve the roads. The numbers argue against giving them more money to spend.

 

In 2016, the earliest year for which city officials have chosen to publish numbers on their website, the city’s operating budget general fund spent $21.4 million. In 2022, that budget is $25.8 million. That is a 20.5% increase in spending in six years. Over the same period, the city’s population grew a negligible 0.08% from 31,702 to 31,727 according to census data. A city taxpayer might ask where all of that increased spending has been going if not to repair the roads.

 

The West Bend School District is in the beginning stages of thinking about asking the taxpayers for more money in a referendum as early as April of next year. As in previous referendum attempts, the school district will want to spend more money on facilities and will paint the scary picture of students being educated in unsafe conditions. Again, the numbers tell a story.

 

According to data from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, in fiscal year 2013, the West Bend School District spent $76.01 million. In fiscal year 2021, they spent $87.03 million. That is an increase of 14.5%. At the same time, the district saw enrollment decline 16% from 6,952 to 5,824 students according to the district’s own figures. Increasing spending in the face of declining enrollment resulted in a per-student increase in district spending of 36.7% over the last ten years. Again, a prudent district taxpayer might ask where all of that money is going if not to ensure that the students are receiving a quality education in a safe environment.

 

If there was any time when conservative elected leaders should be standing up for taxpayers, this is it. The taxpayers’ family budgets are already being squeezed from all directions. Conservative elected leaders should start from the position that the government has enough money and budget from there.

Tax increases coming in conservative Washington County

by | 0732, 30 Aug 2222 | | 0 Comments

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here’s a part:

What is going on in Washington County? The county that brags about being the most conservative county in the state is awash with proposals for massive tax increases. Several local governments and the county itself are lining up for huge tax increases during a recession when inflation is raging out of control. The numbers always tell the story. Let us dig a little into the numbers of Washington County, the city of West Bend, and the West Bend School District.

 

Washington County has put a referendum on the ballot this November asking the voters if they should increase the property tax levy by 9.9% to add positions to the Sheriff’s Department. County officials are selling the tax increase as necessary to combat an increase in crime and drug use that is spilling over the border from Milwaukee. Officials are also selling the notion that the tax levy rate will still decrease even with the increase. Free money, right?

 

Looking into the numbers, the crime and drug issues are certainly real. The portrayal of the budget is not. According to county budget information, in 2010 the county spent $118.38 million. The proposed 2023 budget is $135.37 million. That is a spending increase of 14.3% over the period. Over the same period, the county’s population increased by 4.5% according to U.S. Census data. The county has been increasing spending faster than the underlying population it serves has been growing. County officials are correct that the property tax rate has been decreasing for several years. How have they pulled off an increase in spending with a decrease in taxes? The answer is twofold. First, while the levy rate has been decreasing, the property values that it taxes have been increasing. Second, the county has been more and more reliant on the county sales tax. According to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, per-capita county sales tax collections in Washington County have increased by a whopping 63% between 2010 and 2021.

 

Washington County has been more frugal than most governments, but that is like bragging about being the smartest Bears fan.

“No” To Washington County Referendum

by | 2131, 22 Aug 2222 | , | 1 Comment

Guest article from former Assembly Representative Jesse Kremer. I agree.

As a former legislator and Vice-Chair of the Public Safety Committee in the Wisconsin Assembly, my family and I support our local law enforcement 100%.  While I agree that we could use a few more servants in blue patrolling the streets, permanently raising our county taxes by nearly 10% will not reduce crime.  I will be voting NO on the Washington County Board’s Anti-Crime Plan tax referendum this fall.

 

It is blatantly obvious that our county government leaders have begun actively campaigning for this behemoth tax increase.  They are regularly publicizing the types of individuals being apprehended while traversing our county.  I have no doubt that our taxpayer funded county newsletter will also be actively shilling for our YES vote in the near future.

 

Crime is a real problem and there are real solutions.  We just need to be engaged.

 

Many families, including ours, does not have the means to perpetually shell out money.  Washington County used to be the most conservative county in Wisconsin.  Pushing referendums on residents with no studies or data, however, is reckless, especially when our families are all experiencing:

  1. Rampant inflation and “COVID-excuse” supply chain issues increasing our grocery bills by 30%.
  2. Spiking energy costs, twice this year already, to cover supply shortages and subsidize the “renewables” being purchased by energy companies.
  3. A 250% increase in fuel bills from just a couple of years ago.

 

But what if some of the initial funds are “free money” – grants from the state or federal government? Free money does not exist.  After the funds are gone, we, the taxpayers, will still be on the hook to cover the costs of a government program that once established, will not be eliminated.

 

While I am extremely concerned with the rampant crime in our state, it is not because we do not have enough local law enforcement – or enough laws from Madison.  There are real solutions:

  1. In modern-day American, there is no deterrent for crime. Judges and prosecutors are not locking up offenders to the fullest extent of the law.  Case in point (2022WA000414):  Recently there were several high-dollar, commercial thefts and burglaries in Washington County.  Our public servants did their job and arrested the perpetrators.  Our newest judge, Sandra Giernoth, a Gov. Evers appointee, turned around and released him on a $10,000 bond allowing the criminal to simply skip out on his hearing and continue to terrorize the community.  It is time to hold our judges and prosecutors accountable.  We must kick them out via the election process if they are unable to keep our communities safe!
  2. There is no sense of morality. Over the past 70 years our government and many of our public agencies have actively campaigned to destroy religious institutions and take a wrecking ball to the nuclear family.  This has to stop!  Strong families must be encouraged and our religious organizations allowed to thrive.

 

If we must increase taxes to fight crime it would be better invested in additional prisons resulting in more, and longer, incarcerations.  This may be the one solution that the 2-3% of thugs who are destroying our society, and the Mayberry lifestyle as we knew it, can comprehend.

Washington County Exec Campaigns for Raising Taxes

by | 0651, 12 Aug 2222 | | 4 Comments

With raging inflation, an economy in recession, and people seeing their nest eggs plundered, Washington County Executive Josh Shoemann is campaigning to raise property taxes. And he thinks you’re stupid enough to believe that he can raise taxes and you got a tax decrease. When I supported moving Washington County to an Executive structure, I really didn’t think that the first one would try to build his political resume on tax increases.

Schoemann described increasing the sheriff’s office’s share of the county tax levy from $15.2 million, 43.7 percent, when he took office to $20 million, 55 percent, today, a 33 percent increase.

 

He then spoke of the $3.6 million Anti-Crime Plan referendum, which will appear on the Nov. 8 general election ballot.

 

“[The plan] will provide more law enforcement resources to our schools; more mental health resources in times of crisis and with non-acute cases out of the justice system; more inter-county and cross-county drug task force engagement; more mental health support and additional resources to combat substance use in our jail; and improved emergency and crises response and management,” said Schoemann.

 

The referendum would see an increase of 30-and-ahalf staff positions across multiple departments in the sheriff’s office, including teaming up three social workers and three sheriff’s deputies to address mental health crisis calls.

 

The referendum, if passed by county residents, will raise the tax levy 9.89 percent, but there will still be an estimated nine cent per $1,000 of assessed value decrease in the county tax rate, at least.

 

“Whether the referendum is adopted or not, your county portion of the property tax rate will likely go down, it’s just a matter of how much. … This referendum is not about whether we want a new shiny building or field. It is about whether we need a proactive response to the crime plague seeping across our border,” said Schoemann. “So, the question our community must decide is this: What do we hate more, growing government or growing crime?”

No, this is not a binary question. Government can stay the same size and reallocate budget to priorities like fighting crime. The threat that the county will be unable to grapple with crime without a tax increase is an admission of failed governance.

Washington County Board should reject tax increase referendum

by | 0633, 1 Aug 2222 | | 0 Comments

Here is my full column that ran in the Washington County Daily News last year.

On August 10, the Washington County Board will vote on whether or not to submit to the taxpayers a referendum asking to forever raise taxes above the statutory limit to increase the size of the Sheriff’s Department. Let us hope that they come to their senses and forgo the referendum. If they do not, let us hope that the good people of Washington County have the good senses to vote it down.

 

The wording of the referendum may be tweaked by the County Board if they put it on the ballot, but the essence will be to ask the voters to increase taxes by almost 10% forevermore for the purpose of permanently increasing the staff of the Sheriff’s Department by about 15. The money would also be used to generally increase pay to attract and retain staff.

 

The increase in staffing is part of the county’s anticrime effort to combat increasing crime in the county. Is crime really increasing that much? Is the increase in crime just a reflection of the population growth? Are current resources appropriately allocated? How much of a crime reduction will the increase in staffing cause? Some of these questions were asked by supervisors on the Public Safety Committee, but answers were not forthcoming. Promising that more information would be available at the full County Board meeting, the committee unanimously approved the question to go to the full board.

 

There is no doubt that crime in this country is increasing largely thanks to intentionally lax law enforcement in our largest cities and the unending tide of illegal aliens flowing across our borders. Fighting crime is a legitimate duty of government and citizens in Washington County have always been supportive of law enforcement.

 

Budgets, however, are about priorities. Washington County spends almost $140 million per year on all functions. The Sheriff’s Department takes about $23 million, or 16.4% of the budget. If fighting crime is truly a priority, are the County Board and county executive really not able to reallocate funding from the other 83.6% of the budget? Instead, they want taxpayers to reallocate their family budgets to pay for that increase in spending?

 

County supervisors should also remember that they do not operate in a vacuum. The citizens who pay those taxes are facing a hard time financially. President Biden’s inflation economy is making prices rise faster than they have in 40 years. Unfortunately, most people’s incomes are not keeping up, so real income is dropping like a rock. Fuel prices are robbing people of mobility and everything is just getting more expensive. Families are cutting back on unnecessary expenses.

 

Meanwhile, times are good in government. After several years of money raining out of Washington from the Trump and Biden administrations to attempt to mitigate the financial impact of the pandemic, local governments have been awash in spending cash. Now they are reaping the benefits of inflation because taxes are based on percentages. As the median home price in southeast Wisconsin has risen 48% since January of 2020, according to the Wisconsin Realtors Association, property taxes have risen accordingly.

 

So, too, has the sales tax. Washington County passed a county sales tax years ago that was sold as a temporary emergency need. They have since made the tax permanent and continue to spend the proceeds. As the prices of goods and services have risen with inflation, so has the money spent on sales taxes. Washington County will likely see a record year in sales tax collections in 2022. Where will that money go? Could it be used to fund a spending increase in the Sheriff’s Department instead of asking the taxpayers to send even more money to the county?

 

Nobody questions that fighting crime is important and that Washington County deserves a properly funded Sheriff’s Department to meet the needs of the day. But using the current heightened concern about crime to call for a tax increase during a time when inflation is rampant and the economy is slipping into recession borders on the kind of cynicism we expect in Milwaukee – not Washington County.

 

The Washington County Board should decline to ask the taxpayers for more money and fund the increase in spending for the Sheriff’s Department if it is truly needed. The county has enough of our tax dollars to deliver on their obligations.

Washington County Board should reject tax increase referendum

by | 0611, 26 Jul 2222 | | 0 Comments

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here’s a part:

County supervisors should also remember that they do not operate in a vacuum. The citizens who pay those taxes are facing a hard time financially. President Biden’s inflation economy is making prices rise faster than they have in 40 years. Unfortunately, most people’s incomes are not keeping up, so real income is dropping like a rock. Fuel prices are robbing people of mobility and everything is just getting more expensive. Families are cutting back on unnecessary expenses.

 

Meanwhile, times are good in government. After several years of money raining out of Washington from the Trump and Biden administrations to attempt to mitigate the financial impact of the pandemic, local governments have been awash in spending cash. Now they are reaping the benefits of inflation because taxes are based on percentages. As the median home price in southeast Wisconsin has risen 48% since January of 2020, according to the Wisconsin Realtors Association, property taxes have risen accordingly.

 

So, too, has the sales tax. Washington County passed a county sales tax years ago that was sold as a temporary emergency need. They have since made the tax permanent and continue to spend the proceeds. As the prices of goods and services have risen with inflation, so has the money spent on sales taxes. Washington County will likely see a record year in sales tax collections in 2022. Where will that money go? Could it be used to fund a spending increase in the Sheriff’s Department instead of asking the taxpayers to send even more money to the county?

 

Nobody questions that fighting crime is important and that Washington County deserves a properly funded Sheriff’s Department to meet the needs of the day. But using the current heightened concern about crime to call for a tax increase during a time when inflation is rampant and the economy is slipping into recession borders on the kind of cynicism we expect in Milwaukee – not Washington County.

 

The Washington County Board should decline to ask the taxpayers for more money and fund the increase in spending for the Sheriff’s Department if it is truly needed. The county has enough of our tax dollars to deliver on their obligations.

Washington County Headed to Referendum to Pay for “Safety”

by | 0945, 22 Jul 2222 | | 3 Comments

Call me skeptical. From the Washington County Insider:

July 21, 2022 – Washington Co., WI – The Washington County Joint Safety Committee approved a proposed $3.6 million public safety referendum to increase the budget for the Washington County Sheriff’s Department.
If the referendum is approved the $3.6 million would continue in perpetuity meaning it would be a regular tax every year moving forward.

[…]

A couple of bullet points from the Wednesday, July 20, 2022, Public Safety Committee meeting. The full draft of the Washington County Anti-Crime Plan is also below.

  • The referendum would cover an additional 30.5 full-time positions; there would be an increase in staffing with Sheriff’s Department patrol or mental health. There were several requests for additional data for specifics and supervisors were told that information is forthcoming.

  • County Executive Josh Schoemann said, “The county board could fund it (the $3.6 million) if they so choose.”

  • “Bottom line is, if the county board chose to fund all these positions on their own, they have the ability to do that. My concern is it’s such a big increase, relatively speaking, I think the people of Washington County should make that choice. If they don’t want to increase their tax rate, increase the levy, then we don’t,” said Schoemann.

  • “There’s enough property tax levity and flexibility, because we have not been taking the full amount of levy for years. The three times in the last eight years that we’ve cut the levy, the state allows you to go back and take some of that, if you so choose,” Schoemann said.

  • “There’s major crimes back to the 1990s and in the 80s. I think it’s just the frequency is happening much more, and I think this is at the top of people’s mind right now. And as I mentioned, the sheriff’s office crime in particular is the highest concern of the county board and the community,” said Schoemann.

  • Sheriff Martin Schulteis said, “There is minimum staffing to properly serve Washington County. We haven’t kept up with the county itself.”

  • Schulteis said some changes would include eliminating some administrative positions and “really focus on boots on the ground serving citizens of Washington County.”

  • The Sheriff and county administration were not prepared with data on out-of-county bookings, crimes committed outside area. More data was promised at a later date, however the committee had to vote on the proposed referendum during its meeting July 20, 2022 as it was an action item on the agenda.

  • In past government scenarios there is a study conducted or committee formed to discuss major issues, similar to how Washington County approached the issues surrounding the Samaritan Home. There was no study or committee formed to review the Washington County Anti-Crime Plan.  Schoemann said he met with Schulteis and they discussed the issue.  The meeting July 20, 2022 was the first time it was brought before county supervisors.

  • The decision to put the referendum on the November 8, 2022, ballot must be made by the county board at its August 10, 2022, meeting as the deadline to place it on the ballot is August 15, 2022, according to Schoemann.

Thanks to inflation, tax collections are at all time highs while personal real income is dropping. Is it really necessary to permanently increase taxes now?

Here’s the thing… budgets are about priorities. If we start from the position that almost all governments are adequately, if not over, funded, then it takes an extraordinary situation to justify increasing funding even more. But here we are with the supposedly “conservative” Washington County Board casting unanimous votes to proceed with a referendum to raise taxes. Are you telling me that there isn’t any superfluous spending in the budget that couldn’t be reallocated to public safety? None? Are they taking advantage of the increasing crime and public worry about it to raise taxes?

I’ll remind the reader that the county implemented a “temporary” sales tax that has since become permanent. The bite of inflation makes that sales tax hurt even more – and pushes more money into county coffers. Local governments are awash in money. They do not have a funding problem.

Let’s hope the large board comes to its senses and does not put this on the ballot. If they do, let’s hope the voters have more sense than their supervisors and vote it down.

Washington County Extends “Temporary” Sales Tax… Again

by | 0732, 9 Jun 2222 | | 1 Comment

I know that I’ve been on this for 20 years, but this is the object lesson for never believing government when they sell a tax as a “temporary” measure for some “emergency.” Come to think of it, that lesson applies to any government program.

WEST BEND — The Washington County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved keeping the county’s 0.5% sales tax in place Wednesday night.

As a reminder, I wrote this is 2006:

In 1998, Washington County was in a bit of a pickle. Several large capital improvement projects, like an expansion of the University of Wisconsin Washington County, the courthouse addition, and new Highway Department facilities, were looming and there wasn’t going to be enough tax revenue to pay for them. In the face of a crisis, the County Board did what governments always do – they raised taxes.

 

In this case, the new tax came in the form of a half penny county sales tax. They also designated part of the sales tax to be used for debt service, but that didn’t kick in until three years ago. Since 1999, the sales tax has removed over $49,400,000 from the pockets of people who choose to spend money in Washington County. Since the new sales tax was primarily for one time expenses, the County Board put in a provision that says that the County Board can vote to stop collecting the tax in 2006 – this year. If no vote is taken to stop the tax, then the tax will continue indefinitely.

Opposing Hwy W Expansion

by | 2047, 11 May 2121 | | 1 Comment

There is another thoughtful letter to the editor in the Washington County Insider opposing the expansion of Hwy W through private property.

Also, you cannot excuse a yes vote as just “progress.”  If you do, you are not governing for the “people.”  You are just blindly following your transportation plan without thinking.  The supposed “progress” is theoretical.

Maybe more people will travel to Hartford to work and do business but no one will ever know.  There are too many factors affecting those kinds of issues.  “Progress” in this case, is not a tangible thing.  You cannot promise any real benefit.  To the families, however, it is very real.  To them, “progress” is likely a shameful and embarrassing government infringement on private property rights and the future of their farms.  The 11.4 acres is measurable, the emotional toll can be seen.

Washington County Board to Vote on HWY W Extension

by | 1119, 11 May 2121 | | 0 Comments

There are two very thoughtful letters to the editor in the Washington County Daily News today about the potential extension of Highway W in Hartford. This is part of a larger discussion that has been happening in Washington County and throughout the country for many years – the push-pull between urban and rural interests as areas become more populated.

In this case, I don’t understand the drivers behind the extension. There seems to be a lot of cost and disruption for a very marginal benefit. I’m familiar with the roads in the area and there are, as the letters suggest, much less expensive ways to address safety concerns. So who keeps pushing for this? Why? Is there a road builder behind the scenes planning to land this contract? It keeps coming back to life, so there must be a vested interest behind it that keeps pushing.

Without a stronger argument than we have seen, this extension doesn’t make any sense.

To the editor: Our names are David and Anne Wenninger. We own a farm that has been in our family since 1883. The Wenninger family has farmed this land for 138 years. Our farming is sustainable, meeting society’s present food and textile demands, without compromising the needs of future generations.

 

Now, for the third time (it was voted down — TWICE) the county wants to put a Highway W extension through the farm, citing safety concerns at highways 175 and S and highways 175 and 83. In 22 months, since February 2019, there were two accidents at highways 175 and S; three accidents at highways 175 and 83 and none at highways 175 and W.

 

We enthusiastically support improvements at all of these intersections! Improvements (estimated at $450,000) to highways S/83/175 intersections should be the first step, NOT a $2,600,000 project, which will destroy 11.4 acres of active farmland. It is estimated that travel time will be increased by a mere 20 to 30 seconds. It will generate additional traffic issues in Allenton, near the railroad tracks.

 

We recommend instead, that both highways S and 175 and highways 83 and 175 be fixed to improve line of sight and access. Suggestions from the public have ranged from putting a roundabout in place; using four-way stop signs; or installing rumble strips. The county has steadfastly refused to consider any alternatives.

 

County Executive Josh Schoemann has consistently proclaimed a commitment to agriculture in Washington County. In his State of the County speech on April 22, he said: “As part of my campaign for County Executive, one of my themes was ‘Thriving Rural Communities.’… ‘To me, achieving the dream of ‘Thriving Rural Communities’ requires gaining a thorough and more in-depth respect for the struggles of our people in agriculture … .”

 

Although the county is temporarily awash in federal funding, we do not need to spend monies on ill-advised, huge projects. Wednesday, May 12 at 6:00 p.m. will be a historic vote for the county executive and the supervisors. Is there a sincere commitment to agriculture in Washington County?

 

Many roads in Washington County need to be resurfaced and upgraded. Let’s fix what we have, re-evaluate in the future, and save agriculture in the bargain.

 

David and Anne Wenninger

 

Hartford

And…

 

Say no to Highway W extension — again

To the editor: On Wednesday, the County Board will be asked again to consider a proposal that Highway W be extended from Highway 175 to Highway 83 – a new road through farm fields. This proposal was proposed in January 2019 and February 2019. It was defeated both times.

 

The questions have not changed: Is it fiscally responsible to spend at least $2.1M on 0.55 miles of new road when other road repair projects have been postponed? Is it fiscally responsible to use funding for the upkeep of Highway 83 for a different project? Is this new road necessary? Two parallel roads exist within one mile.

 

What about worsening daily congestion and safety concerns in Allenton due to trains?

 

What about safety concerns for slow farm vehicles? What about the loss of 11.44 acres of farmland for road development?

 

The answers remain the same.

 

In 2019, the county claimed safety concerns at the highways 175 and S intersection for why the Highway W extension was needed. The county claims now that “crashes continue.” If this was true, why didn’t the county make the safety improvements that only cost $450,000? There was funding and taxpayer support for this in 2019. If safety was the issue, this less expensive change would fix the problem.

 

In 2018, the county claimed that the Highway W extension was to “increase mobility from Hartford.” The county has the same reasoning now three years later: “the current routing of traffic is not the most efficient travel route.” s faster traffic in and out of Hartford what this is really about? This sounds more like an alternative reliever route than a safety concern.

 

Please ask county supervisors to vote no again to the Highway W extension.

 

Elaine Gehring

 

Hartford

Administrator Violated Ethics Code When She Gave Vaccine to Husband

by | 0639, 26 Feb 2121 | | 2 Comments

From the Washington County Daily News. Glad to see that there is some accountability. The public deserves to know what was done… did the administrator receive a slap on the wrist or something more impactful? I don’t think she deserves to be fired, but something more significant than a letter of reprimand is warranted.

WEST BEND — On Thursday morning, the Washington County Ethics Board discussed a report on the Samaritan Health Center administrator after her husband, who was not an employee of the facility, received the COVID-19 vaccine. Chairman John Zorbini explained the matter was dealt with as a personnel issue within the county. The Human Resources Department determined a violation of the Samaritan Health Center policy occurred as members of the general public were not allowed in the facility due to COVID-19 restrictions, as well as a breach in the county’s code of ethics.

[…]

While Borek’s husband fell into the eligible age group and co-morbidity category to receive the vaccine, he was not eligible to receive one from Samaritan.

 

Zorbini had been brought into the investigation to determine if it was an ethics issue and the county took quick action.

 

“We felt at this point in time, this was more of a personnel matter,” he said.

 

Disciplinary actions the county can take toward its officials and employees can be oral or written reprimands, suspensions or dismissals. The county would not describe the specific disciplinary action in this case. Borek, however, remains the Samaritan Health Center’s administrator.

Washington County Creates Email Address for the Karens

by | 1735, 8 Aug 2020 | | 11 Comments

These will be fun to read.

WASHINGTON COUNTY — Although the Washington County Sheriff’s Office and several local police departments have said they won’t be enforcing Gov. Tony Evers’ statewide mask mandate, there is a place where residents can report their concerns.

The Washington Ozaukee Public Health Department has created an email address specifically for people to report complaints related to Executive Order #82, which declared that every individual age 5 and older must wear a face covering in indoor or enclosed public spaces, other than when at home. The creation of this email, covidcomplaints@ washozwi.gov,

has led Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann to issue a statement asking residents not to further burden health department officials.

“Washington County is not enforcing the mandatory mask mandate. Sheriff (Martin) Schulteis has made this clear from his law enforcement perspective, District Attorney (Mark) Bensen has said it is extremely difficult to prove and Public Health Officer (Kirsten) Johnson has made clear that the health department does not have the time or the resources to pursue any complaints,” Schoemann said.

Johnson said the department created the email address so residents can send their concerns efficiently and added that there could be investigations in certain cases.

Washington County Reaffirms Oath

by | 0714, 9 Jul 2020 | | 3 Comments

We’ll see how firm they are when the rubber hits the road, but it is good to see them on the right side of the Constitution.

WEST BEND — The Washington County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday unanimously approved 2020 Resolution 17 — Washington County Advocates the Constitutional Rights of its Citizens.

The resolution reaffirms the oath county supervisors took upon swearing in to uphold rights of Washington County residents under the U.S. Constitution.

According to the resolution, “We the People” affirms the U.S. government exists to serve the nation’s people and “We the People hold dear and sacred and challenge all those who would seek to infringe upon the rights of the people.”

[…]

“We want to make sure the oath you took on day one, that’s something you’re committed to despite what other government bodies try to do,” said Kelling. ”We are going to hold true to the Constitution. We are going to fight for it on every level at every opportunity. This is who we are. This is one of the most conservative counties in Wisconsin. Who would lead if not us?”

Login | Register

Archives

Categories

Pin It on Pinterest