Green County government's financial dilemma with the nursing home it operates isn't unique. Most county-owned homes in the state are struggling as Medicaid reimbursements fall well short of actual costs.
Unfortunately, the county has yet to prove it's done everything it can to cut expenses and increase revenues to ease the situation. Instead, it's asking taxpayers for permission to collect more property tax dollars to bridge the funding gap. In the meantime, it's made no attempt to give voters clear alternatives to higher taxes.
The wise but difficult vote for Green County residents to make in the Oct. 6 referendum would be "no" to higher taxes to fully fund Pleasant View Nursing Home.
This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of Green County government closing or selling the nursing home should the referendum fail. In fact, we believe county leaders have a moral obligation and professional duty to keep it open. Pleasant View provides county families an invaluable service that only will grow in importance as Baby Boomers age.
However, we believe Green County government can continue to operate Pleasant View without asking cash-strapped taxpayers for more money - even if it is a relatively small amount (about $50 annually for the owner of a $150,000 property.) We'd prefer the Green County Board be forced to more efficiently operate the nursing home, and make the overall budget cuts necessary to make up the difference in funding for the nursing home - which amounts to roughly $1 million annually. The county's annual budget is about $50 million.
Pleasant View Administrator Terry Nelson, who has been on board for only a few months, has indicated some measures she thinks can be taken to cut costs and raise revenue at the nursing home. There's no reason to delay any of those efforts.
But those efficiencies won't cover the full funding gap. That would have to be accomplished through budget cuts.
When the County Board voted in August to have the referendum, we urged supervisors to determine what kind of cuts would be necessary to give voters a point of reference. The board has made no such effort, so the public has no way of knowing how easy or difficult trimming the budget would be. We suspect that if potential budget cuts were dire, they'd be presented as evidence of the need for a referendum.
Obviously, a vote against the referendum presents a risk that the county would close or sell Pleasant View. It wasn't until after the decision to have a referendum that any county official publicly stated the possibility of closing the home. Supervisors should remain true to the case that was made before that decision - that closing or selling the nursing home isn't an option. Voters should hold accountable any board member that proposes or votes to shut down Pleasant View.
But without evidence of fiscal responsibility from the county, or knowledge of what the consequences of a "no" vote actually would be, voters should reject the county's request for additional tax dollars.
Unfortunately, the county has yet to prove it's done everything it can to cut expenses and increase revenues to ease the situation. Instead, it's asking taxpayers for permission to collect more property tax dollars to bridge the funding gap. In the meantime, it's made no attempt to give voters clear alternatives to higher taxes.
The wise but difficult vote for Green County residents to make in the Oct. 6 referendum would be "no" to higher taxes to fully fund Pleasant View Nursing Home.
This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of Green County government closing or selling the nursing home should the referendum fail. In fact, we believe county leaders have a moral obligation and professional duty to keep it open. Pleasant View provides county families an invaluable service that only will grow in importance as Baby Boomers age.
However, we believe Green County government can continue to operate Pleasant View without asking cash-strapped taxpayers for more money - even if it is a relatively small amount (about $50 annually for the owner of a $150,000 property.) We'd prefer the Green County Board be forced to more efficiently operate the nursing home, and make the overall budget cuts necessary to make up the difference in funding for the nursing home - which amounts to roughly $1 million annually. The county's annual budget is about $50 million.
Pleasant View Administrator Terry Nelson, who has been on board for only a few months, has indicated some measures she thinks can be taken to cut costs and raise revenue at the nursing home. There's no reason to delay any of those efforts.
But those efficiencies won't cover the full funding gap. That would have to be accomplished through budget cuts.
When the County Board voted in August to have the referendum, we urged supervisors to determine what kind of cuts would be necessary to give voters a point of reference. The board has made no such effort, so the public has no way of knowing how easy or difficult trimming the budget would be. We suspect that if potential budget cuts were dire, they'd be presented as evidence of the need for a referendum.
Obviously, a vote against the referendum presents a risk that the county would close or sell Pleasant View. It wasn't until after the decision to have a referendum that any county official publicly stated the possibility of closing the home. Supervisors should remain true to the case that was made before that decision - that closing or selling the nursing home isn't an option. Voters should hold accountable any board member that proposes or votes to shut down Pleasant View.
But without evidence of fiscal responsibility from the county, or knowledge of what the consequences of a "no" vote actually would be, voters should reject the county's request for additional tax dollars.
