Quick Links
La Crosse County Site
Monthly Board Report
Board Agendas/Minutes
Board of Supervisors
Sustainability Site
|
Welcome To the Latest Issue of eNews!
February 4, 2010 vol 1 issue 3 Welcome to La Crosse County’s eNews. Our purpose is to keep the people of La Crosse County better informed about your County government. County government has not always been as visible as some other levels of government. So we’ll provide eNews you can use like upcoming dates for public hearings, health clinics and reminders about deadlines for dog licenses and ordinance changes. We’ll provide detailed information about our budget, highlights of innovations and achievements and updates about critical issues facing the County, like how certain actions of the State & Federal governments will affect County services and County property taxpayers. We also want the people of our County to have a chance to learn more about the inner workings of County government by providing access to the Monthly Report to the County Board. On an alternating basis, roughly half the departments report each month on the most compelling statistics, activities and challenges confronting our staff working to provide the best in public service. Link to Monthly Reports. We hope you find La Crosse County eNews helpful and informative. If you have any suggestions how to make it better, please let us know using our email links at the bottom. eNews You Can Use!
6:00 p.m. Monday, February 8, 2010
County Board Planning meeting on "Challenging Trends in La Crosse County" Invited Guests: La Crosse City Council and La Crosse School Board County Board Room, 400 4th St. North, La Crosse County Administrative Center Empire Builder - River Route Via La Crosse Most Viable for High Speed Rail La Crosse County has been a strong supporter of enhancing passenger rail service via the Empire Builder – River Route for more frequent trains and High Speed Rail at 110 mph service. With the recent announcement of HSR funding to connect Chicago to Madison, funding is included to study alternative routes for service to the Twin Cities. The two primary alternatives are the existing Amtrak route through La Crosse and an Eau Claire route upgrading existing freight rail lines. There should be no disagreement that both routes are important to building a viable system of interconnected passenger rail service over time. However with limited funds, the system must be established in phases and the data will show that the routes are not equally cost effective. The River Route through La Crosse expands on the assets of Amtrak passenger rail service where demand already exceeds capacity and operates with the double track essential to maintain both freight & passenger rail service. An Eau Claire route will be more costly, needing more right-of-way to accommodate both passenger and freight rail, while also pushing the majority of the 20% State share to Wisconsin, instead of sharing the capital cost more equally with Minnesota. And according to Governor Doyle this week, Minnesota could be a major factor in deciding whether a high-speed rail route between Chicago and the Twin Cities goes through La Crosse or Eau Claire. From an economic point of view, Doyle added, “we’re better off having it to go through La Crosse and up the Minnesota side, because then Minnesota is paying the operating costs of the whole trip from La Crosse up to the Twin Cities.” Selecting an Eau Claire route could undermine existing passenger rail demand if the route were to be in addition to, or instead of the River Route. The recently completed MN Rail Plan @ http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/railplan/, recognizes that passenger rail must be viewed as an interconnected system, built over time. The MN plan indicates clear demand for commuter rail from Eau Claire to St. Paul Union Depot with multiple stops and relatively low implementation & operating costs to attain 79 mph speeds. Commuter rail along the I-94 corridor would respond to the needs of more communities along the route, with more frequent stops than HSR, while beginning the eventual extension / upgrade of rail across the state to Green Bay and someday south to Madison. The La Crosse County Board unanimously adopted a resolution urging all Western Wisconsin communities to support the River Route. And, at the same time, work to expand passenger rail to the Chippewa Valley as part of an overall system, beginning along the I-94 corridor to meet the highest need, and linking to HSR for service to Chicago at the St. Paul Union depot. Assembly Set to Consider Revision to State Public Defender (SPD) Representation Standards At a press conference held this week, Steve Doyle, La Crosse County Board Chair said: “Counties can’t afford to continue to pay for what should be a State cost: representation of indigent defendants in criminal proceedings. We’re asking the Assembly to follow the Senate and stop the shifting of State costs to County property taxpayers.” Representative Shilling also attended and addressed the press conference and County officials who were present. She indicated that the Assembly is expected to take up the bill in the next two weeks and that she strongly supports the bill. Doyle stated: “After over 23 years, The Wisconsin State Senate has taken the responsible course and passed the bill (SB 263) on a 21-12 vote and Counties all across this State need the Assembly to act on the companion bill (AB 395) as soon as possible.” These bills tie qualification standards for SPD representation to W-2 eligibility. La Crosse County’s costs have grown dramatically in the past several years. Our cost for criminal defense representation in 2009 was $420,000. That’s an increase of 89% over the past 6 years, while property taxes are held to a 3% cap. This is the fastest rising cost in the County Courts budget, shifting State costs to Counties. The Assembly must take action; Counties simply can’t afford this anymore. Courts have determined that defendants who are indigent and do not qualify for a Public Defender are still entitled to representation. However, when judges appoint attorneys in those cases, it is a private attorney who gets the case and the bill must be paid for by the County. The County has no role in selecting the attorney, nor any ability to refuse payment. Addressing this inequity does not mean that more defendants will receive attorneys, it simply ensures that the State meet its responsibility. The SPD is able to provide more efficient and cost effective representation than counties hiring private attorneys by the hour or by the case, because salaried employees are able to handle a higher number of cases and specialize in this area of criminal law. The State’s failure to address this issue has meant that millions of County property tax dollars have paid for defendant representation in the State Court system. Counties statewide reported spending over $7 million on indigent defense just in the last year alone, while this proposal is estimated to cost the State approximately $4 million. Either way, taxpayers pay the cost. It is the County’s belief that it is fiscally irresponsible for the State not to pick up this expense and save millions of taxpayer dollars. We are asking the Assembly to give this bill swift action and we request the Governor to give it his immediate approval.
|
