As I was paying bills the other night during the Olympics, I saw yet another of those annoying 2010 U.S. Census commercials and decided - as I was grumbling about government waste under my breath - that it was time to award another Golden Fire Hydrant.

The U.S. government is spending $340 million to market the 2010 Census. About $145 million of that is for the creation and airing of television commercials, which can be seen during the most expensive time slots in TV (including a $2.5 million 30-second spot during the Super Bowl).

The ads stink, by anyone’s definition. They use marginally famous actors in a painfully unsuccessful attempt to be humorous. They share practically no useful information (not even telling viewers to fill out their census forms) and are unlikely to convince anyone who is opposed to or disinterested in completing the form to do so.

The Hydrant usually goes to a Hennepin County expenditure and, in the past, I have avoided calling out federal programs (as I would be posting on wasteful spending four times a day). But the combination of paying my bills and seeing one of these annoying multi-million dollar commercials for the umpteenth time put me over the edge.

Should there be an effort to inform people about the census? Of course. The government should be providing information to groups throughout the country explaining the Census’ simplicity and importance in allocating federal money and congressional representation. Hennepin County, for example, is actively doing that all around the county.

These silly commercials, however, are a great (yet sad) example of how completely out of touch some in government are. They don’t seem to have any concept that the money they spend actually has to come out of someone’s paycheck. It’s like pretend money - to be spent on anything and everything that seems cool, fun, well-intentioned or exciting (see, e.g., garbage burner beautification, “signature” bridges, bike helmet subsidies, artsy water fountains, etc.).

Until those in government start to understand that the money they’re playing with is real, don’t let them tell you they’re broke and you should pony up a little more.

We’ve heard a lot of talk over the past few months about the scheduled elimination of the General Assistance Medical Care (”GAMC”) program. GAMC is a state program providing health care coverage to the very poor in Minnesota who are not covered by other state or federal programs. GAMC served over 35,000 Minnesotans in 2009, many of them mentally ill, disabled or chemically dependent.

Governor Pawlenty unalotted GAMC last year after proposing reforms to the program that the legislature failed to consider. Funding for the program is scheduled to end on April 1, 2010.

The largest percentage of GAMC patients in Minnesota use Hennepin County Medical Center (”HCMC”) for their care. HCMC is a public safety-net hospital that is subsidized by the taxpayers of Hennepin County. If the Governor and legislature do not find a way to restore a part of GAMC funding this session, HCMC will receive about $43 million less in state funding in 2010 than it did in 2009.

The Hennepin County Board has already promised $18 million of taxpayer money from the 2010 property tax increase to fill part of that hole. HCMC plans changes in its service delivery and operations to fill another portion. There will still, however, be a gap.

In 2009, prior to the elimination of GAMC, Hennepin County taxpayers contributed about $32 million to HCMC for an operating deficit based on people who received health care but could not or did not pay, known as “uncompensated care.” The $18 million in 2010 is expected to be in addition to that same approximate amount for uncompensated care, so over $50 million from the taxpayers of Hennepin County to HCMC to cover healthcare for the poor. That, by the way, is supplemented by several million more in tax dollars for capital projects over the past few years.

Some of the GAMC patients served by HCMC come from other counties to receive free or subsidized medical care. This presents a very significant problem: Without some sort of GAMC “fix”, Hennepin County taxpayers will be footing a very inordinate share of the bill to provide health care to the indigent throughout the state of Minnesota.

Of course, some of us would argue that Hennepin County taxpayers were already footing an inordinate share of the bill even prior to GAMC elimination with our annual contribution to uncompensated care, but now the inequity will be magnified even more.

As an aside, HCMC also provides free services to people from outside of Minnesota (and, yes, even to illegal immigrants), but that is a topic for a different post.

The immediate issue: The legislature and Governor must find a way to provide some relief to safety net hospitals after the elimination of GAMC.

I don’t advocate just reinstating GAMC as it existed. Everyone but the most naïve in St. Paul recognized long ago that the GAMC program (one of the most generous in the nation) could not be financially sustained long-term. There was serious talk of elimination of the program as far back as 2002, when I was in the legislature.

I also don’t subscribe to the strategy of simply trashing Governor Pawlenty at every turn and proposing a “fix” that we know he won’t sign (which has at times seemed like the favored plan of some in county government).

Pawlenty made a difficult decision last year to eliminate GAMC after watching the legislature play games for over four months. There was little or no interest on the part of the legislature to come to a mutual agreement on budget issues, including reform of GAMC. Left with the options of calling a special session - which would likely have lasted months and accomplished little - or balancing the budget himself, he chose the latter. Most of us would argue that it was not the preferred method of governance, but it was probably the best option available.

And now, we have a problem. It requires a solution upon which the DFL legislature and the Republican Governor must agree - which is why I’ve been surprised in the past that our strategy on the Hennepin County Board seems to include repeated attacks on a Governor whose help we need.

I don’t have the answer. Sen. Linda Berglin has a proposal that at least partially makes sense. Rep. Matt Dean has a bill that deserves consideration. And, of course, there’s always that crazy concept of funding this priority by cutting something else that’s less important.

Bottom Line: One basic function of government (at least in my opinion) is to provide help to those who are most vulnerable in our society - including the physically and developmentally disabled and the mentally ill. It should not, however, fall on the backs of the Hennepin County taxpayer to support that function of government for the entire state.

Yesterday’s Star Tribune included a story (”Cleaning in the Light of Day“) about the upcoming change to janitorial services in Hennepin County buildings:

Janitors typically do their work sight unseen, after everyone else has gone home.  But soon that’s going to change at the Hennepin County Government Center and other heavily used county buildings.

By shutting off the lights and turning down the thermostats at night, the county expects to save at least $100,000 a year in energy costs. 

Starting March 1, about half of Hennepin County’s buildings - 63 in all - will be vacuumed, wiped down, swept and emptied of trash during the daytime rather than at night.  It’s thought to be the first public entity in Minnesota to move to day cleaning, a trend that has gained popularity in the private sector.

In addition to the $100k in proposed energy savings, it’s estimated that another $350,000 will be saved annually through reduced work hours for janitors, since many workplaces that are cleaned during both the day and night will now only be cleaned during the day.

This might not seem like a big deal to some in the private sector, but changes like this don’t come easy in government and we should celebrate when they occur.

By the way, I claim no credit for this change.  As far as I know, it was completely county administration initiated and driven.  It also has obtained the blessing of the union for the affected employees based on the argument that, even though some employees will lose work, those who remain will have a normal daytime schedule.

It’s been wild listening to some prominent Democrats this past week who seem completely clueless as to the message behind the amazing Republican victory in Massachusetts. Some are arguing that their candidate was bad or that local issues mattered or that Obama hasn’t been liberal enough (or conservative enough). Martha Coakley, the Democrat who lost the seat, stated in her concession speech that she lost partly because people are “angry about our two wars and our inability to properly care for those who return home after fighting.”

I suppose there is some anger out there about those issues, but that’s not the tenth of it. The citizens of Massachusetts and America are angry for a much, much bigger reason: Government is completely, utterly and infuriatingly out of control!

People are angry over huge bailouts, sleazy congressional deal-making, massive deficits and a seeming belief that government should control nearly every sector of our economy. People are angry that their voices don’t seem to be heard and their opinions don’t seem to matter.

If Democrats don’t eventually get that, 2010 could be a pretty ugly year for them.

But what about Republicans (like me)? We better give some serious thought to what this victory means for us, too.

I’m already hearing some Republicans suggest that people will turn to our party in droves come November because of their anger. I might remind those folks that people were turning away from our party in droves only 14 months ago because of their anger. People are just fed up with what government does and how it does it, and the party in power in the recent past has taken the brunt of the damage from that anger.

Most polls I’ve seen lately show that the Republican Party is just as unpopular as the Democratic Party right now. In fact, a recent Rasmussen poll showed that more Americans would vote for a “Tea Party” candidate for congress than a Republican.

Bottom line: The voters in Massachusetts were looking past party labels. And these same “fed up” voters will be out in force in November and will not care much if there is a “D”, an “R” or any other letter after a candidate’s name on the ballot.

They will vote for candidates they believe will be responsible with taxpayer money; who will spend it as carefully as they would their own money. They will vote for candidates who oppose government bailouts of private entities and huge corporate welfare programs. They will vote for candidates who care more about doing what’s right for the next generation (e.g., not spending them into poverty) than about cutting a political deal or claiming a legislative victory. And, most importantly, they will support candidates who believe in the ingenuity of the American people and the private sector to solve problems and don’t presume that government is the answer to every single solitary difficulty in society.

If Republicans on the ballot in November represent these views better than their opponents, I suspect the GOP could have a monster year. But if we put up candidates who represent more of the same, and the Independence Party or the Libertarian Party or some yet unnamed party captures the support of the “fed up” voters, we will have blown an epic opportunity.

Republicans must understand the mood of people across the country and choose candidates accordingly. And the really cool thing: If we do that, it will not only bring us great success at the polls in November, but it will create the most positive change in government that we’ve seen in a long, long time.

The Hennepin County Board had its first meeting of the year this week, re-electing Mike Opat as our chairman and making various appointments to committees and boards throughout the county.

I voted for Mike as chairman. Although I frequently disagree with him and believe the county is spending entirely too much money, the reality is that this board is going to elect a democrat as chairman and I am comfortable with that democrat being Mike. I believe he is fair and runs an efficient meeting.

Someone asked me yesterday why I didn’t put my name in for chair. I told them that I would have received exactly one vote (and that vote would have been somewhat dependent on how I felt about myself that morning).

The Star Tribune ran a story on Opat’s election as chairman yesterday and referred to me as “arguably the board’s most conservative member.” Obviously, I’m getting soft if that title is only “arguable” (or, as a liberal would put it, I’m “growing in the job”). I’ll try harder to solidify my credentials.

Thank you all for dropping in on occasion last year to read my thoughts. We started up in May and had over 22,000 hits in our inaugural year. I appreciate your interest.

Here’s hoping that 2010 is a more taxpayer-friendly year in Hennepin County.

The county board adjourned for the year last week by raising every property tax levy we have authority to raise.

The general county operating levy was increased 4.95% (an additional $12.5 million over 2009). The county rail authority levy - used to fund light rail trains - was increased 114% (an additional $8 million over 2009). The county housing authority levy was increased 176% (an additional $2.3 million over 2009).

Commissioner Randy Johnson and I voted against the budget that included the 4.95% levy increase. I was the only member to oppose the other two levy increases.

The proposal from county administration that came to the board last week included a 3% county operating levy increase. Commissioners Callison and Stenglein moved to increase that tax hike to 4.95%. Interestingly, Commissioner Mike Opat joined Randy Johnson and me in opposing the amendment to raise the levy increase. Once that amendment passed, however, Commissioner Opat voted for the final budget that included the 4.95% increase.

It’s important to note that county spending is actually decreasing between 2009 and 2010, but because that decrease is more than offset by cuts in state aid and losses in other areas, the property tax levy is increasing to balance the budget.

Overall, the 2010 budget will be about 6.8% lower than the 2009 budget. That’s the number you will hear from the county and media. More than half of that budget reduction, however, is simply a decrease in federal and state aid for child care services which used to “pass through” the county and now will be paid directly from the state to child care providers. In other words, the county will no longer be the middle-man in this transaction. Another portion of the budget decrease results from the conclusion of two large environmental services contracts that are not being renewed.

The actual cuts to county operations/services equal a little under $25 million. That represents a real cut in the county budget of about 1.5%.

Despite the cut being nowhere near the 6.8% we tout, I don’t discount the fact that the budget is decreasing. Government very seldom gets smaller from year to year and I give great credit to county administration for finding a way to do this.

Where will the new tax money go? A portion of it is dedicated to Hennepin County Medical Center (”HCMC”) to partly compensate for a loss in state aid they are anticipating due to the elimination of the GAMC medical care program Governor Pawlenty unalloted earlier this year. The rest will go into the county’s reserve fund.

To say, however, that taxes are being raised to fund HCMC is a little misleading. That is no more accurate than to say we raised taxes to fund “transit-oriented development”, sex education teachers in the public schools, an $80 million bridge in North Minneapolis or anything else the county is funding in 2010. I could take anything included in the 2010 budget and claim that as the reason (or one of the reasons) for raising the levy; if we chose not to spend money on some of these other budget items, we would not need to raise taxes to provide more to HCMC.

Before last week’s meeting, I reviewed the general property tax levy increases in Hennepin County for the past 30 years. The levy was increased in 29 of those years. The one exception was a half-percent decrease in the levy between 1982 and 1983. Overall the levy has increased an average of over 6% each year during that period - well in excess of inflation.

That history provides a rebuttal to both of the major arguments I heard for raising the levy this year: The economy is terrible and state aid is decreasing.

As I look back on the past 30 years, the county has raised taxes in very good economies and very bad economies. It has raised taxes when state aid is increasing (18 of the 30 years) and when state aid is decreasing (12 of the 30 years). This year is not unique in its need for a tax increase. In fact, it holds true to the overriding principle in every other year: Government always wants more money from taxpayers.

We did not raise taxes in Hennepin County because the economy is terrible and we didn’t raise taxes because the sinister Tim Pawlenty cut GAMC - we raised taxes because we love to spend taxpayers’ money. Period.

Bottom line for me, the economy IS bad and people are struggling, but it’s not just those who receive government benefits who are struggling; the folks who pay for those government benefits are struggling, too. And if there ever was year in which we could break from the norm and not ask for more from our constituents, 2010 would seem to me to be such a year.

FOCUS!  That’s a frequent directive I give to my two boys after school. They are charged with getting their homework done before they’re allowed to play with friends. And it can be a struggle! “Dad, can I have the TV on while I’m doing my homework?” “How about if I just put it on mute?” “Can I at least listen to my iPod?” “Let me tell you about what happened at recess today.” My response always: “FOCUS! You can watch TV, listen to your iPod or tell me about recess later. Right now we need to get the homework done.”

I assume my sons are pretty typical young boys when it comes to this issue and that it will be a struggle for years to come, but sometimes I think my 8 and 11-year-old boys are much better able to focus than we are in Hennepin County government.

County government has many very important charges: Building and maintaining county roads, funding public safety, providing a safety net to the most vulnerable people in our county. Unfortunately, we often fail to focus on these important areas and go off on tangents, getting our government mitts into every imaginable corner of society.

We just voted on a great example of this last week: We have accepted a grant from a national organization creating a county program to help grocery stores, hotels and restaurants in Hennepin County identify and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But I digress, this post is dedicated to a more peculiar example (and, in fact, the example that convinced me to create this blog earlier in 2009):  Hennepin County is leading a five-year program to assess the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables within the county and, assuming we find a lack of adequate availability, then to somehow fix that problem.

The program is mostly funded by a grant from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, but there will be some county expense and certainly some amount of distraction to employees. More importantly, regardless of the source of funding, this is not something county government needs to take on. We need to focus on what is most important and, once in a awhile, say “no” to those who want us to do other things.  It’s called “mission creep” and Hennepin County has it bad.

In a nutshell, here’s the program: The county will lead a group of “stakeholders” during the next year to assess whether fresh fruits and vegetables are readily available to all Hennepin County residents.  If we find a lack of availability (and we will, as I was told by another commissioner that HennCo did this same study a few years ago and found produce availability lacking for some), then we will take the next four years to come up with a plan to remediate the situation and implement that plan.

The original description we received of this 5-year fruit and vegetable program included some of the following goals:

“Assemble a group of key stakeholders for the purpose of developing a clearly defined vision of, and goals for, creating environmental and policy change in the target food environment. The target food environment are those components of the food system in Hennepin County that influence access to fresh fruits and vegetables. Examples include: farmer’s markets, grocery stores, etc.”

“Conduct a food environment assessment of the target food environment for the purpose of identifying potential levers for change. This food environment assessment will systematically examine the range of community food issues and assets so as to inform decisions about future action.”

“Develop a comprehensive implementation work plan with the overarching goal of increasing access and availability of healthy foods in the target food environment through policy and environmental change strategies.”

After some criticism about the silliness of the above language, it was changed somewhat, but the proposal remained the same and eventually passed on a 4-2 Board vote (with Commissioner Randy Johnson joining me in voting “no” and one commissioner absent).

By the way, once we find that there are some in Hennepin County who don’t have adequate access to fresh produce - a group referred to as the “food vulnerable” in the proposal - what do you suppose the remediation will be?  I will not be surprised to see government subsidies to certain grocery stores or farmers’ markets or maybe a proposal for government-owned farmers’ markets.  Heck, the county already owns a golf course, pro baseball stadium, hospital and HMO.  Why not throw a farmers’ market or two into the mix?

I recognize that eating fruits and vegetables is important - and I make an effort to do so 3 or 4 times each day (even more if you count ketchup). I also recognize that there is a possible savings in government-subsidized healthcare if people eat less fast food and more produce. 

That does not mean, however, that government should take the lead on a 5-year program regarding fresh fruits and vegetables.  Government tends to get itself involved in every aspect of every corner of society, sometimes using the excuse that “someone else is paying for it”, whether it’s a different government entity (like federal stimulus money that falls from the sky) or an outside group (like Blue Cross).  Government does not need to do everything that anyone will give us money to do.

FOCUS!  Government needs to turn off the TV, put away the iPod and focus on providing essential services to the taxpaying public.  Let’s leave the 5-year fruit studies to someone else.

Today, we had a budget hearing during which commissioners were allowed to propose amendments to the budget the administration has presented to us. There were a couple of amendments to move or restore funding to certain programs that had been cut. I brought in one amendment: To cut our commissioner office budgets by 4% for 2010. It failed 1 - 6.

Each of the seven commissioners is allotted just under $330,000 to pay his or her own salary and benefits along with that of staff (most of us employ two full-time staff members). This money is also used for any other county-related purposes as deemed appropriate by the individual commissioner, e.g. travel, tuition reimbursement, seminar/convention fees, office supplies and furniture, publications, etc.  Most commissioners spend less than their allotted amount and return a small percentage back to the general fund at the end of the year.

In April of this year, the County Administrator requested every department within the county to submit a preliminary budget for 2010 that was 4% smaller than 2009. All departments did and that was the starting point for the current budget proposal. For whatever reason, our commissioner budgets were not cut in that budget proposal.

A 4% cut in a generous office budget is not much of a sacrifice, and I recognize that the $88,000 it would have saved the county taxpayers is miniscule in the grand scheme of a $1.6 billion budget. Nonetheless, it could have been a simple and important message to send county employees and taxpayers.

As I told my colleagues in presenting this amendment, I think as leaders, we should be willing to make a sacrifice similar to that we are asking our employees to make.  Unfortunately, no one agreed with me.

We’re in the midst of budget hearings and property tax discussions on the Hennepin County Board, so it’s been awhile since I last awarded a Golden Fire Hydrant, but I can’t pass this one up. The newest Hydrant goes to the Board’s decision to spend an extra $14 million to make the new Lowry Avenue Bridge in Minneapolis a “signature” bridge - meaning it will look much fancier than most other bridges in Minnesota.

A little background:

The Lowry Avenue Bridge was built in 1905 and spans the Mississippi at Lowry Avenue in North Minneapolis.  For over 100 years, the bridge carried motorists over the Mississippi almost uninterrupted until it was closed last year based upon the discovery that one of the bridge piers had shifted.

After that discovery, the county appropriately decided that the old bridge was no longer structurally safe and needed to be demolished and rebuilt.

In 2008, the Board was asked to approve one of two options for the new Lowry Avenue Bridge. One option, a “concrete box” design, would look much like most other bridges in the state of Minnesota. The other option, a “tied arch” design, was described as a “signature” bridge, one that would look quite beautiful and unique. Both bridges would be equally functional and safe.

The concrete box design was estimated to cost $66 million. The tied arch design was estimated to cost $84 million. That $18 million difference was later reduced to about a $14 million difference with some changes in the design.

After much discussion, the Board chose the more expensive design. I was not on the Board at the time, but I have reviewed the material provided to the commissioners at that meeting. The rationale for the staff recommendation of the “signature” design was all about aesthetics. In particular, it noted that a group of community leaders and neighborhood organizations from North Minneapolis had a strong preference for the signature design and had suggested that “the plain freeway style bridge” was “offensive” to them.

There was also mention in the material that the signature bridge would require fewer piers than the concrete box design and that would provide a benefit in making it less likely that a river barge would run into one of the piers (something that last happened in 1994). This pier rationale, however, was little more than an afterthought in the material, which focused primarily on the uniqueness and beauty of the signature design.

Last week, the Board essentially affirmed the signature bridge design in a 6 -1 vote. I was the “no” vote.

I have no qualms whatsoever with building a new Lowry Avenue Bridge. Road and bridge building is a core function of county government.

I do, however, have an issue with the decision to spend an extra $14 million to make the bridge “signature.”

Keep in mind, the concrete box alternative would not have been some travesty (and certainly not something that should have “offended” anyone). Rather, it simply would have been a safe and functional bridge that looked like most every other bridge in Minnesota.

At a time when the county is cutting programs, laying off employees, raising the property tax levy and planning a capital investment program that is exploding over the next five years, it seems a little crazy to be spending $14 million more than is necessary on a bridge.

But then again, it will look really cool.

An artist’s rendering of the new Lowry Avenue Bridge