Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter asks Brown County trustees to back park gate fee and higher innkeepers tax to support public safety
Summary
A community member urged the board to sign a general letter supporting two state bills: a state park gate fee (estimated $250,000–$350,000) and a 3‑point increase in the county innkeepers tax (from 5% toward an 8% maximum, estimated about $750,000), to shore up public safety funding ahead of anticipated property tax cuts.
During the public‑comment portion of the Dec. 16 meeting, a community member asked the Brown County School Trustees to consider signing a one‑page letter supporting two proposed state legislative measures intended to raise local revenue for public safety.
The commenter said the county is "having difficulty funding our public safety currently" and suggested two possible revenue sources for the board's consideration: a state park gate fee that the commenter estimated could generate a "couple 100 to $350,000" for public safety, and an increase in the county innkeepers tax (currently 5%; statutory maximum 8%) that the commenter estimated could bring in about $750,000.
"If we raised it that 3% and directed that towards what we'd like to see as public safety, it would generate another $750,000," the commenter said, adding that if the funds cannot go to public safety they could be directed to parks, recreation and arts and culture.
The commenter said State Representative Dave Hall has agreed to carry the park gate fee bill and asked the board to consider signing a broadly worded letter of support that could be shared with other community organizations. The commenter offered to draft a one‑page statement and coordinate with board leadership on the language.
Board members noted the comment but did not take formal action on the request at the meeting; staff indicated public comment period procedures limit immediate board endorsements and suggested follow‑up outside the public‑comment agenda item.
Closing note: the request was framed as a public comment and no formal district policy or legislative position was adopted during the meeting.
