[00:00:02]
UM, WE'LL START WITH THE ROLL CALL.UM, ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ARE HERE.
UM, PLEASE RISE FOR A MOMENT OF SILENT PRAYER AND THEN CONTINUE STANDING FOR THE PLEDGE.
I PLEASURE TO FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
AND THIS IS THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH STANDS STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY KING AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
THIS AGENDA WAS POSTED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK ON THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026.
NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE WASHINGTON COUNTY DAILY NEWS, EXPRESS NEWS, W-I-B-D-W-M-B-Z RADIO, WTKM RADIO, MY COMMUNITY, NOW HARTFORD TIMES PRESS, KI WASCOM STATESMAN, AND THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL.
JUST A COUPLE REMINDERS FOR THE COMMITTEE AND OUR GUESTS HERE WITH US TODAY.
UM, PLEASE SILENCE YOUR PHONES AS THE MEETING IS BEING BROADCASTED AND RECORDED AS WELL.
UH, SO THIS MEETING WILL HAVE SEVERAL IMPORTANT ITEMS ON THE AGENDA THROUGHOUT THE MEETING.
THE, THE COMMITTEE'S GONNA TAKE A DEEPER DIVE INTO THE MECHANICS OF THE, THE EMS PLAN.
LAST MONTH WE HAD KIND OF AN OVERVIEW, THE PLAN.
NOW WE'RE EXCITED TO GET INTO THE DETAILS OF THAT.
SO, UH, FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS THE MINUTES FROM THE JULY 15TH, 2026 MEETING.
ANY COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS OR CHANGES? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, THOSE WILL BE POSTED AS PRESENTED.
UH, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE DISCUSSION ITEM FOR INFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY.
UH, ONE FULL-TIME SHARED SERVICE POSITION FOR THE VILLAGE OF GERMANTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT.
NORMALLY, OR THIS WILL GO TO THE PUBLIC, UH, WORKS COMMITTEE, WHICH I REPORT TO.
UM, BUT BECAUSE THIS DEALS WITH THE, UH, PUBLIC SAFETY ASPECT AND THE, THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, UM, WE FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO BRING IT TO YOU GUYS FOR DISCUSSION AND, UM, GET SOME FEEDBACK.
AND, AND JUST SO YOU GUYS ARE AWARE OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING, UM, OVER THE LAST COUPLE MONTHS, WE'VE ENGAGED IN SOME PRETTY DEEP CONVERSATION WITH THE VILLAGE OF GERMANTOWN'S POLICE DEPARTMENT.
UM, THERE'S SOME INEFFICIENCIES WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR IT SUPPORT.
RIGHT NOW THEY CURRENTLY HAVE SOME SWORN OFFICERS TRYING TO SUPPORT TECHNOLOGY, AND WE KNOW HOW THAT WORKS.
UM, SO THERE'S, THERE'S, THERE'S SOME INEFFICIENCIES AND THEY'VE REACHED OUT TO US FOR, TO, TO SEE IF WE CAN HELP SUPPORT THEM AND, AND WHAT CAN WE DO TO SUPPORT THEM.
UM, SO WE'VE COME UP WITH SOME IDEAS, UM, TO DO A SHARED POSITION WITH THEM, KIND OF A 50 50 SPLIT WHERE WE WOULD GET SUPPORT FOR, FOR THEM, YOU KNOW, TO HELP SOME OF THEIR SQUAD CAR NEEDS, SOME OF THEIR PRO PHOENIX ISSUES THAT THEY'RE EXPERIENCING, AS WELL AS, UM, GIVE LUCAS OUR IT SUPPORT PERSONNEL FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, SOME ADDITIONAL SUPPORT.
UH, THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IS OUR BUSIEST DEPARTMENT IN IT.
AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THERE'S A LOT OF TECHNOLOGY THAT GOES INTO SQUAD CARS, BODY CAMERAS, AND THE VARIOUS APPLICATIONS THAT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE USES ON THEIR, THEIR DAY TO DAY, UM, ACTIVITIES.
SO THIS, UH, POSITION WOULD HELP US AT THE COUNTY AS WELL AS SUPPLY SUPPORT FOR GERMANTOWN'S POLICE DEPARTMENT.
AND THE MODEL WE'VE LOOKED AT IS A 50 50 COST SHARE WITH THE VILLAGE OF GERMANTOWN, UM, WHERE WE WOULD SPLIT THE COST OF THAT EMPLOYEE, THE BENEFITS, AND ANY TECHNOLOGY AND LICENSING THAT WOULD GO ALONG WITH THAT.
UM, SO LIKE I SAID, THIS IS JUST TO KIND OF BRING AWARENESS, GATHER FEEDBACK FROM YOU.
UM, AND I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS MAY HAVE.
SO, AS YOU MENTIONED THIS, THERE'S NO ACTION TAKEN BY US TODAY OTHER THAN ANY GUIDANCE OR QUESTIONS THAT WE WOULD HAVE ON THIS.
AND THEN IT WOULD GO TO THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FOR APPROVAL.
SO ANY COMMITTEE, ANY COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? YES, SIR.
UH, MR. CHAIR, IF, IF I MAY, UH, AT THE, THE VILLAGE OF GERMANTOWN DID TAKE THIS, UH, ACTION UP AT THEIR GENERAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE COMMITTEE ON MONDAY EVENING, I BELIEVE IT WAS OF, OF THIS WEEK.
UH, AND THEY'RE ACTUALLY, UH, IN THE PACKET, YOU'LL SEE A 50 50 SPLIT.
UH, THAT COMMITTEE HAD, UH, MADE A MOTION TO ASK FOR A 75 25 SPLIT.
OBVIOUSLY, 75% PAID BY THE COUNTY, 25% PAID BY THE VILLAGE OF GERMAN TOWN.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, UH, GET COMMITTEE AWARE
[00:05:01]
OF THAT, UH, THAT CHANGE OR POTENTIAL CHANGE COMING TO, UH, THE PACKET AS WELL AS TO THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE TOMORROW AFTERNOON.UH, WHY, WHY DID THEY ASK FOR THE DIFFERENCE THEN? WHAT WAS THE REASONING? UH, THEY DIDN'T REALLY GIVE A REASON AT THE, AT THE PUBLIC WORK, AT THEIR MEETING, UH, ABOUT WHY.
I THINK IT'S JUST THE, THE, UH, THE ASK FOR, UH, RIGHT UP TO THIS POINT, OUR, IT SHARED SERVICE HAVE BEEN PAID FOR A HUNDRED PERCENT BY COUNTY DOLLARS.
AND SO NOW WE'RE MAKING A LITTLE CHANGE FOR OUR IT SHARED SERVICES POLICY OF GOING TO A 50 50.
UM, AND WHAT WE'RE BRINGING TO THE, ACTUALLY THE COUNTY BOARD WOULD BE IF WE ADD ON ANY ADDITIONAL TOWNS, CITIES, OR VILLAGES TO IT SHARED SERVICES, IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE FUNDED AT A HUNDRED PERCENT FOR THE LOCAL FUNDING.
AND SO THIS WAS KIND OF OUR TRANSITION POINT FROM 0% PAID BY THE TOWN, CITIES OR VILLAGES TO A 50 50 SPLIT, THEN WORKING OUR WAY, TRANSITIONING TO A HUNDRED PERCENT PAID BY THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES.
SO IT'S KIND OF A, A TRANSITIONAL SHIFT.
AND, UH, THEY BELIEVE THAT, UH, POTENTIALLY TO GO TO A 25 75 WOULD BE, UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR REASONING WAS.
UH, THEY DIDN'T PROVIDE THAT, UH, IN A SHORT TIMEFRAME BETWEEN THEIR MEETING ON MONDAY AND TODAY.
UH, BUT, UH, WHAT WE LOOK AT IT TOO IS THAT, UH, NOT ONLY ARE WE, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING IS SPLITTING THE POSITION AT 50 50% ONE POSITION, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE ACCESS TO THE REST OF OUR IT STAFF.
SO THEY HAVE ACCESS TO JOEL AND ERIC, UH, ANYBODY ELSE.
IT ALSO PROVIDES 24 7 COVERAGE FOR THEM.
SO I THINK WE CAN MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT WE'RE ALREADY OVER, ABOVE THE 50 50 SPLIT.
UH, BUT CERTAINLY THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, UH, THIS BODY, UH, AS WELL AS PUBLIC WORKS, AND EVENTUALLY THE COUNTY BOARD, UH, WILL BE ABLE TO CONSIDER WHAT PERCENTAGE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO THEM AND TO YOU.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON SCOTT'S COMMENTARY.
I ACTUALLY, UH, HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH ONE OF THE VILLAGE TRUSTEES, UH, TRUSTEE PEEPER, UM, ABOUT TWO OR THREE WEEKS AGO ABOUT THIS VERY TOPIC.
AND AS SCOTT, SO, UH, ARTFULLY ARTICULATED, UM, WE'VE HISTORICALLY BEEN DOING THIS AT, AT NO COST TO THE MUNICIPALITY.
UH, WE ARE AT THE TIPPING POINT WHERE WE WERE ABLE TO ADD STAFF PREVIOUSLY.
NOW WE WOULD HAVE TO ADD ADDITIONAL STAFF, UH, WITHOUT ADDITIONAL FUNDING.
UM, HOWEVER, UH, I THOUGHT OUR CONVERSATION WAS GOOD AND IN GOOD FAITH, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO GO TO THE 75 25.
UM, NOT ONLY DOES IT CONTINUE THE BALL, UH, MOVING FORWARD, UM, BUT I THINK IT REALLY IS GONNA HELP, UH, IN GERMANTOWN'S BUDGET PROCESS.
I DON'T, I, I MENTIONED THIS TO SOME OF YOU IN THE PAST.
UH, THEIR NET NEW CONSTRUCTION NUMBERS ARE, UH, AS LOW AS THEY'VE EVER BEEN, LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, UH, IN THE STATE OF WISCONSIN AND IN WASHINGTON COUNTY.
UM, SO I THINK IN A GOOD FAITH EFFORT FOR US TO MAKE THIS WORK AND TRULY BE A SHARED SERVICE, IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO GO TO 75 25 IN THIS CASE.
UH, CHAIRMAN SLE WOULD LIKE TO
UM, IN PUBLIC WORKS TOMORROW, I HOPE THAT THERE'S MORE DISCUSSION ON EXACTLY WHAT THE BENEFITS ARE.
YOU KNOW, IF IT'S 50 50, IT'S 50 50.
SO, UM, IF WE CAN, YOU KNOW, KIND OF DO A DEEP DIVE AND KNOW WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, UM, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH WHAT THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE SAID, BUT AGAIN, WE CAN'T KEEP PAYING FOR IT COMPLETELY.
I THINK WHEN I HEAR TALK OF WHEN THE COUNTY CHARGING BACK A HUNDRED PERCENT FOR THIS BACK TO MUNICIPALITIES, THAT WORRIES ME A LITTLE, BECAUSE A BIG PART OF WHY WE STARTED DOING THIS WAS THE ECONOMIES OF SCALE AND TO PROVIDE THE SUPPORT TO THE MUNICIPALITIES THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DO ON THEIR OWN, ESPECIALLY THE TOWNS.
UM, WHETHER IT'S 50 50 OR 75, 25, I'M NOT TOO CONCERNED ABOUT, I JUST DON'T WANNA BE SO FOCUSED ON SHREWD NEGOTIATING THAT WE'RE IGNORING THE PRINCIPLE, WHICH IS WE CAN DO MORE FOR THE TAXPAYERS BY WORKING TOGETHER THAN BY HAVING REDUNDANCIES OF SERVICE.
SO IF WE GO 75, 25, I'M TOTALLY OKAY WITH THAT.
I DON'T WANT TO BE WORKING TOWARDS MUNICIPALITIES PAYING A HUNDRED PERCENT.
I THINK THAT'S THE WRONG FOCUS.
THE FOCUS NEEDS TO BE ON, YOU KNOW, INCLUDING THEM IN OUR ECONOMIES OF SCALE AND HELPING THEM HAVE MUCH BETTER IT PROTECTION THAN THEY HAVE ON THEIR OWN.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? UH, I GUESS THE ONLY COMMENT I HAD IS THE ONLY THING THAT WORRIES ME IS JUST TRYING TO MAINTAIN SOME KIND OF CONSISTENCY ON COST SHARING.
[00:10:01]
WE'VE GOT OTHER POSITIONS THAT WE SHARE WITH OTHER MUNICIPALITIES, YOU KNOW, PERCENTAGES ARE GONNA BE ALL OVER THE PLACE IF WE START CHANGING THINGS.AND, UH, I UNDERSTAND WE'RE AT CAPACITY AND, YOU KNOW, I'VE SAID THAT BEFORE, THAT AT SOME POINT WE'RE AT CAPACITY, BUT WE CAN DO, AND THEY'RE ADDING, UH, NEW POSITIONS AT THE COUNTY.
UH, NOT SAYING I CAN'T GET BEHIND IT.
UM, KIND OF WHOEVER GETS THERE FIRST GETS THE SWEETEST POT IS WHAT I'M KIND OF ALLUDING TO, I GUESS.
ANY LAST COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE? OKAY.
OUR NEXT ITEM, NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS THE WASHINGTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE UPDATE REPORT.
I ULTIMATELY PUT, UH, A DECENT AMOUNT, AMOUNT OF INFORMATION IN MY, IN MY REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE.
UH, I'LL, I'LL START OUT BY SAYING HOW GRATEFUL I AM FOR, UH, THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE SUPPORT, UH, THE COUNTY BOARD SUPPORT AND THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE SUPPORT AND ANTI-CRIME BILL, OR PLAN, EXCUSE ME, C UH, WHICH DID ADD THE ADDITIONAL, UH, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, TEMPORARY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR POSITION FOR OUR OFFICE.
UH, I CAN REPORT WE DID FILL THAT POSITION ALMOST IMMEDIATELY.
UH, IT'S WITH A, UH, AN ATTORNEY THAT I ACTUALLY WORKED WITH, UH, IN FOND DULAC FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.
UH, I CAN, I CAN ATTEST THAT HE, UH, RECEIVED A, A TON OF VALUABLE EXPERIENCE WHILE IN FOND LAC PROSECUTING VERY SERIOUS CASES.
THAT'S UNFORTUNATE FOR FLAC COUNTY, BUT GOOD FOR HIM AS A, AS A PROSECUTOR TO GAIN THAT EXPERIENCE.
SO, UH, HE JOINED US ON JULY 20TH.
UH, AND THEN I WILL, I, I MENTIONED THIS IN IN MY REPORT AS WELL, THAT, UH, UNFORTUNATELY OUR, OUR VICTIM WITNESS COORDINATOR, UH, DID RECENTLY, UH, CHOOSE A DIFFERENT PATH OR, OR A DIFFERENT, UH, OFFICE TO, TO GO TO.
WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING, HOWEVER, WAS, UH, WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HIRE SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY IS, UH, IN A SUPERVISORY ROLE IN, UH, VICTIM WITNESS IN THE WAUKESHA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
UH, SHE HAS NEARLY 10 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITHIN, UH, WAUKESHA COUNTY AND APPROXIMATELY 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE TOTAL IN, UH, VICTIM WITNESS SERVICES AND ADVOCACY.
SO, UH, THAT ACTUALLY ENDED UP WORKING OUT VERY WELL FOR US.
WE WERE SAD TO LEAVE, UH, SEE THE OTHER INDIVIDUAL LEAVE, BUT, UH, THIS NEW HIRE IS GOING TO BE FANTASTIC.
UH, I PROVIDED THE CASE FILING STATISTICS AGAIN, I KNOW I DID THAT LAST YEAR.
AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, WE'RE CONTINUING, UH, TO SEE THE RISE FROM, UH, IN, IN FILED CASES FROM 20 22, 20 23, AND 2024, UH, TO NOW TODAY, OR I SHOULD SAY TO AUGUST 12TH, UH, OF 2026.
UH, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE PROJECTION, AND THAT IS JUST AN APPROXIMATE THAT I PUT DOWN THERE FOR, UH, 2026, IS SLIGHTLY LOWER THAN, UH, 2025.
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THAT'S BASED ON THE CURRENTLY OUR CURRENT CHARGE CASES, UH, THAT WE HAVE IN THE OFFICE.
HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE, UH, CRIMINAL REFERRALS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT REMAIN UNDER REVIEW.
AND I ACTUALLY JUST RECENTLY, UH, HIRED A FORMER DISTRICT ATTORNEY FROM COLUMBIA COUNTY WHOSE ENTIRE RESPONSIBILITY WILL BE TO REVIEW, UH, PENDING CHARGES OR CASES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN CHARGED OUT YET.
SO I ANTICIPATE, I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS I ANTICIPATE BY THE END OF THE YEAR THAT OUR NUMBERS WILL LIKELY BE SIMILAR TO, UH, 2025 ONCE WE, UH, RESOLVE SOME OF THOSE UNDER REVIEW CASES.
UH, I DID BRING UP, OR I DID NOTE AS WELL, THE, UH, THE WORKLOAD ANALYSIS, UH, FROM THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION.
UH, ONCE AGAIN, THERE'S A BIT OF FRUSTRATION WITH THE, WITH THE STATE AND THEIR, UH, WILLINGNESS TO FUND US APPROPRIATELY, UH, WITHIN THE DI THE WASHINGTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, UH, AS I NOTE, UH, IN THERE WE ARE AT, UH, ACCORDING TO THEIR, UH, ALGORITHM OR FORMULA THAT THEY USE, WE ARE AT APPROXIMATELY 70%, 70 TO 71% STAFFING IN OUR OFFICE.
AS I NOTE THAT IS THE SECOND LOWEST IN THE ENTIRE STATE BEHIND BUFFALO COUNTY.
UH, AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT PICKING ON BUFFALO COUNTY, BUT THEY ARE A POPULATION OF 13,000 PEOPLE.
AND IF THEY RECEIVED ABOUT A HALF A POSITION, THEY WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY AT FULLY STAFFED.
UM, AND I ALSO NOTE AS WELL, WE ARE THE WORST IN THE STATE, UH, FOR PROSECUTORS PER 10,000 RESIDENTS.
SO I'M GONNA BE ADVOCATING, AGAIN, THE STATE BUDGET WILL BE COMING UP, UH, OR DISCUSSIONS WILL BE HAD NEXT YEAR OR BEGINNING NEXT YEAR.
UH, AND I'M GONNA CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE FOR OUR OFFICE, UH, ON RECEIVING
[00:15:01]
ADDITIONAL, UH, POSITIONS FROM THE STATES.AND, AND I'M, I CAN TELL YOU FROM CONVERSATIONS I'VE HAD, CERTAINLY WITH OUR WASHINGTON COUNTY, UH, REPRESENTATIVES, UH, THAT THERE IS A TON OF SUPPORT THERE AND, AND HOPEFULLY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE, UH, LEGISLATURE THEIR SUPPORT AS WELL.
UH, AND, AND AT THAT SAME POINT, UH, I WAS SELECTED OR APPOINTED TO THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL STUDY COMMITTEE ON DISTRICT ATTORNEY FUNDING FORMULA.
ESSENTIALLY, THE POINT OF THAT COMMITTEE IS TO TAKE A LOOK AT HOW THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, UH, ESSENTIALLY COMES UP WITH THEIR NUMBERS AND THEIR ANALYSIS, UH, AND SEE IF THERE'S WAYS THAT WE CAN BETTER, UH, IMPROVE THAT FORMULA TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE GETTING ACCURATE NUMBERS AND ACCURATE REPRESENTATIONS OF, OF WHAT DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICES NEED.
UH, SO AS I SAID, I THINK OUR, OUR, OR I THINK I SAID IN THERE, IF NOT, UH, OUR FIRST MEETING IS ACTUALLY NEXT WEEK.
UH, AND SO I, I CERTAINLY LOOK FORWARD TO THAT, BUT I'M CERTAINLY, UH, WILLING AND ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
UH, BUT AGAIN, I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE SUPPORT THAT, THAT MY OFFICE HAS RECEIVED FROM THE COUNTY OVER THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF.
ANY COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP THIS IN MIND MOVING FORWARD.
IF WE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO ADVOCATE AT THE STATE LEVEL AS WELL, MAYBE AS A COUNTY BOARD AS A WHOLE, BUT, UM, GET US THE PROPER STAFFING IN OUR OFFICE THAT'S NEEDED.
SO I WOULD AGREE, AND I KNOW, I KNOW THAT, UH, OFTENTIMES MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY BOARD TRAVEL TO, TO MADISON FOR MEETINGS WITH, WITH LEGISLATURE AND OR WITH THE LEGISLATURE.
AND I, I MEAN, I WOULD LOVE IT IF EVERYONE WOULD BE WILLING TO ADVOCATE FOR, UH, THE STATE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROSECUTOR POSITIONS FOR OUR OFFICE.
AND I CAN PROVIDE YOU ALL THE DATA AND THE INFORMATION, UH, TO HELP YOU MAKE THAT ARGUMENT.
UM, AND WE'LL PROBABLY RUN INTO EACH OTHER IN MADISON NEXT YEAR AS WE'RE, AS WE'RE ADVOCATING.
OUR NEXT, NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS THE WASHINGTON COUNTY COUNTYWIDE EMS SYSTEM.
SO NOW'S THE POINT WHERE WE'RE GONNA, UM, HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION ON THE EMS SYSTEM.
UM, TODAY, THE COMMITTEE, LIKE I SAID, WILL TAKE A DEEPER DIVE INTO THE MECHANICS OF THE PROPOSED EMS PLAN.
UM, LAST MONTH IT WAS JUST KIND OF AN OVERVIEW.
UM, NOW WE'RE GETTING READY TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP.
UM, SO WITHIN THE, THE COUNTY EMS SYSTEM, THERE ARE SEVERAL, UH, DECISIONS THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS TO MAKE, AND THE COUNTY BOARD WILL ALSO HAVE TO MAKE, UM, A LOT OF THOSE DECISIONS ARE RELATED TO THE, THE VARIABLES AS PART OF THE PLAN.
UM, THOSE BEING, UH, THE LENGTH OF THE AGREEMENT, THE PERCENTAGE OF INCREASES OVER YEAR, OVER YEAR, UM, THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE AND THE VARIOUS SMART GOALS WITHIN DEPARTMENTS IN THE COUNTY TO ENSURE, UH, WE ARE BRINGING OVERALL COSTS DOWN TO THE TAXPAYERS.
SO AT THE END OF THIS DISCUSSION, WE'LL HOPEFULLY HAVE SEVERAL MOTIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WILL DIRECT THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE AND THE STAFF TO PREPARE THE FINALIZED EMS PROPOSAL FOR A COUNTY BOARD.
UM, THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS, UH, WHETHER ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES OR CUTS AND SERVICES COULD BE USED TO HELP THIS PROPOSAL.
UM, THOSE CONVERSATIONS ARE STILL ONGOING AND, UH, THE COUNTY IS EAGER TO RECEIVE FEEDBACK FROM THE PUBLIC, UM, AND THE REST OF THE PROPOSAL.
SO, AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, THERE ARE, UH, SEVERAL IMPORTANT LISTENING SESSIONS AROUND THE COUNTY NEXT WEEK, AUGUST 24TH AND 26TH.
SO, TO EVERYONE IN ATTENDANCE, UH, MY COLLEAGUES, MY, UH, COMMITTEE MEMBERS, UM, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO ATTEND THOSE.
LISTEN LISTENING SESSIONS, UH, THOSE TIMES AND LOCATIONS ARE, CAN BE FOUND ON THE COUNTY'S WEBSITE OR ON THE COUNTY'S FACEBOOK PAGE.
UM, SO I'M EXCITED TO START GETTING INTO SOME OF THESE DETAILS AND I WILL TURN IT OVER TO COUNTY EXECUTIVE.
UM, SO WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO WITH YOU TODAY IS WALKTHROUGH, UM, AS, AS THE CHAIRMAN ALLUDED TO A NUMBER OF THE, UM, WHAT WE REFER TO AS LEVERS, KIND OF THE DECISION POINTS.
I WOULD SAY THERE'S A HALF A DOZEN OR SO, UH, THAT WE'D LIKE YOU TO WALK YOU THROUGH.
UH, DAVE AND AARON HAVE BEEN WORKING IN EARNEST ON TRYING TO CREATE A RANGE, UH, TO HELP FACILITATE THE CONVERSATION.
UH, OBVIOUSLY THE, ANY AGREEMENT IS GOT A MULTITUDE OF COMPLEXITIES, BUT WE THINK THESE ARE THE, UH, THE HANDFUL OF REALLY STICKING POINTS, IF YOU WILL, UM, THAT WE THINK THE COMMITTEE AND ULTIMATELY THE COUNTY BOARD NEED TO WEIGH IN ON.
SO, IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU, I'D LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO, TO DAVE AND AARON, KIND
[00:20:01]
OF HAVE YOU WALK, HAVE THEM WALK YOU THROUGH EACH ONE OF THOSE ITEMS AS WELL AS WHAT WE BELIEVE IS A RESPONSIBLE RANGE, AND THEN WHAT, UH, WHAT OUR RECOMMENDATION IS FOR EACH ONE.CERTAINLY THANK YOU COUNTY EXECUTIVE FOR THAT INTRODUCTION.
AND MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE MEMBERS, UH, AS THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE REFERRED TO, THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT LEVERS OR TALKING POINTS, TOUCH POINTS, IF YOU WILL, THAT HAVE COME TO US FROM THE CURRENT PROPOSAL OF THE WORK GROUP.
UH, THOSE LISTED BEING THE LENGTH OF THE AGREEMENT.
CURRENTLY, WE ARE AT AN EIGHT YEAR AGREEMENT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WANT TO PROCEED, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF WE WANNA LIST THOSE BULLET POINTS ONE BY ONE OR JUST SPEAK TO THOSE BULLET POINTS AND THEN HAVE A CONVERSATION OF THE COMMITTEE AND THEN MOVE TO THE NEXT, AS, AS THAT DISCUSSION GOES FORWARD.
OR DO YOU WANT ME, LET'S, LET'S TAKE ONE AT A TIME AND, OKAY.
THOSE, SO, UH, FOR THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, WE HAD DISCUSSED AT THE LAST COUNTY BOARD MEETING, UH, THAT THE CURRENT PROPOSAL THAT'S BEFORE YOU HAS AN, AN INITIAL LENGTH OF THE AGREEMENT AT EIGHT YEARS.
SO THAT IS A DISCUSSION POINT FOR ALL OF YOU IN THIS ROOM.
I KNOW THE COUNTY BOARD CHAIRMAN HAS, UH, IDENTIFIED THAT THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE TOO LONG OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
AND OF COURSE, HE'S HERE TODAY TO SPEAK ON THAT ISSUE.
BUT, UH, OUR RECOMMENDATION FROM OUR SIDE OF THIS BENCH IS ABOUT A FIVE YEAR AGREEMENT.
SO THAT RECOMMENDATION FROM AN EIGHT YEAR TERM TO A FIVE YEAR TERM, UM, WITH DISCUSSIONS OF LEADERSHIP, BOTH ON THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE SIDE, THAT'S OUR RECOMMENDATION OF A FIVE YEAR TERM.
AND JUST FOR SOME ADDITIONAL CONTEXT, UM, THIS WAS A, A HOT TOPIC IN THE WORK GROUP.
UH, THE LENGTH OF TERM, UH, I THINK AT ONE POINT WAS AS HIGH AS 10 YEARS, UM, AND AS LOW AS THREE YEARS.
UH, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO KNOW WHEN YOU'RE DISCUSSING THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT MATTER THAT, UM, SIMILAR TO OUR AGREEMENT WITH THE, UH, WASHINGTON OZAKI PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT, UH, WE CURRENTLY HAVE, UH, A NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF 18 MONTHS IN ORDER TO, UM, ESSENTIALLY FREEZE ANY FUNDING.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF THEY WERE TO DEC ANYBODY WAS TO DECIDE, THE COUNTY BOARD WAS TO DECIDE, UM, THIS PROGRAM IS GONNA FREEZE IN PLACE.
IT WOULD NEED TO BE A YEAR AND A HALF BEFORE, UH, THE, THE NEXT BUDGET ESSENTIALLY.
SO YOU'D HAVE JUNE 30TH, IT WOULDN'T BE EFFECTIVE THE FOLLOWING BUDGET YEAR.
IT WOULD BE THE ONE AFTER THAT, GIVING EVERYBODY ENOUGH TIME TO DO PLANNING AND SO FORTH.
UM, FURTHERMORE, UH, THIS, THE SMART GOALS THAT YOU'LL TALK ABOUT IN A FEW MINUTES, I THINK WHAT YOU'LL FIND IS IT'S VERY, VERY DIFFICULT, UH, TO ACTUALLY HAVE ANY GOOD DATA WITHIN A YEAR OR TWO.
UH, WHICH IF YOU COMBINE THAT YEAR OR TWO WITH 18 MONTHS, YOU'RE ALREADY PASSED, SAY, THREE YEARS.
UM, SO I THINK AT A VERY, AT THE VERY, VERY, VERY MINIMUM, A CONTRACT TERM OF THREE YEARS IS NECESSARY.
UH, I THINK IT'S TOO TIGHT AND TOO FAST.
UH, EIGHT YEARS IS PROBABLY QUITE GENEROUS.
UM, BUT, BUT FIVE GIVES US ENOUGH TIME TO SEE, IS THIS WORKING? DO THE METRICS FROM THE SMART GOALS THAT YOU'LL ULTIMATELY APPROVE A LITTLE BIT LATER.
UM, ARE WE ACTUALLY HITTING THOSE OR NOT? UM, AND GIVE A, A ACHIEVE THE GOAL THAT WE WANT.
UH, AND THAT IS TO AVOID, UH, FUTURE BORROWING, FUTURE REFERENDUMS, UH, FOR MUNICIPALITIES AND, AND, UH, UM, SUPPORT OUR EMS SYSTEM.
SO, SO I'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE AS WELL, AND, AND, UM, THREE YEARS TO ME IS PRETTY SHORT.
BY THE TIME YOU GET THE PROGRAM GOING, YOU GOT, IF YOU WANT TO FREEZE THE FUNDING IN 18 MONTHS, YOU DON'T HAVE VERY MUCH HISTORY BEHIND IT.
SO, UM, WE DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT THE, THE FIVE YEAR OPTION, AND, AND I WOULD SUPPORT THAT, UM, RECOMMENDATION, UM, TO HELP ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE EIGHT YEAR.
AND YES, IT WAS UP TO 10 YEARS.
IT MIGHT EVEN BEEN TALKS ABOUT MORE THAN THAT, IF I REMEMBER.
BUT, UM, AN ODD NUMBER OF YEARS I THINK IS IMPORTANT TOO, BECAUSE IT GETS US BACK ON TRACK WITH THE COUNTY'S BUDGET.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? SUPERVISOR? VA.
SO I'M HEARING THIS TALK ABOUT FREEZE FUNDING, NEEDING AN 18 MONTH NOTICE.
SO DOES THAT MEAN IF THEY DON'T HIT THEIR SMART GOALS, THEY DON'T FEEL THE EFFECT OF THAT FOR ANOTHER 18 MONTHS? SO WE WILL, WE, YEAH, I GUESS YES IS THE DIRECT ANSWER.
UM, BUT IT WILL ALSO TAKE PROBABLY A SOLID 18 MONTHS JUST TO GET TO THE FIRST PERFORMANCE METRICS, RIGHT? IF WE LAUNCH THIS JANUARY 1ST, BY THE TIME YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A YEAR'S WORTH OF DATA, DO THE ANALYSIS, BRING IT BACK TO YOU, IT'S PROBABLY
[00:25:01]
APRIL OR MAY OF, IN THIS CASE, 2028, AND NOW YOU'RE 17 MONTHS IN.SO IF YOU'RE GONNA MAKE A CHANGE, THEY'RE ALREADY BEGINNING THE TALKS OF CAP CIP PROJECTS AND BUDGETS.
SO IF YOU WERE TO TRY TO FREEZE IN PLACE RIGHT THEN AND THERE, I, IT WOULD, IT WOULD THROW EVERYBODY'S BUDGETS INTO HAYWIRE, OURS INCLUDED.
UM, SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE 18 MONTHS.
AND, AND I'LL, I'LL NOTE TO YOU, YOU'LL NOTICE I, I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FREEZING FUNDING.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ELIMINATING FUNDING.
UM, WE CAN GET TO TALKING ABOUT ELIMINATING FUNDING LATER AND HOW THAT, THERE'S REALLY ONLY ONE SCENARIO WHERE I SEE THAT HAPPENING.
UM, BUT THE REAL BENEFIT OF THIS PROGRAM IN THE LONG HAUL IS THE COUNTY, UH, COVERING FUTURE INCREASES IN COSTS TO A CERTAIN DEGREE.
UM, THAT IS, THAT'S WHERE I THINK A BULK OF CONVERSATION NEEDS TO HAPPEN AS WELL.
BUT TO GET BACK TO YOUR DIRECT QUESTION, SUPERVISOR BOSER, YES, IT'D BE FREEZE FREEZING AND IT WOULD TAKE 18 MONTHS FOR IT TO ACTUALLY BE IMPLEMENTED.
SO IF WE DETERMINE, SAY IN JUNE OF 2028 THAT THEY'RE NOT MEETING THEIR GOAL, WE GIVE 'EM NOTICE AND THAT DOESN'T AFFECT THEIR 2029 BUDGET.
THAT AFFECTS THEIR 2030 BUDGET.
WHICH WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR BIENNIAL PROCESS.
YEAH, I GUESS I UNDERSTAND WHY.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, AT THE SAME TIME, THAT SEEMS LIKE TOO FAR OF A DELAYED CONSEQUENCE.
SO IF THEY'RE NOT MEETING THEIR GOALS, LIKE THE CONSEQUENCE SHOULD HIT SOONER THAN THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A MECHANISM IN PLACE TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN OR NOT.
BUT THAT'S A POINT OF CONCERN, I THINK FOR ME.
BUT I THINK ON THE CONTRACT LENGTH, FIVE YEARS SOUNDS GOOD TO ME.
ANY OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE A COMMENT OR QUESTION? UM, I THINK, OH, I'M SORRY.
SO, UH, CHAIRMAN SCH LIFE, WE'VE HEARD A LOT FROM THE PUBLIC AND THEY THINK THIS IS A DONE DEAL.
AS YOU CAN TELL FROM THIS DISCUSSION ALREADY, IT'S A LONG, LONG WAYS FROM A DONE DEAL.
WE'RE GONNA GO OVER AND UNDER AND AROUND THIS, UM, FOR MONTHS, I THINK.
SO, UM, I APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS AND, UH, LET'S CONTINUE TO WORK OPENLY AND RESPECTFULLY.
AND, UM, FOR MY, FOR MY PART, I THINK FIVE YEARS IS GOOD TOO.
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS ENSURE THE LONG TERM RELIABILITY OF OUR EMS SERVICES AND TO DO THAT, THERE'S GONNA BE A LITTLE PAIN ALONG THE WAY, BOTH FOR US AND FOR THE MUNICIPALITIES, I THINK.
BUT, UM, LET'S ALL WORK TOGETHER AND I HOPE IT CONTINUES.
LET'S CONTINUE THE GOOD DISCUSSION.
UH, I, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THE 18 MONTH KIND OF TIMELINE, UM, IS SOMETHING THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE BUDGET PROCESS, WHETHER IT'S OUR BUDGET OR MUNICIPALITY BUDGETS.
WE KNOW, ESPECIALLY WITH A BIANNUAL BUDGET, IT TAKES A LOT OF PREP AND, UH, TIME TO GET THOSE FIGURED OUT IF WE END UP IN A SITUATION WHERE FUNDING MAY CHANGE OR, YOU KNOW, SO THAT'S, I GUESS, AM I CORRECT IN SAYING, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE WE GOT THE 18 MONTHS FROM? YOU'RE CORRECT.
UM, SO THE FIVE YEAR AGREEMENT, BUT THEN WE FREEZE, IS THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING? WE'RE REFREEZING IT AT THE FIVE YEAR AGREEMENT.
SO THE FIVE FIVE YEAR AGREEMENT WOULD BE THE INITIAL TERM OF THE, OF THE AGREEMENT.
AND THEN IT'S UP TO FUTURE BOARDS AND FUTURE TOWN, VILLAGE AND CITY, UM, FOLKS, UH, TO DECIDE IF IT CONTINUES.
UM, BUT IT, IF IT, IF THEY, IF THERE IS NO DECISION OR IF THERE'S INDECISION, IT JUST FREEZES AS IS.
AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE, I HAVE SO MANY CONSTITUENTS THAT ARE CONCERNED THAT THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY'RE CLEAR ON THE MATTER OF THIS EMS COUNTYWIDE SYSTEM.
AND IS THERE A WAY THAT YOU COULD, BESIDES YOUR, YOU KNOW, PUTTING IT OUT THERE IN THE PAPER OR SOMETHING? BECAUSE I THINK THEY NEED CLARITY, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY THE TOWNSHIPS.
[00:30:01]
WITH YOU.UM, MY HOPE IS THAT'S WHAT YOU DO TODAY.
OKAY? A LOT OF, A LOT OF THE POINTS THAT YOU'RE GONNA GO OVER TODAY ARE REALLY THE ULTIMATE STICKING POINTS THAT NOT ONLY THE MUNICIPALITIES ARE CONCERNED ABOUT, BUT ARE THE CONSTITUENTS I HEAR FROM WANT TO KNOW, LIKE, WHAT ARE, WHERE ARE YOU GONNA ACTUALLY LAND WITH THIS THING? UM, AS I THINK SUPERVISOR, UM, NEWMAN HAS SAID IN THE PAST, LIKE, WE HAD SEVEN MONTHS OF, WE WERE ALL OVER THE PLACE THAT WORK GROUP.
I MEAN, IF WE WOULD'VE COME OUT SEVEN MONTHS AGO AND GIVEN YOU UPDATES ON WHERE IT WAS, I MEAN, LITERALLY ONE MEETING WE WERE TALKING 10 YEARS IN THE NEXT MEETING WE WERE TA AND, AND ONE MEETING, WE'RE TALKING 10 MILLION IN THE NEXT MEETING, WE'RE TALKING, THIS THING ISN'T GONNA HAPPEN AT ALL.
UM, MY HOPE IS BY THE END OF TODAY, WE'RE PREPARED TO ACT, GIVE SOME FOLKS SOME CONCRETE, MUCH MORE CONCRETE NUMBERS.
AND THEN JUST ONE OTHER BIG QUESTION WAS THE $17 MILLION ON ACCOUNTING SALES TAX THAT YOU SEE MM-HMM
DOES ANY OF THAT GO TO THIS AT ALL? UM, UNDER THAT BEEN BUDGETED FOR THIS UNDER THE CURRENT, UNDER THE CURRENT PROPOSAL FROM THE CHIEF'S, CHIEF ELECTED OFFICIALS KNOW.
UM, BUT THAT'S A DECISION THIS GROUP AND ULTIMATELY THE COUNTY BOARD HAVE TO MAKE.
UM, SUPERVISOR NEWMAN AND I HAVE HAD SOME OF THAT CONVERSATION.
UM, I'M VERY INTERESTED TO HEAR AT OUR LISTENING SESSIONS WHAT INPUT THE COMMUNITY HAS ON THAT.
BECAUSE I THINK ONE, UM, MISUNDERSTANDING, ESPECIALLY FROM OUR MUNICIPAL PARTNERS, UH, WHEN THEY PUT THAT REFERENDUM ON THE BALLOT FIVE YEARS AGO OR HOWEVER LONG IT WAS NOW, UM, THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT THE COUNTY, WHILE WE HAVE BEEN GETTING INCREASES IN SALES TAX, WE'VE BEEN TURNING THAT AROUND AND FREEZING OUR PROPERTY TAX LEVY WITH IT, OR REDUCING EIGHT, I THINK EIGHT OUTTA THE LAST 14 YEARS, WE'VE ACTUALLY REDUCED THE LEVY.
SO THE REASON OUR TAX RATE IS COLLAPSING IS PROPERTY VALUES ARE GOING UP, YES.
BUT WE'RE ACTUALLY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAXES WE COLLECT, WHICH NOBODY DOES.
SO IT'S, AND WHEN WE DO THINGS LIKE BORROW MONEY, WE DON'T LEVY FOR THAT.
WE USE THE SALES TAX TO PAY FOR IT.
SO I KNOW THERE'S ALL KINDS OF REVISIONIST HISTORY ABOUT HOW THE SALES TAX WAS STARTED AND THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A SUNSET AND ALL THIS STUFF LIKE THAT.
BUT I, I TALKED TO REPRESENTATIVE CANAL ABOUT THIS WHO WAS ON THE COUNTY BOARD ALL THOSE YEARS AGO, AND HE SAID, YOU KNOW, JOSH, THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE FOR THE SALES TAX WAS TO PAY FOR CAPITAL AND TO DRIVE DOWN PROPERTY TAX.
AND I SAID, THAT'S INTERESTING 'CAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE DO TO THIS VERY DAY.
UM, IF, IF YOU WANNA KNOW WHY WE WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE TAX RATES THAT ARE HALF OF WHAT THEY WERE WHEN I STARTED, THAT'S HOW, IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY WE WERE ABLE TO KEEP THE TAX LEVY THE SAME AMOUNT AS WHEN YOU, YOU LEFT, DAN LEFT THE COUNTY BOARD.
THAT'S HOW, UM, SO IF YOU, IF WE ARE TO TAKE SOME SALES TAX AND APPLY IT HERE, IT WILL HAVE TO BE FROM THE GROWTH OF THE SALES TAX.
IT CAN'T BE THE STUFF THAT YOU'VE ALREADY BUDGETED.
'CAUSE THAT IS WHAT IS KEEPING PROPERTY TAXES DOWN.
IT WOULD BE A DOUBLE COUNT THAT ACTUALLY WOULD BE A DOUBLE TAX.
SO I WAS PART OF THAT CONVERSATION AS WELL WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE.
THAT'S, AND THAT'S EXACTLY HOW IT WENT.
UM, AND I BROUGHT THIS UP AT THE LAST COUNTY BOARD MEETING WHEN THE DISCUSSION CAME UP AS WELL, IS I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT USING COUNTY SALES TAX, IF IT'S GONNA CREATE ANOTHER, JUST A DIFFERENT LEVY TO FILL THE GAP, UM, TO FUND THIS.
THAT'S WHY I MENTIONED STICKING WITH THE EMS, UM, WAS MY PREFERENCE.
BUT AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE THOSE NUMBERS IN FRONT OF US SUPERVISOR BOSER.
SO I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO ANY INCREASES IN THE SALES TAX AND 'CAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS MAY BE ALLUDING TO.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING SALES TAX IS NOT GONNA GO AWAY, BUT I KNOW WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO INCREASE THE SALES TAX.
I WOULDN'T, WE DO NOT USE THAT.
WE DON'T, I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT THE LEGISLATURE PASSED WAS ONLY FROM MILWAUKEE COUNTY, UH, WHICH WE'LL HEAR PLENTY ABOUT IN THE NEXT 80 DAYS.
BUT, UM, MILWAUKEE COUNTY IS THE ONLY PLACE THAT YOU CAN INCREASE BEYOND A HALF PERCENT.
EVERY OTHER COUNTY IS AN ON OFF SWITCH.
YOU EITHER HAVE IT OR YOU DON'T HAVE IT.
AND WHAT I WAS ALLUDING TO IS IF, BECAUSE IT'S A HALF PERCENT AND SALES INCREASE EVERY YEAR, IF WE COLLECT MORE REVENUE THAN WE ANTICIPATED, THAT WOULD BE A SPOT TO ALLOCATE SOME OF IT.
UM, BUT YOU GOTTA, ONE THING YOU GOTTA REMEMBER ABOUT SALES TAX, AND IT'S NOT TOO DISSIMILAR FROM OUR, THE DISCUSSION WE'VE VEERED OFF FROM ABOUT 18 MONTHS IS IT TAKES US ABOUT THREE MONTHS TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH WE'VE ACTUALLY COLLECTED.
WE DON'T GET THAT DATA FOR ABOUT THREE MONTHS.
SO EVEN THOUGH IT'S, YOU KNOW, AUGUST, ALMOST SEPTEMBER NOW, WE ONLY HAVE DATA THROUGH MEMORIAL
[00:35:01]
DAY.SO WE NEED TO WAIT A LITTLE BIT LONGER AS WELL TO FIGURE OUT IF WE'RE GONNA ALLOCATE SOME SALES TAX TO THIS FIRST, WHERE DOES IT GO? AND SECOND, HOW MUCH DO WE ACTUALLY HAVE COMPARED TO WHAT WE BUDGETED? YEAH.
THE OTHER POINT I WANNA MAKE ON THE SALES TAX, UM, SOMETIMES I THINK THE PUBLIC GETS TOO CONCERNED ABOUT, IS THIS SALES TAX DOLLARS OR IS THIS PROPERTY TAX? AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S LIKE SAYING, YOU KNOW, IS IT COMING FROM YOUR WIFE'S CHECKING ACCOUNT OR YOUR CHECKING ACCOUNT MAKES A DIFFERENCE? YEAH.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE EXACTLY.
SO ONCE WE RECEIVE THE MONEY, IT'S ALL IN THE SAME, THAT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT TRUE FUND.
AND NO MATTER HOW YOU OUT, YOU ADMINISTER A NEW LEVY, UM, IT'S WITHIN OUR TOTAL LEVY.
LIKE A TAXPAYER DOESN'T KNOW AND DOESN'T NEED TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS LEVY OR THAT LEVY.
BUT IT'S, WHAT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO KNOW IS WHEN THE DOLLARS GO OUT THE DOOR, HOW THE ACCOUNTABILITY WORKS.
AND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BECAUSE IF THE COUNTY WERE TO JUST TAKE A CHUNK OF THAT ALMOST $18 MILLION IN SALES TAX AND JUST SHARE IT, LIKE THERE'S NO RESTRICTION, THERE'S NO WAY OF TRACKING WHERE THAT MONEY GOES ONCE YOU, ONCE YOU DISTRIBUTE IT OUT, UNLESS LIKE THE COUNTY, WE HAVE OUR OWN ORDINANCE THAT DICTATES WHERE IT MUST GO.
UM, BUT IN THE CASE OF EMS LEVY IT BY STATE, STATE LAW, IT CAN ONLY BE USED FOR EMS. SO IF YOU CREATE THE EMS LEVY, WHICH IS JUST A PORTION OF THE BIGGER LEVEE, UM, JUST LIKE ROAD AND BRIDGE AID, JUST LIKE LIBRARY LEVY IT, WHEN IT'S SHARED IT, IT CAN ONLY BE USED FOR EMS. EVEN THAT, IF THAT'S TO OFFSET CURRENT CONTRACTS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S A LID TO THAT TOO.
SO IT CAN'T JUST MEANDER ITS WAY INTO, YOU KNOW, PARKS PROGRAMS OR LIBRARY PROGRAMS OR IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO EMS. AND ESPECIALLY THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT, UH, SUPERVISOR PRIDE MORE, UH, WITH TOWNS WHOSE BUDGETS ARE VERY SMALL.
YOU ALL, THEY ALL OF A SUDDEN GET A $20,000 CHECK.
I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S REAL MONEY TO A TOWN THAT HAS A TOTAL LEVY OF $300,000.
SO I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO, TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HAVING THIS COMPONENT, YES, IT'S LEFT POCKET, RIGHT POCKET, IT'S ALL THE SAME TAXPAYER, BUT THE ACCOUNTABILITY GOING OUT IS VERY STRONG WITH EMS LEVY, IT'S NOT VERY STRONG WITH SALES TAX.
SO IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT WE SHOULDN'T SHARE SOME SALES TAX IF THERE'S CAPACITY THERE.
UM, BUT YOU, THE ACCOUNTABILITY PART OF IT'S HARD TO MANAGE AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
SO TO PUT A BOW ON IT, ANY MONEY THE COUNTY SHARES IS REALLY SHARING THE SALES TAX IN MY VIEW.
AND IT'S REALLY NOT OUR MONEY.
IT'S THE TAXPAYERS, RIGHT? YEAH.
AND WE'RE EASILY SHARING MORE THAN 25% OF WHAT THE SALES TAX IS.
SO I DON'T WANT TO GET WRAPPED UP INTO IS THIS SALES TAX MONEY OR IS THIS, YOU KNOW, WELL, IT'S A QUESTION THAT CAME UP QUITE A FEW TIMES AND I'M LIKE, WELL, I REALLY DON'T KNOW.
IT'S A GREAT, IT'S A GREAT QUESTION WRAPPED UP INTO THAT DISCUSSION.
'CAUSE WELL, IT'S A GREAT QUESTION, CONSIDERING THE REFERENDUM QUESTION FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO, UH, WHICH WAS OUTLANDISH, BUT I MEAN, IT WAS OUT THERE AND IT GOT ANSWERED
SO, SO YOU RAISED A QUESTION FOR ME JUST ON YOUR LAST LITTLE TALK ABOUT, UH, POTENTIAL SALES TAX FUNDING.
A PORTION OF THIS, OKAY, LET'S JUST PUT A SCENARIO OUT THERE.
50% OF THIS PROGRAM IS FUNDED THROUGH SALES TAX.
HOW CAN THAT 50% BE RESTRICTED FOR EMS PURPOSES ONLY? IF IT'S NOT FROM AN EMS LEVY, IT'S, IT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT.
UM, IF IT, IF SPECIFICALLY IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MUNICIPALITIES, THERE WILL BE, THERE'S NO STATUTORY RESTRICTIONS.
SO THERE'S NO REAL WAY FOR US TO HAVE ANY TEETH NO MATTER WHAT WE PUT IN A CONTRACTOR IN AGREEMENT.
UM, AND NOW IF WE WERE WORKING WITH THE DEPARTMENTS, WHICH AT ONE TIME WITH THE WORK GROUP WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HAVING CONTRACTS WITH THE DEPARTMENTS INSTEAD OF THE MUNICIPALITIES, THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
BUT AS FAR AS SALES TAX SHARING DIRECTLY TO MUNICIPALITIES, ONCE THE MONEY'S OUT THE DOOR, THERE'S NO WAY.
I UNDERSTAND THE GOOD FAITH, UM, FUNDING MECHANISM.
THAT'S A CONCERN TO ME THAT WE DON'T HAVE THAT MEAT BEHIND IT.
[00:40:01]
THIS IS EMS ONLY IF IT'S NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT FUNDED THROUGH THE EMS LEVY.AND THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT IT UP AT THE, THE LAST MEETING.
BUT AGAIN, IF YOU DID IT THROUGH THE, THE DEPARTMENTS, OBVIOUSLY THE DEPARTMENTS ARE FIRE AND EMS ONLY, THAT'S WHAT THEY DO, RIGHT? THERE IS NOTHING ELSE.
SO THAT IF YOU COULD FIND A WAY TO DO IT THAT WAY, AND I JUST THREW THE 50% OUT JUST FOR DISCUSSION SAKE, BUT MAYBE THAT PERCENTAGE IS WITHIN WHAT IS BEING DISTRIBUTED BACK ALREADY IN THE GRANT PROGRAM.
NOW, WHEN I SUGGESTED 50 50 SPLIT, I ALMOST LOST MY HEAD, BUT THE WORK GROUP WAS LIVELY.
LET'S JUST SAY THAT I SUGGESTED A 50 50 SPLIT BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS AND MUNICIPALITIES AND I THINK THE CHIEF ELECTED OFFICIALS ALMOST KILLED ME,
AND THEY'RE BEHIND ME WITH SHOOTING DAGGERS.
I CAN FEEL 'EM IN MY BACK RIGHT NOW.
ALSO, LIKE WAS JUST SAID, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW SALES TAX UNTIL THERE, THERE'S A LAG AND WE DON'T, WE SHOULDN'T BANK ON SALES TAX.
HISTORICALLY, IT'S GENERALLY GONE UP, BUT I REALLY THINK WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL.
I'M NOT AGAINST PARTIALLY FUNDING IT WITH SALES TAX, BUT WE WANT THIS PROGRAM TO BE A STRONG PROGRAM THAT'S GONNA LAST FOR YEARS.
AND IF HOWEVER MUCH WE PREDICATE ON SALES TAX, WE HAVE TO BE REALLY CAREFUL.
'CAUSE IF SALES TAX GOES DOWN, WE STILL GOTTA BALANCE OUR BUDGET, SO THEN WE MIGHT POTENTIALLY HAMSTRING THE PROGRAM OR RUN INTO OTHER PROBLEMS. SO LET'S BE CAREFUL.
I I DO THINK MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WE WOULD, BY THE TIME WE GET BACK TO YOU NEXT MONTH, WE SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH DATA.
WE'LL HAVE AT LEAST SIX MONTHS OF DATA AT THAT POINT, AND WE CAN PRETTY WELL PROJECT WHAT DOES THE REST OF THE YEAR LOOK LIKE AND WHAT, WHAT'S A REASONABLE NUMBER FOR US TO BE ABLE TO PUT TOWARDS IT? REMEMBER LAST YEAR, LAST CALENDAR YEAR, UM, THE SALES TAX ACTUALLY UNDERPERFORMED OUR BUDGET AND THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME IN A LONG TIME.
SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IF WE'RE GONNA, IF WE'RE GONNA ALLOCATE ANYTHING, WE KNOW THE DOLLARS ARE ACTUALLY COMING.
UM, BECAUSE TO, UH, CHAIRMAN SCH LIFE'S POINT, I KNOW THIS IS GONNA SOUND RIDICULOUS, BUT IT'S TRUE DURING THE GREAT RECESSION WHEN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS IS, THE MUNICIPALITIES ARE HEAVILY RELYING ON SALES TAX.
AND WHEN THAT GREAT RECESSION HIT, THEY SAW HUGE REVENUE LOSSES.
THEY LITERALLY WERE LAYING OFF FIREFIGHTERS AND COPS 'CAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY.
SO IT SALES TAX IS GOOD WHEN IT'S GOOD, BUT IT IS REALLY BAD WHEN IT'S BAD.
UM, RIGHT NOW THE RECOMMENDATION ON, ON THE FLOOR HERE IS FOR A FIVE YEAR AGREEMENT.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM? OKAY.
CAN, CAN I ASK ONE OTHER QUESTION? I DON'T THINK THIS WAS IN OUR FIVE OR SIX BULLET ITEMS, AND WE KIND OF WENT OFF ON A LITTLE TANGENT THERE WITH SALES TAX.
BUT TO THAT POINT, ARE THERE OTHER REVENUE SOURCES OR CUTS THAT THE COMMITTEE WANTS TO SEE IN FORM OF A PROPOSAL? I I, I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, I DON'T SEE A LOT OF OTHER SPOTS FOR US TO GO.
UM, BUT I I, WE COULD, WE HAVEN'T SPENT A LOT OF TIME LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD WE, UH, WHAT WOULD WE CUT, WHAT WOULD WE CHANGE? WHAT WOULD, WHAT OTHER REVENUE SOURCES WOULD WE LOOK TO? UM, I THINK THE SALES TAX ONE IS, IS GOOD AND IT'S PROBABLY GOOD ENOUGH.
BUT I, WE'D BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T.
I THINK IF WE DIDN'T ASK THAT QUESTION, I'LL GIVE YOU MY OPINION.
MY OPINION IS WE'VE, WE'VE CUT AS MUCH AS WE CAN CUT.
I MEAN, WE'VE, WE WENT THROUGH THIS SEVERAL TIMES WITH, UH, CRIME PLANS TRYING TO FUND THOSE CUTTING POSITIONS, ANALYZING THAT OVER THE YEARS.
SO OFF THE CUFF, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FOR YOU AND I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND ANY.
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE COMMITTEES IF THEY MEMBERS, IF THEY HAVE SOMETHING.
I MEAN, I'M CERTAINLY WILLING TO HEAR IF YOU HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS OR OPTIONS, BUT
ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT? NO, THANK YOU MS. CHAIRMAN.
UH, MIKE WOULD LIKE ME TO REMIND EVERYBODY TO SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE.
SOME OF THOSE LISTENING CANNOT HEAR, I GUESS SO.
UH, THE NEXT ITEM IS THE PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE.
[00:45:01]
CHAIRMAN.UH, CURRENTLY THE CURRENT PROPOSAL HAS A 2% FLOOR YEAR OVER YEAR FOR OPERATIONAL COST INCREASES WITH, UH, 4% CEILING TO THAT.
UH, THE RECOMMENDATION COMING FROM OUR SIDE IS A 2% FLOOR AND A 4% CEILING.
ANYTHING BEYOND THE 4%, THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE COULD TAKE UP AND APPROVE ABOVE THE 4% TO 6%.
AND THEN AT 6%, IF THE OPERATIONAL COSTS GO BEYOND THE 6%, THAT WOULD COME BEFORE THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE FOR CONSIDERATION AND POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE FULL COUNTY BOARD.
AND THAT TIME, THEY WOULD CONSIDER IT AT THE COUNTY BOARD LEVEL.
JUST TO, JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHERE THE PERCENTAGE COMES FROM AND HOW THAT WORKS, COULD YOU GUYS GO THROUGH THOSE DETAILS? WHAT NUMBERS WE USE, HOW THAT WORKS? LET'S, I THINK THAT'S, WE'RE GONNA PROJECT THAT.
'CAUSE THE, THIS, THIS IS EASY TO GET LOST IN THIS MATH.
THE FORMULA ITSELF IS COMPLICATED, BUT ONCE YOU UNDERSTAND HOW IT FLOWS, IT'S ACTUALLY PRETTY SIXTH GRADE SIMPLE.
BUT YOU GOTTA SEE IT THE FIRST TIME TO UNDERSTAND IT.
SUPERVISOR BOSER CAN'T ATTEST TO THAT.
I SAT IN A MEETING FRIDAY WITH, UH, DAVE AND AARON AND MIKE AND SAW THESE NUMBERS.
SO YEAH, WHEN YOU HEAR IT, IT SOUNDS COMPLICATED, BUT ONCE YOU SEE ITS, SEE IT, IT'S MUCH EASIER TO UNDERSTAND.
I LOVE A GOOD SPREADSHEET IN THE MORNING.
RIGHT?
OKAY, I'M GONNA TRY NOT TO MAKE IT TOO SMALL HERE.
UM, SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE WAY WE ESSENTIALLY ARRIVED AT THE $3.5 MILLION NUMBER THAT HAS KIND OF BEEN OUT THERE.
UM, I'M USING THIS AS, AS OUR JUMPING OFF POINT, JUST 'CAUSE I THINK SOME OF THESE NUMBERS ARE WHAT PEOPLE ARE USED TO SEEING.
UM, AND SO JUST TO KINDA WALK THROUGH HOW THAT WAS CALCULATED, UM, WE ESSENTIALLY, WE TOOK EVERY, EVERY BUDGET, UM, FROM EVERY MUNICIPALITY AND WE WERE ABLE TO IDENTIFY ALL THE EXPENDITURES AND THEN REDUCE THAT BY ALL THE REVENUES TO ARRIVE AT THE TOTAL TAX LEVY THAT ALL THE MUNICIPALITIES, UM, ARE USING TO FUND THE EMS SYSTEM.
RIGHT? SO WE KNOW WHAT OR THE, THE, THIS IS FIRE PLUS EMS. OKAY, SO THIS TOP LINE, UM, SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, WHAT THAT 14.7 IS TELLING YOU IS THAT'S HOW MUCH PROPERTY TAXPAYERS COUNTYWIDE BY MUNICIPALITY ARE PAYING COLLECTIVELY FOR, FOR EMS. IT DOESN'T INCLUDE ALL REVENUE SOURCES, IT'S JUST PROPERTY TAXES FIRING EMS, RIGHT? RIGHT.
SO THE AC THE ACTUAL COST IS MUCH HIGHER, BUT THIS IS OFFSET BY THE REVENUE THEY RECEIVE.
SO THIS IS ACTUAL OUT-OF-POCKET, RIGHT? AND IT DOES NOT INCLUDE CAPITAL, RIGHT? CORRECT.
UH, DEBT FUNDED CAPITAL DEBT, I'M SORRY.
UM, I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE REASON WE USE THE TAX LEVY PIECE IS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THOSE EXPENDITURES ARE LIKE DOUBLE COUNTED, RIGHT? WHEN YOU'RE, YOU'VE GOT EXPENDITURES IN ONE BUDGET AND, AND THEN A CONTRACT IN ANOTHER, FOR EXAMPLE, THOSE ARE DOUBLE COUNTING EXPENDITURES.
WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT EITHER.
WE WANT THE NET COST, THE NET IMPACT TO TAXPAYERS.
UM, THEN ONCE YOU ARRIVE AT THAT TOTAL LEVY, YOU NEED TO, UM, MAKE AN ASSUMPTION ABOUT HOW MUCH OF THAT IS EMS WE'VE HEARD OUT THERE.
UM, YOU KNOW, BASED ON CALL VOLUME AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WE'VE HEARD NUMBERS UP AS HIGH AS 85.
UH, PERHAPS EVEN HIGHER THAN THAT.
BEING CONSERVATIVE HERE, WE'RE USING 75% OF THE EM OF ASSUMED EMS, UH, OF ASSUMED CALL VOLUME IS EMS RELATED.
SO WE'RE USING THAT TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF LEVY THAT'S DEDICATED TO THE EMS SYSTEM.
NOW, IN TERMS OF THE COUNTY'S SHARE, UM, WE'RE USING 2026 BASIS DOLLARS.
UM, WE'RE OF OF COURSE PLANNING FOR 2027, SO I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT NUANCE IN A SECOND.
BUT, UM, IN TERMS OF A ESTABLISHING A BASE FOR 2026, UM, OUR JUMPING OFF POINT WAS THE COUNTY'S STAKE IN THIS SYSTEM, UH, USING 20% OF THAT ASSUMED EMS LEVY, UM, BEING, BEING THE COUNTY'S INITIAL STAKE IN THIS SYSTEM.
[00:50:01]
WE'RE ASSUMING SOME GROWTH ON THIS TAX LEVY.UH, AND THEN WE APPLY THAT 75% CALCULATION AGAIN, AND THAT, AND THEN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 27 CALCULATION AND THE 26 CALCULATION IS WHAT WE'VE, WE ADD TO THIS, TO THE NEW BASE.
SO THAT'S WHERE YOU GET THAT NUMBER.
UM, SO ESSENTIALLY THAT'S HOW WE ARRIVED AT THE $2.7 MILLION OF, OF BASE COUNTY EMS LEVY.
THAT IS THE NUMBER THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF HOW DO WE DISTRIBUTE THAT OUT TO THE EMS PROVIDERS.
UM, OF COURSE, YOU'VE ALSO HEARD ABOUT THE VOLUNTEER, UH, RETENTION PIECE, THE 500,000 THAT WE'VE GOT BELOW THE 2.7 THERE.
AND THEN THE COUNTY'S ADMIN FEE, WHICH WE'VE TALKED ABOUT ALREADY, THE FACT THAT THAT MIGHT BE REMOVED FROM FUTURE PLANS.
I WANTED TO INCLUDE IT IN HERE JUST TO AGAIN, GET US AT THAT 3.5 NUMBER THAT EVERYBODY'S KIND OF BEEN USED TO HERE.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S HOW THE MATH WORKS OUT TO GET TO THE 3.5 MILLION.
THAT IS THE NUMBER IN, IN THIS VERSION OF THE PLAN.
OF COURSE THAT NUMBER CHANGES, BUT THAT IS THE NUMBER THAT WOULD BE APPORTIONED OUT AND TAXED.
SO WHEN THE WORK GROUP AND THEN ULTIMATELY THE CHIEFS CHIEF ELECTED OFFICIALS AND ADMINISTRATORS ALL MET, THAT WAS THE BASELINE FOR THE PROPOSAL THAT THEY'VE BROUGHT IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY, UH, AND LAST MONTH AS WELL.
UM, WORKING THROUGH THE MATH ON THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT THE EQUALIZED VALUE NUMBERS NOW FOR NEXT, FOR NEXT, UH, NEXT YEAR FOR APPORTIONMENT.
UM, SO WE KNOW WHAT THE PROPERTY VALUE INCREASES WERE ON THE COUNTY SIDE.
UM, WE KNOW OF COURSE WHAT WE BUDGETED AND THE COUNTY LEVY FOR NEXT YEAR.
UH, WE HAD A, UH, UH, $275,000 INCREASE.
UM, BUT THEN, UH, OF COURSE WE'RE ADDING IN THE EMS LEVY HERE.
SO THAT GETS US A TOTAL LEVY NUMBER THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
UM, THE MATH ON THE TAX RATE, UM, LOOKS LIKE THIS.
AND THE 4 CENT INCREASE IS SORT OF THE BASELINE THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, UM, UP TO, UH, AND THROUGH THE COUNTY BOARD MEETING, YES.
SO WHEN I'VE SAID BEFORE, UH, AT THE COUNTY BOARD MEETING THAT I WANTED TO SEE, OUR, OUR GOAL SHOULD BE TO GET IT TO TAX RATE NEUTRAL.
IT WOULD GET THAT 4 CENTS DOWN TO ZERO AND IT WOULD GET THE DOLLAR 44 BACK DOWN TO A DOLLAR 40 OR LOWER.
AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE COMING OFF WITH STEP ONE, AND THEN THERE WOULD BE OTHER THINGS LIKE WE JUST DISCUSSED, FOR EXAMPLE, THE POTENTIALLY USING SOME, UH, SALES TAX OR BRINGING THE TOTAL NUMBER DOWN OR THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO TO MAKE IT CLEAR, I KNOW IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 11 CENTS, I THINK, WHICH WAS 51 OR $52 ON A $400,000 HOUSE.
WHAT CHANGED, HOW'D WE GET FROM THAT TO THIS? YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE, ON UH, LINE 19, IN B AND C WE WERE VERY CONSERVATIVE.
WE ASSUMED THAT PROPERTY VALUE, EQUALIZED VALUE WOULD NOT GROW.
SO INSTEAD OF A BIG TAX RATE INCREASE, IT ENDS UP BEING MUCH, MUCH SMALLER.
UH, DO WE WANNA WALK THROUGH? YEAH, CAN AARON, COULD YOU GO BACK UP ON THIS SPREADSHEET? SO THE, SO LET'S GO TO THE 529, 752.
SO THE BULLET ITEM WE'RE ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER RIGHT NOW THAT, THAT DAVE JUST ARTICULATED A MOMENT AGO.
THE TWO TO 2% TO 4%, UP TO 6%.
WHEN, WHEN WE SAY 2%, WHICHEVER PERCENT YOU PICK, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
IT'S A PERCENTAGE OF THE 11 5, 5 9.
OKAY? SO WHAT YOU'LL SEE IN, IN THE FUTURE IS ONCE WE GET SOME SOLID NUMBERS TO ACTUALLY DO PROJECTIONS WITHOUT THEM BOUNCING ALL OVER THE PLACE, YOU'LL SEE, LET'S SAY IT ENDS UP AT 3 MILLION, IT'LL BE AND 3%, IT'LL BE 3% OF THE 11 5, 5 9, AND THEN WHATEVER THAT IS IN 2028, WHICH WILL BE HIGHER.
[00:55:01]
WHAT WE'RE GOING TO COVER.SO HERE WE'RE ASSUMING 4% SYSTEM GROWTH.
UM, SO YOU SEE THOSE ANNUAL INCREASES ARE, ARE HEALTHY, APPROACHING HALF A MILLION DOLLARS.
UM, I'VE GOT THE ADMIN FEE IN HERE.
UM, SO WE COULD TAKE THAT OUT IF WE WANTED TO, TO SEE WHAT THE IMPACT IS.
BUT, UM, ESSENTIALLY MOVING INTO HOW, UH, OUR SIMULATION, UM, YOU CAN SEE KIND OF HOW THAT TRANSLATES OUT THROUGH INTO THE FUTURE YEARS.
UM, THIS MODEL HERE, UM, ASSUMES, UM, IT ASSUMES NORMAL EQUALIZED VALUE GROWTH AND IT ACTUALLY ASSUMES THAT WE TAKE NET NEW CONSTRUCTION.
UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE DON'T TYPICALLY DO THAT, BUT, BUT FOR CONSERVATIVE PURPOSES, THIS SHOWS A LEVY INCREASE ON THE COUNTY SIDE AS WELL.
SO, UM, YOU CAN KINDA SEE HOW THE EQUALIZED VALUE GROWTH, UM, HISTORICALLY HAS, HAS OUTPACED LEVY GROWTH, WHICH DRIVES THE RATES DOWN.
SO YOU REMEMBER FROM THE SIX YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN SUPERVISOR GALATZ BROUGHT UP ADDING A, ADDING A LINE IN THE MIDDLE THAT WOULD SHOW US TAKING NET NEW CONSTRUCTION EVERY YEAR, WHICH WE, WE DON'T PLAN FOR THAT.
IT'S NOT THAT WE'VE NEVER DONE IT.
WE HAVE DONE IT SE SEVERAL TIMES, BUT WE GENERALLY PLAN TO NOT TAKE IT AND TO USE SALES TAX TO BACKFILL.
IF WE DECIDED, UM, TO SUPERVISOR PRIDE MOORE'S, UM, QUESTION EARLIER THAT WE'RE GONNA USE SOME OF THE SALES TAX MOVING FORWARD TO BACKFILL, THAT MEANS WE DON'T HAVE THAT SALES TAX TO FUND THE REST OF OUR OPERATION.
AND SO YOU CAN START TO SEE HOW WELL THEN YOU'LL NEED TO START USING THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION.
SO WHAT I WANT TO POINT OUT THOUGH IS EVEN IF WE WERE TO USE ALL OUR NET NEW CONSTRUCTION, WHICH MEANS WE'RE PROPERTY TAXING, UM, AND WE WERE TO HAVE 4% INCREASES TO THE EMS LEVY, IF YOU LOOK AT LINE 24 DENF, ALL THREE OF THEM, THE TAX RATE WILL STILL DROP 6 CENTS PER THOUSAND EVERY YEAR IN THOSE THREE YEARS.
NOW, I SAY THAT TO YOU BECAUSE I, I KNOW THERE'S GONNA BE A BIG DEBATE, UM, IF NOT HERE PUBLICLY ABOUT SHOULD WE PLAN FOR 2% INCREASES, 4% INCREASES, 6% IS QUITE RICH.
BUT IF THE GOAL OF OUR WHOLE INITIATIVE IS AVOID REFERENDUMS, AVOID DEBT AND, AND INCENTIVIZE WORKING TOGETHER, THEN YOU WANT TO HAVE THAT NUMBER AS HIGH AS YOU CAN COMFORTABLY MAKE IT SO THAT ALL OF THOSE THINGS AREN'T HAPPENING OUTSIDE OF THIS.
IN OTHER WORDS, THIS ISN'T A, THIS ISN'T HAPPENING IN A VACUUM, THERE'S STILL ALL THESE OTHER THINGS HAPPENING TO EVERY MUNICIPALITY AND EVERY DEPARTMENT.
I THINK THE, THE GOAL, THE PUBLIC POLICY GOAL OF THIS COMMITTEE AND THE COUNTY BOARD SHOULD BE WHAT'S THE RIGHT AMOUNT FOR US TO ASSUME, JUST LIKE WE DO WITH CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT'S THE RIGHT AMOUNT FOR US TO KEEP GOING TO STAY AT THE FRONT OF THE PACK INSTEAD OF BEING FORCED INTO THESE OTHER OPTIONS, WHICH ARE, WHICH ARE NOT GOOD? CAN I, BEFORE YOU GET, BEFORE YOU GET TOO FAR FROM THAT CONVERSATION, AGAIN, I, I'M GLAD YOU KEEP MENTIONING THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS MY CONCERN WITH GOING AWAY FROM AN EMS LEVEE.
IF WE HAVE PARTIAL PARTIALLY FUNDED BY EMS LEVY, PARTIALLY FROM SALES TAX, WE COULD BE CREATING AN ANOTHER LEVEE TO FILL THAT GAP.
AND IT'S, IT'S KIND OF JUST GOVERNMENT MATH IF YOU ASK ME.
I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT WAS MY CONCERN.
UM, I PROBABLY SAID IT FOUR OR FIVE TIMES NOW ALREADY.
SO, UM, SUPERVISOR BOSER, SO FOR NET NEW CONSTRUCTION, IS THAT ALL OR NOTHING OR CAN WE PARTIALLY USE NET NEW CONSTRUCTION? YEAH, WE CAN USE UP TO THE MAX WHATEVER WE NEED IN BETWEEN.
SO WE'RE NOT, IT'S NOT ALL OR NOTHING CORRECT.
AND YOU CAN, AND THEN YOU'D BANK THE REST FOR THE NEXT YEAR AND THE CLAW BACK.
AND JUST FOR YOUR EDIFICATION, UM, YOU SHOULD KNOW THERE'S, THERE'S WHAT'S CALLED A CLAW BACK.
YOU CAN GO FIVE YEARS BACK, UM, ANYTHING YOU HAVEN'T COLLECTED.
AND BECAUSE WE'VE CUT THE LEVY MANY TIMES IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT THAT WE CAN CLAW BACK.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE DON'T USE DEBT LEVY.
SO IF YOU WERE TO BORROW FOR A NEW PAC BUILDING, FOR EXAMPLE, $40 MILLION, YOU'RE AUTHORIZED UNDER THE LAW TO INCREASE THE LEVY TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMENTS.
IT'S NOT UNLIKE SCHOOLS WHO HAVE TO GO TO REFERENDUM.
AND BASICALLY EVERY MUNICIPALITY IN EVERY COUNTY IN THE STATE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT.
WE DON'T, WE USE SALES TAX TO,
[01:00:01]
SO TO SUPERVISOR NEWMAN'S POINT, IF YOU DECIDE TO USE SOME OF THE SALES TAX TO FUND THIS, IT, YOU'RE TAKING A TOOL OUT OF THE TOOLBOX TO PAY FOR THINGS LIKE THAT.WE'VE DONE THAT WITH ROADS, FOR EXAMPLE, OUR RADIO PROJECT IS FULLY FUNDED SALES TAX PRINCIPLE AND INTEREST PAYMENTS, YOU'RE NOT LEVYING FOR THAT.
YOU'RE NOT BORROW, YOUR BORROWING IS PAID FOR BY SALES TAX.
YEAH, I THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE, THAT IF WE HAVE A RECESSION AND PROPERTY TAX VALUES GO DOWN, HAVING THAT CLAW BACK AND HAVING TOOLS LIKE BEING ABLE TO ISSUE DEBT AND RAISE TAX LEVY, WE WANNA AVOID USING THOSE.
BUT IF WE'RE IN A RECESSION AND THAT'S HOW WE FUND GOVERNMENT, HAVING THOSE TOOLS AVAILABLE IS IMPORTANT FOR US.
UM, JUST TO BACK UP A LITTLE BIT, YOU HAD A NUMBER, THE INCREASE PER YEAR WAS LIKE 559,000 IF I RECALL.
IS THAT A 5%? WE TALKED ABOUT TWO TO FOUR.
WHAT PERCENT IS THAT BASED ON? UH, THE INFORMATION WE WERE LOOKING HERE WAS LOOKING AT HERE WAS 4%, UM, 4%.
BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU A REFERENCE, EACH, EVERY 1% IS ABOUT $116,000 ANNUALLY.
ROUGHLY, OBVIOUSLY THAT GROWS, UH, THAT, THAT COMPOUNDS ON ITSELF, WHATEVER YOU DECIDE.
BUT INITIALLY MY CALCULATOR ON MY PHONE SAID 400 AND SOME THOUSAND.
SO I THINK WE'RE WORKING WORSE CASE THERE.
SO IF IT'S THE FLOOR OF TWO TO FOUR.
WE'RE STILL GONNA BE BETTER OFF THAN WHAT THESE NUMBERS SHOW.
SO AGAIN, YOU'RE BEING CONSERVATIVE, CORRECT? I WOULD SAY SO, YES.
BEFORE WE TAKE UP THE FINAL DISCUSSION ON THE, THE PERCENTAGE, I, I JUST REALLY WANNA MAKE SURE THE, THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS UNDERSTAND THE, WHERE THE PERCENTAGE COMES FROM AND WHY IT'S, UM, THE $11 MILLION.
SO THE $11 MILLION IS, IS THE TOTAL, UH, EMS COST.
AND WHEN THOSE CONTRACTS AND COSTS GO UP, IT'S ON THAT AMOUNT AND NOT THE, THE 3.5 OR THE 2.7 NUMBER.
SO I JUST EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THAT OR HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? I REALLY WANNA BE CLEAR ON THAT HERE.
HERE'S MAYBE A DIFFERENT WAY TO ASK THE PUBLIC POLICY QUESTION.
WHAT DO YOU THINK IS A REASONABLE AMOUNT FOR A FIRE AND EMS DEPARTMENT TO HAVE INCREASES PER YEAR? I MEAN, WE KNOW A ZERO IS NOT REAL, RIGHT? AND OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING LIKE 10%, WHICH WAS TALKED ABOUT AT ONE TIME IS NOT REAL
UM, BUT WHAT IS A REALISTIC NUMBER THAT YOU THINK WE CAN LIVE WITH? AND I, AND I TO, UH, DAVE'S COMMENTARY EARLIER, I THINK IT DOES MAKE SENSE TO HAVE A FLOOR THAT THEY KNOW THEY CAN, THEY CAN DO BUDGETS AND KNOW I'VE GOT 2% COMING AND THEN A RANGE WHERE THEY MAYBE HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE AND YOU CAN, THIS COMMITTEE, WHOEVER IT IS IN THE FUTURE, CAN THEN MAKE A DECISION.
AND THEN ANOTHER BENCHMARK WHERE IF IT'S ABOVE THAT, IT'S GOTTA BE THE WHOLE COUNTY BOARD.
SO THERE'S, WE'RE NEVER SAYING NO EXPLICITLY.
'CAUSE THERE MAY BE THINGS THAT CHANGE, RIGHT? UM, BUT THEY HAVE SOME CERTAINTY, SOME FLEXIBILITY, AND SOME, LIKE, YOU CAN'T JUST ASK FOR THE MOON AND WE'RE GONNA JUST DO IT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU AND THANK YOU COUNTY EXECUTIVE.
I WOULD JUST WANNA ARTICULATE THAT, UH, THOSE POINTS TOO.
UM, WE HAVE IT IN THE CURRENT FRAMEWORK WHERE EVERYONE WOULD SUBMIT THEIR BUDGETS TO OUR BPA AND THEN IT WOULD ALL BE CAPTURED AND TO THAT, ALL THE AGENCIES COLLECTIVELY.
THAT'S WHAT THE NUMBER WE'RE LOOKING AT WITH THIS COST YEAR OVER YEAR IS GOING TO BE IN THE EVENT THAT IT EXCEEDS BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION AND YOUR CONSIDERATION, IF IT GOES BEYOND THAT FOUR OR EVEN SIX, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD BE COMING TO YOU AND COMMUNICATING TO YOU.
IT'S NOT THAT RICHFIELD FIRE CHIEF WEST BEND FIRE CHIEF GERMANTOWN FIRE CHIEF ARE COMING BEFORE YOU.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I'M COMING TO YOU WITH TO ARTICULATE WHAT THE FINDINGS ARE FROM THE BUDGET PROCESS THAT THEY'RE SUBMITTING.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S ALL TIMESTAMPED.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THEIR BUDGET MAKEUP RIGHT NOW, PRESENT DAY.
AND SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE HAVING SOME CHALLENGES BECAUSE NET NEW CONSTRUCTION ISN'T KEEPING UP WITH INFLATION.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT AT EXHAUSTION.
SO THEY'RE WORKING ON IT RIGHT NOW.
THEY'RE NOT MEETING, IT'S NOT MATCHING.
SO THEY'RE DOING THEIR BUDGETS NOW PREDICATED ON THIS, AS THE COUNTY BOARD CHAIRMAN SAID, IT'S A LONG WAY FROM BEING DONE.
[01:05:01]
ANTICIPATING SOMETHING BEING DONE, NOTHING BEING DONE, AND HOPING SOMETHING'S GONNA BE DONE.SO THEY'RE DOING LIKE TRIPLE WORK AS, AS WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION.
SO I JUST WANNA ARTICULATE THAT THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMING TO YOU.
IT'S GOING TO BE ME PREDICATED ON THE INFORMATION THAT THEY SUBMIT TO US.
MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN I POINT THAT OUT ON THE SPREADSHEET? SURE.
SO WHAT DAVE IS SAYING TO YOU IS IN 2027, SO LINE ITEM C TWO, UH, C3 RATHER, THAT IS AN ASSUMPTION.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN EVERY YEAR IS ALL OF THE BUDGETS WILL BE COLLECTED.
WE WILL, WE WILL DETERMINE BASED ON THOSE BUDGET, WHAT, UH, NUMBER OF LEVY DOLLARS ARE NEW FOR 2027 FROM EVERYBODY ELSE.
AARON WILL GET THAT NUMBER AND THEN RUN THIS MATH TO BRING IT IN FRONT OF YOU THROUGH DAVE.
SO EVERY SINGLE YEAR THAT WILL HAPPEN.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO SIMULATE WHAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING THEY'LL BRING.
RIGHT? SO THESE ARE, I MEAN, THERE'S MULTIPLE LAYERS OF ASSUMPTIONS, WHICH WAS WHY WE DIDN'T COME OUT WAY EARLIER.
'CAUSE THERE'S, SO THERE WERE WAY TOO MANY ASSUMPTIONS.
NOW WE'RE DOWN TO JUST A HANDFUL.
BUT YOU SHOULD KNOW IT'S, IT'S A VERY ACCOUNTABLE PROCESS MM-HMM
AND A VERY TRANSPARENT PROCESS BUILT INTO THE STATUTE AND BUILT INTO THE STATE BUDGET OR THE, UH, LOCAL BUDGET PROCESSES.
SO I THINK THE, THE RECOMMENDATION, UM, OF TWO TO 4% IS, IS PRETTY REALISTIC FOR, UH, AN OPERATIONAL BUDGET TO INCREASE ANNUALLY.
AND IT WITH THE FOUR TO 6% REQUIRES COMMITTEE APPROVAL OR HIGHER COMING TO THE COUNTY BOARD.
IT DOES LEAVE THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY OPEN FOR, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT INCREASES ARE GONNA COME ACROSS, YOU KNOW, SO IT DOES LEAVE THAT.
SO THAT'S THE, THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE FLOOR.
NOW, UH, IS THERE ANY COMMENTARY OR QUESTIONS OR SUPPORT FOR THAT? I'M GOOD WITH THAT.
ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? OKAY.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE COUNTY ADMIN FEE.
UH, THE CURRENT WORKING PROPOSAL THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU HAS THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION FEE OF 10% OF THE FULL 3.5 AS WE'RE BASING THAT NUMBER FROM IN THE CURRENT PROPOSAL.
UH, SO THAT 10% AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, 2.735, THE INITIAL COUNTY ADMIN FEE IS $273,000.
UH, THAT WOULD BE CAPPED AT $300,000.
HOWEVER, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE AND HIS TEAM IS THAT WE ELIMINATE THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION FEE ALTOGETHER.
I THINK THERE WAS A CONSENSUS AT THE COUNTY BOARD MEETING ABOUT THAT.
I THINK THE CONSENSUS OF THE, FROM THE FULL COUNTY BOARD, I'D FEEL CONFIDENT SAY THAT, THAT WE ALL AGREE WITH THAT.
SO, ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE.
OKAY, SO WE'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED THE NEXT BULLET POINT, WHAT THE OTHER FUNDING SOURCES CORRECT? WE, THAT WAS THE NEXT BULLET POINT I HAD, BUT WE'RE GONNA JUMP TO SMART GOALS.
SO THE SMART GOALS IS STILL IN THE WORKS.
UH, BEEN WORKING ALONGSIDE THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE AND, UH, THE CHIEF INNOVATION INTEGRATION OFFICER.
AND, UH, SO WE'RE STILL FINE TUNING THOSE, BUT, UH, PREDICATED ON THE INFORMATION, UH, IN DISCUSSION.
AGAIN, THESE HAVE BEEN ONGOING DISCUSSIONS.
WE WANNA MAKE THESE SMART GOALS AND SMART GOALS ARE SMART WITH THAT ACRONYM.
MEASURABLE, EASY THINGS THAT WE CAN ARE, QUOTE UNQUOTE LOW HANGING FRUIT.
THERE'S FRUIT THAT'S LAYING ON THE GROUND RIGHT NOW.
UH, WORKING ALONGSIDE OUR PARTNERS WITH, UH, WITHIN THE WASHINGTON COUNTY CHIEF'S ASSOCIATION.
UH, SOME THINGS THAT ARE MEASURABLE, UH, THAT WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT OUR, UH, THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE, UH, MENTIONED EARLIER.
UH, JUST SIMPLY AVOIDING REFERENDUM WITH OUR COMMUNITIES OR SIMPLY AVOIDING TO HAVE TO BORROW TO MEET OPERATIONAL COSTS.
THAT THAT'S, THAT'S VERY REAL, VERY TANGIBLE.
SOME THINGS THAT ARE OUT THERE.
UM, I'M VERY SENSITIVE TO, UH, OUR CHIEFS, OUR CHIEF ELECTEDS, UH, REGARDING LOCAL CONTROL, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
SO HAVING SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT BULK PURCHASING, YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT ALL OUR AGENCIES.
WHETHER THAT'S ACHIEVABLE OR NOT, THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK INTO.
UH, ANOTHER THING THAT, UH, THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE AND I HAD SPOKEN ABOUT, I WOULD SAY 20 MONTHS AGO IS, UH, WE CURRENTLY HAVE A VERY ROBUST, UH, SHOP, IF YOU WILL, HIGHWAY SHOP
[01:10:01]
MECHANICS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.A LOT OF OUR AGENCIES GO OUTSIDE THEIR OWN DEPARTMENTS TO HAVE THEIR APPARATUS SERVICED.
UH, SO MAYBE GETTING THAT, UH, FUNCTION UNDER ONE UMBRELLA.
BUT AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE DISCUSSED WITH OUR FIRE CHIEFS AND WHETHER THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S ACHIEVABLE OR NOT.
SO WE'RE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF PUTTING THOSE TOGETHER.
UH, I HAVE, UH, THE VERY BEST, UH, I'M WORKING WITH CHIEF HOLMES, CHIEF NOR, AND CHIEF WEST.
I'VE BEEN EXCEPTIONAL IN THAT REGARD.
SO, UH, TREMENDOUS WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM.
AND YOU'LL HAVE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER IN SO MUCH AS THOSE SMART GOALS, PROBABLY SIX TO EIGHT OBJECTIVES, UH, BY THE NEXT MEETING.
AND I, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO THINK ABOUT THEM LIKE OUR STRATEGIC PRIORITIES, WHICH MANY TIMES ARE COME TO YOU WITH A REPORT OR COME TO YOU WITH A PLAN SO THAT THAT LAYS OUT, IF THIS ONE WILL WORK, THIS ONE WILL NOT WORK.
IF THIS ONE'S GOING TO WORK, HERE'S THE TIMELINE AND THE BUDGET THAT WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE IT WORK.
UM, THINGS LIKE, UH, THE MECHANIC OPERATION AT OUR HIGHWAY SHOP, WE COULD LAY THAT OUT FOR YOU ON HOW THAT WOULD SAVE MONEY.
UM, BUT MIGHT NEED TO BE FUNDED FROM A DIFFERENT METHOD.
UM, THINGS LIKE, UM, EMS OR FIRE DISPATCH, WHAT THAT WOULD DO TO THE SYSTEM, HOW THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HELP.
UM, THINGS LIKE COMMER COMMUNITY PARAMEDICINE, HOW WE, THAT COULD MAYBE COST MONEY ON THE FRONT END, BUT IN THE LONG HAUL, SAVE ON THOSE SLIPS, TRIPS AND FALLS THAT YOU HEARD ABOUT, UH, THE OTHER DAY.
SO ALL OF THOSE THINGS I THINK WOULD COME TO YOU IN THE FORM OF, UM, PLANS AND REPORTS THAT THEN YOU GET TO CHOOSE, YES, WE WANT TO DO THIS ONE.
NO, WE'RE NOT WILLING TO DO THAT ONE.
UM, IT'S NEVER A HARD AND FAST THIS MUST HAPPEN, OR SOMEBODY MUST CONSOLIDATE MM-HMM
UM, IT, IT REALLY HELPS GUIDE YOU TO CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE PUBLIC POLICY DISCUSSIONS AND DECISIONS ALONG WITH THE TOWNS, VILLAGES, AND CITIES AS PARTNERS.
SO THIS, AND, AND I'M SORRY, MR. TURN.
SO THIS, THE SMART GOALS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE OUR, UH, CONNECTED TO THE FUNDING THAT GOES DIRECTLY TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS.
IT'S NOT THE FUNDING PORTION THAT GOES DIRECTLY TO THE MUNICIPALITY.
SO PART OF THIS SMART GOALS AND PART OF THIS PROCESS, I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR.
IT, IT IS NOT FOR THIS COMMITTEE OR THE COUNTY BOARD, UM, TO GET INVOLVED IN OPERATIONAL, UM, DETAILS.
UM, AGAIN, WE WANT THE LOCAL CONTROL.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT THE ENTIRE TIME.
IT'S, IT'S, IT'S THOSE ITEMS THAT THEY'VE TALKED ABOUT TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, UH, IMPROVE COLLABORATION, UM, EFFICIENCIES.
UM, BUT NOTHING TO DO WITH REQUIRING CONSOLIDATION OR ELIMINATING FIRE DEPARTMENTS OR US TELLING 'EM HOW TO TREAT SOMEBODY.
NONE OF THOSE DETAILS ARE PART OF THIS.
SO I'VE HEARD A LOT OF THAT OUT THERE AND A LOT OF CONCERN AND PUBLICLY SAYING THAT'S WHAT THIS WHOLE PROGRAM WAS VETTED OUT.
I MEAN, THOSE WERE THE HEATED ARGUMENTS AND HEATED DISCUSSIONS THAT, UM, GOT US TO THIS POINT.
UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S, YOU KNOW, MEASURABLE AND ALSO BEING DEVELOPED WITH THE, IN COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS.
SO THEY ARE READABLE, MEASURABLE GOALS.
IT'S, IT'S NOT US SAYING YOU MUST DO THIS.
IT'S WHAT CAN WE DEVELOP TOGETHER THAT IS ACHIEVABLE.
WE DON'T WANNA PUT SOMETHING OUT THERE THAT'S NOT ACHIEVABLE.
AND THEN WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, ISSUES DOWN THE LINES.
SO LOOKING KIND OF BACKWARDS TO USE AN EXAMPLE THAT'S ALREADY HAPPENED AS KI WASCOM WAS CONTEMPLATING WHAT, WHAT DO THEY DO BEFORE THEY MADE THE DECISION TO GO TO WEST BEND? ONE REALLY EASY SMART GOAL COULD BE THE COUNTY HELPING FACILITATE, YOU KNOW, BRING IN AN OUTSIDE, UM, CONSULTANT OR SOMETHING TO HELP ANALYZE WHAT'S THE BEST ROUTE FOR A KIOSK TO HAVE GONE.
AND THEN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT, THAT YOU GET TO WEIGH IN ON.
WHAT I SEE HAPPENING DOWN THE ROAD IS IF THAT, IF THAT OCCURS, UH, FOR EXAMPLE, I KNOW A LOT OF THE SOUTHERN DEPARTMENTS ARE NOW TALKING ABOUT HAVING SOME KIND OF REGIONAL COOPERATION.
IF THAT OCCURS, YOU WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY AS THE COMMITTEE AND ULTIMATELY THE COUNTY BOARD TO THEN SAY, HEY, WE REALLY WANT TO SEE KIOSKI AND WEST BEND PARTNER.
YOU KNOW, WE CAN USE SOME ONE TIME EMS LEVY TO HELP INCENTIVIZE THAT BECAUSE IN THE LONG HAUL IT'LL BEND THAT BLUE CURVE DOWN.
UM, THAT'S THE KIND OF THING WHERE YOU'LL HAVE THE LEVER, BUT WE DON'T, TO SUPERVISOR NEWMAN'S POINT OR CHAIRMAN NEWMAN'S POINT, WE DON'T WANT TO BE SO PRESCRIPTIVE AS TO SAY, KIOSKI, YOU MUST COOPERATE WITH X, Y, Z OR THESE FIVE DEPARTMENTS
[01:15:01]
IN THE SOUTH HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER.AND IF THEY DON'T, THE MONEY FREEZES.
YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE ANALYSIS.
AND I THINK COMING BACK TO YOU CONTINUALLY THROUGH DAVE WITH THE, WITH THE FIRE CHIEFS AS PARTNERS AND THE MUNICIPALITIES AS PARTNERS, IS THE WAY TO ULTIMATELY LEVERAGE THE SAVINGS.
COUNTY EXECUTIVE AND MR. CHAIRMAN, I, I WANT TO SIT, UH, APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTARY IN THAT REGARD.
UH, THOSE SMART GOALS ARE A LIVING DOCUMENT.
SO I DON'T WANT, I DON'T WANT THAT TO BE SOMETHING WHERE IT'S HARD AND FAST THAT IN THREE YEARS WE DIDN'T HIT THAT BENCHMARK.
AND TO THE COUNTY EXECUTIVES EARLIER POINT, WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT SMART GOALS, ESTABLISHING THEM IS ONE POINT HITTING IT IS ANOTHER POINT.
SO THE LENGTH OF THE AGREEMENT OF THAT FIVE YEARS GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO THAT FIRST INITIAL CONVERSATION ABOUT A FIVE YEAR AGREEMENT, THAT THIRD YEAR IS KIND OF LIKE THE SWEET SPOT WHERE WE START SEEING THINGS TRANSACT THEMSELVES.
SO I THINK YOU'RE, YOU'RE UH, RE YOU'RE TAKING UP THAT RECOMMENDATION OF FIVE YEARS IS CRITICAL.
'CAUSE THAT THREE YEARS IS REALLY DIFFICULT TO TRY AND MANAGE SOMETHING INITIALLY RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE.
UH, TO SUPERVISOR BAER'S POINT ABOUT THAT 18 MONTH THING, UH, THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE AND I HAD, UH, UH, A NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THAT 18 MONTH.
AND, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT FREEZES OR NOT, UH, WE ARE THE ONLY COUNTY, AS YOU VERY WELL KNOW, RUN A ON A BIENNIUM.
SO THERE WILL CONSTANTLY BE CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR LEGISLATURE, WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVES.
REPRESENTATIVE KURT, SENATOR SKALSKI HAVE DONE SOME GREAT WORK WITH SHARED SERVICES ALREADY FROM THE STATE PERSPECTIVE, BUT IN THE, IN THE EVENT, AND IT'S GONNA BE WRITTEN IN THE SERVICE AGREEMENT THAT IN THE EVENT THAT THE STATE SOMEHOW SOME WAY ALLOWS MUNICIPALITIES TO DO WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO WITH THE EXEMPTION OF LEVY LIMITS FOR EMS AND ITS TRANSITION TO MUNICIPALITIES, THAT 18 MONTH EXIT WINDOW IS PRIME BECAUSE THE STATE RUNS ON A BIENNIUM.
SO THAT THEN WOULD ALLOW THAT TRANSITION THAT IF THE STATE DOES ENACT THAT LEGISLATION, ALLOWS FOR THE COUNTY TO HAVE AN OFF RAMP AND ALLOW OUR MUNICIPALITIES TO HAVE THAT ON RAMP.
SO I APPRECIATE THAT COMMENT, SUPERVISOR POSER.
YEAH, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO MENTION AS WELL, THAT IF SOMETHING DOES CHANGE AT THE STATE AND THEY GET THIS PROBLEM FIXED, UM, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE THAT TRANSITION AND THAT TIME AS, UM, AND IT DOES TAKE, YOU KNOW, THE 18 MONTHS YEAH, MINIMUM.
UM, AND I ALSO WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR, I KNOW MR. SEGER, YOU'VE GOT EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN THE FIRE SERVICES, BUT THESE SMART GOALS THAT YOU'RE PUTTING TOGETHER ARE BEING DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FIRE CHIEFS.
CORRECT? IT IS A GROUP EFFORT.
UH, I LITERALLY, UH, DON'T TAKE TWO STEPS FORWARD WITHOUT THEIR 99.9%, UH, COLLABORATION.
THE ONLY THING I'M DOING IS PRINTING IT OUT ON MY COMPUTER.
SO, UM, THAT, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL.
AND, AND IT'S REALLY BEEN, UH, A WORK IN PROGRESS.
I MEAN, THEY'RE VERY BUSY, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR BUDGET WRITING PROCESS, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE PUTTING THINGS TOGETHER AND, UH, WE, WE WILL HAVE SOME OF THOSE SMART GOALS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AT YOUR NEXT MEETING.
OKAY, UM, I GUESS I'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THIS PROGRAM.
I'D LIKE TO GO AROUND THE COMMITTEE AND ASK IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR, OR CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS, UM, OR INPUT YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO THE TOPIC BEFORE WE CONSIDER, UH, MOTION.
I, I THINK WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED A LOT HERE TODAY.
UM, I LIKE THE FIVE YEAR CONTRACT.
SO I'M, I'M FINE WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE, I'VE HEARD TODAY.
UM, YEAH, JUST THE, THE BIGGEST CONCERN IS I DON'T HATE TO BE A BURDEN TO THE TAXPAYERS, YOU KNOW, HAVING, UM, JUST BEING MORE TAXED, BUT AT THE SAME POINT I CAN SEE THE NEED.
SO, I MEAN, SO, AND I AM HAPPY ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATION FEE, AT LEAST THAT WOULD BE DELETED.
UM, AND I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF THE SMART GOALS.
UM, 'CAUSE I THINK ABOUT THINGS.
I'M THINKING, WHY ARE THEY BRINGING ALL THESE ONE SET OF PEOPLE
[01:20:02]
SO MANY, IT'S EXPENSIVE WHEN THEY COME VISIT YOUR HOUSE WHEN YOU HAVE A 9 1 1 CALL.AND IT SEEMED LIKE WE'RE WASTING TOO MUCH MONEY ON CERTAIN CALLS COMPARED TO OTHERS.
AND I FEEL LIKE WE COULD REALLY SAVE SOME MONEY IN THAT AREA.
AND, AND SO I'M HOPING THEY CAN COME UP WITH SOME GOOD IDEAS THERE.
AND I ALSO THINK SMALLER VEHICLES WOULD BE EFFICIENT FOR CERTAIN ISSUES TOO.
BUT ANYWAYS, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST ME THINKING.
BUT NO, UM, YEAH, I'M FINE RIGHT NOW.
UM, SO I, I WANNA TAKE SOME TIME TO CONSIDER EVERYTHING.
ONE OF THE THINGS I LIKE IS THAT, UH, WE'RE WORKING IN THESE SMART GOALS TO INCENTIVIZE MUNICIPALITIES TO TAKE A BOTTOM UP APPROACH TO REDUCING REDUNDANCIES AND OVER SERVICE SITUATIONS.
I THINK IT, ONE OF THE EXAMPLES THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN A PREVIOUS MEETING AS MAYBE COUNTYWIDE, WE HAVE EIGHT LADDER TRUCKS AND WE REALLY COUNTYWIDE ONLY NEED FIVE.
SO, YOU KNOW, GIVING THE MUNICIPALITIES THE TOOLS TO WORK TOGETHER AND FIND OUT HOW DO WE REDUCE THAT? BECAUSE ALL THIS FIRE EQUIPMENT AND EMS EQUIPMENT IS, IS EXPENSIVE.
I'M GUESSING AN AMBULANCE IS A MILLION AND A HALF RIGHT NOW.
UH, TYPICAL FIRE ENGINE IS A MILLION AND A HALF.
EVERYTHING WE CAN DO TO SAVE THE COUNTY TAXPAYERS AS A WHOLE AND TO INCENTIVIZE THAT, I THINK IS A POSITIVE.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IN THE END WHERE I'M GONNA LAND ON THIS, BUT IT CONTINUES TO LOOK MORE FAVORABLE.
UM, I AM CONCERNED WITH THE OVERALL LEVY INCREASE STILL AT 3.2 MILLION.
UM, WE MAY, I'D LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN FIND WAYS TO BRING THAT DOWN.
THAT MAY BE THE WAY TO GET US TO TAX RATE NEUTRAL.
IF WE BRING THAT DOWN FROM 3.2 DOWN TO 2.4, YOU KNOW, SIMPLE MATH MAKES THAT SOUND LIKE THAT WOULD GET US TAX RATE NEUTRAL.
MAYBE THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT NUMBER, BUT, UM, THAT'S KINDA WHERE I'M AT RIGHT NOW.
C CAN I ASK MR. CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE IS, IS THAT A CONSENSUS? I KNOW I SAID THAT AT THE COUNTY BOARD THAT THAT'S A GOAL, BUT I MEAN IS DO WE WANT TO ACTUALLY PUT THAT FORWARD AS WE'RE GOING TO ACHIEVE THAT AND WE'LL COME UP WITH SCENARIOS FOR HOW TO FUND THINGS TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE OR NOT TOO? I WOULD LOVE THAT.
YEAH, IT SOUNDS, I'M HEARING A CONSENSUS HERE.
YEAH,
IF IT CAN BE FUNDED BY ANOTHER MECHANISM, I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT AS LONG AS, AS WE CAN RESTRICT IT TO WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE SPENT FOR WHAT THIS IS, IS DESIGNED FOR.
WHETHER THAT'S, I DON'T COUNTY ORDINANCE, I HAVE NO IDEA AGREEMENTS THAT WE HAVE.
BUT ABSOLUTELY, I, I MAKE A PROPOSAL THAT IF, IF THEY VIOLATE IT, WE TAKE AWAY SCOTT HEF, HE'S BIRTHDAY, AND THEN THAT'S THE END OF IT.
THAT'S JUST MY CONCERN IS HOW WE GET THERE.
THAT IT IS SPENT WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE SPENT.
I THINK THE OTHER SIDE TO THAT COIN IS THAT'S ASSUMING THAT WE'RE FUNDING IT AT 3.2 MILLION AND WE'RE FINDING SOME OTHER WAY TO FUND THAT GAP BETWEEN 2.4 AND 3.2.
THE OTHER OPTION IS TO BRING DOWN WHAT WE'RE PUTTING IN, DOWN TO 2.4 INSTEAD OF BEING AT 3.2.
AND I WOULD LOOK TO THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO SEE HOW VIABLE THAT IS.
WELL, I I WILL SAY THIS, REMEMBER AT THE COUNTY BOARD MEETING, I SAID I THINK 1.4 IS KIND OF YOUR, YOUR FLOOR.
I MEAN WITH WEST BEND IN, IN, NOW THAT, UM, THAT'S, THAT WILL FUND WHAT CONTINUE, EXCUSE ME, CONTINUE FUNDING WHAT YOU ALREADY HAVE BEEN FUNDING.
UM, AND I'M IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE WORK GROUP AND OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CHIEFS CHIEF ELECTEDS AND ADMINISTRATORS.
I MADE CLEAR LIKE YOU GUYS ARE ASKING FOR A SOMETHING, WHATEVER THAT SOMETHING IS.
THE EIGHT YEARS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE.
THEY SHOOT HIGH, YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY BOARD VERY WELL COULD NEGOTIATE IT LOWER.
UM, I DON'T WANT TO GET DOWN TO 1.4 'CAUSE I DON'T THINK IT SOLVES THE PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE.
UM, BUT I, I THINK IT'S REASONABLE AND I THINK EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM, UH, RECOGNIZED THAT BRINGING IT DOWN TO SOME DEGREE WAS, WAS MORE THAN LIKELY GONNA HAPPEN.
NOBODY AT THAT TIME THOUGH, REMEMBER NOBODY KNEW WHAT THE TAX RATE IMPACT WAS ACTUALLY GONNA BE.
'CAUSE WE WERE WAITING FOR THOSE NUMBERS
[01:25:01]
TO COME.SO NOW THAT WE HAVE MORE DATA, UM, WE CAN WORK THAT INTO SOME OF OUR ASSUMPTIONS TO SEE.
YEAH, THAT NUMBER HAS CHANGED AS WELL THAT OH YEAH, THAT BIG TIME.
3.5 NUMBER HAS CHANGED SO MANY TIMES, 26 TIMES
AND, UH, YEAH, IT'S BEEN A LOT.
I'M JUST GONNA COMMENT TO THAT.
UM, THAT, AS I SAID AT THE COUNTY BOARD MEETING, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE, I'LL SAY 3.2 MINUS THE 300,000 BECAUSE BASED ON GOING THROUGH THIS, THIS PROCESS, WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS IMPACTFUL.
AND TO ME, THE 1.4 NUMBER IS NOT ENOUGH OF AN IMPACT.
IF WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH THIS PROGRAM, WE NEED TO MAKE SOME SORT OF IMPACT.
SO THAT'S JUST MY, MY COMMENTS ON THAT.
YEAH, 2.4 WOULD STILL BE IMPACTFUL.
I WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE IN THAT 2.4 WE'RE STILL DOING THE 500,000 FOR VOLUNTEER SUPPORT.
SO, SO IT IT'S REALLY 2.9 AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
UM, NO, I'D WANT IT TO BE 2.4, SO IT'D REALLY BE 1.9 FOR THE OTHER COMPONENTS.
SO, AND THAT GETS US TO TAX RATE NEUTRAL.
WE CAN FIND A WAY TO GET TO TAX RATE NEUTRAL.
WITH WE'LL GIVE YOU, WE'LL GIVE YOU A COUPLE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS.
SUPERVISOR, I AM, I LIKE WHAT I'VE HEARD TODAY.
I'M GLAD WE'RE FLYING TO THE POINT.
THEY'RE GETTING DOWN TO THE FINE DETAILS.
I LIKE THE DEPARTMENTS ALL WORKING TOGETHER TO MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT.
SO I'M EXCITED FOR THE NEXT MEETING TO SEE, UH, WHAT WE GOT COMING DOWN ONCE IT GETS FINE TUNED MORE.
UM, I JUST HAD A FEW MORE THINGS, UM, TO, TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT HERE.
AND ONE WAS, UM, COULD WE JUST TOUCH BASE A LITTLE BIT ON A TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS CLAUSE DETAILS? I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME QUESTIONS ON THAT FOR, UH, AGAIN, I WOULD, I WOULD MAKE, MAKE A COMPARISON TO THE, UH, WASHINGTON OZAKI PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT NOTICE.
UM, FRANKLY, I THINK, WELL THERE'S TWO THINGS TO KNOW.
ONE IS IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A TERMINATION, I WOULD ANTICIPATE IT'S LIKELY TO COME FROM THE COUNTY SIDE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
UM, BUT IT, THAT GIVING THAT SUFFICIENT NOTICE IS I THINK REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT TO THE VIABILITY OF THE PROGRAM AND TO NOT, NOT PUTTING TAXPAYERS IN ONE MUNICIPALITY, UM, IN A DISADVANTAGED POSITION WHERE THEY TRULY ARE GETTING DOUBLE TAXED.
UM, SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR TO KNOW THAT.
SECONDLY, UM, IT, IT, IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT IF, IF YOU DECIDE TO DO THIS, UM, ESPECIALLY NOW WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, 2.4, 2.9 SOMETHING BELOW 3.5, THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE'S GONE.
NOW WE'RE GETTING CLOSER AND CLOSER TO EVERY DOLLAR THAT COMES IN GOES RIGHT BACK TO EITHER THE DEPARTMENT THAT SERVES THE COMMUNITY OR THE COMMUNITY ITSELF.
SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO TRY TO HONE THAT IN EVEN TIGHTER BECAUSE, UH, IT'S GONNA BE, IF YOU GET IT CLOSER AND CLOSER TO THAT REALITY, IT'LL BECOME MUCH MORE SIMILAR TO SHARED REVENUE AT THE STATE LEVEL THAN A SEPARATE FUNCTIONING SYSTEM ON ITS OWN.
AND ONCE IT'S LIKE SHARED REVENUE, UM, I, THERE IS NO, THERE IS NO GOOD REASON, UM, TO NOT PARTICIPATE.
THE, THE THING THAT I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO KNOW, AND AARON WALKED THROUGH, THROUGH ALL THE COMPLICATED MATH, BUT WHEN YOU MADE THE RECOMMENDATION HERE OF 2%, 4%, 6%, WHAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND IS THOSE ARE DOLLARS THAT ARE CONTRACTED AND ARE GOING STRAIGHT TO THE DEPARTMENT.
SO WHETHER WE DO IT, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE MUNICIPALITY OR THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF, IT'S SPECIFICALLY GOING TO FUND FIRE AND EMS FUNCTIONS.
AND THOSE INCREASES ARE INCREASES, UM, IN TOTAL EXPENSE.
SO THE MUNICIPALITY DOESN'T HAVE TO TAX FOR THOSE.
IF THEY CHOOSE TO STILL TAX THEIR NET NEW CONSTRUCTION, THAT'S THEIR CHOICE.
BUT THEY CERTAINLY COULD EITHER LOWER THEIR LEVY OR THEY COULD, UM, ACCOUNT FOR THAT AS PART OF THE TOTAL PROPERTY TAX COLLECTION THAT THAT'S UP TO THEM.
SO IT GIVES, IT GIVES EVERYBODY, UH, A MUCH HIGHER DEGREE OF CERTAINTY WHEN WE TAKE AWAY KIND OF SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE TYPE OF COSTS.
AND, UH, I, I STILL THINK THAT 18 MONTHS IS, IS NECESSARY FOR ANYBODY WITHOUT, WITHOUT CREATING A CRISIS FOR ANYBODY.
UM, AND THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD
[01:30:01]
IS, DO YOU KNOW, IS THERE ANY ACTIVE, UH, MOVEMENT AT THE STATE TO TRY TO FIX THIS PROBLEM?I MEAN, ONLY SINCE 2005,
SO I, WE HAD A REALLY GREAT CONVERSATION WITH, UH, MOST OF OUR STATE LEGISLATORS LAST WEEK.
AND AS I INDICATED TO THAT GROUP, THE COUNTY EMS LEVY EXEMPTION IN TAX LEVY LAW WAS ADOPTED IN 2007 AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM SITTING IN THAT ROOM, AND I THINK PRETTY MUCH EVERY LEGISLATOR LEFT IN THE STATE HAS VOTED TO APPROVE IT EVERY TWO YEARS AFTER THAT.
THEY COULD HAVE CHANGED THE EXEMPTIONS, UM, MULTIPLE TIMES.
AND IT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT MULTIPLE TIMES, BUT EVERY TIME IT COMES BACK, UM, THEY'VE CONTINUED IT, I THINK FOR THIS EXACT REASON.
'CAUSE YOU CAN HONE IT IN EXACTLY ON A PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICE, A LIFE SAVING SERVICE.
UM, SO THERE, THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF, UM, REGIONALIZATION TYPE OF DISCUSSIONS AND, YOU KNOW, EXEMPTIONS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE TAX LEVY.
BUT I WILL SAY THIS, GOVERNOR DOYLE STARTED TAX LEVY FREEZES.
EVERS, EVEN IN HIS BUDGET PROPOSALS ONLY GAVE ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF FLEXIBILITY AS DOYLE.
SO IT'S EVERY GOVERNOR, REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
THEY HAVE PROPERTY TAX LEVY FREEZES BUILT IN.
AND I MEAN, YOU GUYS ARE ALL WATCHING THIS GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION.
LIKE BOTH OF THESE CANDIDATES ARE GONNA HAVE SOMETHING.
UM, I DON'T EXPECT MANNA FROM HEAVEN COMING OUT OF MADISON ANYTIME SOON.
UM, SO I THINK IT'S REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE TAKE THE STEP, BUT THEN WE GIVE OURSELVES AN AN OUT IN THE CONTRACT THAT SAYS IF THE STATE SOMEHOW MIRACULOUSLY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A GENERATION GIVES US A SOLUTION AT THE LOCALIST OF LEVELS, THEN WE NEED TO STOP AND RECONSIDER THE WHOLE THING.
UM, AND THAT CAN HAPPEN FASTER THAN 18 MONTHS.
AND IN THAT CONVERSATION, UM, WITH THE LEG, WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES, UM, IT WAS BASICALLY COMMUNICATED THAT WAY.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT WAITING ANY LONGER.
WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE NOTHING'S BEING DONE AT THE STATE LEVEL.
NOW IF SOMETHING DOES GET DONE, WE HAVE AN OUT, WE CAN MAYBE GO THAT ROUTE, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, IF IT DOES HAPPEN.
BUT THAT'S WHAT I WAS ALLUDING TO WITH, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE 18 MONTH OUT.
AND THE, AND LIKE MOST OF OUR ACTION, NO ACTION.
WE DON'T KNOW, LIKE MOST OF OUR TAXPAYERS, UM, THEY DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WE HAVE, WE, OUR TOTAL LEVY TODAY IS ABOUT 36 MILLION, BUT WE HAVE ABOUT THREE OR 4 MILLION IN LEVY CAPACITY THAT WE DON'T TOUCH.
THE MINUTE WE EXPLAIN THAT, LIKE THE WHOLE ROOM WAS LIKE, OH, WHY THE HECK IS THAT HAPPENING? LIKE, WELL I THINK WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SMALLER GOVERNMENT, LOWER TAXES.
UH, BUT ONCE THAT HAPPENED, I THINK THERE WAS A REAL UNDERSTANDING LIKE, OH, THIS ACTUALLY COULD SOLVE THIS PROBLEM AND YOU'RE WELL BELOW YOUR, YOUR LIMIT.
THAT'S WHY WE'VE BEEN SO FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE FOR SO LONG.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE I SUMMARIZE HERE? OKAY.
UH, I'M GONNA SUMMARIZE THE CONSENSUS OF THE, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS TO, UH, THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE AND STAFF TO, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH.
SO THE CONSENSUS WE HAD WAS A LENGTH OF AGREEMENT FOR FIVE YEARS.
THE PERCENTAGE OF INCREASES WAS TWO TO 4% AUTOMATIC WITH A FOUR TO 6% REQUIRES COMMITTEE APPROVAL AND THEN 6% INCREASES AND UP WOULD GO TO THE COUNTY BOARD FOR APPROVAL.
THE COUNTY ADMIN FEE WOULD BE REMOVED.
UM, THE SMART GOALS WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AND, AND CREATED, PRESENTED TO US.
AND WE WOULD HAVE A TAX RATE NEUTRAL GOAL, UM, FOR THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE.
SO I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION BASED ON THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMITTEE TO, UH, DIRECT THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE AND THE STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE.
A MOTION BY SUPERVISOR TOOMA, SECOND BY SUPERVISOR BY ANY OTHER DISCUSSION.
ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAY AYE.
THANK YOU ALL FOR THE DISCUSSION.
UM, WE HAVE A TENTATIVE MEETING, UH, SPECIAL MEETING SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 2ND, A SPECIAL MEETING AT 4:00 PM UM, STAY TUNED FOR THAT.
BUT OTHERWISE, OUR REGULAR MEETING WILL BE SEPTEMBER 16TH AT 7:00 AM UH, WE ARE ADJOURNED.
[01:35:07]
HAVE A GOOD DAY EVERYBODY.