August 1, 2026 – Hartford, WI – During the July 28, 2026, City of Hartford common council meeting alderman Joe Kohler asked that the council reconsider signing off on the Washington County EMS proposal until more information and data was provided. Currently the county wants to implement a new annual tax of $3.5 million to help cover the rising costs of EMS/Fire. The reported initial figure, subject to change, is about $51 for a home valued at $400,000. Local town, village, and city leaders say while the new county tax would help cover operational costs for EMS/Fire, that would not mean they would decrease taxes in their budgets to offset the increase of the new tax to homeowners.
It was during the June 2026 Hartford council meeting when the county made a presentation, provided a statement of support on the EMS proposal, and the council, without having all the taxing and service data, signed off on the item to continue discussion.
One of the items brought to light during the July 2026 Hartford council meeting came during the public speaking portion of the meeting, where Village of Germantown Trustee Jan Miller talked about the county EMS proposal and said the Village of Germantown tabled its decision until more hard data and financial facts were brought to the board.
Click HERE to read: Germantown tables support for Washington Co. EMS proposal – concerned about threats, uncertain costs, & retaining local control
According to facts presented at the meeting, Miller quoted current state laws that govern EMS. She cited Wisconsin State Statute 66.0602(3)(h):
‘Charges from fire and EMS districts of at least two municipalities assessed by the district to the municipality are exempt from levy limit calculations and are allowed to grow at an annual rate of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase plus 2% per year.’
There is also a law that governs countywide EMS.
“I wanted to bring this to your attention because there are alternatives,” said Miler. “There are other possibilities, and I think we need to keep our eyes wide open when we make financial decisions that affect not just today, but future generations.
“This is what we know now. It is a state regulation. It is state law, and it’s something that was put in place for municipalities to continue moving forward.”
Miller closed saying, “The Germantown Village Board voted unanimously to table this EMS proposal until we received more information.”
“I’ve been watching the newspapers, the press, and making several phone calls. We’ve said this before. As a council, we know the information we’re given and the information we receive. As we start peeling back the onion and looking a little deeper, we’re finding out there are other options.
“The option Jan just brought to me was something relatively new that I did not know about. I knew about the county tax opportunities, but not about two municipalities, or a couple of municipalities, joining together and basically getting the same type of outcome while still being able to own our firehouse and be the destiny of our own services, as opposed to turning everything over to the county, even though they say it will be locally done.
“I encourage you guys, if you haven’t already, to read the article about what West Bend is doing. It’s being pushed, and it’s being pushed very hard. In my opinion, they brought in (Washington Co. Public Safety Officer) Dave Seager, who was a fire chief or fire expert from the Milwaukee area. He gave us the same presentation that I’m sure Germantown got the first time.
“I know we passed the motion to move forward and gather more information because they’re supposed to come back to us since they haven’t given us that data yet. I think we’re still one step behind Germantown because Germantown got to see the data.
“There’s information stating that in Germantown, if they look at 10,000 homes, those homes would be assessed the county tax at about $51 for a $400,000 home. I think they’re figuring their houses a little higher than that out there. They did the quick math, and it’s right in the paper. It says Germantown would be paying $549,466. What would be returned to Germantown through the grant and other funding would only be $428,363, meaning Germantown would be overpaying by about $121,000.
“I don’t know what our numbers are or where those numbers are going to be. I know we’re looking at referendums. We’ve talked about what we need to do for the firehouse. If we have solid information and solid reasons to move forward, I think the city, the constituents, and all of us would feel comfortable making an educated decision.
“So my ask is this. I know we voted in favor of accepting the proposal and allowing the county to move forward and collect further information to bring back to us. Since that was a vote, can we bring it back for a revote? I’d like to revote and do something very similar to what Germantown did by tabling it until we get that information.
“By voting to move forward, it’s being misconstrued and being used in other areas of the county. I can tell you right now that we and some of the other larger municipalities moving forward with this are hurting the smaller municipalities because their portion of the money probably won’t sustain what they need. In the long run, everybody in the county is going to be taxed the same amount, and they’re going to distribute it across the board.
“So my ask to you guys is let’s definitely get some more information. We have another option on the table. I asked Steve if we can get this back on the agenda to revisit that vote. If we do vote again, I’d ask you to consider the same action Germantown took by tabling it and asking for further information,” said Kohler.
According to Hartford administrator Steve Volkert, “You didn’t formally approve the intergovernmental agreement with Washington County. What you did was say you support continuing the process. You can’t really reverse that because you don’t have someone who was a deciding vote now saying they have new information and want to change their vote.”
Kohler responded, “I do follow what you’re saying. But reading through the article, I don’t think we knew the option of tabling it and moving forward at the time of the last vote when I voted for it.
“That’s why I’m asking now. As we learn things and as things move forward, we make decisions based on the information that’s given to us. Unfortunately, we’re not all-knowing. We rely a lot on the administration and our department heads to provide the information that helps us make the right decisions.
“All I’m saying is I feel we may not have made this decision with all the information. If we cannot revote, we do have another vote ahead of us, and I strongly advise you all to start digging into the information that’s out there.
“At least this will be recorded and go on the record that while we unanimously accepted moving forward, what I understood by ‘moving forward’ was that they would come back with a final proposal. I do not want it misconstrued by the county executive or anyone else that we are 100% in support of this and that when the numbers come together we’re automatically going to approve it. It’s still going to be under scrutiny,” said Kohler.
City administrator Steve Volkert responded, “Again, what you voted on was not the final intergovernmental agreement. When that comes before us, just like any other issue, if you want to table it, you can table it. If you want to vote against it, you can do that.”
Kohler said, “I live and learn. If that’s the case, that’s what we’ll do.”
On a side note:
Fact check on what the state statute means:
- The Spending Cap: The shared department cannot increase its overall budget by whatever it wants. The budget increase is strictly capped at the rate of inflation (CPI) plus 2%.
- The Unanimous Vote: Every single town, village, or city that shares the department must pass a formal resolution agreeing to the tax increase. If even one town votes “no,” the exception is blocked.
-Fact check on whether two towns or two villages can simply partner and form a joint EMS district:
- The Partnership: A single town partnering with one neighboring town, or a single village partnering with one neighboring village, perfectly qualifies. [1, 2]
- The Agreement: Both communities must formally create the district using an intergovernmental cooperation agreement (under Wis. Stat. § 66.0301(2)). [1, 2, 3]
- The Cap: The combined EMS budget cannot increase by more than the rate of inflation (CPI) plus 2% from the previous year. [1]
- The Vote: Because there are only two members, both town/village boards must vote “yes” to pass the budget. If one votes no, the tax break is blocked.
-Fact: Under Washington County’s current $3.5 million proposal, $300,000 would be charged annually by the county for administrative costs. During the Town of Kewaskum meeting on July 28, 2026, the town board voted unanimously to remove that charge saying, “This is a levy to fund EMS, not payroll for a county employee.”
-Fact: In 1999 Washington County implemented a county sales tax of 0.5%. According to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue the total annual sales tax distribution for Washington County, Wi was $17,821,943.92
Fact: During the Public Safety Committee meeting Wednesday, July 29, 2026, Brian Heckendorf, president of the Village of Jackson and Robert Bingen, chairman of the Town of Addison, were both called to the mic and spoke in favor of the EMS proposal. Other leaders of municipalities were also present but not called to speak including Village of Germantown board president Bob Soderberg, Town of Trenton chairman Mike Lipscomb, and Town of Polk chairman Albert Schulteis. The last three have multiple questions about the proposal.
Fact: In an effort of full transparency, the Town of Polk submitted a letter with its resolution to the county as did the Town of Trenton expressing grave concerns about the EMS proposal. Both letters are not included in the gold brick titled EMS/Fire on the front page of the county website as of July 31, 2026. Only the resolutions have been posted under the heading:
In the Public Safety Committee packet for the July 29, 2026 meeting, the letter from the Town of Polk was included but Trenton’s was not.
The letters from Polk and Trenton are posted below. The Town of West Bend is not represented in the list of municipalities on any of the county EMS/Fire websites. That board voted to table a decision on the resolution regarding EMS/Fire proposal.
Question: If the letters of concern are not posted on the county website with all the materials for the public and the county supervisors, who will eventually vote on the issue, how can everyone be fully informed? And, why aren’t they posted?
This is a working story, and more information will be posted when details are available.
