candidate questionaire: Latah Comm., district 3

[bill london <london@moscow.com>]

Latah County Commissioner dist. 3:
Sam Duncan (D), Jack Nelson (R)

A Moscow Vision 2020 committee composed these questions and collected
the following answers from the candidates.


Questions developed by Moscow Vision2020 committee

1. What are the most significant issues facing the commissioners in both
the short and long term?

2. Was the $100,000 allocated by Latah County to the future Latah Trail
(to be built from Moscow to Troy) well spent?

3. How should Latah County Government be organized?

4. Should the Commissioners seek input via more citizen committees?

5. Should Latah County have its own landfill?

6. How would you use electronic communications through websites and
e-mail to keep in effective contact with your
constituents?


Responses by Sam Duncan (D): 3rd district, Latah County Commissioner

1. What are the most significant issues facing the commissioners in both
the short and long term?

First, it depends on whom you talk to. Everybody has a pet peeve or
special project that should receive special attention and
they are right. It is just economics that keep us from being able to
accomplish them all. Don't be fooled by people that say
"these are the issues" or the issues are such and such. They are only
issues for some people but maybe not the rest of us. Your
issues are just as worthy as the next persons and deserve to be heard.
Nearly everyday some issue comes up that we had not
even remotely considered. I like a thought that was sent to me the other
day. It is truly unfortunate that we sometimes make
what some people regard as the wrong decision but if we make the right
decision it would set a an unheard of precedent and
therefore we should not make any decisions at all. I encourage you to
air your issues for all to hear and contemplate.

Long term

Solid waste is probably at the top Courthouse expansion must be
addressed. As the population grows the demands and
workload increase which in turn dictates an increase in personnel, space
and technology. Of course it is not a problem until you
can not get your business completed in a timely manner. When the problem
is made personal it becomes clear. We tend to be
immune unless directly affected. Currently, the motor vehicles and
licensing are located away from the courthouse. With
continued crowding more offices will have to be relocated which is more
costly in the long run but, does not require that a bond
to be passed. The budget (read taxes) is increased to pay rents. Not
only will it cost more in taxes to rent than pass a bond to
build but, it will be much more inconvenient to have to run all over
town from office to office to get things done. Centralized is
much more convenient. Infrastructure problems are also a real problem.
Things built in the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's etc. are
now starting to show the signs of wear and deterioration. Roads,
buildings, schools, are beginning to crumble around us. The
problem is it cost mega dollars more today to fix them or replace them
than it did originally. Inflationary pressures are very real;
the current 3% cap on tax increases will ultimately prevent the
restoration and or repair of the existing infrastructure. We will all
be far better off petitioning the legislature to remove the cap than we
will to have local option taxes imposed. The longer we
wait the more it cost. Maybe it is not our problem, let the kids fix
them when they grow up. Already we are seeing the smaller
communities unable to raise enough money to provide fire protection,
schools, emergency services, street repairs. We are not
as visionary as we might pretend to be. Soil, water, and air quality
problems need to be constantly in front of us. We must all
beware of the ever-whitening fields around us as we lose tons and tons
of topsoil each and every year. It affects us all. Health
issues will need to be addressed. Dust and smoke control will have to be
put in place. Crime, with the push to grow the
population comes the crime problem. More than one capital case would
completely bankrupt the county.

Short term

Short-term issues are the same as other businesses. Wages, technology,
healthcare benefits, employee retention and education.
Workforce development. Purchasing references, transportation and fuel
costs to mention a few.

2. Was the $100,000 allocated by Latah County to the future Latah Trail
(to be built from Moscow to Troy) well
spent?

Sam Duncan (D): 3rd district, Latah County Commissioner

The $100,000 has not yet been spent. The present board by unanimous
decision pledged the $100,000 as a cash match to the
Idaho Transportation Department as our (Latah Counties) cash match for
ITD's grant of $499,000. So far the Latah Trail
Foundation has raised about $37,000 of the $100,000 and continues to
solicit donations for the trail. This year's budget was
increased to $129,000 for the trail in order to move the project along.
I am confident that the Trail Foundation will be able to
raise the majority of the funds for this very worthwhile project. Will
the funds turn out to be well spent? Absolutely.

We (the people of Latah County) are doing our best to communicate with
the elected officials that we want urban sprawl
curtailed. We want more open space and the cultural and historical sites
preserved and protected. Conversion of the old
rail-beds to family trails and parkways is one way to accomplish this
throughout the county. A real upside, is that experience
from other communities throughout the United States that have
successfully converted to trails. One, the property values of
properties that are located near the trails have appreciated anywhere
from 6% to 8% in value and I am sure you can count on
our real estate agents to do their part in helping land owners to
realize these increased values. Second, the opportunity for
business associated with the trails awaits the entrepreneurial spirit.
Shuttle buses, skate rentals, bike rentals are a few of the
possibilities. Over and above the endless possibilities for economic
development is the opportunity for good old-fashioned
family fun.

This trail will be a walking/biking/roller blading/hiking bonanza for
the citizens of Latah County. Just the sheer enjoyment of
getting out in the fresh air to enjoy the sights and sounds of nature
will be worth the cost. The opportunity to share nature with
the children is itself worth the cost. The innumerable benefits to many
of us as we use exercise to control our high blood
pressure or diabetes or return to cardiovascular health is also worth
the cost. The health preventative aspects alone in medical
savings could be calculated to run in the millions of dollars which
represents a good return on the investment for those that want
to "run it like a business." The good news is that other rail-beds may
become available in the near future.

A related topic is the preservation of culturally sensitive and
historical places in the county. Most of us understand and
appreciate the need to continue to maintain and assure that future
generations have open spaces devoid of development. Areas
such as Idlers Rest or the cedar grove on Moscow Mountain now entrusted
to the nature conservancy could come under the
umbrella of the countys' protection and access if we so desire. The
legislation passed in the last session allows for the Counties
to purchase open spaces with a 2/3s majority vote of the voters. This
could be a very effective way for us to contain urban
sprawl and preserve the rural character we all claim is so important to
us.

Only the people can designate the areas to be purchased and protected.
It boils down to put our "money where our mouth is."
We can talk about it or we can do it. The transfer of development rights
has also been given its blessing by State legislation. We
need to say where we want development to occur and where we don't want
development to take place. Landowners wanting
to sell development rights can retain the land and the right to develop
is sold to a developer for high-density development
somewhere else, thus preserving the rural quality of the county. It's a
bit more problematic to initiate and must be initiated by
concerned individuals but it can be done and Pennsylvania has certainly
worked out the fine details and has been quite
successful in implementing programs.

3. How should Latah County Government be organized?

Sam Duncan (D): 3rd district, Latah County Commissioner

The present organization of the Government works very well. I don't
think change for change sake would accomplish much.
One helpful change might be to pretend that the positions of
commissioners is non-partisan, which we know from experience no
such position ever was, is or will be but, it sounds good.

A. Should the commissioner's position be full time with an appropriate
raise in pay?

Sam Duncan (D): 3rd district, Latah County Commissioner

At first blush this would be in our best interests. There are so many
worthwhile projects that a commissioner could pursue if the
job was full time. We can not force long range vision or even enthusiasm
for that matter. The real problem is that we could
again elect commissioners, as in the past that have no agenda and are
quite content to just collect the check and go home. We
always have some candidate that proclaims "I have no agenda." Now, why
would we want that? We have already experienced
what no agenda gets us.

We need leaders; people that can think out of the box, people that have
a commitment to excellence. We don't need 2-year
fixes; we need hundred year solutions. We need people working for
people, not people playing politics. We need leaders
capable of analyzing proposals based on what good, for which people at
what cost, NOT on which crony would like to see
something implemented or is this going to be politically popular. We
need critical thinkers not people that wet their finger for
every decision. We don't need rhetoric we need leaders. We know from
experience that we can't make the commissioners
work for us. They either do it as a sense of duty in the public interest
or just sit around and play big shot and pretend they can
unilaterally make things happen. We severely limit our candidate pool of
qualified and committed individuals by having a part
time position.

Most people can not afford to work only part-time. In some instances a
person may have a forward thinking employer that
gives the individual time away from his/her duties at work to serve the
public but this employer is extremely rare. There is a
solution to the dilemma. Other duties could be added to the current job,
but it takes a vote of the people of the various taxing
districts to turn these functions over to the commissioners. Most other
counties have the cemetery, fire and road districts under
the commissioners. As it is now there are 44 taxing districts in the
county. Ask your self, these questions; 1) who is your fire
commissioner? How many are there in your district? When and how are they
elected? 2) Who is your road commissioner?
How many of them are there? When and how are they elected? 3) Who are
the members of the cemetery district? Who are
they? When and how are they elected?

Most people are not aware that these positions even exist, let alone who
is responsible to solve their problems. They call the
County Commissioners for results only to be quite disgruntled to find
that the Commissioners in Latah County can not help
them with these problems. Unless, the people are willing to assign more
tasks to the commissioners and create a point of
contact that is accessible to them the commissioner job should continue
to be part time. They should just pay the bills and go
home because we can not force them to work for us.

B. Should the number of commissioners be increased?

Sam Duncan (D): 3rd district, Latah County Commissioner

It would be more effective to change the political nature of the
position rather the number of positions if a change were to be
put in place.

Presently, the system works well. It would of course be boring if we
made it non-partisan. Imagine what would the press have
to report if there was no way to make non-unanimous decisions a matter
of party politics rather than genuine disagreements on
the merits of a particular issue.

From a budgetary point of view it would be another fifty something
thousand dollars for two more part-time commissioners and
$100,000 for full timers. In terms of process the ability to get things
done expediently would be severely hampered.

C. Should a county manager be hired?

Sam Duncan (D): 3rd district, Latah County Commissioner

No, definitely not. A manager would remove the electorate from control.
Under the present system we can vote out
non-responsive officials. A county manager would be protected as are
most bureaucrats once embedded in the system. One
just has to look at the cities that have managers to see that the
councils are powerless to implement. They can discuss all they
want, but the manager determines if it actually gets done or not and
neither the council nor the people have the power to shape
things, as they would have them to be. On-the-other-hand it does afford
a nice shield for those that are prone to finger-wetting
and party-line rhetoric.

D. Should the number of elected county officials be changed?

Sam Duncan (D): 3rd district, Latah County Commissioner

No, again the electorate and not cronies control the present system. If
you don't like the Sheriff elect a new one, the same goes
for the Auditor, Assessor, Coroner, and Treasurer. With appointed
positions you also lose some budgetary control, which
means increased taxes because you will be in the position of having to
negotiate salaries. Under the present system you know
the pay when you decide to run or not.

4. Should the Commissioners seek input via more citizen committees?

Sam Duncan (D): 3rd district, Latah County Commissioner

Citizen input is always welcome. We rarely get input from citizens
before a decision is rendered. After the decision is rendered
then the people come forward, albeit not in droves, but of course in
this position (commissioner) you don't stand a chance a
making a correct decision. Some like it, others don't and the majority
just does not care. Consequently we only hear from the
negative crowd, the CAVE (Citizens against virtually everything) people
and the NIMBY's (Not in my back yard) group.
Commissioners are not likely to please these groups by any decision pro
or con.

Citizen committees have a problem in function. Committees appointed by
the commission to explore an issue are usually called
some kind of advisory committee. For example, the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee. State Law mandates that the
commissioners are the only ones that can encumber the county and
therefore the decisions on various issues are decided by the
commissioners. This is a very hard pill to swallow for advisory groups.
People that volunteer to serve on these committees
usually are genuinely concerned about the topic or have an axe-to-grind.
After about two meetings the group becomes
disgruntled with the notion of being advisory and wants to be
decision-makers, directive, and controlling. They soon begin to
feel they should have somehow been empowered to lead. The good news is
this confirms that you have selected good people
to examine the issue.

However, these committees are never the sole source of information being
input to the commissioners, theirs is but one more
piece of information (advice) to consider. Should the commissioners take
an action not the same as the "advice" imposed by the
collective wisdom of this one body then of course the commissioners did
or did not listen.

The mistake is in calling them advisory committees, they should be
designated as information committees in order that the role
of information-gatherer is more easily adhered to and accepted.
Individual input to me is always more valued than special
interest group input yet, is also the hardest to get.

To what extent should Latah County co-operate with the City of Moscow in
economic development, emergency
dispatch, solid waste disposal, and other areas?

Sam Duncan (D): 3rd district, Latah County Commissioner

All taxpayer-supported agencies ought to be required to cooperate and
maximize utility with minimal expenditures. Duplicate
facilities should not be tolerated by the taxpayers. The problem is that
each governmental body thinks they have been vested
with the sole decision and controlling authority. The sharing of
authority becomes a stumbling block. Usually when two agencies
try to get together one wants control while the other side pays. There
are many instances of the possibility to share resources
and avoid duplication between the School districts and the county, the
small cities and the county. Moscow and the county. The
Highway districts and the County could share some resources as well.

The question posed though is cooperation between Moscow and the County,
one wonders, at least I do, why Moscow, and
not Genessee, Troy, Potlatch, Bovill, Deary, Harvard or Helmer. In order
for meaningful cooperation to take place much
talking must be done. In order to talk there must be time allocated to
the process. The Board of County Commissioners is a
part time position with little time left after attending to the day to
day routine bill paying and county business. Time is a crucial
element.

Boards and councils only have one stock in trade: talking. Boards don't
build roads or bridges or buildings: they talk, they
provide direction and vision and for that process to occur there must be
time on everybody's schedule. The question though
specifies the cooperation between Moscow and the county.

One problem (it appears to me) is that the council can not realistically
act or effect any meaningful cooperation. While the
members of the city council may want to co-operate on various issues it
appears that they don't really have the power or means
to effect such cooperation.

Cooperation is controlled at the level of the city supervisor,
(referring to the position and not the person for this discussion) who
either acts to get something done, or lets it die on the vine by
outright veto or inaction. The concept of shared facilities is an
example of missed opportunities; the idea of cooperation extends to many
entities. The county needs a motor pool. The school
department needs a new bus garage tax payers could save money if the
city, school, road districts and county went together on
a facility. One facility with the equipment that all need rather than 3
or 4 shops and duplication of expensive equipment.

The problem is discussions never go forward because every entity wants
absolute control of operations, simple concepts can
be dragged on for years rather than just getting down to solutions. The
school board talks of floating a 20 million-dollar bond to
build a new school. It would seem to me the commissioners and city
council would be talking about the possibility of joint
operations in the large old school building, of course the school board
needs to be involved as well. Yes, the other entities (city
and county, your tax dollars) would probably have to purchase again the
building which of course is often the giant barrier to
cooperation since we as taxpayers have already bought the buildings
once.

The county has asked the city on several occasions if they would like to
share a 911-call router to more efficiently serve callers.
The county levies one-dollar a month per phone for 911 and the Sheriffs
Office is the designated emergency dispatch
coordinating center. However, the system is not as practical as it could
be due to the way calls are handled by GTE (Verizon
now). If the prefix is 882 the call is automatically routed to the
Moscow police even if it is a rural Latah county resident. Even
within the city the Phone Company does not distinguish the place where
the call is coming from. Until recently, (and we have to
pay additional dollars to the phone company), if you called 911 from the
fairgrounds or Robinson Park or the motor pool the
call was designated as the courthouse because they are county numbers,
less than helpful if you are dying and needing help at
the fairgrounds and the ambulance is headed for the courthouse.

Caller Identification and a new router will greatly enhance the process
and the county is moving ahead and welcomes the
cooperation of the city to enhance their operations as well. I fully
suspect that the county will go ahead and purchase the router
with the funds already collected and rather than share costs the city
will buy its own someday. Perceived political power, not
practicality.

Economic development (now this means different things to different
people). One concept one hears a lot is to try to encourage
clean industry, usually meaning no smoke, to the area. Electronics and
chips are often the dream businesses to attract because
they don't produce smoke. Nobody ever seems to be concerned with the
potentially devastating drain on the aquifer. Large
companies like Intel consume an inordinate amount of water. The dream of
course is a large company comes in and puts
everyone to work and we all live happily ever after. The reality is that
the company usually brings it own management and work
force with it. The town grows unbelievably fast and sprawls in all
directions and never again will it be a small desirable
community. Most of the rhetoric centers on enticing companies to locate
here that would pay a living wage, not just a minimum
wage. What a novel idea. Somebody else do it.

If the community business leaders really believe that's a real solution
to the problem they should set the example. Every existing
business in Latah County should as a matter of pride pay a living wage.
Happier workers are more productive workers and
better paid workers spend more money and more money creates more work
and a better quality of life for all. For all the
horrors stories that employers tell of increasing the minimum wage and
how jobs will be lost not once in all the times the
minimum wage has been increased has this come to past. We certainly
should be able to point to our own success in paying a
living wage before we go out an try to get somebody else to come in an
pay a living wage as a condition of locating here.

Rural communities may want some assistance in revitalizing their
economies. Most of our rural towns are now "bedroom"
communities. The people live there, send their children to school there,
demand fire and police protection, city hall services but
spend their money in Moscow where they work, not where they live.
Economic development councils need to be asking what
services and industries will you support and want in your communities.
It could be nobody is interested but I doubt it.

I would encourage people to look at solutions of revitalization that
does not increase the tax burden. Most people are not
aware that these Urban renewal and blighted areas projects are taxes
they are paying, they are led to believe that the private
sector is paying when in fact they are not. Taxing the people for
corporate betterment is not my idea of economic development.

5. Should Latah County have its own landfill?

Sam Duncan (D): 3rd district, Latah County Commissioner

Yes, Latah County should have a landfill. Solid Waste is an issue we
love to hate. Solid waste disposal is not an easy issue
politically but politics should not be involved. Like most truly major
environmental issues to effect global change we must first
act locally. State law contemplated that only the CAVE people and the
NIMBY's would be heard from regarding solid waste
issues and therefore does not require public input. The law does require
that the Commissioners address the issue and provide
for solid waste disposal for the respective counties. This Board has
gone ahead with the public process and guess what?

The current state of disposal is the result of inadequate time between
the closure of the old landfill and the time it would take to
create a new regulated landfill site. The county was in a non-negotiable
position and remains so to this day in our current
system. We glibly profess to seek regional solutions to many diverse
issues. We want a regional health care solution, we say we
want a regional fair housing solution, we strive for regional weed
control solutions and we want regional protection for the
aquifer and regional clean air and regional economic development. We are
always looking to a surrounding five county region
as being our local area. Solid waste is no less so. Every household, no
matter how small or recycle conscious generates lots of
garbage (putrifiable waste) and some recyclables. Nearly every household
generates some tires and at some time or other will
have old appliances and furniture to dispose of and nobody has presented
the solution, which would prevent the accumulation
of waste generated by each person.

We must act responsibly in dealing with a very real problem. "Not in my
back yard" is simply an irresponsible and unacceptable
position and solves nothing. It is irresponsible in the short term and
certainly is not a solution for the long term. We must enact
100-year solutions not 4,10,or 20-year solutions. Opponents chant the
current system works fine, they don't want to look at
the problem. Let's pretend every thing is ok.

Solid waste is big business, very big business. It disgusts us that some
one is making money on our garbage but we have no
way out under the present system. The City supervisor will tell you
there is no need to change the present system but always
seems to forget to say the County pays the City about Seven hundred
forty thousand ($740,000) dollars a year for this fine
system. Big business. How about the free use of the recycle center.
Every resident is charged a monthly fee and the small towns
pay about $35 a ton to process the recyclables, that does not fit the
definition of free.

Household hazardous waste disposal touted as free. How about the money
the county antes up for this, More importantly how
about the donated efforts of private companies like Latah Sanitation
Inc. We are even rude enough to expect it, rather than
praise and provide public kudos for a job well done. Regularly, someone
proclaims he would "run the county like a business."
Well here is the perfect opportunity. From business we hear the
government should not compete with the private sector, well
here is a perfect opportunity to meld the two.

A local landfill is a win-win for all of us. Under the plan being
evaluated now, the government (Latah County) will set the
policies, the amount and kinds of garbage that can be brought in and how
much the fees will be. The private sector, those who
haul our garbage will provide the revenues to build the landfill, NOT
TAXES dollars. The county owns the hole. He who owns
the hole is in control no matter what the contract says. The county
ought not to be with out a landfill site period. If for no other
reason other than never being in a position where we can't negotiate. If
the county never threw the first piece of trash in the pit
and owned the pit we would never be in a position of take it or leave it
again, and as we are now.

If you do not have a disposal site you are always forced to pay higher
and higher rates. Somehow renewable contracts with
built-in escalation contracts is not really good business. Opponents say
we do not have the expertise to run a landfill. I guess if
you live in Moscow you can not be an expert. Well lucky us we have
several experts to draw upon. Our solid waste
coordinator is one of the best in the business, lives out of state and
comes with years of industry experience and a
commendable track record. Our government regulators mostly all live out
of the Moscow area as well, we are surrounded by
experts. When you really bother to investigate where everybody works
almost everybody works for the Government,
(elementary school, junior high schools, highschools, colleges and
Universities, highway districts, city governments, county
government, state government, the federal government (mail, USDA, FDA,
forestry, department of lands, health departments
and the list goes on and on.)

Government is lot of really good people trying to get things done. These
people do not get up every morning and say, "well I
think I'll do a really lousy job today." Do you? "I wonder why these
people pay me I don't know what I'm doing anyway" is
probably not uttered by many of us either. All those people in
government ought to be more openly offended when somebody
has the audacity to criticize them as worthless and unknowledgeable in
the jobs they perform so well for us. We can certainly all
rest well knowing that the DEQ and other agencies will remain strict in
the requirements and inspections and assure us that
things will be as they should be to the best of our current knowledge.

It was we the people after-all that insisted that these controls and
agencies be put in place to protect us. Forward thinking
companies welcome the regulation as well because the better they comply
the smaller the liability will be. The costs of
development such as the initial site survey, the engineering, lining and
complying with all the regulations is to be funded by the
private sector not tax dollars. The opponents have yet to acknowledge
this very crucial fact.

Yes it will cost a lot of money. But, it is not public monies. Opponents
want to point out that the creation of a regional landfill
would be this large increase in truck traffic to the landfill. It is
estimated that 4 additional trucks a day will be coming in not
noticeable in light of the hundreds of trucks that pas through our area
daily. Funny, when the transfer station was being built
everybody bemoaned that the transfer station should not be built because
the truck traffic would increase and all those added
road miles would result in huge increases in traffic collisions and
death by the mere virtue of the increased number of miles
driven. Well it did not happen.

It is shameful that the exaggerations continue without rational thought.
The opponents want to protect beautiful Latah County as
though no other place is also beautiful. I have never traveled to any
area that was not just swelled with regional pride.
Geographic bigotry abounds. Nobody lives in a place that is not
beautiful and worthy of forever protection. The beauty of the
current proposal is; one, it is to be located where there is already a
landfill. It is in a site that is not visible and will not be
anymore visible than the current site. Further, it is large enough to
provide for us for about one hundred years. Assuming of
course that we can head off unwanted local expansion.

Should we become a fast growing area like Boise or Nampa or Cour D'Alene
we might not get the full one hundred years. We
should be able to guard against this though with a responsive Planning
commission and a responsive zoning commission. The
opponents point out that somebody and the County will make a profit,
while providing free and reduced cost disposal.

Hello, we are admonished to make a profit, to run the county "as a
business" in all endeavors except this one apparently. Then
it comes to profit. It is ok for restaurants to make a profit and we
hope they will (especially our favorite ones) so they will be
there when we want to go out. Hey, its ok to make a profit in groceries,
medicine, auto repair, business supplies, books,
laundry, gasoline, clothing, fishing supplies, hair styling, real
estate, trucking, logging, farming, but dare not make a profit in solid
waste. Whats up with that. Then someone begins to attack the haulers and
this family and that will profit so? They are also
putting up the investment.

It's pretty uncharacteristic in this community to see profit being
demonized, this in itself could be national news. The opponents
are not concerned that the City of Moscow itself will benefit from lower
disposal costs. In fact the city could pay the penalty for
early termination of their lease and still make megabucks using the
counties landfill saving their rate payers upward of 800
thousand dollars a year. In fact it is worrisome enough for Waste
Management to get on board with the opponents and try to
make a pitch about how much money and effort is required because they
stand to lose 877 thousand dollars a year. Waste
management built their facilities, NOT TAX dollars, Similarly Idaho
Waste Systems built the facility in Southern Idaho, and
NOT TAX dollars. The same as the proposal at the local level, just
different companies NOT TAX dollars.

6. How would you use electronic communications through websites and
e-mail to keep in effective contact with your
constituents?

Sam Duncan (D): 3rd district, Latah County Commissioner

Personally, I do not have the expertise to use WebPages. Once created it
would just sit and soon be out of date due to a lack
of attention. I have three e-mails 1) sduncan@latah.id.us at the county
court house for those who are more comfortable with
this address. 2) My work address is duncansam@wsu.edu for university
business and 3) sduncan@turbonet.com is my home
e-mail. I have a county office number 883-2271, or home 8827632 and work
is 509 335 5742 if you absolutely must reach
me at work. I also have a pager. I am connected, for those that wish to
communicate. If you can't get a hold of me you have
not really tried.

I welcome e-mail and will correspond as needed. I return phone calls and
in fact prefer the phone. Occasionally I post a
comment on Vision2020, usually when the Daily News has tried to create a
controversy where none exists. The problem with
electronic communications though is that not everyone is on line or
wants to be. I am generally reluctant to post daily to
vision2020 because I have a sense that most do not really want the list
bombarded by everyday stuff. I certainly would post the
daily goings on of the commission if I thought there was an interest. As
it is the commissioner's office posts the agenda and the
proceedings weekly. Probably issue specific postings are more
appropriate.

If you want to contact me for any reason feel free to do so. I can not
imagine a topic that I would not discuss with anyone. I
have no sacred cows and everything is grist for the mill. I have always
been concerned about the need to provide accessibility
to the commission proceedings for the smaller more rural communities. In
fact I championed evening meetings so all could
attend. This turns out to be largely unworkable. County employees work 8
to 5 like everyone else. To have the Elected officials
and Department Heads and clerks come to evening meetings would squander
scarce resources on mundane things. Paying over
time to the counties employees so some one in Harvard or Helmer could
watch the commissioners pay the bills, or have a
meeting with the department heads about internal, routine day to day
business matters just is not sensible I have come to find
out.

No one media can satisfy the need to communicate to the public. Not
every one has email, not every one subscribes to one
paper or the other, and not everybody listens to the same radio
programs. It is easier for individuals to contact me via the
medium of their choice (e-mail, voice mail, regular mail) than for me to
reach all the people. I thought cable might be a good
thing to have but outside of Moscow there is not much cable programming
either. I also have not been successful in generating
any interest in taping the commission proceedings from the Uof I either.
Anybody interested in covering the proceedings is
certainly welcome.



Responses by John "Jack" A. Nelson (R): 3rd district, Latah County
Commissioner



I. Significant Issues:

I do not have a larger agenda of issues that I want to see completed,
other than to maintain and improve the quality of life in
Latah County and do so as efficiently as possible.

Some issues I feel important:

1. Latah Health Services (County Nursing Home): The county owns the land
and buildings and leases them to L.H.S. (a
non-profit corporation) to operate the nursing home. What role the
county taxpayer should have in maintenance, improvements
and expansions of the buildings and the total relationship between the
county and L.H.S. needs to be decided and improved. In
doing this we must make sure (because of possible county tax dollars
used) that L.H.S. and county do not become unfair
competition to the privately owned nursing homes in the county. They all
do an excellent job and we need them all.

2. Latah County Fairgrounds: I'm a big supporter of county fairs and
would like to see the fair buildings and grounds at Latah
County improved. I'm sure county fair board members spent many hours
planning for the bond issue and I feel had a good
request. However, the voters soundly defeated the bond issue. The
current proposal of increasing county fair operating budget
yearly tax levy to maximum and using this money to do portions of
improvements each year should not be done. This goes
against wishes of voters. The fair board needs to present an issue
voters will accept. I would like to explore some other ways
of paying for at least part of the cost, so property taxpayer isn't
stuck with entire bill.

3. Planning and Zoning: Good planning and zoning ordinances are very
important, environmentally, economically and to general
enjoyment of living in Latah County presently and in the future. In
developing and enforcement of these ordinances we need to
respect peoples private-property rights as much as possible and also use
some good common sense.

4. Solid Waste: Will be covered later.

5. Economic Development: I would love to see prosperous business growth
in all of Latah County. Better employment
opportunities and business services in the small rural towns are of
great need. Moscow is the county's economic center and will
remain so, but some development in rural areas would help entire county.
I feel it was a mistake for the county to leave the
Clearwater Economic Development Association (C.E.D.A.) as the
association can provide a greater range of services and at a
lesser cost to the county than having your own rural assistance person
on staff. How we have the Latah Economic
Development Council and its new sub-committee, the Rural Latah Economic
Development Committee, and using this agency
rather then C.E.D.A. may be just fine. I still don't see need for the
county to have its own economic development coordinator.
Moscow residents and rural residents all live in and pay taxes to Latah
County. Seems like a lot of duplication and waste to me.

6. Young People and Senior Citizen:

Programs for the above are important, however; there are committees and
other government agencies better prepared to
manage these programs. County government should be there for assistance.
Example: Phillips Farm. I do not feel county should
have taken the responsibility for this property. The intention is great,
but I feel benefits could have been obtained in other ways
by other government agencies at way less cost to county taxpayer. But
now the county has the lease and has spent money on
the property we need to decide where to go from here.

7. County Courthouse - Buildings: Remodel, new additions, new buildings,
lease space are important issues. These decisions
will set the direction for years to come. Needs a lot of studying and
discussion by a lot of people.

John "Jack" A. Nelson (R): 3rd district, Latah County Commissioner

II. Latah Trail:

I personally support the Latah trail, however, I don't own any property
that would be effected by the trail. If I (or most other
supporters) did have property that the trail was going to effect, our
feelings would be different. If the trail does progress I hope
the effected landowners rights and concerns can be solved. No I don't
think the $100,000 should have come from the county
taxpayer at this time. I don't feel the amount of money donated shows
very broad support. Need to find a way users and
supports of the trail pay more of the cost rather than all going to
county taxpayer.

John "Jack" A. Nelson (R): 3rd district, Latah County Commissioner
III. Organization of Latah County Government:

I feel the present system is fine, with elected officials and
commissioners, if a personnel change is needed it is more likely to get
done than if you had a county manager and an appointed department heads.
Commissioners do not need to be fulltime and
present pay is adequate. I like just 3 commissioners, if you increase to
5 or 7 you become less efficient. On a smaller board the
members are more prone to do their homework and come to meeting better
prepared. I'm not prepared to say if some of
elected officials positions should be combined, it will take more
studying on my part.

The commissioners should definitely seek public input, the more the
better. The commissioners are there to serve the people,
and cannot do that without input from patrons. The commissioners need to
determine what the majority of citizens want and
carryout the issues as efficiently as possible.

John "Jack" A. Nelson (R): 3rd district, Latah County Commissioner
IV. Cooperation Between Latah County and City of Moscow:

Latah County and the City of Moscow, as well as all towns and cities in
the county, should cooperate fully wherever possible.
The residents of Moscow and small towns are all citizens's of Latah
County and are affected by Latah County decisions.
Moscow is the economic and social center for the county, so Moscow's
position needs to be considered on any county
decisions. I cannot imagine the county considering a regional landfill
without the City of Moscow on board. The money the
county will be spending on the regional landfill belongs to citizens of
Moscow as well as citizens of rest of county. The potential
liability incurred with the landfill would be just as great for citizens
of Moscow.

John "Jack" A. Nelson (R): 3rd district, Latah County Commissioner
V. Should Latah County Have Landfill:

I'm opposed to a regional landfill in Latah County at this time.

1. Present system is working O.K., cost is comparable to most
surrounding areas.

2. Latah County not suited for landfill because of high rainfall,
landfills better suited for arid regions like Central Washington.

3. There is no quarantee of profitability. Surrounding entities may not
haul to Latah landfill or may demand lower price to come
here.

4. The proposed cost saving, about $200,000 per year if all goes well,
is not enough savings to assume the liability and other
unpleasantness of being a regional landfill (more traffic and clutter).

John "Jack" A. Nelson (R): 3rd district, Latah County Commissioner
VI. Uses of Electronic Communication:

I have to confess, I am not a computer whiz, but I'm open to any ideas
out there to improve communication. The county
belongs to its citizens (not the commissioners) so good communication is
essential to have an effective county government. If
you would like more information concerning my views or if you have any
questions please contact me. I would love to hear
from you. My phone number is (208) 835-5721 or e-mail me at:
nbros@tds.net.

Thanks,

Jack Nelson
Latah County Commissioner Candidate