COUNTY BOARD SIZE STUDY COMMITTE

COUNTY BOARD SIZE STUDY COMMITTEE

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Administrative Center – Room 3220

3:00 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Sharon Hampson, Donald Bina, Ray Ebert, Jim Ehrsam, Ralph Geary, Jason Gillett, Jerry Sebranek, Jai Johnson (arr @3:05/exc @4:05), and Andrea Richmond (arr @3:11)

MEMBERS EXCUSED: Jacie Gamroth

MEMBERS ABSENT: Patrick Schippers

OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Doyle, Steve O’Malley, Gary Ingvalson, and Jeff Bluske

CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Committee Chair Hampson called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.

APPROVE MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 2006

MOTION by Ehrsam/Gillett to approve minutes of August 14, 2006. Motion carried unanimously; Gamroth excused; Johnson, Richmond and Schippers absent.

RECAP OF WHAT OTHER WISCONSIN COUNTIES HAVE DONE WITH REDUCTION IN SIZE

Information was sent with the agenda. There were four referendums in November: Fond du Lac 21 to 19, Price 21 to 13, Waushara 21 to 11, and Wood 38 to 19. Previously downsized Boards were Green Lake 21 to 19, Waukesha 35 to 25, Winnebago 38 to 36, and Marinette 30 to 27 which was rescinded due to illegal equality of district size. Clark wanted to downsize from 19 to 14 but that failed. On the upcoming April ballot will be referendums for Douglas 28 to 7 and Jackson 19 to 11. Price passed a resolution requesting rescinding of Wisconsin Act 100 and Jefferson has decided to will wait until the next census (2010).

Also shared with the committee was an email addressed to Steve Doyle from Jerry Huber; Jerry had made a presentation at a Wood County Board meeting. He noted prior to his presentation, it took 5 hours for the Board to go through many pages of minutiae, claims, etc. Jerry commended La Crosse County’s committee structure and Board meeting process.

PRESENTATION ON NUMBERS OF EQUALITY OF DISTRICTS UNDER VARIOUS BOARD SIZES

Jeff Bluske distributed a handout relating to reapportionment options as compared to 2001 population of 107,120. A census block is the lowest common denominator with the population in it; that information comes from the US Census Bureau; and census blocks cannot be split. Wards are created by cities and villages. In 2001, the range that was considered started at 20 supervisory districts and went up to 47; 31 was the ideal number and the number chosen by the County Board was 35. In using 2001 census figures, Jeff prepared district apportionments for 5 thru 19; 5 did not meet the 10% rule, but as the numbers went higher there was less deviation. The #1 rule is plus or minus 10% absolute/deviation, rule #2 is try to follow municipal lines, and rule #3 is cannot split wards. The City of La Crosse has requested to be co-terminus, meaning all supervisors are from the City; noted that the city has legal precedence; they set their wards and the County cannot change them, but could have 1 supervisor representing 1, 2 or more wards depending on what number of supervisory districts the County wants. Discussion on legal authority. Noted that a chosen apportionment number that is not as close or equal to 0%, can be litigated. Chairman Doyle said the only thing that can be done today is look at a range; the census numbers will change for 2010.

DISCUSSION ON WCA SESSION ON REDUCING SIZE AND REFLECTIONS ON EXPERIENCE OF OTHER COUNTIES

Noted the new Wisconsin Act 100 gave leeway to the citizens for making change, but did not consider the requirements for creating districts. Noted that in discussions with peer group, most supervisors disagree with the new law.

POSSIBLE NUMBERS TO LOOK AT FOR 2010 – PROS AND CONS

Some comments as follows:

Supervisor Ebert is against full-time, professional County Board members and not be in favor of any number below 11; he prefers mid 20’s.
Supervisor Bina noted he received input from his constituents; farmers are concerned with smaller number due to lack of representation on their behalf; Bina said 30-31 might be OK.
Supervisor Geary said the numbers will pick themselves; it may depend on city co-terminus.
Supervisor Richmond agreed with Ralph and added that around 20 might be workable.

Bill Shepherd noted since last reapportionment (2001) and at the City request, the County passed two resolutions that amended two supervisory districts because of annexations. He noted past practice has been, once the city has created their wards, this is what the County has used. Chairman Doyle said he likes the idea of efficiency and trying to work with the city, but it could be 1 to 1, 2 to 1, or 1½ to 1. The County should consider what size it wants in terms of small (less than 20), medium (20-30), or large (30+); and whatever number is chosen, it may affect committee structure and policy. It was also pointed out that villages are also annexing.

IDENTIFY ISSUES RE COMMITTEE STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Chairman Doyle asked Gary Ingvalson and Bill Shepherd if they know of any impacts, as such committee size or board role, if went to medium size board. Gary did not know of any impact. Bill said numbers on committees may have to be reduced; he also noted using the Committee of the Whole/Board Planning Sessions has also helped. Steve O. said he always leans toward having discussions with the full County Board vs. committee level; current process is duplication; need to consider how much authority should be delegated to committees and what big issues the full board should give direction on; he also noted that not all committees operate the same - relating to expectations, direction, advocacy, level of interest, etc. There was a suggestion to review committee structure, duties, etc., at the next County Board Retreat.

DISCUSSION ON CHANGES TO PROCEDURES, POLICIES AND ORDINANCES

General agreement to keep working on possible changes. Supervisor Ehrsam suggested that any questions that arise prior to County Board meetings, to call the appropriate department head or whomever to get the answers; not all questions have to be asked at the County Board meeting.

TOPICS FOR NEXT MEETING and

SET DATE AND TIME FOR NEXT MEETING

Chairperson Hampson asked what is the timeline to hold future meetings or is a subcommittee needed to work with the City. Supervisor Bina suggested a letter be sent to all municipalities asking for their suggestions and to include timeline information. General agreement to meet as needed. Chairman Doyle suggested the committee reconvene after the 2008 election.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION by Ebert/Ehrsam to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously; Schippers and Johnson excused. The meeting adjourned at 4:12 p.m.

Disclaimer: The above minutes may be approved, amended or corrected at the next committee meeting.

Cheryl Stephen, Recorder