TAYLOR LEADS 4–3 VOTE THAT DERAILS COURTHOUSE REFERENDUM

Finance chairman says elected officials—not voters—should decide whether Milwaukee County proceeds with $858 million in proposed construction funding

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

MILWAUKEE — Finance Committee Chairman Steve Taylor successfully led a narrow 4–3 vote Thursday to lay over a proposal that would have allowed Milwaukee County voters to decide whether the County should proceed with approximately $858 million in proposed construction funding for a new courthouse complex.

The committee's action effectively eliminated any realistic opportunity for the advisory referendum to appear on the November 2026 ballot. Because election officials must receive ballot language well before the November election, delaying the resolution until an unspecified future date left little practical time for it to advance through both the Finance Committee and the full County Board before statutory deadlines.

During nearly an hour of debate, Taylor repeatedly argued that the decision should remain with elected officials rather than the taxpayers who will ultimately finance the project.

"This is a representative government. We're elected to make the decision," Taylor told fellow supervisors.

Taylor also predicted Milwaukee County voters would reject the proposal if it appeared on the ballot.

"I'm telling you right now, if this goes to referendum, absolutely the voters will reject it because they don't have the information."

He continued:

"You're not going to be able to educate the voters the way they need to be. It's going to be all rhetoric."

Taylor's position ultimately prevailed.

What the Resolution Would Have Done

The proposal, introduced by Supervisor Justin Bielinski, would not have authorized construction, approved borrowing, or issued debt.

Instead, it sought an advisory referendum asking Milwaukee County voters whether they supported proceeding with approximately $858 million in construction funding before the County Board considered future appropriations and financing.

Although advisory only, supporters argued the referendum would have provided elected officials with a direct measure of public opinion before committing to one of the largest public borrowing decisions in Milwaukee County history.

Opponents maintained that weighing complex financing decisions is precisely why County Supervisors are elected.

A Procedural Vote with Major Consequences

Following debate, Vice Chair Shawn Rolland moved to lay the referendum resolution over to the call of the chair.

Bielinski opposed delaying the proposal, arguing that election deadlines required immediate action if the advisory question was to appear on the November ballot. He also noted that November elections historically attract substantially higher voter turnout than spring elections, providing what he believed would be a more representative expression of public opinion.

The motion passed 4–3, making it highly unlikely Milwaukee County voters will have an opportunity to consider the referendum this November.

How the Committee Voted

Voting to Lay the Referendum Over

• Steve Taylor (Chair)
• Shawn Rolland (Vice Chair)
• Willie Johnson Jr.
• Felesia Martin

Voting Against the Layover

• Juan Miguel Martinez
• Justin Bielinski
• Anne O'Connor

The vote did not determine whether Milwaukee County will build a new courthouse.

Instead, it determined whether Milwaukee County taxpayers would have an opportunity to weigh in before the County Board considers construction-phase funding.

Representative Government—or Direct Public Approval?

The debate ultimately centered on two competing views of public governance.

Taylor argued that County Supervisors are elected specifically to make difficult financial decisions involving complex public projects.

He warned that voters could not realistically be educated on a project of this magnitude before Election Day and predicted a referendum campaign would be driven by rhetoric rather than facts.

Supporters of the referendum reached the opposite conclusion.

They argued Wisconsin voters routinely decide complicated fiscal questions involving school construction, technical college borrowing, constitutional amendments, and local borrowing referenda.

If voters are trusted to decide those questions, they argued, Milwaukee County taxpayers should likewise be trusted to decide whether the County should proceed with nearly $858 million in proposed courthouse construction funding.

Why Should Milwaukee County Be Different?

Supporters of the referendum argued Milwaukee County taxpayers should be afforded the same opportunity routinely provided to voters across Wisconsin when governments undertake major public construction projects.

Throughout Wisconsin, school districts regularly ask voters to approve borrowing for new schools, additions, and major renovations before issuing long-term debt.

Technical College districts likewise seek voter approval for major capital borrowing authorized under Wisconsin law.

Supporters argued the proposed courthouse project is no different.

With an estimated total project cost approaching $897 million, including approximately $858 million in proposed construction funding, they contend Milwaukee County taxpayers should likewise have the opportunity to decide whether the County should move forward before future borrowing is authorized.

Taylor rejected that premise.

He maintained Milwaukee County operates under a representative form of government and that elected County Supervisors—not voters—should make the decision.

Borrowing Capacity, Competing Priorities, and Property Taxes

The discussion also highlighted Milwaukee County's broader financial picture.

County officials have acknowledged annual capital requests already exceed the County's self-imposed bonding limits, requiring policymakers to prioritize projects and defer others.

Supporters of the referendum argued committing approximately $858 million in construction funding inevitably affects the County's future borrowing capacity and its ability to fund other priorities, including:

• Parks
• Roads and bridges
• Public safety facilities
• Transit infrastructure
• Senior centers
• Recreational facilities
• Deferred maintenance throughout Milwaukee County

Throughout Thursday's meeting, supervisors discussed inflation, construction costs, deferred maintenance, financing strategies, and the cost of delaying the courthouse project.

One important question, however, remained unanswered:

What will the project cost the average Milwaukee County homeowner in additional property taxes?

To date, Milwaukee County has not publicly released an estimate identifying the projected annual property tax impact associated with financing approximately $858 million in construction costs.

Without that information, taxpayers remain unable to fully evaluate one of the project's most significant financial implications before the County Board considers future borrowing.

For supporters of the referendum, that omission reinforced the argument that taxpayers should have a direct voice before construction funding proceeds.

Why Wasn't the Building Simply Maintained?

One question largely absent from Thursday's Finance Committee debate was why Milwaukee County is pursuing a complete replacement of the Public Safety Building rather than continuing repairs or undertaking a major renovation.

The answer lies in decades of aging infrastructure, years of deferred capital investment, and conclusions reached after nearly a decade of formal study.

The Public Safety Building opened in 1929 and has served as Milwaukee County's primary criminal courthouse for nearly a century.

Over the years, County officials continued making repairs and replacing individual building systems as funding allowed, but larger modernization projects were repeatedly deferred as competing budget priorities limited available capital.

Recognizing those challenges, Milwaukee County established the Courthouse Advisory Group in 2016 to evaluate the future of the courthouse complex.

After reviewing multiple alternatives, the advisory group recommended replacing the Public Safety Building rather than attempting a comprehensive renovation.

That recommendation was reaffirmed in subsequent studies, including a 2018 Wisconsin Policy Forum review, and ultimately became the foundation for today's Investing in Justice initiative.

County assessments estimate the Public Safety Building alone now faces more than $75 million in deferred maintenance and system replacement needs, while deferred maintenance across the broader courthouse campus exceeds $334 million.

County officials also report spending approximately $500,000 annually responding to emergency repairs. Judges and courthouse staff have described recurring elevator failures, flooding, plumbing problems, electrical outages, and aging mechanical systems requiring continual emergency repairs simply to maintain daily court operations.

Previous planning studies concluded that bringing the nearly century-old building into compliance with modern building codes, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility requirements, courtroom security standards, and contemporary operational needs would be less practical and less cost-effective than constructing a replacement facility.

As a result, Milwaukee County elected to pursue the Investing in Justice project, which calls for demolishing the existing Public Safety Building while preserving and renovating the adjacent Historic Milwaukee County Courthouse. During construction, court operations would temporarily relocate to renovated courthouse space and leased downtown "swing space" before moving into the new courthouse upon completion.

The Debate Isn't Whether a Courthouse Is Needed

Importantly, Thursday's debate was not over whether Milwaukee County requires a modern criminal courthouse.

County officials, judges, and many members of the County Board generally agree the existing Public Safety Building has reached the end of its useful life.

Instead, the disagreement centers on how the project should be financed, whether Milwaukee County should proceed with approximately $858 million in construction funding, and whether taxpayers should have the opportunity to vote before the County Board commits to one of the largest public borrowing decisions in county history.

Supporters of Bielinski's advisory referendum argue replacement may be necessary but taxpayers deserve a direct voice before the County incurs hundreds of millions of dollars in additional borrowing.

County Executive David Crowley's administration, however, has warned that delaying construction could increase project costs by approximately $4 million per month because of inflation while emergency repairs to the aging facility continue.

How the $897 Million Project Is Structured

While much of Thursday's debate focused on approximately $858 million in construction funding, the total Investing in Justice project is currently estimated at approximately $897 million.

According to Milwaukee County, the project includes:

• $38.6 million already appropriated for planning, design, engineering, and pre-construction activities.
• Approximately $858 million for demolition of the existing Public Safety Building, construction of the new criminal courthouse, a secure connection to the Criminal Justice Facility, and related site improvements.
• Funding for temporary downtown "swing space" leases and renovations to the Historic Milwaukee County Courthouse so court operations can continue during construction.

The County plans to vacate the Public Safety Building before demolition begins, temporarily relocating many court functions until the new courthouse is completed.

County's Proposed Financing Strategy

County officials have stated they intend to offset a significant portion of the project's cost through recently enacted state funding changes and long-term borrowing rather than relying exclusively on increased local property taxes.

Even so, supervisors continue debating how the remaining construction costs should be financed and what impact future borrowing could have on Milwaukee County's long-term fiscal capacity.

Supporters of the referendum argue that before the County commits to construction borrowing, taxpayers deserve to understand both the financing plan and its long-term implications.

If Voters Cannot Be Informed, What Is the County Paying $546,475 to Communicate?

Taylor's comments also raised another question surrounding the courthouse project.

If County officials believe voters lack sufficient information to make an informed decision, what is Milwaukee County receiving in return for nearly $550,000 already committed to communications and advocacy?

County contract records show Milwaukee County entered into a $546,475 professional services agreement with Mueller Communications for communication and advocacy services related to the Investing in Justice: Courthouse Complex project.

The agreement—identified as Contract No. 3049—is described as:

"Fee Revision 4 to the 2024 Professional Services Agreement for Communication and Advocacy WC0276 Investing in Justice: Courthouse Complex."

County records show the full $546,475 has been encumbered under the contract.

Following Thursday's meeting, Bielinski criticized the expenditure, writing:

"At a time when County pools like McCarty are sitting closed, in part because of needed repairs that cost less than $10,000, County Executive David Crowley is spending $546,475 in taxpayer money for a communications consultant to advocate in favor of the $897 million courthouse project.

This is an insult to the hardworking people of Milwaukee County—many of whom are already struggling to afford basic needs—whose property taxes are already rising due to the state's refusal to properly fund public education."

Taylor argued voters could not realistically be educated before a referendum.

The existence of a nearly $550,000 communications contract has therefore become part of the broader public discussion, prompting questions from critics about how those communication efforts are intended to inform taxpayers and whether the County has adequately explained the project's financial impact, including its potential effect on future property taxes.

What's Next?

Although the advisory referendum now appears effectively off the November ballot, the courthouse project itself continues moving forward.

County officials are expected to continue advancing the Investing in Justice project and present future construction-phase funding proposals to the Milwaukee County Board for consideration.

Thursday's vote did not decide whether Milwaukee County will build a new courthouse.

It decided who should have the opportunity to weigh in before the County moves forward with approximately $858 million in construction funding.

For Chairman Steve Taylor and the committee majority, that responsibility belongs to elected officials.

For supporters of the referendum, it belongs to the taxpayers who may ultimately finance one of the largest public construction projects in Milwaukee County history.

Whether Milwaukee County should be treated differently than Wisconsin communities that routinely ask voters to approve major public borrowing remains one of the central policy questions left unresolved by Thursday's 4–3 committee vote.

This piece reflects the author’s personal opinion and experiences. All statements are presented as commentary protected under the First Amendment. Readers are encouraged to review public records, filings, and documented evidence referenced throughout this article.

Dr. Richard Busalacchi is the Publisher of Franklin Community News, where he focuses on government transparency, community accountability, and local public policy. He believes a community’s strength depends on open dialogue, honest leadership, and the courage to speak the truth—even when it makes powerful people uncomfortable.

🕯️ The solution isn’t another insider in a new office. It’s sunlight, scrutiny, and the courage to vote differently.

Because until voters demand honest, transparent government, the corruption won’t stop — it will only change titles.

Elections have consequences — and Franklin’s next one may decide whether transparency makes a comeback.

💬 If you value hard-hitting, fact-based investigative reporting about our hometown of Franklin — follow Franklin Community News on Facebook.

Together, we can keep local government honest, transparent, and accountable 

— for the greater good.

© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.

Join Us at:

 https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1a3NsgvAGn/