LWV observer – Georgiana Campbell
The most recent meeting of the County Commissioners was characterized by lengthy and intense discussion regarding 1) Planning and Zoning issues and 2) a resolution which would deny county funding for the salaries of State Public Defenders. Also on the agenda were proposals by the cities of Faribault and Lonsdale for Tax Increment Housing Districts. These TIF proposals were favored by the Commissioners since they would bring more business and provide more jobs. Faribault MRG Tool would be the company involved. In contrast, Lonsdale plans that the new TIF District would include senior housing, public amenities including a public library, meeting rooms, walking paths and gardens. In the Commissioners’ discussion of these projects the Commissioners seemed to approve both. No formal approval vote was taken.
The Commissioners’ discussion on funding for state public defenders prompted the attendance of local judges Bill Johnson and Bernard Borene. They came, not to criticize those who support the resolution to deny funding but to explain why we are at this point and what action the county could take. The judges emphasized that they did not come to criticize but to give background information on the issue. As was explained, it is a difficult issue. The State of Minnesota’s financial problems has led it to stop their funding of the attorneys, but the County also has financial problems and very much resents these unfunded mandates the state so often sends down. Yet it is important to provide attorneys (good people for troubled families) for parents involved in termination of parental rights cases and in child neglect cases. There is also the disturbing fact that the state’s announcement of their decision to discontinue funding the public defenders had come very recently and unexpectedly.
The Commissioners have yet to decide how they will handle this issue. Some made the point that if we do not act to provide help now, because the cost is too great, the county will find that it must pay even more in the future as it deals with troubled individuals. The other point of view is that the county will not pay this request because it is the state who should take care of it; the county cannot afford to do so.