The Lake County Commission earns its pay today. The agenda (archived here) includes a whole whack of 2013 budget requests from county departments and outside agencies starting at 10:15 this morning and running past 3:20 this sultry afternoon.
The blog highlight of this meeting would usually be Robert Johnson's budget request for the Weed Department at 2:20. That is 4:20 Nova Scotia time.
But wait! Sandwiched between Deb Blanchette's budget request for the food pantry at 2:30 and Julie Wegener's request for our 911 communications at 3:00, we see the following item:
2:45 p.m. Jerry Johnson, Madison Steering Committee RE: proposed thrift store.
Whoa: Jerry Johnson and his pals are now steering Madison?! I guess they are abandoning their unpopular community thrift store plan and trying to drive the whole town!
If you look at the agenda, you'll see it's formatted to separate Johnson's appearance from the budget requests. I checked with County Auditor Bobbi Janke, and she said the thrift store item is not a budget request.
Commissioner Scott Pedersen sent a pretty strong signal last month that the county would take its cue from the city on whether to give Johnson's thrift store steering committee a $150,000 toward its million-dollar project. Given the steering commitee's tacit abandonment of its request for city funding last week, I'm guessing Johnson is coming to the county commission today to offer a similar "It was a bad idea that almost nobody liked but we're not going to admit it" update.
It would be a good idea to have citizens in the commission room this afternoon at 2:45 to make sure that's what Johnson says... and to remind the commissioners that there really is widespread opposition to spending any tax dollars on the "community" thrift store Johnson and his partners have proposed.
Weren't these folks from something called the Downtown Improvement Steering Committee the first time they publicly discussed the thrift store proposal with our city commissioners? I'd have to check with the Finance Office to see exactly what the group was called on the agenda, but it was something similar to that. Suddenly, they became the Thrift Store Committee. Okay, fine.
Last Friday, I read Jim Iverson's Letter to the Editor about the proposed thrift store in the local paper. Mr. Iverson wrote that the Thrift Store Committee was formed as a sub-committee of the Lake County Resource Expansion Committee, which he was appointed to head from his position on the Inter-Lakes Community Action Partnership board of directors.
Today, the Thrift Store Committee may or may not be the Madison Steering Committee.
I suppose there's a chance Mr. Johnson also serves on something called the Madison Steering Committee and is appearing before the Lake County Commission only to discuss that committee's position with regard to the Thrift Store Committee’s proposed thrift store in Madison.
Finally, it’s possible the name(s) of the committee(s) proposing the thrift store were entered erroneously on both the city and county agendas.
From the April 30, 2012 City of Madison Board of Commissioners' agenda packet posted on April 27, 2012:
APPEARANCES, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE
1) Acknowledge 2011 Library Annual Report
2) Clark Sinclair and Jerry Johnson-Downtown Improvement Project
As it turns out, this was two men seeking a $150,000 donation. They were not yet declared to be affiliated with any organization, corporation or committee. <-- Just an observation.
Good checking, Steve!
I guess, just as was the case with the group who spoke last night, what the group is called doesn't matter much, as long as we're clear on who's speaking and for whom they are speaking. One thing that puzzles me is that while at least three community organizations—LAIC, ICAP, Madison Community Foundation—are supposed to be deeply involved in the thrift store project, we haven't hear anyone speak as an official representative of those organizations in favor of the thrift store project. Why not?
You're right about the name of the group. It's just a little more difficult to track when the name isn't consistent.
I believe Mr. Iverson's comments in the paper cleared up the question of which organization the Thrift Store Steering Committee represents in making the request for public money to move the project forward. That committee was formed under the ICAP umbrella. Given Sinclair and Johnson's positions as Madison Community Foundation board members, along with the proposal to have MCF become owner of the new building, it was difficult for me to determine just who was behind the project and why. Iverson's letter also appears to be the closest thing to an endorsement by one of the participating organizations.
I just read Mr. Iverson's letter. He claims that the thrift store will generate revenue to help fund social programs in the county. BUT, just how much does it have to generate in order to pay for the over one million invested in the building, the day to day expenses and salaries, the loan repayments, and then have anything left over to donate to charity? And as for the argument that it will just be fair competition for the other consignment stores, that argument lacks a few facts. The other consignment stores were started and are run by private money, they pay taxes, and if they fail their owners will be out of a job; unlike the proposed thrift store which will be funded with public money, will not pay taxes, and if it fails no one on the committee will be hurt or lose their job. A big difference as far as fair competition goes.
Mr. Iverson's letter to the editor essentially states the committee, regardless of its name, is proceeding with its plan for the thrift store and our tax dollars, regardless of whether that item was on the last agenda or not. Again, if it is such a good idea, then please provide us with a breakdown of actual facts and figures used to determine this would be viable. And again, why the need for a new expensive building for a questionable project when a cheaper alternative would also prove or disprove the viability with little risk of tax dollars.
Just saying this works in other communities does not ensure it will work here. There are other variables such as input costs, volunteer vs salaried workers, other thrift store competitions, etc that must be taken into account in various communities. If the idea is truly to help the poor, then the input should be as little as possible in order to generate more profit. That does not seem to be the main idea behind this project - the main idea seems to be a new expensive building.
I still think this is a separate issue from the downtown revitalization discussions.
I'm a little alarmed that the competition story has shifted, with thrift store boosters first saying they wouldn't compete with the private stores, but now claiming that competition is good. The latter point may be true—we may be able to expand the pie for everyone rather than fighting for finite table scraps—but this shifting story shows that the organizers are just guessing and not doing any real market research.
The Milbank point is very telling: that shop has worked, but in a market where the marketplace was not already meeting needs, and without tax dollars. The Madison thrift store organizers seem to be getting the second point, but they are resisting the first.
Linda, I wholeheartedly agree that the thrift store organizers are not considering the total cost-benefit ratio. With a million dollars, they could do a lot more good a lot faster with other projects.
The thrift store could be part of the downtown development discussion. It is one idea for adding some activity downtown. But if the idea has merit, I'd rather see it rise to the top in the context of an open discussion of all possibilities and the desires of the community.