Washington County supervisors approve strategic-priorities concept; officials highlight housing gains

The Washington County Board of Supervisors voted to approve, as a concept document, a 16-item set of strategic priorities intended to guide county action over the next two years, the board decided Tuesday evening. The motion to approve the document as a concept was made by Supervisor Schwab and seconded by Supervisor Bossert; the voice vote passed with Supervisor Krieger Gundrum recorded as opposed.

County Executive Josh Schoeman told the board the package of initiatives includes action items staff and department heads have been developing and that officials want confirmation that the items and related actions reflect the board’s intent. “If everybody’s reviewed it and there is they’re fine with the action items, they’re fine with the initiatives, we don’t need much discussion at all,” Schoeman said.

The vote followed an extended discussion of Initiative 1, “Next Generation Homes,” where supervisors questioned how the county measures outcomes for workforce housing and asked for more specificity on timelines and priorities. Schoeman provided the board with current figures for that program: as of a May 6 report, 210 owner-occupied dwelling units had been funded. He said Regal Place accounts for 48 of those units and that the program’s immediate goal is 1,000 units.

Schoeman also outlined short- and long-term tax revenue estimates from the initial projects. He said the 48 units at Regal Place have generated $217,000 in tax revenue so far and that, over 20 years, those 48 units would produce about $4.3 million in total tax revenue. Using the 210 funded units as a baseline, he estimated the county could expect roughly $20 million in tax revenue over 20 years from currently funded homes. Schoeman emphasized those numbers represent total tax revenue across taxing jurisdictions rather than county-only revenue.

Board members pressed for additional data tying new housing to the county’s workforce goals. Supervisor Gallagher asked what share of residents in the funded homes work for Washington County-based employers; Schoeman said the county does not currently track that for Next Generation Homes but can look into whether the data can be obtained. He noted it is easier to track employment for programs where the county holds a mortgage, such as the HART and Homestead program, because those records are collected as part of loan servicing.

Supervisors also discussed outreach to the village of Germantown. Schoeman said county staff participated in Germantown’s housing study and that the county has not had recent substantive engagement from the village on partnership opportunities. He said a property Germantown purchased — which he estimated at about $7 million — could be suitable for Next Generation Homes if the village were willing to partner or if the county were to acquire it.

Several supervisors urged the board to prioritize among the 16 initiatives to give clearer direction to staff. Supervisor Mikulik and others suggested each supervisor submit a ranked “top five” list of initiatives so staff could consolidate results into an actionable priorities list; Schoeman’s office proposed that supervisors could submit rankings and staff would compile a final top-five recommendation. Supervisor Ernie (commenting during the meeting) cautioned that compiling private rankings into a final list outside of public discussion could raise open-meetings concerns and recommended the board discuss rankings in public.

Supervisors also identified areas they consider immediate priorities, including EMS funding, brownfield development and public safety matters, while some said housing and other initiatives are important but belong lower on a priority list. Schoeman told the board the county cabinet can add expected timelines to specific action items; he said, for example, a task force studying the future of the UWM Washington County campus is expected to complete recommendations by September.

The board’s motion approved the document as a concept and left substantive spending or policy decisions to future agenda items. Several supervisors asked staff to return a final draft that would include any requested clarifications (timelines, prioritized ordering, and explicit references where an initiative would trigger county spending). With no further items on the agenda, the board adjourned and scheduled its next meeting for June 11, with a subsequent meeting on June 11 and a regular meeting on June 11 noted during the session.