County Board sends PDR to referendum

By DAVE RANK - Daily News Staff

January 10, 2007

Local voters will have the final say in April whether the county will start a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) rural land preservation program.

Tuesday, the County Board passed a pair of resolutions authorizing an April 3 binding referendum to decide the issue.

It will be the first binding referendum ever organized by the county.

It’s about time, implied County Board Supervisor Mark McCune from the town of Erin. He has consistently voted against a PDR program. But, he said Tuesday, "I’m going to support this resolution because of the referendum. I believe it’s the cheapest and best way to get the pulse of the community on this issue."

McCune pressed for a referendum on the PDR issue last year. Tuesday, he said he hoped the supervisors would be more willing to use referendums in the future when the board remains closely divided on similarly costly issues.

The board voted 16-13 on Resolution 44, which authorized creation of a PDR program if approved by the public in a referendum.

By a 19-10 vote, the board passed Resolution 45, which placed the referendum on the April 3 ballot.

Following a slight wording change amendment, here is what the referendum question will say:

"Shall the Washington County Board of Supervisors allocate at least $800,000 per year for 10 years funded by either sales tax, long-term debt obligations and property tax or a combination thereof to preserve prime farmland, water resources and natural areas in the County through purchase of development rights, land acquisition or similar programs from willing sellers, on the condition that all County expenditures are at least equally matched by non-county funding sources?"

Before the votes, County Administrative Coordinator Douglas Johnson said it was particularly important that the referendum clearly state that funding for a PDR program likely would come from a combination of sales tax, borrowed money and some property tax to pay for debt service.

It would not be honest to imply only sales tax money would be used, he said. "The county does not have $8 million over the next 10 years in sales tax. ... We’ll need another source."

PDR proponents and opponents maintained their stands on the value of the program.

"Washington County is at a crossroads," said County Board Supervisor Daniel Stoffel, on whether or not it will try to preserve its open spaces and protect its agricultural industry. "Our opportunity is here now to ask the people."

"The landscape of this county once it has been developed will never be returned," said County Board Supervisor Mary Krumbiegel, who with Stoffel has been a leader in the pro-PDR camp. She is from the town of Jackson. "We’re trying to keep functioning farms functional."

Several supervisors said a PDR program would benefit this generation’s children and grandchildren by preserving open land that will help maintain local water quality and set aside areas for agricultural use.

Opponents said a PDR program will be costly and infringes on property owners’ rights.

"I am not for adding any taxes," said County Board Supervisor David Radermacher from the town of Richfield.

"I feel this should be a voluntary program where landowners maintain rights over their own property," said Donald Kempf, County Board supervisor from West Bend.

"Let us be good stewards of the taxpayers’ money and invest in people (instead)," said Leslie Borman, County Board supervisor from Germantown.