The Envelope, Please....

Here are my answers to the questions posed at the Executive Committee Meeting:

My Ranking Question Committee Ranking

1 Maximize Operation Efficiencies                        1

2 Property Tax Exemptions                               2

4 Increase and/or New Fees and Charges              3

8 Delay Maintenance or Capital Projects               10

10      Borrowing                                          9

9       Sell Assets                                        11

7    New Taxes                                        7

5    Shift Costs to Others                               5

3    Use Fund Balance                                  8

6    Staff Lay-Offs                                     6

11    Reduction/Elimination of Programs/Services        4

One area of immediate concern is that several Supervisors apparently are determined to sell the Lime Quarry as part of their agenda.  Selling the quarry makes no sense to me, as the Lime Quarry is turning a profit and was created to provide a source of lime for agriculture in Polk County.  We do still have farms in Polk County, and I hope we will for the foreseeable future, so I think it's premature to consider selling the quarry.

Some people believe that the County should not be involved in any enterprise that private business can perform.  There are private nursing homes, of course, and there are private lime quarries.  Thus, according to this view, the County needs to divest itself from the business of running the Lime Quarry and turn it over to private interests.  This is the same philosophy that led to the sale of Golden Age Manor, which I opposed.  I think that the sale of the Lime Quarry, if it happens, should only occur after a full and open public discussion of competing viewpoints and an open bidding process so we don't get into another Golden Age Manor fiasco.    

Please post your opinions!

Gulf Coast Triathlon 2008

For my 60th birthday, I wanted to achieve a new athletic goal:   A half-ironman triathlon.   So, last November, I signed up for the Gulf Coast Triathlon.  The GCT consists of a 1.2 mile swim in the Gulf of Mexico, followed by a 56-mile bike ride and topped off with a half-marathon (13.1 mile) run.

After I signed up, it occurred to me that perhaps I should start training.  I had very little experience swimming in open water (lake swimming, but not much) and no experience at all swimming in the ocean.   I used the pool at the New Richmond YMCA, practicing a mile swim.  When I realized I could easily swim that far in the pool, I was encouraged.  It remained to be seen, though, whether the pool experience would translate to open water swimming in the Gulf of Mexico surrounded by hundreds of thrashing competitors. 

Training for the bike ride was also tough because of the winter weather.  Most of the other competitors were from southern states, and they could ride outdoors twelve months of the year.  Riding indoors on a trainer is not a lot of fun, nor is it really very good practice for the reality of headwinds, balance, getting proper fluids, and all the other factors that come into play in a "real" bike race.  I was beginning to think that I gotten in over my head when I realized that there would be 1800 competitors in this race.  

Training for the run has been part of my life for the past 30 years.  I had plenty of experience, and the confidence that goes with it, for the run.  Besides, running all winter in Wisconsin, though difficult, is something that I was used to doing.

Training was tough, but when race day arrived, I felt as ready as I could be.  It was overcast and warm at the start, but it got a lot hotter as the day progressed.  By the time the run started for me, the temperature was 82 degrees with 72 percent humidity.  When the half-marathon was over, the temperature had climbed to 87 and the humidity hovered near 71 percent.

I was careful, though, to take fluids and not go "all-out" in this, my first half-ironman triathlon.

The swim was not as difficult as I thought it might be.  Actually, I enjoyed the swim once I figured out how to relax.  The bike ride took longer than it should have, but I was trying to be sure to leave enough energy for that half-marathon I faced following the 56 miles on the bike.  The run was very tough, with the heat and humidity, combined with the fact that my energy level was depleted by the preceding events.  I wasn't used to seeing so many young, fit athletes walking in a half-marathon.  I was determined to at least shuffle between water stops until the final stretch, where I had to walk for awhile because I felt I was developing a heat problem.

My conservative approach paid off.  After the race,  I was shocked to learn that I had placed second in my age group.  All things considered, the Gulf Coast Triathlon was a positive experience.  The race was extremely well-organized.  I'm inspired to do more of these races in the future. 

So, what are YOUR priorities?

At the Executive Committee meeting on May 22, members were presented with a handout entitled "Ranking of Deficit Reduction Options Budget 2009". Without elaborate discussion or debate, we were instructed to rank our personal choices among 11 options, in order of preference, to give the Finance Department direction in deciding how to balance the budget. The options were:
____ Maximize Operation Efficiencies
____ Property Tax Exemptions
____ Increase and/or New Fees and Charges for Services
____ Delay Maintenance or Capital Projects
____ Borrowing
____ Sell Assets
____ New Taxes
____ Shift Costs to Others
____ Use of Fund Balance
____ Staff Lay-Offs
____ Reduction or Elimination of Programs/Services
Before I disclose how I ranked the choices (and how the Executive Committee average vote tallied), I'd like you to make your choices. Let's see how close we are to agreement.

Guest Post: Jeff Peterson on Board Size

This is an older comment (from April 18) from former Supervisor Jeff Peterson on the size of the County Board. I wanted to bring this to the "front page" to stimulate discussion:

Fred Grimm's letter to the editor suggested that reducing the board size to nine would not only save enough money to hire a professional administrator, but would also "reduce the temptation of the supervisors to micromanage". The first point might have some merit, assuming there is some major consolidation of committees so that the nine remaining supervisors don't have to be at meetings every day of the week. But I'm not sure that having fewer supervisors does anything to fix the micromanaging thing -- which I agree is a problem.

We also need to consider that reducing the size of the board to nine or fifteen or whatever would necessitate a costly and likely controversial redistricting plan. Since we'll be getting new population figures in three years anyway, I'm not sure that redistricting makes a lot of sense at this point in time. If we had an even number of districts now, it would be a relatively simple job to simply divide each in two, but if we want to go from 23 to 15, we're going to end up eating up any savings in supervisors' wages with payments to the mapping and consulting firms we'll have to hire to figure out new districts. (Someone should ask Land Information Department head Sara McCurdy whether her employees have the skills and technical expertise to devise a redistricting plan in-house.)

I'm starting to think that all this talk about reducing the size of the county board is more a distraction than an effort at meaningful reform. Yes, we should consider such changes once the 2010 census figures are in, but for now we've got more serious issues to discuss.

April 18, 2008 8:54 PM

Guest Post: Bob Blake Weighs In on Board Size

I've "promoted" the following comment from former supervisor Bob Blake in the interest of airing his views on the issue of reducing the size of the Board.

Since I am now able to get "on" I'm going to attempt a little "blog-posting history". I'll try to catch up on two or three postings in one..... I should have known that I hadn't been blocked out. I mean if you let Rick weigh in, you'll clearly let anyone.....
In your "bozos and clowns" posting, I must admit that I was somewhat put off by that characterization, but having re-read it and discussed with a few other people it appears you were suggesting that if one doesn't like the 23 people who are on the board they may not like the 10 or 12 members of a smaller board either. If that is what you intended, I agree. People have to be of voting age and a resident of the district they represent -- (accept for Gerry Newville----)to serve on the county board. Reducing the size of the board has no direct bearing on the "qualifications" of the candidates running. Also -it is true that the smaller the board the more responsibilities fall to those who are on it. More committee assignments, more meetings etc. I don't think that is all bad. The broader the perspective of the members, the less likely they are to become paternalistic --oops-- maternalistic about the departments upon whose governing boards or committees they serve. In Minnesota, the state has decreed that county boards are made up of five or seven members. I checked on Washington County several years ago-- and their five board members were being paid salaries in the mid $40,000 range and a full load of benefits and were considered full time employees. There is a disturbing down side to that arrangement. It attracts people who aspire to be full time politicians and see the county board as a career choice, or are wealthy semi-retired business owners or professional people. Those kinds of salaries will dictate more expensive campaigns if the positions are contested. People will gladly part with $5,000 to $10,000 dollars campaigning for a job that is worth $60,000 per year if you count the benefits. I don't think it is healthy for the residents if the decision to seek local elected office is limited to those with available disposable income. Those who are struggling should be represented in government as well as those who have been successful.
I think a good size for the board would be 10 to 14 members, not being paid any more than they are now. Frankly, Polk County Board members are very well compensated when compared the board members in our neighboring counties. Had the salary for the county board chairman on the previous county baord been $20,000 per year instead of $5,000 per year the board would have still elected the same Chairman and he would have still been a disastrous choice. The only beneficiary would have been the person who was garnishing his county board chairman's salary. Elected officials don't perform any more responsibly because there being paid more money. We should guard against paying our board members to the extent that they see that job as a part-time career rather than the "service" that is is supposed to be. I think discussions should start regarding an appropriate size for the board and that decision should be incorporated into the required redistricting that must take place when the 2010 census date becomes available. Going through an expensive redistricting process now and then having to do it again in a couple of years is ill-advised. But the discussion on the size of the board could certainly start now.
You also suggest that you have concluded that we need a county administrator. Unfortunately your experience on the county board is limited to one two year term on a board that will likely be remembered as one of the most incompetent, ineffective, corrupt, disfunctional boards we have had in
in the last 30 years. Furthermore--this goes back to the "clowns and bozos" argument--why would one suggest that a board that would choose such obviously flawed leadership for the Chairman's role assume that it could choose a responsible person for the administrator's job? We have gone down that road with a full time administrative coordinator a few years ago and the experiment didn't work. A county executive elected by the people would have to persuade the electors of the entire county of their qualifications to get elected. One could easily argue that Polk County has done a far better job of electing it's constitutional officers than the county board has done in hiring administrative coordinators. I think the new board made a good choice in selecting Mr. Beseler for the Chairman's job and I believe that the need for a full time administrator will not be an issue as long as competent leadership is elected by the county board. I believe that we have excellent management staff in Polk County that --generally-- doesn't need a great deal of direct daily supervision. Since we now have a chairman that understand the job and is willing to do that job, things will go much smoother and the $100,000 per year that an administrator would cost could be better used to upgrade our roads.
When I read Supervisor Brown's letter to the editor, the message that I took from it was his suggestion that this is an important decision that people should weigh carefully. I agree.
Bob Blake

May 10, 2008 8:00 AM

Posting Your Comments

I just learned that I had to change a setting on my blog to allow visitors to post comments. Previously, visitors were required to have an account on blogspot.com in order to post comments. I've taken care of that now, so go ahead and post away!

Send in the Clowns!

My fellow Supervisor, Herschel Brown, has written a letter to the editor of the Inter-County Leader concerning my post relating to reducing the size of the County Board.  Rather than tackling the meaningful issues that were raised in the post, however, Mr. Brown's letter focuses on my "Bozo" comment, which, in context, was obviously not intended to insult anyone presently serving on the Board or anyone who has served on the Board in the past.  The sentence Mr. Brown finds so objectionable was included only to emphasize a point:  If citizens are upset with the Board of Supervisors because they believe the Supervisors are incompetent or unqualified, reducing the size of the Board will do nothing to correct that situation.  That's it. 

Mr. Brown appears to be rather thin-skinned.   Furthermore, lifting one sentence out of context to criticize in a letter to the editor (and not responding on the blog itself) suggests to me that he would rather mislead citizens of Polk County and incite ill-will than address the issues directly and on the merits.  

A "Sounding Board" is not an authority on anything, but a place to air views.  I fail to understand what makes Mr. Brown think that my having created this humble blog means that I consider myself an authority on anything. 

I will be sending my own letter to the editor to respond to Mr. Brown's letter.