Advisory referendums always strike me as a little weak — specifically because even if they get approved, they often get ignored.

That was the case when Milwaukee County voters were asked if they would like to participate in a massive borrowing scheme to continue to operate county government. Voters overwhelmingly said no. County Executive Scott Walker ignored the peoples request and went ahead with the borrowing scheme which is one of the ways the county has balanced its budget for the past few years.

Now we’re asked to support an advisory referrendum that would increase the County’s ability to raise money through the sales tax instead of the property tax. Here’s what this one says:

COUNTY 1% SALES TAX REFERENDUM
ADVISORY REFERENDUM “Shall the State of Wisconsin grant Milwaukee County the authority to provide property tax relief of at least sixty-seven million dollars ($67 million) by levying a one percent (1%) county sales and use tax to be used to remove the following three items from the property tax levy: parks recreation culture, transit and emergency medical services (EMS)?” YES NO

Well the argument made by the group behind this, and it’s a sound one, is that many people who come into Milwaukee County to do business here will pay the tax at our restaurants and our many attractions, and that sales tax will allow the county to pay for needed services without raising the property tax. It’s a policy many communities enact, but especially communities and taxing entities that are seeking to capture revenues from visitors to their city. With the large and growing convention and recreational attraction business that Milwaukee has been doing this past decade, to not capture some of these revenues as other counties and states do puts Milwaukee at a fiscal disadvantage.

So will this vote affect anything? Probably not. Even if it gets approved the State must give the County authorization to levy the sales tax. Then a veto-proof majority of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors would need to approve it. Then and only then would it get enacted.

The wording in the referendum is a little weak. Since the Supervisor who wrote the referendum meant this to be for mass transit, not just roads, he should have written “mass transit” in the referendum. I would suspect that if enacted, County Executive Scott Walker will want to use the funds for County road infrastructure and ignore mass transit as he has for several years. However, that is a clarification that State Legislators can make if they choose to enact the what will be the will of the people who go to the polls today.

It’s a worthwhile proposal that won’t affect property taxes but will capture revenues from many out of town visitors who currently enjoy many of these County Services for free.

This is a referrendum where “Yes” is a common sense vote.