Washington County supervisors approve strategic-priorities concept; debate centers on housing, UWM campus and prioritization process

The Washington County Board of Supervisors approved a 16-item strategic priorities document as a concept at a meeting, but several supervisors said the board needs clearer timelines and safeguards before final approvals on items that could require spending.

County Executive Josh Schoeman introduced the document and the accompanying action items and asked supervisors to confirm the initiatives and suggested they each submit rankings of top priorities for consolidation. "We have the next round of strategic priorities in front of you," Schoeman said, adding staff wanted to confirm the board supported the initiatives and action items as drafted.

The board voted on a motion by Supervisor Jim Schwab "that the Washington County Board approve this as a concept document with final approval next week or next month, pending any further, individual comments on the individual action items," seconded by Supervisor Bossert. A voice vote produced several ayes and a recorded objection when Supervisor Krieger Gundrum said, "I'm opposed." The motion carried as a concept approval; members said any item requiring spending will return to the board for a formal vote.

Much of the discussion focused on the Next Generation Housing initiative. Schoeman provided funding and program detail when asked: he said the county set a goal of 1,000 units; "As of" a May report, 210 owner-occupied dwelling units had been funded, including 48 units at Regal (referred to in the meeting as Bridal/Regal Place). Schoeman said the county has generated "$217,000 for 48 units" in total tax revenue to date and that those 48 units would produce roughly $4.3 million in total tax revenue over 20 years. Extrapolating from the currently funded 210 units, Schoeman said the county could expect tax revenue in the neighborhood of $20 million over 20 years. He also said the county had used one-time COVID-related dollars for housing initiatives: of $10 million set aside for housing work, $7.5 million was designated for Next Generation Housing and $4.6 million of that had been allocated as of the May report.

Supervisors asked for more specifics. Supervisor Gallagher asked whether the funded homeowners work for Washington County employers or commute from outside the county; Schoeman said the county does not currently track where homeowners are employed for Next Generation Housing and offered to try to obtain that data. Supervisor Mary asked about outreach to the village of Germantown; Schoeman said the county helped with Germantown's housing study but had "heard nothing" recently from the village, though he noted a privately purchased property (referenced in the meeting as roughly $7,000,000) that could be considered for partnership.

Several supervisors urged the board to prioritize the items rather than review all 16 line-by-line. Supervisor Mikulik proposed a structure to identify a top five and a bottom five; Schoeman proposed that supervisors submit their top-five rankings individually so staff could consolidate the results. Ernie, identified in the meeting as the parliamentarian, cautioned that collecting and consolidating private rankings could raise open-meetings concerns: "My recommendation would be, quite frankly, not to do that, and to come back for discussion and air those things in public," he said.

Other supervisors raised concerns that some draft action items read as if decisions already had been made. Supervisor Conrad cited an example: the action item on emergency medical services refers to "a plan to recommend permanent funding for 2027 and beyond," and said the board had not yet taken a vote or had full discussion on such commitments. Several speakers agreed that any item requiring funding or policy change should return with specific resolutions and timelines.

The future of the UWM Washington County campus was also discussed. Supervisor Krebs asked whether the action item endorses the task force's social-capital option or leaves redevelopment (including demolition) on the table. Schoeman said the task force was still working and that both options remained possible. He told the board he anticipated the task force would finish "no later than September," though another participant suggested language could also reflect a possible completion by the end of the year; Schoeman agreed staff could add a timeline to the action item.

With the concept approval, supervisors and staff agreed to return the document to the board for final consideration after collecting individual comments and clarifying timelines and spending triggers. Board members noted the document was intended as a guiding framework; Schoeman and department heads said any actions that carry budget implications would come back to the board in specific resolutions. The board's next meeting referenced in the session is June 11.