[00:02:03]
IT'S A LITTLE AFTER 6:00 PM WE'LL CALL THIS MEETING OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO ORDER.
UM, WE ARE ALL HERE EXCEPT FOR SUPERVISOR MARY, WHO WILL BE ON ZOOM.
UM, THIS MEETING WAS POSTED BY THE CLERK'S OFFICE
[Call to Order, Roll Call, Affidavit of Posting, A Moment of Silent Prayer, and Pledge of Allegiance]
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL THE APPROPRIATE RULES.UM, WE'LL RISE FOR A MOMENT OF SILENT PRAYER AND A PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE ALL TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE.
FOR ALL THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING OF OCTOBER 8TH, WERE IN YOUR PACKET.
[Minutes]
THERE? BEING NONE.[a Minutes of October 8, 2025]
HAVE THEM RECORDED AS PRINTED.UM, OUR FIRST ITEM IS A PROCLAMATION BY THE SHERIFF ON AN IMPORTANT RETIREMENT.
[a. Sheriff’s Proclamation – Mike Riebe Retirement]
WELL, I SINCERELY APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME OUT OF, UH, YOUR BUSY AGENDA ITEM FOR, FOR ME TO RECOGNIZE.UH, HE'S BEEN WITH THE COUNTY FOR 40 YEARS.
UM, BUT I WILL ALWAYS KNOW HIM AS DETECTIVE REBE, SOMEBODY THAT I ADMIRED THROUGHOUT MY CAREER.
I HAVE, UH, TWO QUICK THINGS THAT I'M GOING TO GIVE HIM, AND THEN I HAVE THE PROCLAMATION THAT I TO, TO READ.
THE FIRST ONE IS THE, THE COUNTY RECOGNITION FOR HIS 40 YEARS OF SERVICE, A CERTIFICATE IN HERE SIGNED BY THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE AND THE COUNTY BOARD CHAIRMAN, AND A GIFT CARD.
AND I ALSO HAVE A SMALL TOKEN APPRECIATION FROM THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, UH, FOR MIKE REBE.
IT'S RIGHT NOW, LIKE I SAID, HE'S A BAILIFF, BUT IT'S IN RECOGNITION FROM HIS RETIREMENT FROM THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND FOR HIS YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE FROM 1985 TO 1990 AS A DEPUTY SHERIFF FROM 1990 TO 2001 AS A DEPUTY SHERIFF DETECTIVE, 2001 TO 2013 AS A SPECIAL DEPUTY SHERIFF.
AND THEN 2000, 2013 TO TODAY IS, UH, A, A BAILIFF.
SO THEY TAKE THAT ALONG WITH YOU AS WELL.
AND THEN, UM, UH, I, I USUALLY WE DO RESOLUTIONS HERE.
[00:05:01]
DIFFERENT, I DID IT AS A SHERIFF'S PROCLAMATION, SO I'D LIKE TO TO READ THAT FOR YOU.SO THIS IS A PROCLAMATION FOR, UH, MICHAEL F REBE.
HE'S CURRENTLY A BAILIFF, WHEREAS MICHAEL REBE WAS HIRED WITH THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AS A SPECIAL DEPUTY, OR I'M SORRY, DEPUTY SHERIFF PATROLMAN ON SEPTEMBER 30TH, 1985.
AND WHEREAS ON NOVEMBER 7TH, 1988, SHERIFF CLARENCE SCHWARTZ ISSUED SPECIAL ORDER NUMBER 180 7, THAT TEMPORARILY ASSIGNED MICHAEL REBE AS ACTING SERGEANT OF THE PATROL BUREAU ON THIRD SHIFT FOR THE OPERATIONS DIVISION OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
AND IN 1996, MICHAEL REBE WAS SELECTED AS THE FIRST EVER AMERICAN LEGION, MIDWEST REGION LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE YEAR, AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY RUNNER UP TO THE FIRST EVER NATIONAL AWARD.
AND WHAT I JUST WANTED TO DO IS TO READ TWO QUICK PARAGRAPHS FROM THE ONE OF THE NOMINATION LETTERS THAT WAS SENT, UH, ON, ON MICHAEL'S BEHALF.
SO IT SAID, MICHAEL REBA WAS HIRED AS A DEPUTY SHERIFF FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY ON SEPTEMBER 30TH, 1980 5, 85.
AS I MENTIONED PRIOR TO THAT, TO THAT TIME, MR. REBI WAS A WISCONSIN STATE TROOPER AND THEN A PRIVATE BUSINESSMAN.
AND I WOULD, UH, ALSO SAY THAT HE, HE SPENT FOUR YEARS IN THE AIR FORCE, AND SO HE HAS 40 YEARS OF SERVICE WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY, BUT IT'S REMARKABLY, HE STARTED AT THE AGE OF 42.
IF I GET MY MATH, MY MATH RIGHT, BUT WHAT IT SAYS HERE IS DETECTIVE REBE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WELFARE FRAUD INVESTIGATIONS, AS WELL AS GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS.
DETECTIVE REBE HAS RECEIVED NUMEROUS DEPARTMENT COMMENDATIONS FOR PERFECT ATTENDANCE, UNHEARD OF EXCELLENT TECHNIQUES, AND IDENTIFYING AND APPREHENDING NUMEROUS SUSPECTS IN BURGLARY INVESTIGATIONS.
DETECTIVE REBE HAS ALSO RECEIVED NUMEROUS LETTERS OF ACCOMMODATION FROM BOTH CITIZENS AND BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS IN WASHINGTON COUNTY, AS WELL AS NEIGHBORING DETECTIVE DIVISIONS FROM AREA POLICE DEPARTMENTS.
DETECTIVE MIKE REBE ALWAYS GOES ABOVE AND BEYOND, WAS EXPECTED OF AN EMPLOYEE.
MIKE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED FOR HIS LOYALTY, DEPENDABILITY, EXPERIENCE, DEDICATION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND A STRONG DESIRE TO SERVE THE CITIZENS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY.
IT IS NOT ONLY A PRIVILEGE TO WORK WITH MIKE MICHAEL REBE, BUT AN HONOR TO RECOMMEND HIM FOR OUTSTANDING OFFICER OF THE YEAR AWARD.
THIS MEMO WAS WRITTEN 10,849 DAYS AGO BY THE THEN SHERIFF SICE.
AND WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THE CURRENT SHERIFF SICE, UH, WOULD SAY EVERY BIT OF THIS MEMO IS TRUE, 10,849 DAYS LATER.
UH, AND, UH, WHEN I ASKED, UH, MIKE, IF YOU REMEMBER WHAT HIS STARTING PAY AS A DEPUTY SHERIFF PATROLMAN WAS, AND HE DID $8 AND 85 CENTS, I THINK IT WAS $8 AND 80 CENTS.
UM, SO THEN IN, UH, ON JANUARY 1ST, 1990, MICHAEL, UH, REVIEW WAS PROMOTED TO DETECTIVE, AND THEN HE MADE IT WHOPPING $14 AND 28 CENTS.
ON JANUARY 31ST, 2001, MICHAEL F REBE RETIRED FROM HIS POSITION AS DETECTIVE.
AND WHEREAS ON MARCH 5TH, 2001, MICHAEL REBE WAS APPOINTED TO AS PART-TIME SPECIAL DEPUTY, AND THEN LATER TRANSFERRED TO THE BAILIFF ON APRIL 1ST, 2013.
AND WHEREAS DURING HIS 40 YEAR CAREER, HIS DEDICATION, UH, IS HIGHLIGHTED BY NUMEROUS AGENCY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, COMMENDATIONS, AND CITIZEN APPRECIATING LETTERS HE HAS RECEIVED THROUGHOUT HIS CAREER.
WHEREAS MICHAEL REBE HAS CONSISTENTLY DEMONSTRATED HIS COMMITMENT TO WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND OUR CITIZENS THROUGH HIS STRONG WORK ETHIC AND UNWAVERING DEDICATION TO THIS AGENCY'S MISSION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT MICHAEL FEB IS HEREBY RECOGNIZED FOR HIS EXEMPLARY USE OF SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY.
IT'S BEEN REQUESTED THAT WE TAKE A SHORT RECESS FOR PICTURES.
UM, WE'LL HONOR THAT REQUEST AND RECONVENE ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.
[00:15:23]
STILL[00:15:24]
ROLLING.UM, OUR FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS IS 2025, RESOLUTION 43 BONUS FOR SALARIED COMMAND STAFF AT THE 80TH US WOMEN'S OPEN.
UM, SO MOTION BY SUPERVISOR SCHWAB, SECOND BY SUPERVISOR TOMA.
UM, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THE SHERIFF'S HERE TO ANSWER ANY IF WE NEED NO QUESTIONS.
IN THAT CASE, WE VOTE ELECTRONICALLY.
[a. 2025 Resolution 43 – Bonus for Salaried Command Staff – 80th US Women’s Open]
DO WE GET A VOTE FROM SUPERVISOR MARY? SUPERVISOR MARY, THUMBS UP OR THUMBS DOWN? YES.OUR NEXT ITEM IS RESOLUTION 44, THE 20 26 27 BUDGET APPROPRIATION, UH, MOTION AND A SECOND PLEASE.
[b. 2025 Resolution 44 – 2026-2027 Budget Appropriation]
SUPERVISOR S P*****K, SUPERVISOR KEL.UM, THE, UH, THE BUDGET, UH, WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THE BUDGET FOR A NUMBER OF MONTHS NOW.
UM, SEEING, WE MAY TALK ABOUT ALL OF THESE THINGS KIND OF TOGETHER.
USUALLY WE DEAL WITH EACH AMENDMENT SEPARATELY, BUT, UM, SEEING WE HAVE SEVERAL AMENDMENTS, UM, SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT THEM KIND OF TOGETHER.
WE SHOULD SUSPEND THE NORMAL RULES, MOVE, MOVE.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO SUSPEND THE RULES.
WE NEED TO PASS THAT BY A TWO THIRDS MAJORITY TO PASS IT ON.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? SUSPEND THE RULES? WHAT ARE WE SUSPENDING ON THE RULES? WELL, SECTION 15 DASH 16 PERMITS THE COUNTY BOARD TO SUSPEND PROCEDURAL RULES UPON A MOTION AND SECOND BY A TWO THIRDS MAJORITY.
UM, I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN SUCH A MOTION TO PREVENT THE BOARD TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TOGETHER AND NOT ONE BY ONE 'CAUSE UNDER NORMAL RULES, YOU CAN ONLY DISCUSS ONE AMENDMENT AT A TIME SO THAT THIS WOULD ENSURE THAT THE BOARD HAS A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE AMENDMENTS AND THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THE COUNTY BUDGET.
AND FOLLOWING SUCH DISCUSSION, WILL THE SUPERVISORS WHO FILED THE AMENDMENTS WITH THE BUDGET OFFICE, IF THEY STILL WISH TO OFFER THEIR AMENDMENTS, THEY MAY DO SO, AND THE VOTE AMENDMENTS WILL BE TAKEN UP THEN AND VOTED ONE AT A TIME.
THOSE THAT PASS WILL BECOME FARTHER THE FINAL BUDGET THAT WE'LL PUT TO A VOTE.
IF THE BUDGET IS AMENDED, THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE MAY CHOOSE TO VETO THE BUDGET OR ANY PORTION OF THE BUDGET THAT HE DISAGREES WITH.
IF THAT HAPPENS, THIS BOARD WILL RETURN FOR A SPECIAL MEETING TO TAKE UP THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S VETOES.
THAT MEETING WILL HAVE TO BE HELD BEFORE THE DEADLINE, BY WHICH THE BUDGET OFFICE MUST MAKE ITS SUB SUBMISSIONS TO THE STATE.
UH, MR. DAH CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
I BELIEVE IT'S THE FIRST WEEK IN DECEMBER.
SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DEADLINES, ONE OF WHICH OCCURS ALREADY ON MONDAY.
WE CAN SUBMIT THOUGH, AND FILE AN, UH, AN AMENDED SUBMISSION, BUT OUR FIRST TRULY DIFFICULT DEADLINE BECOMES THAT FIRST WEEK IN DECEMBER.
OKAY, SO MY QUESTION I STILL DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND.
SO, UM, IF WE VOTE TO SUSPEND THE RULES, THAT MEANS THAT WE'LL DISCUSS ALL
[00:20:01]
THREE AT ONE TIME AND THE EITHER ALL PASS OR THEY ALL FAIL.NO, WE STILL VOTE ON THEM ONE AT A TIME AND ONE AT A TIME.
ARE WE ALL CLEAR ON THAT THEN WE VOTE ELECTRONICALLY? YES.
SO EXCUSE ME NOW, PLEASE PROCEED.
UM, YOU COVERED THE HOUSEKEEPING TYPE, UH, COMMENTS THAT I HAD.
UM, BEFORE, BEFORE WE DIVE INTO THE AMENDMENTS, UH, AS YOU MENTIONED, WE DID RECEIVE THREE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, UM, AND EACH HAS SORT OF THEIR OWN SEPARATE AND UNIQUE IMPACT AND THE TAX RATE AND THE LEVY.
AND, UM, THOSE AMENDMENTS WERE REPORTED SEPARATELY IN YOUR PACKET.
AND THE IMPACT TO THE PROPOSED BUDGET HAS BEEN ARTICULATED SEPARATELY WITHIN EACH OF THOSE AMENDMENTS.
UM, I BELIEVE THE, THERE WERE, UM, THE, I BELIEVE THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE HAD, UH, A FEW, A FEW COMMENTS TO MAKE.
WELL, AND THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST SPEAK TO THE WHOLE, THE TOTALITY OF THIS BUDGET AND THE PROCESS THAT WE WENT THROUGH.
AND I WANNA START BY THANKING AARON AND THANKING OUR CABINET MEMBERS AND ALL THE DEPARTMENT HEADS WHO HELPED PUT THIS BUDGET TOGETHER.
IF YOU REMEMBER, I CAME TO YOU LATE THIS LAST SUMMER, UH, AND TALKED TO YOU ABOUT THE CHALLENGES OF THIS PARTICULAR BUDGET AS COMPARED TO THE LAST 12 YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN HERE IN WASHINGTON COUNTY.
UH, AND THIS BUDGET RANKS AMONGST THE MOST DIFFICULT.
UM, THERE'S A LIST OF REASONS FOR THAT THAT I SHARED WITH YOU BACK IN, UH, I THINK IT WAS THE MONTH OF AUGUST, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT.
UM, I WON'T REGURGITATE THOSE, BUT SUFFICE IT TO SAY, UM, THE BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENT, UH, THAT LED UP US UP TO THIS BUDGET PROCESS WAS THE FAILURE BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR, UH, TO ACTUALLY FUND, UM, OR MORE FULLY FUND, UH, OUR, THE RESPONSIBILITIES WE HAVE FOR ADMINISTERING THE COURTHOUSE.
WHAT ONCE WAS A SHARED SERVICE, UM, A A SHARED VENTURE, 50 50 BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE COUNTY.
THE STATE OR THE COUNTY HAS THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE AND THE STATE COURTS OPERATE INSIDE OF IT, UH, IS NOW CLOSE TO AN 80 20 VENTURE IN THAT THE PROPERTY TAXPAYERS HERE IN WASHINGTON COUNTY AND THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE STATE ARE FOOTING THE BULK OF THAT BILL.
UM, THERE'S A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE LEFT TO DI LEFT US TO DIFFICULTIES IN THIS BUDGET, BUT THAT IS PREDOMINANTLY THE LARGEST.
UH, IF YOU RECALL, WE, WE ASKED FOR FUNDING, UH, THAT COULD HAVE EQUATED TO UPWARDS OF $1.5 MILLION FOR JUST WASHINGTON COUNTY ALONE.
UM, AND WE RECEIVED SOMETHING CLOSER TO $150,000 A FRACTION OF WHAT WAS REQUESTED.
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THE LEGISLATURE, UM, IS WORKING ON SOME, UM, BILLS, UH, THAT MAY IN THE LONG HAUL START TO FIX SOME OF THOSE THINGS WITH FEES, UH, THAT ARE CHARGED THROUGH OUR COURT SYSTEM.
UM, BUT THERE'S STILL PLENTY OF WORK TO BE DONE IN THAT REGARD.
WITH THAT SAID, UH, THE TECH TECHNOCRACY OF THE BUDGET, I'M GONNA LEAVE TO, TO AARON TO TALK ABOUT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS THAT ARE SPECIFIC, UH, TO THE DETAIL, UH, OF THE BUDGET.
BUT I WANT TO TAKE A STEP BACK, UH, MAYBE A FEW STEPS BACK AND TALK ABOUT, UM, THE IMPACTS THAT THIS BUDGET AND ALL BUDGETS THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF WISCONSIN ARE HAVING ON ACTUAL PEOPLE, THOSE WHO WE SERVE, THE ONES THAT WE SHOULD ACTUALLY CARE MOST ABOUT.
UM, IT'S NOT JUST THAT THE STATE BUDGET PUT PRESSURES ON US, AND THERE'S NOBODY WHEN YOU HIT THE DEADLINES, WHATEVER THEY ARE, IF THERE'S VETOES OR THERE'S NOT, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHEN THOSE PROPERTY TAX BILLS HIT PEOPLE'S MAILBOXES.
THEY AREN'T GONNA ASK US THE QUESTION OF, WELL, WHAT DID THE COUNTY BOARD SPECIFICALLY DO IN THE FINAL VOTES? THEY'RE GONNA LOOK AT THE END, THE BOTTOM LINE NUMBER OF THEIR TAX BILL AND THEIR JAW'S GONNA DROP.
I DON'T WANT TO BE A PART OF THAT PROBLEM.
NOW, THERE'S CHALLENGES IN EVERY UNIT OF GOVERNMENT, AND IT'S NOT ALL THEIR OWN.
MANY SCHOOL DISTRICTS, VILLAGES, TOWNS, AND CITIES HAVE THEIR OWN CHALLENGES, MANY OF WHICH ARE PASSED DOWN TO THEM FROM ON HIGH GOVERNMENTS THAT SHUT DOWN FOR WEEKS ON END, A STATE GOVERNMENT THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS SEEM INTERESTED IN ACTUALLY KITCHEN TABLE ISSUES.
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS WHAT WE DO DOES HAVE AN IMPACT ON THAT.
THE REASON I CAME TO YOU WITH A PROPERTY TAX LEVY THAT'S REDUCED AGAIN, IS BECAUSE
[00:25:01]
THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT I HEAR, AND I'M QUITE CERTAIN YOU HEAR IT TOO, AND IF YOU DIDN'T HEAR IT LOUD ENOUGH WHEN YOU KNOCKED DOORS, OR WHEN YOU'RE AT THE CHILLY DUMP AT THE LOCAL CHURCH FESTIVAL OR WHEN YOU'RE IN THE GROCERY STORE, I HOPE THE RESULTS FROM THE ELECTION IN VIRGINIA AND NORTH NEW JERSEY SENT IT TO YOU LOUD AND CLEAR.AFFORDABILITY IS THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE, UH, ACROSS MOST OF THIS COUNTRY.
AND THE TAX BILLS THAT YOU'RE GONNA SEE, THE PROPERTY TAX BILLS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET, AND I'M GOING TO GET, AND EVERYBODY IN THIS COUNTY IS GONNA GET, ARE COMPLETELY ANTITHETICAL TO THOSE CONCERNS.
WE'VE STUDIED THE PROPERTY TAX LEVIES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED AT TOWNS, VILLAGES, CITIES, AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS ACROSS THIS, ACROSS THIS COUNTY.
I MENTIONED THIS AT THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, I THINK LAST MONTH.
AND AT THAT POINT WE ONLY HAD A HANDFUL OF THE, THE DATA IN, AND WE STILL DON'T HAVE ALL OF THE DATA IN, BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT A $4.5 MILLION PROPERTY TAX LEVY INCREASE FOR THE WEST BEND SCHOOL DISTRICT, A $1.5 MILLION PROPERTY TAX INCREASE FOR THE HARTFORD JOINT ONE SCHOOL DISTRICT, A $1.7 MILLION INCREASE FOR THE SLINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT IN DEFENSE OF THOSE SCHOOL BOARDS AND THOSE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS.
THAT IS NOT SOMETHING I PIN ON THEM, AT LEAST NOT ALONE.
THAT IS A PRODUCT OF, OF TONY EVERS VETO THAT MADE A 402 YEAR PERMANENT TAX INCREASE A REALITY.
AND THEN THE LEGISLATURE THAT JUST ADOPTED IT IN THE LAST STATE BUDGET AND MADE IT LAW, IT PASSED THE RESPONSIBILITY ONTO SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND DIRECTLY ONTO PROPERTY TAXPAYERS.
AND YOU'RE SEEING IT IN REAL TIME.
NOW, THE IMPACT ON TAX RATES IS GONNA BE ALL OVER THE PLACE, AND THERE'S ALMOST NO WAY TO KNOW FOR CERTAIN HOW THAT'S GONNA IMPACT SOMEBODY IN THE TOWN OF TRENTON VERSUS THE CITY OF WEST BEND, OR IN THE TOWN OF HARTFORD COMPARED TO THE CITY OF HARTFORD BECAUSE ALL OF THE ASSESSMENTS, CHANGES THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS HAVE BEEN ALL OVER THE PLACE, AND SOME HAVE BEEN AS HIGH AS 50% OR MORE INCREASES.
THEY'RE GONNA BE SIGNIFICANT NONETHELESS.
MEANWHILE, THERE'S A FRONT PAGE ARTICLE THIS MORNING THAT I TOLD YOU WAS LIKELY TO BE COMING AND NOW HAS FULLY COME WITH THE CITY COUNCIL HERE IN THE CITY OF WEST BEND, IMPROVING AN INCREASE IN THEIR LEVY OF $1.88 MILLION TO FUND THEIR FIRE AND EM NEW FIRING EMS FACILITY ON THE WEST SIDE OF TOWN.
AGAIN, I'M, IT'S, THIS ISN'T A CRITICISM OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT PROJECT NEEDED TO BE DONE, THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT, BUT THESE THINGS ARE ALL HAPPENING TOGETHER AT A MOMENT IN TIME WHEN THE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT I AM HEARING IS AFFORDABILITY.
AND WE ARE LIKELY TO SEE HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS OR THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF INCREASES IN PROPERTY TAXES THAT IS UNTENABLE.
IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE, AND IT IS WHY I PROPOSED A BUDGET TO YOU THAT HAS AN ACTUAL MODEST, AND IT IS EXTRAORDINARILY MODEST DECREASE IN THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY.
THE POINT OF ALL OF THAT IS I HAVE BEEN WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY FOR 12 YEARS.
I STARTED BY SERVING THE VERY BOARD THAT I'M STANDING IN FRONT OF NOW, ALTHOUGH IT WAS DIFFERENT ACTORS AND MANY OF THEM TRAIN ME VERY DILIGENTLY THAT WE DO NOT INCREASE TAXES UNLESS WE ABSOLUTELY MUST.
IT'S BEEN DRILLED INTO ME SINCE I WAS A LITTLE KID AND REINFORCED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND IT STILL HOLDS TRUE TODAY, AND IT'S EVEN BEEN SAID TODAY.
PROPERTY TAXES ARE THE, THE ARE THE MONEY OF THE PEOPLES THAT WE LIVE THE AND LIVE WITH HERE IN THIS COUNTY.
THEY'RE NOT OURS, AND WE SHOULD TREAT THEM ACCORDINGLY.
YOU'RE GONNA SEE MASSIVE PROPERTY TAX BILL INCREASES.
IT'S JUST THE REALITY OF HOW THINGS HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS.
BUT I HAVE A PHILOSOPHY THAT I PASS ON TO THE, THE CABINET MEMBERS, AARON AND I TALK ABOUT ALL THE TIME, AND THE DEPARTMENT HEADS HOLD IT TRUE, AND THAT IS ALWAYS THE LAST PLACE WE GO WHEN WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS IS A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE.
I WANT TO ADDRESS TWO THINGS IN PARTICULAR THAT ARE GOING TO BE DISCUSSED IN A FEW MINUTES, AND I'M HAPPY TO INTER INTERJECT AT THE CHAIRMAN'S PLEASURE LATER.
THE FIRST IS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN 2027? IN 2027? THERE ARE TWO MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS, PUBLIC POLICY DISCUSSIONS THAT THIS AND THE NEXT BODY OF THIS COUNTY BOARD ARE GOING TO HAVE.
THE FIRST IS THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS VERY CAMPUS THAT WE SIT IN.
IF THE PUBLIC AGENCY CENTER IS CLOSED AND MOVED OVER AND A NEW BUILDING IS BUILT OR ANY TYPES OF MODIFICATIONS TO OUR CAMPUS, IT'S GOING TO HAVE A FISCAL IMPACT ON OUR BUDGET, AND THERE'S GOING TO BE A SHORT TERM IMPACT TO PROPERTY TAXPAYERS.
UNDOUBTEDLY, YOU'LL NEED TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER
[00:30:01]
OR NOT THAT IS WORTH IT IN THE LONG HAUL.THAT DECISION IS COMING SOMETIME IN 2026, WHICH WILL IMPACT 2027, MAYBE BIGGER THAN THAT IS A DEC DECISION.
AND THE PROCESS THAT YOU'VE ALREADY INITIATED YEARS AGO WITH FIRE AND EMS, YOU WILL HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU A DECISION ON HOW MUCH A LEVY WILL INCREASE AND WHAT ARE THE, WHAT ARE THE GIVES AND TAKES WITH LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES.
IT WILL BE IN THE TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
THE DECISION YOU'RE GOING TO BE ASKED TO MAKE, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN IT WILL BE A TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INCREASED TO THE PROPERTY TAXPAYER.
IN FACT, IT PROBABLY WILL BE MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH LESS THAN THAT.
BUT IT IS A MASSIVE PUBLIC POLICY DECISION THAT YOU'RE GONNA BE ASKED TO MAKE.
THAT'S THE BACK HALF OF THIS BIENNIUM, WHICH IS TO SAY, YOU ARE GOING, YOU ARE PREPARING BY JUST, JUST APPROVING THE BASELINE BUDGET THAT WE HAVE.
YOU ARE SETTING YOURSELF UP TO HAVE ANOTHER BUDGET REPAIR RESOLUTION IN 2026.
IT'S NECESSARILY GOING TO HAPPEN IF YOU DO ANYTHING AT ALL WITH EITHER FIRING EMS OR THE FUTURE OF THIS CAMPUS.
SO THE QUESTION WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO CONTEMPLATE ISN'T ARE WE GOING TO AMEND THIS BUDGET AGAIN NEXT YEAR AND, AND SHOULD WE LEAVE IT OFF UNTIL THAT OR SHOULD WE JUST MAKE THE DECISION NOW? IT'S TWOFOLD.
DO YOU REALLY NEED TO TAKE THE PEOPLE'S MONEY AND IS THERE A POTENTIAL FOR US TO FIGURE IT OUT ANOTHER WAY SINCE WE'RE ALREADY GONNA BE RECONSIDERING THE BUDGET ANYWAY? THAT'S THE DISCUSSION AND DEBATE I'M ASKING YOU TO HAVE.
I HAVE NO INTEREST IN EXERCISING THE USE OF A VETO PEN.
THIS HAS BEEN A VERY COLLABORATIVE PROCESS TO THIS POINT, AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT.
IT'S BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN HOW WE'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST.
NEVER HAVE WE COME BEFORE A COUNTY BOARD IN JULY AND AUGUST, LAID OUT THE MASSIVE PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES IN A BUDGET AND ASKED FOR YOUR INPUT AND FEEDBACK BEFORE WE GOT TO THIS MEETING.
TYPICALLY, THAT HAPPENS IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER WITH VERY LITTLE TIME FOR MUCH DELIBERATION OR DEBATE.
YOU'VE HAD MORE TIME THAN YOU'VE EVER HAD.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION, NOT JUST TODAY IN THE WEEKS THAT LED UP AS YOU'VE REVIEWED THIS BUDGET, BUT IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS, THIS IS EXACTLY HOW THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE AND THE COUNTY BOARD, THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH AND THE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ARE SUPPOSED TO WORK.
NOW, I ASK TO COLLABORATIVELY HAVE THIS DISCUSSION TONIGHT AND ULTIMATELY ALWAYS KEEP OUR FOCUS ON WHAT MATTERS MOST, AND THAT'S THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTY.
SO, UM, THE AMENDMENTS ARE LAID OUT IN THE PACKET.
WE WILL, UM, WE'LL TOUCH ON EACH AMENDMENT AS THEY WERE, UM, SUBMITTED.
UM, UM, IF I CAN JUST INTERJECT ONE THING, UM, FOR THIS TO WORK PROPERLY, WE NEEDED, WE NEEDED TO HAVE AMENDMENTS.
WE'D NEVER HAD AMENDMENTS BEFORE, SO I'D LIKE TO PERSONALLY THANK THE PEOPLE THAT PUT FORTH AMENDMENTS.
IT'S THE WAY THIS PROCESS IS SUPPOSED TO WORK, SO THANK YOU.
UM, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, UH, WAS PROPOSED BY SUPERVISOR SCHWAB.
UM, THIS ONE WAS ALSO ENDORSED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
PRIOR TO THIS MEETING, UM, THE FIRST AMENDMENT WOULD INCREASE THE EXPENDITURE BUDGET IN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE BY $80,000 TO FUND PAY INCREASES FOR THIS, FOR THE SPECIAL DEPUTIES, UM, THAT, THAT WORK, UH, UNDER THE SHERIFF'S JURISDICTION.
UM, THE SHERIFF RECENTLY IDENTIFIED THIS AS A PRIORITY.
SO THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW THESE CONVERSATIONS TO CONTINUE ABOUT THAT, THAT PAY INCREASE.
UM, THIS AMENDMENT DOESN'T NECESSARILY APPROVE THE INCREASE ITSELF, BUT IT APPROVES THE FUNDING THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR IT.
UM, SO WITH THAT $80,000 EXPENDITURE INCREASE, A PORTION OF THAT WILL BE OFFSET BY INCREASING, UM, OUR SHARED REVENUE ESTIMATE IN THE BUDGET.
UM, THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, OF COURSE, WE AS A COUNTY RECEIVED SHARED REVENUE.
UH, WHEN WE WERE BUILDING THE BUDGET, WE HAD TO BUILD IT WITH AN ESTIMATE.
UM, IN THE TIME SINCE THE BUDGET WAS SUBMITTED UNTIL NOW, WE RECEIVED COMMUNICATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ABOUT, UM, THE FACT THAT BASICALLY WE'RE SET TO RECEIVE ABOUT $40,000 MORE THAN WHAT WE ESTIMATED.
SO, UM, PART OF THIS AMENDMENT WOULD BE PLUGGING THAT $40,000
[00:35:01]
OF REVENUE IN AS WELL.SO IN TOTAL, THIS WOULD INCREASE THE LEVY NEED BY THE NET AMOUNT, THE $40,000.
UM, SO WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN IS IT WOULD TAKE THE LEVY, UH, FROM THE $100,000 CUT IN 2026 THAT WAS PROPOSED, IT WOULD TAKE THAT $100,000 CUT DOWN TO A $60,000 CUT IN 2026.
UM, THAT'S THE, THOSE ARE THE TECHNICAL IMPACTS, UM, FOR, FOR THIS AMENDMENT.
UM, THOSE ARE THE EXTENT OF MY COMMENTS, BUT AT THIS TIME, I THINK I WOULD OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.
ANY DISCUSSION? SUPERVISOR KREBS.
UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO FILE THE MATH.
AND AT THE TOP OF THE AMENDMENT, IT TALKS ABOUT, UH, 80 INCREASE OF 80,000 FOR THE SPECIAL DEPUTIES AND THEN ADDITIONAL 40,000 FOR, OH, THAT'S THE SHARED REVENUES THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE? IS THAT WHAT IT WAS? CORRECT.
SO THAT OFFSETS THAT, THAT'S AN, THAT'S A REVENUE.
I'M SORRY, I WAS LOOKING AT THAT BEFORE YOU SHARED THAT LAST PART AND IT WAS NOT MATH THING.
ANYONE ELSE? SUPERVISOR GALLS.
UM, SO IF I CORRECTLY UNDERSTOOD, WE ARE GONNA SEE A POTENTIAL OFFSET AND BASED UPON CONVERSATION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, THIS IS KIND OF A CATCH UP, IF I WILL CALL IT THAT FOR SOME LACK OF ADJUSTMENTS OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS.
SO MY RECOMMENDATION OR SUGGESTION IS, UM, LET'S DO PART OF THAT, REDUCE THAT.
IF WE'RE, IF, IF WE'RE GONNA GET, UH, INCREASED REVENUE SHARE, WHY WOULD WE NEED EVEN NEED AN AMENDMENT? WHY DO A 20% ADJUSTMENT RIGHT OFF THE BAT? LET'S DO, YOU KNOW, A FIVE OR 10% INCREASE FOR THOSE BASE PAY AND START FROM THERE AND THEN BUDGET OUT IN THE FUTURE.
SHAME ON US IF WE DIDN'T DO THIS EARLIER, IF THIS WAS IMPORTANT, BUT TO BE ABLE TO CATCH UP IN LIGHT OF A DIFFICULT BUDGET THAT WE HAVE.
IT DOESN'T SEEM PRUDENT TO, TO DO THAT ALL AT ONCE.
WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING THIS OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS,
UM, JUST TO BE CLEAR ON THE ADJUSTMENT, THIS, SO THIS HISTORICALLY, THE PAY FOR THESE SPECIAL DEPUTIES WAS INDEXED AS A, AS A PORTION OF, UM, WHAT A REGULAR DEPUTY GETS PAID.
AND SO AS THOSE REGULAR DEPUTIES, AS THAT PAY SCALE INCREASED, THIS ONE INCREASED AS WELL.
SO WE WERE ADJUSTING THIS PROPOSAL IS IS TO CHANGE THAT MODEL COMPLETELY.
I'M CONFUSED, BUT I THOUGHT I HEARD EARLIER EXECUTIVE THAT THERE WEREN'T ADJUSTMENTS OVER THE LAST FOUR TO FIVE YEARS.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE WERE ADJUSTMENTS, THEY WERE, THEY THERE WEREN'T, THERE WASN'T AN ADJUSTMENT TO THIS MODEL.
THERE WERE THOSE SPECIFIC GROUPS WERE INDEXED TO A PORTION OF THE DEPUTY PAY.
SO AS THAT GOES UP, THIS PAY RANGE GOES UP.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RAISING THAT BASE.
SO A AGAIN, ARE, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE FOR.
WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT THAT BASE IS SUBSTANDARD AND IT SHOULD BE RAISED.
I MEAN, DO WE HAVE ATTRITION? DO WE HAVE VACANCIES AND WE NEED TO INCREASE THAT BASE TO ATTRACT, YOU KNOW, QUALITY CANDIDATES? THAT THAT'S TYPICALLY WHAT YOU INCREASE A BASE FOR.
I WAS UNDER A MISUNDERSTANDING FROM EARLIER THAT THERE WERE NO ADJUSTMENTS THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS, AND I FULLY SUPPORT HAVING AN ADJUSTMENT.
I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS IF WE'RE RAISING THAT BASE, WHAT SUPPORTS THAT? WHAT ARE OTHER, UH, MUNICIPALITIES DOING FOR A SIMILAR POSITION AND DID WE DO MARKET ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE? MM-HMM
BECAUSE IF NOT, THEN I THINK WE NEED TO COME BACK AND DO OUR HOMEWORK.
UM, I THIS FUND'S, UM, A PROPOSAL MADE BY THE SHERIFF'S TO OFFICE.
UM, SO I GUESS I WOULD INVITE THE SHERIFF UP TO, UM, TALK ABOUT THIS IF, IF THAT'S SOMETHING HE'D BE INTERESTED IN DOING.
[00:40:04]
SHERIFF, SO DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? YES, ABSOLUTELY.SO THE, UH, THE SPECIAL DEPUTY PROGRAM HAS BEEN AROUND FOR LITERALLY DECADES AND WHEN IT WAS FIRST IMPLEMENTED, IT WAS MORE OF A STEPPING STONE FOR A BRAND NEW OFFICER.
UH, WE GET TRAINED SCHOOL, UM, MAYBE WORKED SOME PARADES AND PICNICS, AND THEN, UH, WE ACTUALLY ENDED UP HIRING, MYSELF INCLUDED, UM, AS A FULL-TIME OFFICER.
THAT MODEL REALLY HAS CHANGED OVER THE PAST, UH, UM, MAYBE 10 OR SO YEARS, WHERE NOW WE HAVE MANY MORE HIGHLY EXPERIENCED OFFICERS THAT, UH, UM, EITHER RETIRE EARLY OR JUST WANT TO CONTINUE THEIR CAREER ONCE THEY'RE DONE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT.
SO WE HAVE REALLY VETERAN OFFICERS THAT ARE, ARE, ARE COMING TO WORK, UM, MAINLY IN OUR COURT SECURITY AREA.
SO THE SCREENING STATIONS, WHEN YOU COME INTO THE JUSTICE CENTER, UM, THEY'RE THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE DOING THE SCREENING AND, UH, UH, THAT STARTING PAY RIGHT NOW IS 2394.
AND I, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IS A, A, WELL, IT IS NOT A COMPETITIVE RATE.
SO WHAT THE, THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT I WAS SUGGESTING WAS THE STARTING PAY OF A BRAND NEW, UM, FULL-TIME DEPUTY THAT'S GOING TO RECRUIT SCHOOL.
THAT'S LITERALLY JUST STARTING THEIR LAW ENFORCEMENT CAREER.
SO, UM, UH, SO WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT MARKET ANALYSIS.
UM, BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, UM, HAVING THEM, THE BASE PAY OF A BRAND NEW, BRAND NEW DEPUTY WITH ZERO EXPERIENCE IS, UH, SEEMS TO BE, UM, THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
SO I, INSTEAD OF HAVING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BUDGET AMENDMENT, I HAVE DISCUSSION ITEMS AND MY OPINIONS ABOUT ALL THREE BUDGET ITEMS. DO YOU WANT ME TO HOLD OFF ON THOSE OR DO YOU WANT THAT DISCUSSION NOW? WELL, LET'S DO ONE AND THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT.
ALL RIGHT, THEN I'LL CHIME IN AGAIN LATER.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? UH, I THINK IT'S, UM, I, I RECOGNIZE THAT THE $40,000 INCREASE IN REVENUE WAS, YOU KNOW, AN OVERSIGHT NEEDS TO BE FIXED.
UM, BUT THAT $40,000 AND THE $80,000 FOR THE PAY INCREASE, I THINK THOSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TWO SEPARATE AMENDMENTS, UH, BECAUSE ONE REALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER, AND I COULD HAVE PUT THAT $40,000 INTO MY AMENDMENTS TO REDUCE THE COST OF THOSE OTHER TWO AMENDMENTS.
I JUST WANNA BRING THAT FORWARD THAT I THINK IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEPARATED.
THE 40,000 ABSOLUTELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN AMENDED.
UM, AND THE $80,000, YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT BE EASIER TO FIND $80,000 OF TO BRING IN THE PAY INCREASE THAN, UH, TO ADD A POSITION.
UM, IN DURING THE AMENDMENT PROCESS, WE WERE ASKED, UH, WELL, WE WERE KIND OF TOLD
WELL, AN EXTRA 40,000 HAPPEN TO COME ALONG.
AND, UH, SUPERVISOR SCHWAB NOTED THAT AND TOOK ADVANTAGE OF IT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS AMENDMENT.
I THINK THAT'S A RIGHTFUL USE OF THE EXTRA MONEY THAT WAS FOUND.
UM, IT'S, IT'S NOT REALLY ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE AMENDED BECAUSE THE BUDGET IS, IS, UH, TEMPORARY UNTIL IT'S PERMANENTLY PASSED THERE.
THE NUMBERS DO HAVE MOTION SOMETIMES, UH, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GOT ALL THE, UH, INFORMATION IN YET.
SO IT DOES HAPPEN THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE EXTRA MONIES THAT COME IN OR WE MIGHT HAVE A LIABILITY THAT KIND OF GOT MISSED.
LIKE I SAID, SUPERVISOR SCHWAB NOTED IT AND TOOK ADVANTAGE OF IT, AND THAT'S KIND OF THE, UH, POINT OF THIS WHOLE EXERCISE.
COUNTY EXECUTIVE AND, UH, CABINET FOR YOUR WORK ON THE BUDGET THERE.
THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF WORK AND YOU'VE BEEN DILIGENT.
UM, THE REASON I SUBMITTED THIS AMENDMENT AT THIS TIME, ORIGINALLY I WASN'T GOING TO, IN FACT, AT THE, UH, LAST REGULAR MEETING OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE, I
[00:45:01]
SAID I WASN'T PLANNING TO SUBMIT AN AMENDMENT AT THAT TIME.DURING THAT TIME, WE WERE HOPING THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME OTHER FUNDS AVAILABLE IN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED AN INCREASE SUCH AS THIS.
AS IT TURNED OUT, UM, THE THINGS, THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT I HAD HOPED MIGHT HAVE MATERIALIZED, DID NOT, AND THAT'S WHY I SUBMITTED THIS AMENDMENT AT THIS NOT LATE DATE.
BUT, BUT, UH, IT WASN'T SUBMITTED EARLIER.
AT THE SAME TIME, THIS IS AN AMENDMENT THAT SHOULD BE MADE IN THE 2026 YEAR, AND SO I WOULD STRONGLY URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT, AS SHERIFF NOTED FOR MAINTAINING, UM, HIS STAFF, FOR INCREASING STAFF FOR MAINTAINING THE SERVICES OF THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
I EXPECT TO HAVE MORE TO SAY ON AT A FUTURE MOMENT, BUT THAT IS WHAT I HAVE TO SAY WITH REGARD TO THIS AMENDMENT.
MAYBE WE SHOULD GO ON TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
AND THEN, UH, JUST TO KIND OF CLARIFY, THE VOTES WILL TAKE PLACE AT THE, AT THE END.
UM, AND WE SUSPENDED THE RULES SO WE COULD DISCUSS 'EM ALL GLOBALLY AND THEN MAKE DECISIONS.
UM, THE NEXT TWO AMENDMENTS, UH, WERE PROPOSED BY SUPERVISOR KRIEGER GUNDRY, UM, THE, THE FIRST AMENDMENT OR, UM, AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO.
UM, THE, THE FIRST AMENDMENT FROM SUPERVISOR KRIEGER GUNDRY, UM, IS A PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE EXPENDITURE BUDGET IN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE BY 150,000 IN 2027, UH, TO FUND COURTHOUSE SECURITY.
UM, THIS AMENDMENT WAS NOT ENDORSED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, UM, PRIOR TO THIS ONE.
UM, YOU PROBABLY HEARD ABOUT, ABOUT THE COURTHOUSE SECURITY ISSUE.
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS ONE FOR, FOR QUITE A WHILE.
UM, YOU'LL RECALL THAT 150,000 WAS REMOVED FROM, FROM THE COURTHOUSE SECURITY BUDGET IN 2027.
UM, WE'VE ALSO BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT, THAT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, UM, AND THE CJCC AND A NUMBER OF STAKEHOLDER GROUPS ARE WORKING TO POSSIBLY IDENTIFY SOME LEVY SAVINGS, UM, SOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR 2027, UM, THAT COULD HELP MAKE UP THIS DIFFERENCE.
UM, THE PROPOSED BUDGET WAS ESTABLISHED, UM, IN THIS WAY AS SORT OF A CHALLENGE TO KIND OF GO OUT AND LOOK FOR THOSE SAVINGS.
UM, THE INTENT WAS THEN TO VISIT, UH, THIS ISSUE DURING THE MID BIENNIUM REVIEW PROCESS, UM, TO EITHER BACKFILL THAT REDUCTION IN COURTHOUSE SECURITY OR TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE.
UM, SO INSTEAD OF DOING THAT APPROACH, WHAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD DO WOULD, WOULD, UM, BACKFILL THAT EXPENSE THAT WAS REDUCED IN 2027.
SO THE IMPACT, UM, OF THIS AMENDMENT OF PASSING THIS AMENDMENT, UH, WOULD INCREASE THE LEVY NEED IN 2027 BY $150,000.
SO THAT WOULD TAKE THE $275,000 INCREASE THAT WAS PROPOSED AND BOOST THAT NUMBER, UM, BY ANOTHER 150,000 TO $425,000 TAX LEVY INCREASE IN 2027.
UM, SO THOSE ARE THE, THAT'S THE TECHNICAL IMPACT OF, OF AMENDMENT TWO.
UM, SO SUPERVISOR BOSSERT, OKAY.
CAN WE TALK ABOUT THE POTENTIAL LEVY SAVINGS THAT ARE BEING LOOKED AT AND WHAT THOSE ARE? UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT ONE OF THOSE MAY BE TO MOVE, MOVE ONE OFFICER FROM PATROL TO COURTHOUSE SECURITY, AND THAT'S A LITTLE BIT CONCERNING BECAUSE ANTI-CRIME PLAN B WAS BASED ON TRYING TO GET MORE OFFICERS ON PATROL.
SO CAN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT, WHAT LEVEE SAVINGS THEY'RE LOOKING AT? IS THAT THE PRIMARY ONE? ARE THERE OTHER ONES THEY'RE LOOKING AT? UM, OKAY.
UM, I, I WOULD SAY THERE ARE A FEW THINGS THAT WE'RE BEING LOOKED AT.
I, THE, IF, IF IT WERE TO BE INSTITUTED IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT ANY OTHER CHANGES THAT I THINK THE SHERIFF HAS SAID AT MULTIPLE COMMITTEE MEETINGS WOULD BE THE, THE NET IMPACT, UM, THAT OFFICERS WOULD HAVE TO COME OFF THE ROAD.
WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT HAPPEN.
UM, SHERIFF AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS, UH, INCLUDING MODIFICATIONS TO THE JAIL.
UH, AARON AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT,
[00:50:01]
UH, POTENTIAL FEAR AREAS THAT WE COULD LOOK AT CHANGING AND, AND INCREASE INCREASING.AND I MENTIONED IN MY COMMENTARY THE DISCUSSION ABOUT, UM, COURT FEES, UH, THAT IS BEING INVESTIGATED AND WORKED ON.
AND, UH, FOR WHAT HAS BEEN REPORTED TO ME.
THERE'S LEGISLATION BEING DRAFTED AS WE SPEAK, UM, THAT WOULD FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 50 YEARS, INCREASE FEES, UH, THAT ARE CHARGED IN THE COURTS AND ACTUALLY THE REVENUE COMES BACK TO THE COURTS AND NOT BACK TO MADISON.
UM, IF ANY OF THOSE THINGS HAPPEN IN THE NEXT, UM, 12 MONTHS, THEN ALL OF THOSE ARE OPPORTUNITY AREAS THAT COULD HELP HELP FUND THIS.
AND IF NONE OF THEM HAPPEN, UH, WE HAVE A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION TO HAVE.
SO I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT ANY OF THE AMENDMENTS AT ANY TIME.
I PREPARED A, A LITTLE, A LITTLE, UH, SYNOPSIS OF WHAT, WHY I PUT FORTH THOSE TWO AMENDMENTS.
UM, I, I THINK I, I WANTED TO GO BACK, UM, TO, UH, WELL, I'M GONNA JUST READ WHAT I HAVE HERE.
BOTH AMENDMENTS ARE STAFFING INCREASES IN THE SHERIFF'S BUDGET FOR THE YEAR 2027.
IF THESE AMENDMENTS ARE APPROVED, THE 2027 COUNTY BUDGET LEVY WILL INCREASE FROM 36 3 22, 6 75 TO 3 6 6 3 4 6 75.
BUT THE MILL RATE, UM, WILL ACTUALLY, THE RATE REDUCTION WILL GO FROM 4.9% REDUCTION DOWN TO A 4.1% REDUCTION.
NOW, DURING THE EXECUTIVE, UH, COMMITTEE MEETING, UM, AARON TALKED ABOUT, UM, THAT WE'RE PRETTY CLOSE TO REACHING THE MAXIMUM OF THE LEVEE LIMIT.
UH, BUT HE THOUGHT IT WAS, IT WAS CERTAINLY DOABLE IF WE PASSED ALL THREE.
UM, SO I, I JUST WANNA BRING THIS BACK TO EVERYBODY AND THAT, SO THAT THAT TELLS ME SOMETHING AND THAT IT'S DOABLE IF WE PASS ALL OF THEM.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS, UM, THE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE EQUALIZED VALUE WAS, UH, BUDGETED AT A 6% INCREASE.
IT'S LIKELY THAT IT'LL BE HIGHER, UM, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT THE, WE WOULD NOT BE REACHING AS MUCH OF THAT LEVEE LIMIT MAXIMUM.
AM I RIGHT IN THAT, UM, THE, THE EQUALIZED VALUE WOULD IMPACT THE RATE MM-HMM
UM, AND, AND THAT ESTIMATE WAS CONSERVATIVE AT 6%.
SO THE, AND SO THAT WOULDN'T MEAN WE'D HAVE MORE LEVEE LIMIT AVAILABLE.
UM, IT WOULD DRIVE THE RATE DOWN.
IT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY IMPACT THE NET NEW CONSTRUCTION.
UM, BUT, BUT THE, BUT THE NET NEW CONSTRUCTION NUMBER, UM, YES TO, TO, UH, MY, MY COMMENTS ON NET NEW CONSTRUCTION WERE, UM, THAT THESE TWO AMENDMENTS THAT IMPACT 2027 ADD TO THE ALREADY, UM, PROPOSED INCREASE, UM, OF 2 75.
THERE ARE TWO ADDITIONAL INCREASES TO THAT NUMBER IN 2027 THAT WOULD PUT US AT ABOUT 580, UM, THOUSAND DOLLARS OF, OF NEW LEVY FOR, UM, 2027, WHICH IS BASICALLY RIGHT AT WHERE NET NEW CONSTRUCTION USUALLY LANDS.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT.
AND I, I, I DID WANNA POINT OUT THAT IN 2022, EVERY MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE VOICED A VERY STRONG SUPPORT TO INCREASE THE LEVY LIMIT TO FUND THE, UH, ANTI-CRIME PLAN WITH AN ADDITIONAL $3.6 MILLION.
UM, I'M SURPRISED TONIGHT THAT THEY'RE NOT ENDORSING THESE TWO INCREASES.
UM, I DID NOT SUPPORT THE INCREASING THE LEVEE LIMIT.
I REASON THAT THE PROPOSED INCREASE COULD NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED IN ONE YEAR, IN THAT IT COULD BE FULLY IMPLEMENTED OVER SEVERAL YEARS.
UH, SO THERE WILL BE NO NEED TO INCREASE THE LEVY LIMIT, AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
THE VOTERS SAID NO, AND SO WE CAME UP WITH PLAN B, AND SO WE'VE BEEN INCREMENTALLY ADDING IN, UH, UH, THE PLAN B OF THE ANTI-CRIME.
AND I THINK THAT SOME, THERE WERE SOME, UH, REQUESTS THAT WERE MODIFIED AND THERE WERE A LOT OF REDUCTIONS DONE BY OTHER COUNTY DEPARTMENTS FOR THAT.
I'M GRATEFUL TO THOSE DEPARTMENTS.
UM, AS FAR AS THE COURTHOUSE SECURITY DURING THE BUDGET DISCUSSION, UH, EXECUTIVE SHOWMAN COMMENTED
[00:55:01]
THAT THERE WAS A REDUCTION IN THE COURTHOUSE SECURITY AND, UM, EVERYBODY CAN READ THE NOTE.IT SAYS THE REDUCTION OF ONE, UH, FTE IN THE COURTHOUSE SECURITY COST CENTER TO REPRESENT A COST SAVING EFFORT CURRENTLY BEING DISCUSSED BY VARIOUS STAKEHOLDER GROUPS.
UH, THE STATUS OF THESE AND OTHER COST SAVING MEASURES WILL BE EVALUATED MID BIENNIUM AND THE FUNDING MAY BE MODIFIED AND RESTORED.
UM, SO MY AMENDMENT IS TO RESTORE THE FULL FTE POSITION OF 150,000 TO INCLUDE THE COST REFERENCED IN THE NOTE.
THE INCREASE IN THE MILL RATE IS 0.0055 OR 0.06, WHICH WOULD AMOUNT TO A DOLLAR 80 ON A $300,000 HOME, OR $2 AND 40 CENTS ON A $400,000 HOME.
UM, I DON'T THINK THIS IS A TIME THAT WE WANNA GO BACKWARDS IN THE COURTHOUSE SECURITY AS A COST SAVING EFFORT.
UM, AT THE SEPTEMBER PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING, SHERIFF S SCHULTY STATED, UH, THAT HE FELT SO STRONGLY ABOUT COURTHOUSE SECURITY, THAT HE WOULD RATHER TAKE A DEPUTY OFF THE ROAD, UH, UH, RATHER THAN STAFF, UH, IN ORDER TO STAFF THIS POSITION, UM, IN A SEPARATE COMMUNICATION TO ME.
UM, SHERIFF SCHULTE STATED THAT THE COURTHOUSE STAFFING HAS REMAINED THE SAME SINCE 2013.
SO THIS WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, A REDUCTION GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO WHAT WAS THE NORM SINCE 2013.
AND IF I'M WRONG ABOUT THAT, YOU CAN CORRECT ME.
UM, BUT THAT WAS THE, THE INFORMATION I GOT FROM SHERIFF SCHULTY.
I, I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD WAIT UNTIL THE MID BIENNIUM TO, TO DECIDE, YOU KNOW, UM, DO WE WANNA CONTINUE THIS FUNDING OR NOT.
I DON'T WANNA LEAVE IT UP TO CHANCE.
AND THEN ON THE DETECTIVE POSITION, UM, UH, SHERIFF SCHULTE ALSO IN THAT SEPTEMBER MEETING, UH, STATED THAT HE, HE HAD ASKED FOR A DETECTIVE POSITION IN THE AMOUNT OF $162,000.
AND IN HIS STATEMENT TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE, HE STATED HE REQUIRED A, UH, WELL, HE STATED THAT, AND THE REQUEST WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET, UM, THAT WE'RE GONNA BE VOTING ON, BUT THE INCREASE TO THE MILL RATE IS, AGAIN, IT'S 0.0059, OR IF YOU ROUND IT UP TO IT'S 0.006, WHICH AGAIN IS 180 A DOLLAR 80 ON A $300,000 HOME, OR $2 AND 40 CENTS ON A $400,000 HOME.
UM, I, I AM, I'M, I'M SURPRISED, UM, THAT THE, THE EXEC COUNTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING, UM, IS WILLING TO TAKE A WAIT AND SEE ATTITUDE ABOUT BOTH OF THESE POSITIONS.
UM, ON THE DETECTIVE POSITION, UH, SHERIFF SCHULTE ALSO SHARED WITH ME, UH, THAT OUR COUNTY HAS A 0.15 OF DETECTIVES PER A THOUSAND POPULATION.
OZAKI AND WAUKESHA COUNTY HAVE A POINT 30 AND A POINT 32.
UH, DODGE COUNTY HAS A POINT 25.
IF THE AMENDMENT GOES THROUGH, IT WILL STILL LEAVE US SHORT OF THOSE THREE COUNTIES AT A 0.17 PER THOUSAND POPULATION.
UM, CONSIDERING OUR, OUR CLOSE PROXIMITY TO MILWAUKEE, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE, UM, PUT THIS AMENDMENT FORWARD, THIS ADDITIONAL DETECTIVE POSITION.
I MAY HAVE MORE TO SAY DEPENDING ON WHAT EVERYBODY SAYS, OR TO CLARIFY MY POSITION, BUT I, I THINK MY CALCULATIONS ARE CORRECT.
UM, I GUESS BECAUSE, UM, UH, SUPERVISOR SCHWAB PUT THE $40,000 REVENUE IN WITH THE $80,000 RAISE, I'M NOT SURE IF WE CAN SEPARATE THOSE TWO.
AND THEN I WOULD PREFER TO, TO LOOK FOR WAYS TO INCREASE THE, UM, SHERIFF DEPUTY PAY, TAKE THE 40, $40,000 REVENUE IF WE CAN DO THAT AND, AND THEN SUPPORT THESE TWO FULL-TIME POSITIONS.
UM, ACTUALLY SUPERVISOR, UM, KRIEGER GO, ANSWERED SOME OF MY QUESTIONS.
I WAS, YOU KNOW, CURIOUS ABOUT THE MATH, IF ALL OF THESE THREE AMENDMENTS PASS, WHAT IT WOULD MEAN, YOU KNOW, PER EACH INDIVIDUAL HOUSEHOLD, AND WHAT WOULD THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE, YOU KNOW, ON THE TAX BILL, ESPECIALLY TOO WITH OUR, YOU KNOW,
[01:00:01]
CON EXECS CONCERNS THAT HE SHARED AT, AT THE BEGINNING OF OUR MEETING.UM, I BELIEVE SECURITY IS, UM, SOMETHING RIGHT.
SAFETY AND SECURITY IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD PUT FOREMOST.
AND IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, A DOLLAR OR TWO, UM, ADDED TO A TAX BILL, I, I TRULY THINK OUR CONSTITUENTS AND, YOU KNOW, OUR CITIZENS ACROSS THIS COUNTY WOULD DEFINITELY SUPPORT THAT.
UM, AND THEN TO BREAKING DOWN THE STILL, THE, THE DEFICIT.
UM, AGAIN, SUPERVISOR KRIEGER GUND COMPARING US TO OUR SURROUNDING COUNTIES, UM, AT THE 0.17 SHARES PER THE 1000 VERSUS THE 0.25, 0.30 AND 0.32 OF OUR SURROUNDING COUNTIES IS, UM, IS A LITTLE CONCERNING.
'CAUSE WE, YOU KNOW, KEEP SAYING THAT OUR DOORS AREN'T OPEN FOR CRIME, RIGHT? WE HAVE BEEN, UM, EASY PICKINGS KIND OF, OF OVER, I'D SAY MAYBE MORE LIKE A DECADE AGO, BUT I DO APPRECIATE, UM, YOU CAN SEE IT, YOU KNOW, UP AND DOWN THE HIGHWAYS AND, YOU KNOW, UM, WITHIN THE REPORTS THAT WE RECEIVE, THE, THE INCREASED, UM, ESSENTIALLY TOUGHENED CRIMES THAT WASHINGTON COUNTY HAS, UM, UH, BEGAN THESE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WE ALSO NEED TO DO THE DUE DILIGENCE AND SUPPORT OUR, UM, OUR OFFICERS WHO ARE OUT THERE AND WE, WE HAVE TO, UM, CREATE SAFETY AND SECURITY TOO WITHIN OUR OWN WALLS HERE AND, AND PROTECT OUR OWN.
AND WE CAN DO THAT WITH A DOLLAR OR TWO.
UM, I, I THINK THAT'S KIND OF A, A NO BRAINER FOR ME, BUT I, I DO HAVE A CONCERN TOO WITH THESE, UM, WITH THE PROCESSES WITH, UM, HOW, UM, INDIVIDUALS WE'RE ABLE, LIKE, UM, SORRY, SUPERVISOR SCHWAB WAS ABLE TO, UM, BECOME AWARE OF THAT $40,000, YOU KNOW, HOW, HOW DO WE COME AWARE OF THOSE, UM, THAT POTENTIAL MONEY, YOU KNOW, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, PRIVY JUST TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OR, UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE IN, IN THE FUTURE TOO TO, YOU KNOW, HOW CAN EACH ONE OF US FIND OUT THAT THAT $40,000 WAS POTENTIALLY, UH, AVAILABLE? JUST I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.
DO YOU HAVE AN IMMEDIATE REPLY TO THAT SUPERVISOR SCHWAB? I DO.
UM, THE WAY YOU BECOME AWARE OF THAT IS YOU ASK QUESTIONS, RIGHT? UM, COUNTY EXECUTIVE AND I HAD ABOUT FOUR HOURS OF CONVERSATIONS.
I HAD PROBABLY AN HOUR OF CONVERSATIONS WITH, WITH UH, MR. DAHL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT OPTIONS THERE ARE.
IT TAKES SOME INITIATIVE, RIGHT? I'M, I'M SURE SUPERVISOR KRIEGER, GUND DRUM HAD CONVERSATIONS AS WELL, TRYING TO, TO FIND OUT WHAT OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE.
UM, EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM HAS ACCESS TO THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE AND HIS CABINET, UM, RESPECTFULLY OF COURSE, BUT YOU CAN FIND OUT INFORMATION AND IT, AND ACTUALLY IT WASN'T UNTIL AFTER I HAD SUBMITTED THE AMENDMENT THAT, UM, MR. DAHL MADE ME AWARE THAT, OR HAD SUBMITTED MY REQUEST FOR THAT $80,000 THAT, UM, MR. DAHL MADE ME AWARE THAT THERE WERE NEW NUMBERS FROM DOR SO THAT THE BUDGET COULD BE ADJUSTED IN THAT WAY.
SO I'M GONNA START OUT BY SAYING THAT I LIKE THE CONVERSATION WE'RE HAVING TONIGHT A WHOLE LOT MORE THAN I LIKE THE CONVERSATION MILWAUKEE HAD ABOUT THEIR BUDGET.
SO
AND YET THIS YEAR THEY STILL HAD A BUDGET SHORTFALL BECAUSE ALL THEY DO IS FIND NEW WAYS TO SPEND MONEY.
WE'RE THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THAT.
TONIGHT WE'RE LOOKING AT, FOR A $350,000 HOUSE, IF WE PASS THE BUDGET AS IT WAS PRESENTED, WE'RE GONNA REDUCE THEIR TAXES BY $63 AND 49 CENTS OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS.
AND IF WE PASS ALL THREE AMENDMENTS,
[01:05:01]
WE'RE GONNA STILL REDUCE THEIR TAXES BY $58 AND 94 CENTS.THAT'S A DIFFERENCE OF $4 AND 55 CENTS.
AND I DID SEND THESE NUMBERS TO AARON AND HE VERIFIED THEM AND APPARENTLY THEY WERE SO GOOD THAT AN EXECUTIVE, WHEN HE COULDN'T FIND A NUMBER QUICK ENOUGH, HE ASKED FOR MINE.
SO
UM, COUPLE YEARS AGO WHEN WE DID THAT ANTI-CRIME PLAN, WE WORKED HARD ON THAT.
AND OUR COUNTY SHERIFF VALUES COURTHOUSE SECURITY SO MUCH THAT IF NEED BE, HE'S WILLING TO TAKE AN OFFICER OFF PATROL SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE WE MAINTAIN THE CURRENT LEVEL OF COURTHOUSE SECURITY.
WHAT THAT MEANS FOR US IS, FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, IF THE THINGS JOSH TALKED ABOUT DO NOT COME TO FRUITION, A VOTE TONIGHT AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT IS EFFECTIVELY CUTTING A PATROL POSITION, NOT A COURTHOUSE SECURITY POSITION FROM THE TECHNICALS OF THE BUDGET.
YEAH, IT'S A COURTHOUSE SECURITY, BUT FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, IT'S CUTTING A PATROL POSITION.
A LOT OF PEOPLE MOVE TO OUR COUNTY BECAUSE OF THE SAFE COMMUNITIES WE'VE HAD.
I'VE BEEN ON THIS BOARD 10 YEARS.
PUBLIC SAFETY HAS ALWAYS BEEN OUR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY.
IN THOSE 10 YEARS, OUR TAX RATE HAS GONE FROM $2 AND 70 CENTS TO LESS THAN A DOLLAR 35 PER THOUSAND IN HOME VALUE.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S BEEN HALVED.
THAT'S EVEN IF WE PASS ALL THREE AMENDMENTS, WE'VE HALVED OUR TAX RATE IN 10 YEARS.
THE LEVY'S BEEN ESSENTIALLY FLAT.
EVEN IF WE PASS ALL THREE AMENDMENTS AND IT TICKS UP A LITTLE BIT, WE ARE EASILY LIVING WITHIN OUR MEANS.
IF OUR COUNTY'S GROWING AND WE'RE KEEPING OUR LEVY FLAT, I MEAN, WE COULD BE LIVING WITHIN OUR MEANS BY LETTING OUR LEVY GROW TO MATCH THE GROWTH IN OUR COUNTY.
THAT'S INCREDIBLE AND I LOVE BEING PART OF THAT.
UM, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO APPROVE ALL THREE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.
I'M ASKING EVERYBODY ELSE TO VOTE FOR ALL THREE.
I THINK IT'S A WHOLE LOT EASIER TO DEDICATE THIS MONEY NOW AND THEN NEXT YEAR IF THE THINGS JOSH TALKED ABOUT COME TO FRUITION, WE CAN VOTE TO FURTHER REDUCE TAXES WITH A BUDGET AMENDMENT, THEN I THINK THAT'S A WHOLE LOT EASIER.
VERSUS COMING BACK NEXT YEAR AND SAYING WE NEED TO AMEND TAXES AND INCREASE THE LEVY.
I THINK THAT GETS A LOT DICIER.
SO I WOULD RATHER SET THIS MONEY ASIDE NOW AND THEN IF THINGS COME TO FRUITION AS JOSH SUGGESTED, THEN WE CAN COME BACK NEXT YEAR AND WE CAN REDUCE IT ANOTHER $4 AND 55 CENTS.
SO I'M ENCOURAGING EVERYBODY TO VOTE YES ON ALL THREE AMENDMENTS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, SUPERVISOR KREBS.
UM, AARON, COULD YOU POINT ME IN THE BUDGET TO, OR TELL ME HOW MUCH OF OUR NET NEW CONSTRUCTION THIS BUDGET AS PROPOSED IS UTILIZING OR HOW MUCH SPACE THERE IS FOR US TO UTILIZE MORE IF WE WOULD SO CHOOSE? UM, THIS BUDGET USES THIS BUDGET USES NO NET NEW CONSTRUCTION.
UM, IT ACTUALLY, UH, REDUCES THE LEVEE, UM, OUR NET NEW CONSTRUCTION NUMBER IF YOU GIMME A MOMENT TO PULL UP THE LEVEE LIMIT WORKSHEET.
UM, AND WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT, I'M ONLY ASKING FOR, FOR THIS BOARD TO UNDERSTAND SO WE KNOW WHAT OUR CAPACITY TO TAKE THESE AMENDMENTS OR NEXT YEAR'S, UH, BUDGET FIX BILL, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT ROOM WE HAVE THERE, WHAT WIGGLE ROOM THERE IS, AND WELL, HE'S LOOKING FOR THAT.
IF JOSH HAS SOMETHING, FEEL FREE.
YEAH, I HAD IT IN MY NOTES TO ADDRESS.
SO, UH, JUST TO BE CLEAR, 2027 IS THE, THE TIME WHERE THERE IS A LEVY INCREASE IN 2027 CURRENTLY PROPOSED.
IT WOULD USE A PORTION OF WHAT WE ANTICIPATE TO BE NET NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE NUMBER FOR WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE.
UM, WE WILL HAVE THAT SOME PROBABLY AROUND AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER OF NEXT YEAR.
BUT THE NET, NET NEW CONSTRUCTIONS IRRELEVANT.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU'RE DECIDING.
I SHOWED THAT IN, UH, THE PRESENTATION WE GAVE BACK IN JULY.
YOUR ABILITY TO INCREASE THE LEVY IS, I WON'T SAY EXPONENTIAL, BUT IT'S PRETTY DAMN CLOSE BETWEEN DEBT LEVY AND CLAWBACK MONEY AND NET NEW CONSTRUCTION.
[01:10:01]
TAXES AS MUCH AS YOU WANT, PICK ANYTHING YOU WANT TO FUND AND YOU CAN FUND IT.THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU NEED TO TAKE FROM THE TAXPAYER? THAT'S THE REAL QUESTION.
NET NET NEW CONSTRUCTION IS ONE OF ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO RAISE THE LEVY LIMIT.
AND, AND, BUT, AND I ALSO WANNA MENTION ALL THIS TALK ABOUT LEVY LIMITS AND TAX RATES.
LIKE IT'S MISLEADING AND IT'S DISINGENUOUS.
THE THING THAT ACTUALLY MATTERS IS HOW MUCH WE COLLECT.
AND YES, WE'VE HELD IT FLAT FOR 12 YEARS ALMOST.
UM, YOU CAN ACTUALLY GO BACK ALL THE WAY TO 2008 AND THE LEVY'S ABOUT ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT LOWER IN 26 THAN IT WAS IN 2008.
THAT, THAT MEANS OVER THAT TIME WE HAVE SHRUNK THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT.
UM, I HAVE OTHER COMMENTS I WANNA MAKE, BUT I'LL SAVE 'EM TO THE END.
I WANTED TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE LEVY QUESTION 'CAUSE IT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHAT NET NEW CONSTRUCTION IS.
AND TO ME, TO ME IT DOES A LITTLE BIT.
AND, AND THAT'S JUST ACT ACTUALLY AFTER LOOKING AT IT'S PAGE 61 OF THE AGENDA PACKET OR, UH, 23 OF THE BUDGET SPECIFIC DOCUMENT.
JUST LOOKING AT OUR FORECASTED FISCAL BUDGET GAP COMING UP IN THE FUTURE, BECAUSE IN THE FUTURE IT'S FORECASTING WE HAVE 3.5 MILLION IN DEFICIT AND INCREASING THE 5.26 MILLION AS IT JUST GROWS THE YEARS OUT.
YES, THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION'S JUST ONE TOOL OF HOW TO FUND WHATEVER WE CHOOSE TO FUND OR SPEND, BUT KEEPING IN MIND OF THOSE GROWING COST OF LIVING EXPENSES DOWN THE ROAD IS JUST THE PERSPECTIVE THAT I'M COMING FROM WITH THIS.
BUT PLEASE, PLEASE NOTE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH AMENDMENT.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT NUMBERS THESE ARE.
UM, THE SECOND TWO AMENDMENTS IS YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT NET NEW CONSTRUCTION IS FOR 2027.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 20, 27 PROJECTS IN BOTH OF THOSE, UH, AMENDMENTS FROM SUPERVISOR KRIEGER, GUND DRUM, WE WON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS.
UM, IN SOME OF OUR MUNICIPALITIES IT IS ZERO.
IT'S NOT LIKELY TO BE ZERO IT, BUT WE'RE COMPLETELY PROJECTING WHAT WE THINK IT COULD BE.
UM, SO IT COULD BE NEXT TO NOTHING.
THE LOWEST I THINK IT'S BEEN SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, I WANNA SAY IS 1%.
BUT IT ALL IS DEPENDENT ON WHAT HAPPENS THIS COMING JANUARY.
SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE TRYING TO PREDICT SOMETHING THAT HASN'T HAPPENED YET.
THE BIGGER, THE BIGGER ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS HOW MUCH LEVY CAPACITY DO WE HAVE TOTAL? AND THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT'S ALMOST EXPONENTIAL.
AND I KNOW THIS RIGHT NOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SPEAKING TO AMENDMENTS, SO I DON'T WANNA VENTURE TOO FAR INTO JUST THE GENERAL BUDGET AND FUNDING, BUT I'LL NEVER BE ASKING YOU TO FUND THE BUDGET WITH MASSIVE BORROWING WHERE WE'RE EXPONENTIALLY ABLE TO FUND WHATEVER WE WANT.
I'M ONLY TALKING ABOUT JUST THE BARE MINIMUM NET NEW CONSTRUCTION.
I'M REALLY GLAD YOU SAID THAT
AND HERE'S WHY I LIKE CONSERVATIVES.
NO, UH,
THE PRINCIPLE AND INTEREST PAYMENTS, THAT IS NOT WHAT ANYBODY ANYWHERE DOES.
YOU, YOU, WE ARE THE ONLY PLACE THAT DOES SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT, WHEN I SAY YOU HAVE A HUGE CAP, THAT'S THE CAP.
SO WE'RE PAYING PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMENTS RIGHT NOW ON THE REMODELING PROJECT OF ACROSS THE HALLWAY.
THAT PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, WE'RE LIVING WITHIN OUR MEANS TO PAY FOR YOU TO, YOU RIGHT NOW COULD AMEND THE BUDGET AND INCREASE IT BY THAT FULL PRINCIPLE AND INTEREST PAYMENT FOR LEVY, DO IT IMMEDIATELY.
YOU COULD ALSO DO IT FOR OTHER BORROWINGS THAT WE HAVE, FRANKLY, INCLUDING SAMARITAN.
WE'VE NEVER CHOSEN TO DO THAT.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT STOPS YOU AND EVERY OTHER UNIT OF GOVERNMENT DOES IT.
AND OF COURSE WE HAVE LIKE A BILLION DOLLARS IN BORROWING CAPACITY.
SO YES, YOU CAN ALSO ALMOST EXPONENTIALLY INCREASE.
THAT WAS, THAT WAS THE, THE PASSING COMMENT.
BUT REALITY IS RIGHT NOW, WITHOUT PLAYING THAT GAME, WE HAVE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF LEVY CAPACITY AND CLAWBACK AND NET NEW CONSTRUCTION.
ANY OF THAT YOU COULD DO TOMORROW, TONIGHT.
I DON'T, I DON'T THINK WE'RE ALLOWED TO MAKE AMENDMENTS TONIGHT BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN VETTED THROUGH THE, THE RULE
[01:15:01]
PROCESS THAT'S BEEN LAID OUT THERE BY OUR CHAIRMAN, EXCEPT THAT YOU CAN FUND IT.HOW YOU CAN FUND THE AMENDMENTS, HOW YOU CHOOSE, YOU CAN COME FROM ANYWHERE.
BRAD, ARE WE ALLOWED TO MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THE AMENDMENTS? UH, PROCEDURALLY YOU CAN.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT ANSWER.
WELL, WHAT THAT MEANS IS YOU CAN MAKE AN AMENDMENT, BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT WILL BE IN ORDER DEPENDING ON, I SUPPOSE, WHAT IMPACT OR WHAT EFFECT THAT MIGHT HAVE ON IF THE BUDGET OFFICE HAS TO, UH, GO BACK AND REWORK NUMBERS AND ISN'T ABLE TO GIVE YOU AN ANSWER TONIGHT OR PREPARE IS THE WHAT EFFECT THAT WOULD HAVE.
SO, BUT THE ONE WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT, IT'S, IT'S A MATTER OF WHICH LEVY BUCKET DOES IT COME OUT OF IT, IT'S NOT A, IT'S A FUNCTIONAL ISSUE.
SO, AND FOR THE TAXPAYER, THEY, THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE WHEN IT HITS THEIR PROPERTY TAX BILL, IT'S $150,000 OR IT'S NOT $150,000, IT'S 4 CENTS PER THOUSAND, OR IT'S NOT 4 CENTS PER THOUSAND DOESN'T.
SO HYPOTHETICALLY, COULD AMENDMENT BE MADE TO TAKE THE 40,000 OF ADDITIONAL AID THAT'S BEEN FUNDED OUT OF SUPERVISOR SCHWAB'S AMENDMENT TO SEPARATE THOSE ISSUES OR INVERSELY, AFTER THAT SEPARATE, COULD LIKE HIS AMENDMENT BE AMENDED TO ONLY FUND IT, NOT TO 80,000, BUT TO A LOWER AMOUNT OR TO ANY OF THE AMENDMENTS? COULD THEY BE MODIFIED IN THEIR DOLLAR AMOUNTS? I THINK THE AMENDMENTS, UM, HOW THEY'RE FUNDED, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT PRACTICALLY AFFECTS THE AMENDMENT ITSELF.
I DEFER TO MR. DAH ON THAT QUESTION, BUT IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT DOESN'T MATTER ON THE BACKEND OF HOW YOU FUND THESE AMENDMENTS, AS LONG AS THE OVERALL BUDGET NUMBER IS JUST CHANGING.
I WAS JUST SAYING AT THE END OF THE DAY, ARE WE JUST TALKING THE TOTAL BUDGET AMOUNT AND THAT'S IT FOR WHAT THE SWING OR DIFFERENCE WOULD BE WITH IT? YEAH, BECAUSE I THINK ULTIMATELY HOW THEY FUND IT IS TO BE DETERMINED WITHIN THE BUDGET OFFICE.
WHAT YOU ARE ASKING 'EM TO DO IS THE SUBJECT OF THE AMENDMENT.
SO REALLY, LIKE MR. SCHWAB'S AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE IS A $40,000 AMENDMENT, AND IF IT'S A STANDALONE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IF THAT'S OUTTA THE EQUATION, EITHER ONE OF SUPERVISOR GUND DRUM'S AMENDMENTS ARE TECHNICALLY 40,000 LESS TOO, BECAUSE THAT 40,000 OF NEW FUNDING IS OUT RIGHT HERE FROM WHERE I'M SITTING.
THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU MAKE OR THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU MAKE, HOW THEY'RE OFFSET OR HOW THEY'RE FUNDED IS REALLY NOT, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, SUBJECT OF THE AMENDMENT AS MUCH AS IT IS HOW THE GOVERNMENT, HOW IT AFFECTS THE BACKEND, AND HOW YOU HAVE TO HANDLE THAT ON IN THE BUDGET OFFICE.
SO, SO IT IT, IT HASN'T HAPPENED IN A LONG TIME.
WE'VE HAD PLENTY OF AMENDMENTS OVER THE YEARS.
I KNOW SUPERVISOR KREBS, YOU WERE HERE FOR SOME, THOSE WERE THE BEST ONES.
I KNOW REPRESENTATIVE GUNDRY WAS ON THE COUNTY BOARD WHEN THERE WAS SOME, I THINK, MILLION DOLLAR AMENDMENTS, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT.
UM, SO IT, IT'S, IT'S NOT NEW.
THE QUESTION THAT THE BODY WOULD HAVE TO WRESTLE WITH IS WHERE DO YOU GET THE FUNDING FROM? I MEAN, YOU COULD TURN AROUND AND, YOU KNOW, ELIMINATE ALL OF YOUR SALARIES AND TURN IT, TURN IT OVER AND FUND THIS.
I MEAN, YOU COULD TAKE IT FROM ANYWHERE YOU WANT.
I THAT'S NOT FUNCTIONALLY, THAT'S ALL POSSIBLE.
YOU JUST HAVE TO HAVE A REVENUE TO OFFSET OR AN EXPENSE ELIMINATED AND SHIFTED OVER TO A DIFFERENT EXPENSE.
YOU CAN DO IT HOWEVER YOU WISH.
I SEE SUPERVISOR MARY HAS HAD HIS HAND UP A LONG TIME.
UH, IT'S BEEN INTERESTING TO LISTEN TO THE DISCUSSION FOR THE LAST FEW MINUTES ON HOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PROCEDURALS AND OF HOW THE BUDGET'S DEVELOPED AND SO ON.
BUT LET, LET'S GET BACK TO THE POINT AT HAND, UH, UH, MS. GUNDER KEGERS AND, AND MR. BO'S COMMENTS.
WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT SAFETY HERE FOR OUR COUNTY RESIDENCE.
AND WE'RE TALKING, I, I, I CAN'T REMEMBER, A DOLLAR 48 OR $3, WHATEVER IT WAS, FOR A HOUSE FOR A YEAR.
UM, MY DISTRICT BORDERS OZAKI, MILWAUKEE AND MILWAUKEE SHAW COUNTIES, AND WE'RE THE ONE, WE'RE THE DISTRICT WHERE THE PEOPLE COME IN FROM MILWAUKEE COUNTY AND STEAL THE CAR AND GO JOY RIDING.
AND THE JUDGE LETS 'EM OFF BECAUSE THEIR KIDS, UH, I THINK AS A REPRESENTATIVE FROM BASICALLY HALF OF GERMANTOWN,
[01:20:01]
UH, I THINK OUR RESIDENTS BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO PAY $3 THIS NEXT YEAR ON THEIR PROPERTY TAXES SUCH THAT WE DO NOT LOSE AN EXTRA PATROL CAR THAT CAN BE IN THE AREA AND THE VICINITY TO SUPPORT THE EFFORTS OF THE GERMANTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT.UH, I, I HATE TO SAY IT, CHRIS, BUT I DON'T USUALLY AGREE WITH YOU.
UM, THAT'S WORST CASE WE LOSE A PATROL CAR OFF THE ROAD.
I DON'T THINK THE SHERIFF EVER INTENDS TO DO THAT.
AND A LOT OF YOU WERE HERE IN EXECUTIVE THE MONEY, THE 40,000 NOW AND THE RAISE FOR THE PEOPLE ON THE WEST GATE.
NOW, THE OTHER TWO THINGS ARE IN 2027, AND WE TALKED A LONG TIME IN EXECUTIVE.
WE DON'T BELIEVE IN TAXING PEOPLE UNTIL WE KNOW WE HAVE TO.
THE POINT IS, WE'RE GONNA HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION TO REDO THE BUDGET AT THE END OF NEXT YEAR TO ALIGN WHAT'S CHANGED IN THE BUDGET.
AND I DON'T DOUBT FOR A MINUTE, WE'RE GONNA FUND ALL THIS NEXT YEAR.
I SAID AN EXECUTIVE, WE'RE NOT GONNA CUT DOWN ON COURT SECURITY.
BUT THE CJCC ARE WORKING ON A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS, AND THE SHERIFF'S WORKING ON SOME THINGS, WE'RE GONNA FIND SOME EFFICIENCIES, AND WE'RE GONNA BE PAY, PAY FOR SOME OF THAT.
SO WHY EARMARK THE MONEY NOW? WE DON'T TAKE THE TAXPAYER'S MONEY UNTIL WE HAVE TO, AND WE'LL HAVE TIME TO DO THAT AT THIS TIME NEXT YEAR.
AND THAT'S WHY I'M NOT SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENTS, EXCEPT THE FIRST ONE, SUPERVISOR KEL.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND THANK YOU FOR STEALING SOME OF MY THUNDER
UH, FIRST OF ALL, I WAS, UH, SURPRISED THAT, UH,
I DO REMEMBER THE THINGS YOU SAY, A COUPLE OF THINGS WHEN WE COMPARE, UH, THE DETECTIVE RATES, UM, AND WE COMPARE 'EM TO, UH, OZAKI COUNTY AND DODGE COUNTY.
THEY DON'T HAVE MAJOR CITIES IN THOSE COUNTY WITH, WITH MAJOR CITY POLICE FORCES.
OUR SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT DOES WORK WITH THE CITY POLICE FORCE OF WEST BEND, GERMANTOWN, AND HARTFORD.
AND I'VE ALWAYS LAUDED GERMANTOWN AS HAVING ONE OF THE BEST DANG POLICE FORCES I'VE EVER SEEN, BECAUSE HOW THEY SEEM TO CATCH THESE CRIMINALS AS THEY'RE TRYING TO FILTER INTO OUR COUNTY IS JUST AMAZING.
I READ THE POLICE REPORTS AND THEY KNOCK ME OUT ALL THE TIME.
UM, WE TALK ABOUT, UH, THIS, THIS FLAT RATE FOR THESE DETECTIVES AND STUFF LIKE THAT, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENS IN GOVERNMENT.
THE, THE COLA INCREASES AND ALL THE REST OF THAT AUTOMATICALLY WILL DRIVE IT UP.
WHAT YOU APPROVE TODAY COULD POSSIBLY BE A LOT MORE NEXT YEAR.
UH, I DON'T LIKE TAXING ON THE COME LINE, AS THEY CALL IT IN GAMBLING PARLANCE, UH, WHILE WE'RE GONNA NEED IT IN A YEAR.
TAKE YOUR EARMARK YOUR MONEY TO TAKE AWAY FROM YOU NOW AND THEN, YOU KNOW, NEXT YEAR WE'LL HAVE IT.
THAT'S NOT HOW GOOD GOVERNMENT WORKS.
WE HAVE PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITIES THAT MIGHT BE COMING IN THE NEXT YEAR, AND WE COULD EVEN HAVE PLENTY OF PROBLEMS COMING IN THE NEXT YEAR.
REMEMBER THIS LAST YEAR, WE HAD TO AMEND OUR BUDGET.
WE HAD TO DO A LITTLE REPAIR ITEMS, CORRECT? WELL, WE MAY, WE WILL CERTAINLY HAVE TO DO THAT AGAIN.
LEGISLATION COMES ALONG, CHANGES THE DYNAMIC, THE ECONOMY CHANGES THE DYNAMIC.
I LOVE THE BIANNUAL, UH, BUDGET PROCESS, BUT I ALWAYS KEEP AN EYE TO THAT SECOND YEAR.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FLEXIBILITY AND ABILITY TO CHANGE, BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT JUST DOESN'T WORK OUT.
AARON DAHL IS, IS A MASTER, BUT HE CAN'T, HE DOESN'T HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL, AND THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW WHAT LEGISLATION MIGHT PASS AND WHAT ECONOMY MIGHT HIT US.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE ALSO NEED TO KEEP IN IN MIND.
IF I'M GONNA TAX SOMEBODY, IT'S, IT'S PRETTY MUCH FOR AN IMMEDIATE NEED NEED.
UM, AND THAT'S, I'M GONNA WORK INTO THIS YEAR'S BUDGET, AND I TRY TO NOT TAX, UH, JUST LIKE EXECUTIVE SHOWMAN.
I THINK THAT IS A LAST RESORT THING, AND IT REALLY IS NOT NECESSARY AT THIS CURRENT TIME.
AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT OUR SUPPORT FOR, UH, POSSIBLY RAISING THE TAX RATES, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE ANTI-CRIME PLAN, I DON'T THINK WE NECESSARILY
[01:25:01]
SUPPORTED RAISING THE TAX RATES AS MUCH AS BRINGING IT TO THE PEOPLE.WE VOTED FOR A RESOLUTION FOR THE PEOPLE.
WE ASKED THEM IF THEY WANTED IT.
SO WHILE WE PERSONALLY SUPPORTED IT, WE ALSO UNDERSTOOD THAT THE PEOPLE NEEDED TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE BEFORE WE WENT AHEAD AND DID SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND THE PEOPLE DID SPEAK DESPITE ALL OF OUR GREAT ARGUMENTS, AND WE HAD SOME PRETTY GREAT ARGUMENTS.
AND I THINK WE NEED TO KIND OF RESPECT THAT WE RESPECTED IT WITHIN OUR MEANS.
WE STILL GOT A LOT OF THE THINGS WE WANTED, BUT WE DID IT WITHIN OUR MEANS AND IN THE ABILITY OF THE STUFF THAT WE COULD CONTROL RIGHT NOW, WE CAN CONTROL WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO ADD THIS TAX ON RIGHT NOW.
NOW, I DO SUPPORT, UH, SUPERVISOR SCHWAB'S AMENDMENT.
I DO BELIEVE IN PAYING PEOPLE FAIRLY.
UH, I I THOUGHT THE SHERIFF MADE A GREAT POINT THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE TAKING OFFICERS WHO HAD PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE PUTTING 'EM IN A POSITION, AND THEY'RE BEING WELL, UNDERPAID.
I WOULD SAY, UH, WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN GET THE SAME PAY.
I GO FROM A, YOU KNOW, A SERGEANT OR SOMETHING WHERE I'M MAKING 27, $30 AN HOUR, AND NOW YOU'RE GONNA TAKE ME DOWN TO LIKE 17 TO CONTINUE.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE EXACT PRICE.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCING ME, EVEN UNDER THE FIRST CLASS DEPUTY FRESH OUT OF, OUT OF HIS SCHOOL FRESH HIRE.
UH, YOU GET EVEN LESS THAN HIM.
I'VE ALWAYS BELIEVED IN TRYING TO TAKE CARE OF OUR EMPLOYEES AND BEING FAIR TO OUR EMPLOYEES.
SO I DO SUPPORT AMENDMENT ONE, UH, AUTHORED BY SUPERVISOR SCHWAB, UM, FOR THAT IMMEDIATE NEED.
UM, I DO NOT AT THIS TIME SUPPORT AMENDMENTS, UH, TWO AND THREE FROM SUPERVISOR KRIEGER RUM.
UM, HOWEVER, I AM VERY OPEN TO BOTH OF THOSE ITEMS WHEN THEY DO COME UP NEXT YEAR.
UH, I, I GUESS I, I HAVE A GENERAL ISSUE WITH AMENDMENTS IN THE LAST FEW MINUTES BEFORE A, A BUDGET REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
I JUST, I, I DON'T THINK IF THEY WERE IMPORTANT TO RESPECT THE DEPARTMENTS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS, WHICH SPENT MONTHS AND MONTHS, AND ALL OF US IN OUR COMMITTEE MEETINGS SPENT MONTHS AND MONTHS REVIEWING THIS.
SO IN MY OPINION, THERE SHOULDN'T BE.
WE'VE GOT, SHOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH EACH OF THE RESPECTIVE, UH, UH, EXCUSE ME, COMMITTEES AND THE CHAIRS TO PRESENT THAT.
SO IF $80,000 FOR INCREASE IN THE BASE WAS IMPORTANT, THEN THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED INTO BUDGET.
IF THE, UH, DEPUTY, IF THE COURT IN THE FUTURE, AND AGAIN, I, I SORT OF AGREE WITH YES, IT'S A FUTURE LOOKING, SO WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.
UM, SO, UH, ON THAT STATEMENT, I, I'M NOT GONNA VOTE FOR ALL THREE BECAUSE THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN A REGULAR BUDGET PROCESS, IN MY OPINION.
SO I WANNA CLARIFY A COUPLE THINGS.
SO, SUPERVISOR KRIEGER GUNDRY'S AMENDMENTS DEAL WITH THE TAX LEVY IN 2027.
NOW THEY INCREASE AND THEY DO NOT, IN FACT, INCREASE TAXES.
THEY REDUCE THE TAX REDUCTION.
AND I WANNA BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
EITHER WAY, WE ARE REDUCING TAXES.
THIS REDUCES THE AMOUNT THAT WE'RE REDUCING TAXES IN 2027, NOT 2026.
I THINK WE'RE GONNA FIND IT'S A LOT EASIER NEXT YEAR TO SAY, WE DON'T NEED THAT MONEY THAN IT WOULD BE TO COME BACK NEXT YEAR AND SAY, I GUESS WE DO NEED THAT MONEY, LET'S RAISE THE LEVY.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE A MUCH MORE DIFFICULT THING TO DO.
SO I THINK WE'RE BETTER OFF PLANNING FOR IT NOW, AND THEN IF WE DON'T NEED IT NEXT YEAR, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO TAKE IT OUT.
BUT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE POSITIONS ARE GONNA BE FUNDED.
YOU KNOW, WE WORKED HARD ON ANTI-CRIME, CRIME PLAN B, WHICH LIVED WITHIN OUR MEANS, AND NOW WE'RE TAKING TWO POSITIONS AWAY FROM PUBLIC SAFETY, WHICH IS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WE WORKED SO HARD ON THREE YEARS AGO.
SO I'M A FIRM BELIEVER WE SHOULD VOTE FOR ALL THREE.
I'M GONNA RESPECT EVERYBODY'S VIEW ON THIS, BUT THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE, AND I'M TELLING YOU WHY I BELIEVE IT.
YOU MAYBE MAYBE HAVE THE LAST WORD.
OH, NO, JOSH WILL, PROB PROB PROBABLY NOT
I'M NOT, I'M NOT LOOKING TO HAVE THE LAST BOARD.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING FOR
[01:30:01]
SUPERVISOR GALLS.UM, MY TWO AMENDMENTS THAT I PROPOSED, THOSE WERE DISCUSSED AND BROUGHT UP IN PUBLIC SAFETY.
UM, I, I ASKED IN OUR OCTOBER MEETING, COULD I MAKE A MOTION, UH, TO AMEND THE BUDGET.
AND I WAS TOLD IT WAS NOT THAT WE WERE NOT DOING, THAT WE WERE GONNA BE FOLLOWING THIS PROCESS THAT WE'RE DOING NOW.
AND SO I JUST WANNA CORRECT YOU ON THAT, THAT, UH, SHERIFF SCHUL IN SEPTEMBER BROUGHT THESE TWO, UH, POSITIONS FORWARD TO US AS WELL AS THE RAISES.
AND HE SAID, ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE THINGS THAT I, I WANT, BUT HE, HE SPECIFICALLY SAID, UM, THAT, UM, AND I SHOULD BE TALKING TO THE CHAIRMAN, I'M SORRY.
UH, HE SPECIFICALLY SAID, UM, HE WOULD TAKE A PATROL PERSON OFF OF, UH, SOMEBODY OFF OF PATROL AND PUT THEM IN COURTHOUSE SECURITY BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THAT WAS SO IMPORTANT.
AND, UH, HE DID BRING UP THE SHERIFF'S, UH, UH, THE DETECTIVE POSITION AS WELL.
UM, AND SAID THAT HE HAD, UH, REQUESTED IT.
UM, AND IT WAS NOT PUT INTO THE EXECUTIVE'S PROPOSAL.
SO, AND, AND THE RAISES WERE BROUGHT UP AS WELL.
BUT, UM, THAT SEEMED TO ME AT THE TIME, UH, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT, UH, UH, SUPERVISOR SCHWAB WAS MAKING, UH, UH, AN AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS ANOTHER THING THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE ALL KNEW WHAT EVERYBODY'S AMENDMENTS WERE GONNA BE, IT, WE WOULD, MIGHT MODIFY OUR REQUESTS.
AND, AND THEN I, SO, SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE, MAKE THAT CLEAR TO YOU THAT IT DIDN'T SEEM TO ME THAT WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND THE BUDGET IN, UH, BUDGET IN COMMITTEE.
UM, 'CAUSE I WAS TOLD I COULDN'T.
UM, THEN, ALTHOUGH I THINK I COULD HAVE, I THINK I COULD HAVE HAD A POINT OF ORDER, BUT I WASN'T IN A, IN A MOOD TO ARGUE AS MUCH AS TONIGHT,
I'M REASONING, UM, UH, SUPERVISOR KEL SAYS, WELL, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT PROBLEMS COULD BE OUT THERE, UH, NEXT YEAR.
AND I THINK THAT PUBLIC SAFETY IS OUR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY.
IT'S BEEN STATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND CERTAINLY, UH, SUPERVISOR, UM, MARY BROUGHT UP SOME VERY IMPORTANT THINGS.
UH, SHARING, SHARING A BOUNDARY WITH MILWAUKEE COUNTY MEANS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE ADDITIONAL DETECTIVES AND PATROL, UH, PATROL PEOPLE OUT ON, ON THE, OUT ON THE, ON THE ROAD.
AND THE DETECTIVES ARE NEEDED.
AND IT, I MEAN, IT'S ONE THING TO MAKE AN ARREST, YOU ALSO HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE ALL OF THE, ALL OF THE BACKGROUND THAT IS NEEDED.
WE NEED DETECTIVES VERY, VERY MUCH.
UH, AND SHERIFF SCHULTE MADE THAT VERY CLEAR.
UM, IF YOU THINK THAT MAYBE THERE'S SOME PROBLEMS THAT COULD BE OUT THERE NEXT YEAR, THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER AREAS THAT WE CAN CUT.
THERE'S, THERE'S, UH, I COULD BRING UP SOME, BUT IT USUALLY, UH, IS, IS, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT ANOTHER ISSUE.
UH, BUT IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS NEXT YEAR, WE CAN STILL MAKE THOSE CUTS.
BUT I DO WANNA POINT OUT IF ALL THREE OF THESE AMENDMENTS GO FORWARD, ALL THREE ON A $300,000 HOME, WE ARE INCREASING THE TAX BY $4 AND 10 CENTS ON A $400,000 HOME.
WE'RE INCREASING THE PROPERTY OWNER'S TAX BY $5 AND 30 CENTS.
AND IT'S NOT AN EXACT NUMBER, BUT IT, I, I ROUNDED IT UP.
SO I, I DON'T THINK WE'RE ASKING FOR THAT VERY MUCH.
I THINK ALL THREE AMENDMENTS SHOULD GO FORWARD, AND I, I'LL BE HAPPY TO SUPPORT 'EM ALL.
I'LL JUST SAY THAT ALL THESE NUMBERS ABOUT MILL RATE, RIGHT? PEOPLE LOOK AT THEIR TAX BILL, AND IF THEIR CITY TAX WENT UP AND THEIR SCHOOL TAX WENT UP, AND THE ONLY THING ON THEIR BILL THAT DIDN'T GO UP IS THEIR COUNTY TAX, WE'RE GONNA FEEL GOOD ABOUT THAT.
I APPLAUD SUPERVISOR BOSER FOR HIS COMMENTS.
I THINK WE'VE DONE A GREAT JOB, BUT I'M GONNA STAND BY MY IDEA THAT I THINK SOMETHING'S GONNA COME UP IN THE NEXT YEAR.
SORRY, I'M AN OPTIMIST,
WE'RE NOT GONNA GET RID OF COURT SECURITY, AND WE'RE NOT GONNA TAKE A DEPUTY OFF THE ROAD.
WE WORK TOO HARD FOR ALL THAT.
SO I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.
[01:35:01]
I, I, I, I DO.BUT I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT HOW MINIMAL IT'S GOING TO BE, AND IT'S STILL GONNA BE A REDUCTION WHEN THEY COMPARE IT TO 2026, IT'S STILL GONNA BE A REDUCTION.
SUPERVISOR CONRAD, THANK YOU, CHAIR.
AND, UM, JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS REGARDING, UH, WELL, MY, MY BIG CONCERN IS WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING TOO LEAN, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE'RE FOCUSING TOO MUCH ON THAT CONTINUOUS THING, YOU KNOW, DECREASING THE TAXES EVERY YEAR.
UM, WE, WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH THAT.
IT, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY IN THE NAME OF SEC, SAFETY AND SECURITY.
UM, AND IF SOMETHING DOES COME UP NEXT YEAR AND WE PASS ALL THESE AMENDMENTS, THEN THAT GIVES US THAT LITTLE EXTRA WIGGLE ROOM.
ALSO, IF WE WOULDN'T PASS ALL THESE AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS, IF SOMETHING COMES UP NEXT YEAR, UH, WE, WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL.
IT APPEARS THAT WE'RE GETTING, UM, TOO LEAN, AND ESPECIALLY IN THE NAME OF SAFETY AND SECURITY, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR, YOU KNOW, ANY WISHLIST THINGS.
AND I'M NOT, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, ASK FOR, FOR SEWER PACK TO BE PUT BACK IN HERE.
WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE THIS, WE'RE SPEAKING OF SAFETY AND SECURITY HERE, PEOPLE FOR A, A COUPLE OF DOLLARS AND YEAH, WE, WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL AND, AND THINK A BIGGER PICTURE HERE.
UM, I'M JUST GONNA COMMENT ON THE FACT THAT, UM, SUPERVISOR GUNDRY AND, AND TALKING ABOUT THE PREVIOUS DOLLAR AMOUNTS AND, AND, UM, HOW MUCH WE, UM, WOULD, IT WOULD COST ON AVERAGE FOR A 300, $400,000 HOUSE, THE TAXES PER, UM, PER YEAR.
WE WORKED HARD ON, UH, THE CRIME, ANTI-CRIME PLAN A, IF I RECALL, AND I DON'T RECALL THE CHARTS, I DON'T KNOW IF AARON, YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE CHARTS, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME WE WERE, I MEAN, I PERSONALLY WAS SHOCKED THAT IT DIDN'T PASS, THAT WE DID GIVE IT TO THE PEOPLE AND IN A REFERENDUM, AND IT WAS VOTED DOWN.
DO YOU HAVE THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WE HAD IN THAT REALLY NICE CHART THAT WE TALKED ABOUT SO MUCH WITH, WITH OUR CONSTITUENTS? I DO.
AND I THINK ONE THING WE WERE FACED WITH IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW, IS THAT THE, THE RATE WAS GOING DOWN ANYWAY, AND NOW IT'S EITHER YOU, IT GOES DOWN EVEN FURTHER OR IT GOES DOWN LESS.
RIGHT? SO AT THAT POINT, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, UM, IF, IF THE ANTI-CRIME PLAN, UM, IF THE ANTI-CRIME PLAN A PASSED AND WE ADDED $3.1 MILLION TO THE LEVY, THAT WAS AN INCREASE OF 54 THOU, $54 ON, ON THE AVERAGE HOME IS, IS WHAT THAT CHART SAID.
AND IT W AND IT WAS GIVEN TO THEM, AND WE, THE PEOPLE VOTED IT DOWN THE YES.
AND IT WAS NOT A, IT WASN'T, AND AGAIN, IT WASN'T A $54 INCREASE IN TAXES.
IT WAS A $54 INCREASE FROM THE ADOPTED BUDGET, WHICH WAS A REDUCTION, WHICH MADE IT INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN.
IT WAS MY, MY THOUGHT PROCESS WAS THAT WE JUST, YOU KNOW, WE LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE TAXED MORE.
SO THANK YOU SUPERVISOR SCHWAB.
AND, UH, THIS HAS BEEN GOOD DISCUSSION THIS EVENING.
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR POINTS OF VIEW.
THEY'VE, THEY'VE, THERE'S BEEN SOME WELL REASONED IDEAS THROWN OUT HERE.
UM, AS WE, AS WE CONSIDER THINGS THOUGH, IT REALLY GETS BACK TO PRINCIPLES, DOESN'T IT? IT ISN'T ABOUT THE AMOUNT, IT ISN'T ABOUT THE INCREMENT.
IT'S, IT'S ABOUT THE PRINCIPLE.
YOU KNOW, WE, WE CAN TAX WHATEVER WE WANT TO.
COUNTY EXECUTIVE MADE THAT CLEAR, WE CAN ABSOLUTELY DO THAT.
BUT IN MY MIND, JUST BECAUSE WE CAN TAX DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD.
I MEAN, JUST BECAUSE WE CAN TAX HIS, LIKE THE SCHOOL YARD BULLY WHO STEALS ANOTHER KID'S LUNCH, JUST BECAUSE HE CAN'T, IT DOESN'T MEAN HE SHOULD.
AND I THINK IT'S A MISCHARACTERIZATION TO SAY WE'RE GOING BACKWARDS BECAUSE WE AREN'T GOING BACKWARDS.
[01:40:01]
ANYTHING.EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM HAS SAID, YEP, WE'RE COMMITTED TO COURT SECURITY ACROSS THE BOARD, THE SHERIFF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY EXECUTIVE.
UM, WE ARE, WE ARE COMMITTED TO MAINTAINING COURTHOUSE SECURITY.
WE'LL FIGURE OUT A WAY TO HAPPEN.
A BUT AS I SAID, AN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, AS A FARM KID, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU BUTCHER A COW TO FEED YOUR FAMILY, BUT YOU DON'T BUTCHER MORE THAN YOU NEED.
WE DON'T NEED TO CONFISCATE MORE FROM THE TAXPAYERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY THAN WE NEED TO FOR 2026.
WE CAN MAKE THE AMENDMENT IN 2027.
WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT IN 2027.
I HAVE EVERY CONFIDENCE THAT THIS BOARD AND THOSE WHO MAY BE ELECTED IN APRIL WILL DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THE CITIZENS AND TAXPAYERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY FOR 2027.
BUT WE DON'T NEED TO TAKE MORE, WE DON'T NEED TO CONFISCATE MORE THEN WE NEED TO RIGHT NOW.
AND I WOULD QUOTE JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL WHO SAID A LONG TIME AGO, THE POWER TO TAX IS THE POWER TO DESTROY.
THE POWER TO TAX IS THE POWER TO DESTROY.
YEAH, WE CAN TAX WHATEVER WE WANT.
IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT THIS YEAR, IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE.
NEXT TIME WE CAN, WE CAN TAX, BUT REMEMBER, WE HAVE TO BE JUDICIOUS.
I BELIEVE IT'S ABSOLUTELY TRUE WHAT JOHN MARSHALL SAID, THE POWER TO TAX IS DESTROY, IS THE POWER TO DESTROY.
YES, WE NEED TO TAKE WHAT WE NEED TO DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO, BUT IN MY MIND, WE DARE NOT TAKE A PENNY MORE.
BOSER, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING NEW TO ADD? UM, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE'VE BROUGHT UP THE THIRD AMENDMENT YET, SO, OKAY.
I, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR AARON IF I MAY.
SO AARON, DO YOU, WHAT AM I ON NOW? YOU ARE.
AARON, DO YOU HAVE THE STATISTIC ON THE POPULATION FOR OUR GROWTH POPULATION GROWTH FOR OUR COUNTY FOR THE LAST, UH, YEAR APPROXIMATELY? I CAN FIND IT'S IN THE GREEN BOOK, LIKE HALF PERCENT.
I, OKAY, SO, AND, AND I HAVEN'T ROUGH NUMBERS.
THIS LEVY INCREASE THAT'S BEING TALKED ABOUT HERE IS ABOUT HALF A PERCENT, MAYBE SLIGHTLY MORE.
SO WOULD THAT MATCH UP WITH WHAT YOU'RE SEEING? UM, ARE YOU SAYING IN IF WE PASS ALL THREE AMENDMENTS, THE LEVY WOULD GO UP ABOUT HALF A PERCENT OVER WHAT IT IS IN 2025? UM, UM, FROM BY THE END OF 27? YEAH.
IF WE PASS ALL THREE AMENDMENTS, THE LEVY INCREASE WOULD BE ABOUT HALF A PERCENT OVER 2025.
IS THAT MATCH WHAT YOU'RE SEEING? UH, OR ARE YOU SEEING SOMETHING LESS THAN THAT? I'M SEEING ABOUT, I'M SEEING ONE AND A HALF.
YOU'RE SEEING ONE POINT A HALF PERCENT.
'CAUSE ALL THREE TOGETHER ARE, THIS IS WHAT I GET FOR TRYING TO DO MATH IN MY HEAD ON THE FLY AND
NOW, OKAY, SO YOU'RE SAYING ONE POINT A HALF AND WHAT'S IN OUR, WE'VE BEEN FLAT FOR LIKE 20 YEARS.
WHAT'S OUR POPULATION GROWTH OVER 20 YEARS? UH, LAST 20 YEARS? NO, LAST 20 YEARS.
WE'VE, I'M, I'M GONNA GUESS IT'S MORE THAN ONE AND A 5%, RIGHT? I WOULD, I WOULD GUESS.
OKAY, SO MY POINT BEING HERE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, FOR PRESERVING THE PUBLIC SAFETY THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, IF WE DO ONE AND A HALF, IF WE DO THIS ALL THREE AMENDMENTS, THE LEVY IS GOING UP NOT EVEN CLOSE TO WHAT THE POPULATION HAS GONE UP OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS THAT PROBABLY MATCHES THE LAST THREE
[01:45:01]
YEARS IN POPULATION GROWTH.THAT'S PROBABLY A FAIR ASSESSMENT, JUST EYEBALLING IT.
SO, YOU KNOW, LIVING WITHIN OUR MEANS IN THEORY COULD MEAN THE LEVY GOES UP TO MATCH POPULATION GROWTH.
I LIKE KEEPING THE LEVY FLAT, BUT IN THIS CASE, IF IT'S DEALING WITH COURTHOUSE SECURITY, SO YEAH.
GO AHEAD WITH THE, UH, THIRD AMENDMENT.
DO YOU WANNA PRESENT THE THIRD AMENDMENT OR, UH, IT'S, DOES THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE WISH TO SPEAK? I'D JUST LIKE TO ADJUST THE SECOND AMENDMENT FIRST.
UM, THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I THINK WE NEED TO BE VERY, VERY CLEAR, ABUNDANTLY CLEAR ON ONE, WE WENT TO THE LEGISLATURE AND ASKED THEM FOR MONEY TO COVER BASICALLY ALL OF THESE COSTS AND THEN SOME, AND WE WOULDN'T BE SITTING HERE TODAY.
NOT ONLY DID THEY POLITELY SAY NO AND GIVE US 10% OF WHAT WE ASKED FOR, I SPEC I EXPLICITLY TALKED TO THE SPEAKER IN HIS CHAMBERS AND ASKED HIM DIRECTLY ABOUT COURTHOUSE SECURITY.
AND I CAN'T REPEAT THE WORDS THAT HE SAID BACK TO ME.
LIKE WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT, WE, WE FUND A MILLION DOLLARS IN COURTHOUSE SECURITY.
AND EVERYBODY HAS JUST SAID TO NAUSEAM THAT WE'RE GONNA FIND A WAY TO FUND IT.
EXHIBIT A, YOU'RE DEBATING ABOUT HOW DO WE GET TO SPEND THE 40 GRAND THAT WE JUST FOUND THAT HAPPENED IN 30 DAYS.
WE'VE GOT $150 MILLION BUDGET.
WE ARE GOING TO COME UP WITH $150,000.
MY HOPE IS IT'S SOME REFORM IN THE JAIL THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR 10 YEARS AND HAVEN'T DONE.
BUT FOR GOD'S SAKE, YOU'RE GONNA GET IT.
I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT UPON US TO PUSH THE LEGISLATURE TO ACTUALLY TAKE THE FUNDING THAT OUGHT TO BE COMING TO COUNTIES ANYWAY AND SAY, RAISE THE FEE AND GIVE US A STINKING MONEY THAT'S, THAT SOLVES IT LIKE THAT.
EVEN IF THEY GIVE US HALF OF WHAT WE, EVEN IF THEY GIVE US A THIRD OF WHAT WE ASK FOR, EVEN IF THEY GIVE US A QUARTER OF WHAT WE ASK FOR, IT FUNDS IT.
I AM APPALLED AT THE CONVERSATION ABOUT IT'S ONLY $5 OF YOUR MONEY WE'RE TAKING.
IT IS COMPLETELY ANTITHETICAL TO EVERYTHING I'VE EVER HEARD TALKED ABOUT IN THIS CHAMBER.
HERB TENNEYS, WHO THE BUILDING'S NAMED AFTER IS PROBABLY ROLLING AROUND IN A CHAIR GOING, WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED? I MEAN, WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ANTI-CRIME CRIME PLAN REFERENDUM, AND WE HAD ONE HELL OF A DEBATE AND THEN WE LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE TO COMPARE IT TO WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING RIGHT NOW.
AND FRANKLY, THE LEGISLATOR GAVE US THE PATH THAT WE TOOK TO ASK PEOPLE, THIS IS SOMETHING COMPLETELY SEPARATE.
NOW THE THIRD AMENDMENT IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT QUESTION.
AND WHEN WE GET TO THAT, UH, WE'LL ADDRESS IT.
I'M, I'M ASKING THIS BOARD IF YOU'RE GONNA APPROVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT, DO WHAT YOU WISH.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE THIRD AMENDMENT, BUT THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT, THIS IS FOOLISH.
YOU MAY PROCEED WITH THE THIRD AMENDMENT.
UM, AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE, AND I'LL BE VERY BRIEF BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS ALREADY.
UM, THE THIRD AMENDMENT, UH, IS TO INCREASE THE EXPENDITURE BUDGET IN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE BY $162,000 IN 2027 TO FUND AN ADDITIONAL DETECTIVE IN THE DEPARTMENT.
UM, SO AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, THIS WAS IN, IN ON THE TABLE IN THE BUDGET, UM, IN THE EARLY STAGES.
UM, IT WAS REMOVED WHEN, UM, AS, AS ALL OF THE DIFFERENT PIECES OF INFORMATION CAME IN AND WE SAW WHAT THE CHALLENGE WE WERE FACED WITH, UM, OTHER PRIORITIES SORT OF PREPPED TO THE TOP.
AND SO THIS ONE WAS, WAS REMOVED.
UM, BUT TO ADD THIS ONE BACK AGAIN WOULD BE AN INCREASE IN THE LEVY IN 2027 BY $162,000.
THAT'S, THOSE ARE MY POINTS ON THIS.
ANY MORE COMMENT AFTER ALL THIS DISCUSSION, DOES ANYONE IN WISH TO WITHDRAW THE AMENDMENTS THEY OFFERED? SUPERVISOR SCHWAB? NO THANK YOU.
[01:50:01]
OKAY, THEN WE'LL PROCEED TO VOTE, STARTING WITH THE FIRST ONE, SECOND ON EACH.SO ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT MOTION.
DID YOU GET A HOLD THUMB SUPERVISOR? MARY? THUMB UP.
NEXT WE'LL TAKE UP THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
THE FIRST OF SUPERVISOR KRIEGER GUNDRY'S AMENDMENTS.
MOTION BY SUPERVISOR KRIEGER GUND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? PLEASE LET THERE BE NONE.
DID I SAY THAT OUT LOUD? THIS IS THE COURTHOUSE SECURITY.
IS THAT, IS THAT
MARY MICROPHONE'S NOT ON SUPERVISOR MARY, YAY OR NAY.
THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE SECOND.
A AMEND AMENDMENT BY SUPERVISOR KRIEGER RUM HAVING TO DO WITH THE DETECTIVE OCEAN BY KRIEGER GORUM SUPER BY SUPERVISOR BOSER SUPERVISED MARY.
THIS ONE ALSO FAILS FOUR YESES TO 17 NOS.
THIS HAS BEEN A VERY INTERESTING PROCESS TONIGHT.
NO, YOU HAVEN'T VOTED ON THE BUDGET YET.
NOW THAT WE HAVE THE AMENDMENTS
SUPERVISOR KELLY, YOU GOT NOTHING? IS WE READY TO VOTE? COOL.
[01:55:02]
PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.NOW WE CAN MOVE ON TO RESOLUTION 45, WHICH IS THE INITIAL RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE NOT TO EXCEED 1.5 MILLION GENERAL OBLIGATION PROMISSORY NOTES, UM, FOR THE GOLF COURSE RENOVATION.
I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND PLEASE.
M**K, ANY DISCUSSION? SUPERVISOR? GALL.
UH, I, I GUESS ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS, MAYBE THIS IS TOO MUCH IN THE WEEDS, BUT, UH, SO THESE GENERAL OBLIGATION NOTES, BONDS, DEBT, UM, THE REVENUE FROM A GOLF COURSE IS GONNA COVER.
I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
IF FOR SOME REASON THAT REVENUE SHORTFALL, WE'D HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT DEBT SOME OTHER WAY, IS THAT A CORRECT UNDERSTANDING? YES.
AND IS THERE, JUST CURIOUS, ANY POTENTIAL CONTINGENCY FOR THAT? YOU KNOW, WE HAD A PANDEMIC A COUPLE YEARS AGO AND YOU KNOW, THERE WEREN'T A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT OR WE DIDN'T ALLOW PEOPLE OUT.
HOPEFULLY THAT S**T DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.
BUT MY POINT IS, IF FOR SOME REASON GOLF STARTS TO, HOW LONG IS THE NOTE GONNA BE? I CAN'T REMEMBER.
AND DO WE PLAN TO PAY IT OFF EARLY? SO IT'S CURRENTLY BEING STRUCTURED AS A 15 YEAR NOTE WITH A CALL FEATURE AT YEAR 12.
SO EARLIEST WE COULD PAY IT BACK IN FULL AS THAT 12.
SO ANY NUMBER OF THINGS COULD HAPPEN BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.
GOLF PARTICIPATION GOES UPS AND DOWN.
BUT LET'S JUST SAY, UH, REVENUE SHORTFALL PARTICULAR YEAR, WE THEN WOULD BE ASKED TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE WOULD PAY FOR THAT NOTE IF IT COULDN'T BE PAID OUT OF THE ENTERPRISE FUND.
SO WE HAD A SIMILAR SITUATION, IF YOU REMEMBER, WITH OUR SAMARITAN HEALTHCARE CENTER, THEY HAD DEBT, UM, AND IT WAS ALSO GENERAL DEBT, BUT IT WAS PAID FOR BY THAT ENTERPRISE FUND.
UM, THEY DIDN'T HAVE CASH FOR MANY YEARS TO COVER THAT.
IT JUST KEPT COMING OUT OF THEIR FUND BALANCE.
UM, AND THEN WHEN WE SOLD THE FACILITY, IT WAS JUST A CLOSING ITEM WE HAD TO RECONCILE.
UM, I DON'T KNOW, WE WOULD HAVE TO DISCUSS IT IF WE, IF AND WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT WITH THIS DEBT AS WELL.
UH, BUT FOR THE ACCOUNTING RECORDS, WE WOULD KEEP IT WITHIN THE ENTERPRISE FUND AND THEN EITHER USE THE FUND BALANCE FROM THAT FUND OR FIND A FUNDING SOURCE TO TRANSFER IN.
YEAH, JUST I'M IN SUPPORT OF FAVORITE, BUT JUST WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS.
IS THAT YES, THANK YOU MS. LUDOVIC.
I WAS JUST GOING TO COMMENT THAT THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST IS STRUCTURED OUT THAT LONG, PUTTING IT AT ABOUT $125,000 A YEAR.
SO WE, THERE WOULD BE A NUMBER OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WOULD GO FIRST IN THOSE EVENTS, INCLUDING NOT ONLY SOME OF THE OTHER CAPITAL PURCHASES THAT WE MAKE OUT THERE, NEW LAWNMOWERS, UM, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE.
WE ALSO DO HAVE THE COUNTY'S PORTION OF THE ENDOWMENT FUND, WHICH IS ELIGIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE IN THE EVENT THAT, THAT WE WOULD WANNA GO THERE, UM, AS WELL AS THE ACTUAL OPERATING COSTS OF THE GOLF COURSE.
SO WHILE THAT IS A RISK, I THINK THAT THE CURRENT MANAGEMENT, UM, AND HOPEFULLY THE CURRENT COUNTY BOARD IS COMMITTED TO ESSENTIALLY PAYING FOR THAT OVER TIME WITH WITHIN THE COURSE OPERATIONS.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS THEN WE WILL VOTE ELECTRONICALLY.
THIS ONE REQUIRES A THREE QUARTER MAJORITY VOTE.
AND OUR LAST ITEM IS THE WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT.
SORRY TO MAKE YOU WAIT SO LONG, TODD.
SO IN FRONT OF YOU IS A RESOLUTION, UM, AND A TENANT AGREEMENT THAT WE'VE MADE WITH THE WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF'S UNION.
UM, THIS WOULD BE A TWO YEAR AGREEMENT.
WITHIN THAT TWO YEARS, IT WOULD BE A 3% INCREASE IN 26 AND ANOTHER 3% IN 27.
UH, I'M JUST GONNA PUT IN A COUPLE OF PIECES OF THAT 10 AGREEMENT.
YOU CAN CERTAINLY AND MOST LIKELY HAVE BROUGHT IT ALL ALREADY.
UM, THIS IS ESTABLISHES PAID TIME OFF FOR THE DEPUTY SHERIFF'S UNION.
UM, THAT WOULD MAKE THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF OUR COUNTY EMPLOYEES.
[02:00:01]
UM, ALONG WITH THAT, WHAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN THEN IS THAT THE VACATION AND SICK TIME THAT THEY ALREADY ACCRUE, THAT WOULD STOP.UM, AND IT WOULD BECOME USING ALL OF THAT, THAT, THAT PTO TIME.
UM, COUPLE OTHER PIECES THAT I JUST WOULD THROW OUT THERE.
THERE'S AN INCREASE FOR UNIFORM ALLOWANCE AND SPECIAL TEAMS PAY.
UM, THOSE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE HAVEN'T INCREASED FOR A WHILE AND JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE KEEPING PACE WITH NOT ONLY THEIR NEEDS, BUT ALSO WITH WHAT OTHER CONTRACTS ARE CALLING FOR.
THIS IS INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET THAT YOU JUST APPROVED, SO THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL COST TO TO TO FUND THIS CONTRACT.
THE COMMITTEE THAT NEGOTIATED ON THE COUNTY'S BEHALF WITH THE UNION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS.
THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DID MOVE IT FORWARD FOR YOUR APPROVAL.
SO ANY QUESTIONS? I'M ABOUT TO ANSWER THEM BEFORE WE HAVE QUESTIONS.
LET'S HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND PLEASE.
SUPERVISOR TOBA, SUPERVISOR SCHUL.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? THERE BEING NONE.
THIS IS A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE.
OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE DECEMBER 10TH, 2025.