Green County government should not ask taxpayers for more money. We said that in January, and again five months ago during the prolonged discussion about how to fund the county-owned Pleasant View Nursing Home.
The Green County Board of Supervisors' Finance and Accounting Committee today will finalize wording for a proposed referendum seeking additional property taxes to pay for the nursing home. The board will vote on the committee's recommendation Aug. 25. A referendum would occur quickly, on Oct. 6.
The need to find additional funding for the nursing home is evident, and it's not the county's fault. Federal money for Medicaid reimbursements is sent to states to distribute to nursing homes. The cash-strapped state government has decided not to send all of that money to nursing homes, instead using some of it for other purposes to balance budgets. The end result for Green County is that it operated Pleasant View at a $900,000 deficit in 2008. A significant deficit will be incurred in 2009, as well.
The county has discussed various approaches to bridging the Pleasant View funding gap. It thankfully abandoned an idea to have an advisory referendum to gauge voter interest in an actual referendum. And, not surprisingly, talk of legislation requiring the state to stop siphoning Medicaid funds never resulted in anything.
So that's left the county with three options - get out of the nursing home business, ask the public for more money or commit to filling the funding gap by making cuts elsewhere in the county budget.
There never has been serious discussion about no longer operating Pleasant View. If it did, the county still would be required by the state to find housing for some of the residents. Supervisor Harvey Mandel told the board Tuesday that "70 percent of the people there (at Pleasant View) are our responsibility."
The county appears committed to making budget cuts in other areas to bridge the Pleasant View funding gap if necessary. But first the board will decide whether to ask for additional tax dollars - estimates presented thus far have been for asking for either an additional $500,000 or $1 million a year.
A referendum isn't a completely undesirable approach. It at least allows voters an opportunity to decide whether they want to spend more to foot the Pleasant View bill.
But given the state of the local economy, we'd rather the county decide to bite the bullet and make do with what it has. We'd prefer the county find ways to cut its budget to come up with the funds.
That would be difficult, certainly. Some of the cuts might cost jobs or county services. But as we said in March, the easy solution, one government relies on far too often, is simply to collect more tax revenues. We elect county officials to make the tough decisions rather than take the easy way out at taxpayers' expense.
We'd like to the see the board decide against a referendum, and determine to find the money for the Pleasant View funding gap elsewhere in its budget.
The Green County Board of Supervisors' Finance and Accounting Committee today will finalize wording for a proposed referendum seeking additional property taxes to pay for the nursing home. The board will vote on the committee's recommendation Aug. 25. A referendum would occur quickly, on Oct. 6.
The need to find additional funding for the nursing home is evident, and it's not the county's fault. Federal money for Medicaid reimbursements is sent to states to distribute to nursing homes. The cash-strapped state government has decided not to send all of that money to nursing homes, instead using some of it for other purposes to balance budgets. The end result for Green County is that it operated Pleasant View at a $900,000 deficit in 2008. A significant deficit will be incurred in 2009, as well.
The county has discussed various approaches to bridging the Pleasant View funding gap. It thankfully abandoned an idea to have an advisory referendum to gauge voter interest in an actual referendum. And, not surprisingly, talk of legislation requiring the state to stop siphoning Medicaid funds never resulted in anything.
So that's left the county with three options - get out of the nursing home business, ask the public for more money or commit to filling the funding gap by making cuts elsewhere in the county budget.
There never has been serious discussion about no longer operating Pleasant View. If it did, the county still would be required by the state to find housing for some of the residents. Supervisor Harvey Mandel told the board Tuesday that "70 percent of the people there (at Pleasant View) are our responsibility."
The county appears committed to making budget cuts in other areas to bridge the Pleasant View funding gap if necessary. But first the board will decide whether to ask for additional tax dollars - estimates presented thus far have been for asking for either an additional $500,000 or $1 million a year.
A referendum isn't a completely undesirable approach. It at least allows voters an opportunity to decide whether they want to spend more to foot the Pleasant View bill.
But given the state of the local economy, we'd rather the county decide to bite the bullet and make do with what it has. We'd prefer the county find ways to cut its budget to come up with the funds.
That would be difficult, certainly. Some of the cuts might cost jobs or county services. But as we said in March, the easy solution, one government relies on far too often, is simply to collect more tax revenues. We elect county officials to make the tough decisions rather than take the easy way out at taxpayers' expense.
We'd like to the see the board decide against a referendum, and determine to find the money for the Pleasant View funding gap elsewhere in its budget.
