eastern district of wisconsin milwaukee county, employee

every ordinance submitted to the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors for enactment must
be accompanied by a “fiscal note” addressing the financial implications of the proposal, the
failure by Dobbert to include the BackDROP’s costs as calculated by Mercer in its January 16,
2001 letter means that the County decisionmakers did not have that cost before them and could
not have relied on it. Indeed, as shown above, County Supervisors routinely look to the fiscal
note for information on the financial implications of a particular ordinance and rely on the fiscal
note in making their decisions. Supervisors have specifically testified that they did so with
regard to the Package. As Borkowski put it, “[a]s far as county government is concerned, my
costing out is the fiscal note… For me, the fiscal note on the resolution is what salted my vote.”
D. Soderstrom’s Statements Regarding The ERS’ Future Investment Returns
Cannot Form The Basis Of Liability As A “Virtual Guarantee.”
Soderstrom’s statements projecting future investment returns for the ERS of 12-13% as
“appropriate for planning purposes” in his June 8, 2000 letter to Dobbert and his
extemporaneous comments at the October 27, 2000 hearing cannot form the basis of liability as a
“virtual guarantee.”
First, there is no evidence that County decisionmakers relied on the statements as
“guarantees” in enacting the Package. As to the June 8, 2000 letter, there is no evidence that
Dobbert or Ament passed on the letter to the County Board. And neither Ament nor Dobbert
have testified that they viewed the letter as a “guarantee.” To the contrary, Ament testified that
guarantee was a “strange word” to use to describe Mercer’s advice; and Dobbert testified that he
understood Mercer’s caveat that “interim volatility is… almost a certainty.” Other County
Supervisors like Mayo and Borkowski have similarly testified that they understood that “ups and
downs in the market” were inevitable and that actuaries “don't have a crystal ball.”
QBACTIVE\6280487.1 47
Case 2:06-cv-00372-CNC Filed 06/09/2008 Page 47 of 52 Document 110