National Association of Counties • Washington, D.C. ‘Get ... · of electronics recycling from...

“The wisdom to know and the courage to defend the

public interest”

National Association of Counties • Washington, D.C. www.naco.org • www.countynews.org

Vol. 37 No. 12 • June 20, 2005

Quik Takes

Inside this issue ...

■ See APPROPS on page 14

Acres of FarmlandNavajo County, Ariz. 4,595,062Cherry County, Neb. 3,777,285McKinley County, N.M. 3,169,857Campbell County, Wyo. 2,985,945Pecos County, Texas 2,916,070

BY MARILINA SANZ

ASSOCIATE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR

If the full House appropriations committee approves action taken earlier this month by the House Labor-Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, all basic employment and training programs could see a reduction in funding for 2006.

Adult training programs would be funded at $865.7 million, a cut of $30.9 million below the current $896.6 million level. The Dislo-cated Workers programs would be reduced by $70.8 million from the current level, to $1.405 billion. Youth programs would be funded at $950 million in FY06, $36.3 million below the current level.

The subcommittee mark-up June 9 did fund the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers program at $75.7 mil-lion, which the administration pro-posed to leave unfunded, and also includes more funding for Job Corps

than proposed in the administration’s request. However, the Job Corps re-quest of $1.542 billion is close to $10 million below the current level.

A big winner in the appropriations game could be Community Health Centers, which would receive more than $1.8 billion — a $100 million boost. Unfortunately, the House subcommittee again zeroed out funding for the Community Access Program, which NACo supports to ensure health care access for those in need. Generally, the Senate replaces this funding.

The National Health Service Corps, which helps place health care professionals in underserved areas, saw a $4 million decrease down to $40.7 million. Meanwhile, Ryan White AIDS programs were in-creased by $10 million over last year and exactly what the president ordered coming in at nearly $2.06 billion.

Training funding measure cut in House

BY DAN MILLER

STAFF WRITER

More than 10,000 computers and televisions grow obsolete every day in California and less than 15 percent of those are recycled. San Mateo County is hoping to boost that number by slashing the price of electronics recycling from $20 to free.

The county partnered with Good-will Industries to, launch the ReCom-pute Program June 16. The program allows residents and businesses to drop off electronics at Goodwill donation centers so that they can be tested, refurbished and resold.

Clients of the county’s Vocational Rehabilitation Service (VRS) refur-bish the products. VRS helps clients with employment barriers achieve their maximum occupational potential through counseling, case management and vocational training.

“The clients are so excited to be doing something that seems to have a big impact on our future,” said Carmen O’Keefe, marketing manager for VRS. “The clients are really excited about this collabora-tive and their part in it.”

The program, a joint project of VRS, Goodwill and RecycleWorks, aims to divert 1,000 tons of e-waste

from the landfi ll and to refurbish 2,000 used Pentium two or three computer systems.

“It’s just a unique partnership because there are a lot of benefi ts, the ecological benefi t, the social service benefi t,” said Malia Langworthy, program coordinator for the county’s RecycleWorks division.

The program’s recyclable items, which include televisions, monitors, cell phones and non-working com-puters, will be harvested for parts such as circuit boards, wiring, plastic and hard drives

■ See RECYCLING on page 12

NACo and other local and state government leaders called on Con-gress to adopt a well-funded, multi-year transportation bill by June 30.

“Get It Done Now” was the mantra at the June 16 news confer-ence. NACo, the National League of Cities (NLC), the American As-sociation of State Highway Trans-portation Officials (AASHTO) and the American Public Transit Association (APTA), emphasized that Congress needed to act quickly since repeated delays in enacting a new transportation bill were costing the taxpayers money and delaying efforts to reduce congestion.

“We believe it is time for the Bush Administration to come to the negotiating table and work out a fair compromise with the conferees, and with the Senate and House leader-ship,” said Blue Earth County, Minn. Commissioner Colleen Landkamer, NACo fi rst vice president.

“In rural America, we have a disproportionate number of bridges in poor condition and our citizens are 2.5 times more likely to be killed on our roads and highways than their counterparts in urban areas,” Land-kamer said. “This bill addresses those crucial issues through a rural road safety component.”

A House-Senate conference committee, chaired by Rep. Don ■ See BILL on page 14

Young (R-Alaska), is working to complete a fi nal bill before June 30. “Collectively we own and operate America’s surface transportation network. Twenty-one months have passed since the last transportation act expired on Sept. 30, 2003,” said Mayor Joseph Donaldson of Flagstaff, Ariz. “Since then, our nation’s transportation policy has been a patchwork of extensions

Source: United States Department of Agriculture

Counties with Counties with the Most Acres of the Most Acres of FarmlandFarmland

Counties with Counties with the Most Acres of the Most Acres of FarmlandFarmland

‘Get It Done Now!’ State, local leaders press Congress to pass transportation bill

San Mateo County joins Goodwill to promote recycling program

Photo by Jeremy Ratner

NACo First Vice President Colleen Landkamer addresses members of the media at a June 16 press conference urging quick passage of the transporta-tion bill. Also pictured is Flagstaff, Ariz. Mayor Joseph Donaldson.

Funds drying up for tree managers in urban areas. See page 2.

NACo Past President Bob Aldemeyer dies June 8. See page 2.

Cook County, Ill. latest to make jail smoke-free. See page 4.

Vote counts listed for counties eligible to cast ballots at Annual Meeting. See page 6.

2 County News, June 20, 2005

A landmark federally and pri-vately funded project to defi ne the role of local public health agencies is seeking input from elected state, county, and municipal executive, and legislative branch offi cials and their national associations.

Services provided by local pub-lic health agencies, or LPHAs, range from responding to bioterrorism and other disasters to preventing disease by addressing tobacco use, obesity, HIV/AIDS, prenatal care, fl u vac-cination, West Nile virus and other intractable health issues.

The National Association of

County and City Health Offi cials (NACCHO) has drafted a ten-part defi nition of the essential functions performed by county, municipal and other LPHAs. The NACCHO draft refl ects views expressed by scores of public health professionals and representatives of associations, at all levels of government, in multiple rounds of comments.

NACCHO is now entering the last rounds of feedback on the op-erational defi nition. The associa-tion is soliciting feedback to make sure that the defi nition accurately refl ects shared opinions about how public health agencies serve their communities.

Among essential functions listed in the draft are:

• diagnosing and investigating health problems and hazards

• developing policies and plans to support individual and commu-nity health (including serving as a primary resource to offi cials), and

• enforcing health laws and regulations.

The breadth and depth of the defi nition refl ect the evolution of public health into the fi rst line of defense for community health in an era of emerging infectious diseases, bioterrorism,and other public health threats.

To respond to NACCHO’s solicitation for comments, using an online feedback tool, see http://naccho.org/topics/infrastructure/operational_defi nition.cfm. View the draft defi nition, then click on “Tell us what you think.” Submit comments by Aug.31.

To offer suggestions of ways to share information about the operational defi nition project, or to obtain additional information, con-tact Grace Gorenfl o at 202/783-5550 x222, ggorenfl [email protected].

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation provided funding to support the project.

BY BOBBI WALLACE

NATIONAL URBAN AND COMMUNITY FORESTRY ADVISORY COUNCIL

These days, federal budget cuts may hardly seem like news, but repeated reductions in the U.S. For-est Service’s budget for urban and community forestry have left county and municipal tree managers without key support for managing trees in shopping districts, parks and green spaces.

Each year the Forest Service provides funding for urban and com-munity forestry in each state through the state forester. The funds generally trickle down to local governments as support services and cost-share programs.

However, in recent years the amount of such funding has been reduced dramatically, which has created corresponding challenges for regional and local programs.

Federal funding for urban and community forestry was reduced by 20 percent in 2005 in my home state of Washington. As a result, a state cost-share program that helped small

Urban, community forestry funds rapidly decliningfederal matching dollars. Urban foresters help counties connect with citizens within their communities through outreach, education and tree planting events. Managing regional urban forests includes creating inven-tories, maintenance plans, zoning, and policy. Also, establishing and staffi ng urban forest advisory councils help advocate for incentive programs in your area. Many counties and cities are working to establish programs to

and expanded urban environments for all Americans.

The National Urban and Com-munity Forestry Advisory Council (NUCFAC) was established in the 1990 farm bill, which also authorized a program funding increase from $2 million to $30 million for the USDA Forest Service’s Urban and Commu-nity Forestry Program. The advisory council has two primary functions; advise the secretary of agriculture on policies that improve America’s urban forests, including the develop-ment of a National Urban and Com-munity Forestry Action Plan and develop and manage a challenge cost-share program.

As a new member of NUCFAC I am appealing to my fellow county civil servants throughout the nation to help me represent you. NUCFAC is undergoing an update of the 10-year action plan (the current plan may be viewed at www.treelink.org/nucfac) for the Nation’s Urban Forests.

Your input will help this plan suc-ceed. As one of our nations’ major stakeholders, your input is critical to the plan’s success.

Your county can benefi t by estab-lishing an urban forestry program. Through the NUCFAC cost-share program urban foresters can lever-age regional and state funding with

Past NACo President Robert “Bob” Aldemeyer died June 8 at the St. Elizabeth Medical Center in Edgewood, Ky. He was 80. Al-demeyer, then Kenton County, Ky. judge-executive, served as NACo president in 1985-1986.

Under his leadership, NACo hired a new executive director — John Thomas — continued to press for the preservation of general revenue shar-ing and tackled the crisis in insurance liability that was affecting counties nationwide. Aldemeyer began his as-cent on NACo’s executive committee in 1981 at NACo’s Annual Confer-ence in Louisville. He won against a commissioner from Kitsap County, Wash., John Horsley. Horsley went on to win a spot on NACo’s executive committee the following year and said that despite their rivalry, Aldemeyer “was extremely gracious in all our dealings.” Yet, Horsley added, he did get to decide where other NACo offi cers were sent to speak. “ I got assigned to speak in Minot, N.D. in November and Fairbanks, Alaska in January.”

Aldemeyer served for 32 years

NACo Past President Bob Aldemeyer dies June 8

in county government: 28 years as a commissioner and four years as a judge-executive. He also served as president of the Kentucky Associa-tion of Counties.

His wife, Marie Napier Alde-meyer, died in 2002. He is survived by a son, Gary Aldermeyer of Taylor Mill, Ky.

Memorials can be made to St. Benedict Church, 338 E. 17th St., Covington, KY 41014.

cities complete tree inventories and management plans will be greatly reduced. Other areas throughout the nation are experiencing the similar devastating reductions. Some areas have made striking improvements in their communities with consistent, annual dedicated fund allotments.

An example is Chicago, which has received $3 million annually from the Forest Service to fund urban forestry. The city put these funds to excellent use by renovating the downtown corridors with street trees. I recently visited Chicago and can see what an amazing job they have done to improve the urban landscape.

Our urban and community trees and forests are vital parts of America’s infrastructure and essential to the well being of individual human health and welfare. Through the use of quality planning, planting and maintenance programs, our communities ben-efi t from cooler summer air, warmer homes in winter, cleaner air and water, quieter streets, more peaceful neigh-borhoods, healthy and productive lo-cal economies, and overall improved

link the value or credits for urban forests with storm water detention and improved air quality.

Together we can improve the na-tion’s urban forests. Please contact me by e-mail with your ideas and input on how our nation can improve urban forests at bobbi.wallace@metrokc. gov and thank you!

(Wallace is the King County, Wash. park resource manager.)

Comments invited on public health role

CHANCESARE...

AS A LEADER OF YOUR COUNTY ...

YOU’RE ALWAYS ON THE LOOK-OUT FOR WAYS TO HELP FUND YOUR COMMUNITY’S PROGRAMS.

GrantsClearinghouse

National Association of Counties

Look no further ...

Members Only ... www.naco.org

Past NACo PresidentRobert “Bob” Aldemeyer

County News, June 20, 2005 3

BY KELLY ZONDERWYK

COMMUNITY SERVICES ASSOCIATE

Seven new counties have joined the NACo ENERGY STAR® Court-house Campaign, bringing the total number of counties participating in the program to 31. The new county participants represent a range of counties – from extremely rural to very urban.

Durham County, N.C.; Pendleton County, Ky.; Pulaski County, Ark.; and Wright County, Mo. became the fi rst counties in their respec-tive states to join the Courthouse Campaign. Joining other counties in their states participating in the campaign are Bleckley County, Ga., Broward County, Fla. and Fayette County, Ala.

Durham CountyDurham County has made

significant efforts in improving energy usage over the years and is also dedicated to “green” building design. The county conducts energy audits and has installed ultra violet and sun tinting fi lm on windows and store-fronts to reduce the heat-load. The county also installed energy effi cient windows in older county buildings and converted electrical boilers in county buildings to natural gas for effi ciency and energy reduc-tion. The variable speed motors on major air-handling equipment that the county installed results in an annual savings of $24,450.

Broward CountyHome to Fort Lauderdale, Fla.,

Broward County has long been a leader in the energy effi ciency fi eld. In 1999, the county was recognized as the ENERGY STAR Government

NACo ENERGY STAR Courthouse Campaign Facts

(Since inception, March, 2004)

Number of members: 31 counties

Largest member (by pop.): Los Angeles County (9,519,338)

Smallest member (by pop.): Bleckley County, Ga. (11,666)

Total population represented by members: 18,771,318

Largest member (by square miles): Graham County, Ariz. (4,630)

Smallest member (by square miles): Arlington County, Va. (26)

Total square miles represented by members: 27,211

Number of members who have earned an ENERGY STAR® label: 2

Number of members partnering with ENERGY STAR: 18

State with the most members: Florida (5 counties)

Number of States Represented: 16

(Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia)

NACo Courthouse Campaign exceeds 30 membersNACo Courthouse Campaign exceeds 30 membersPartner of the Year, and in 2000 the Broward County North Regional Courthouse earned the distinction as the fi rst public facility in the state of Florida to receive an ENERGY STAR label.

More than 3.7 million square feet of Broward County Commis-sion facilities have received some type of an energy upgrade since 1994. These upgrades have saved the county more than $1.5 million annually. The county saves an ad-ditional one million dollars annually and uses 12 million kilowatt-hours less each year after retrofi tting in-candescent traffi c signals with light emitting diode (LED) technology.

Rural counties also benefi t from and make contributions to the Cam-paign, such as Bleckley County, Ga. (pop. 11,666) a retrofi t its lighting system and make its cooling system more effi cient. Pendleton County, Ky. (pop. 14,390); Wright County, Mo. (pop. 17,955); and Fayette County, Ala. (pop.18,495) are engaged in similar energy-saving activites.

Through their involvement in the Courthouse Campaign and en-ergy improvements, Pulaski County and Durham County will assist the mayors of their cities in achieving reductions in greenhouse emissions. Little Rock Mayor Jim Dailey and Durham City Mayor William V. Bell have joined 159 other U.S. mayors in signing the U.S. Mayors Cli-mate Protection Agreement, which commits the areas to reduce global warming pollution levels. The effort by these counties to become more energy effi cient parallels the city commitments to reduce emissions and subsequent greenhouse gas pol-lution within their communities.

By joining the NACo ENERGY STAR Courthouse Campaign, these counties have reaffi rmed their dedi-cation to energy effi ciency for county facilities and will continue to enhance energy usage and save taxpayer dol-lars in their county operations. NACo will assist them in these efforts and

work with them as they continue to assess the energy performance of their buildings.

(For more information on how your county can join the NACo EN-ERGY STAR Courthouse Campaign

and take advantage of the program’s training, tools and resources like these counties now will, contact Kelly Zonderwyk at 202/942-4224 or [email protected]. You may also visit www.naco.org/techassistance and click on Energy Management.)

Courthouse ENERGY STAR label helps pave way for LEED certifi cation

BY KELLY ZONDERWYK

COMMUNITY SERVICES ASSOCIATE

Ada County, Idaho has received another distinction for its county courthouse and administration build-ing. In May, the building became the fi rst “green” building in Idaho to meet standards set by the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leader-ship in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED-EB).

LEED-EB certifi cation recog-nizes an existing building that is both environmentally friendly and energy-effi cient, while also reduc-ing operating costs. The courthouse and administration building in Ada County obtained the “Silver” level LEED certifi cation — the second of a possible four levels.

The building’s “green” features include using Boise’s naturally re-newable geothermal water to heat the building. The City of Boise provides the site with a constant fl ow of natural hot water. The heat is extracted from the water, and the water is returned to the aquifer. An extensive recycling program diverts more than 40 percent of the waste material generated by the building and its occupants from the landfi ll.

Ada County’s Alternate Transpor-tation Program is used by 8 percent of the employees who work in the facility and includes free bus passes and employee showers for walkers, joggers and bike riders.

The building’s Indoor Air Quality Plan is designed to provide a constant supply of fresh, clean air to the build-ing occupants and sets the standards for how remodeling and maintenance activities are controlled to minimize potential air contaminants.

The courthouse and administra-tion building and the surrounding site provides for the effective treatment and reuse of storm water that is col-lected on site. Stormwater is cleaned, fi ltered and drained into the pond in the park where it is used for recre-ational purposes.

Last October, the same building in Ada County was awarded the fi rst

What is LEED-EB Certifi cation?

There are a number of LEED Rating Systems that a building can become LEED certifi ed under. LEED-EB certifi cation is for all exist-ing buildings and types that are at least two years old. Re-certifi cation under this rating system is required every fi ve years.

The LEED-EB Rating System was approved by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) membership in late 2004. Four NACo member counties have been LEED-EB Pilot Participants: Ada County, Idaho; Canyon County, Idaho; Jackson County, Mo.; and Pulaski County, Ark.

The point rating system assigns a category of Certifi ed, Silver, Gold or Platinum to the building, with Platinum Certifi cation being the highest LEED Certifi cation possible.

To receive a rating, a building must earn more than 32 points from the categories of: Sustainable Sites, Water Effi ciency, Energy & Atmosphere, Materials & Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality and Innovation in Operation & Upgrades. For a breakdown of these categories and possible points, visit www.usgbc.org.

How can your county be involved like Ada County, Idaho?The USGBC outlines the process for LEED-EB certifi cation as: 1. Register eligible buildings at www.usgbc.org/b2c/b2c/init.do.2. Identify and implement operational improvements and equipment upgrades necessary to obtain certifi cation.3. Prepare your application by documenting building performance data and operational procedures. 4. Submit certifi cation application to the USGBC for review and provide any supplemental information deemed necessary by the reviewers.5. Receive a fi nal LEED-EB certifi cation review from the USGBC.

ENERGY STAR® label through the NACo Courthouse Campaign. The building’s ENERGY STAR label placed the facility’s superior energy performance and placed it among the nation’s most effi cient buildings in operation. The label also counted toward receiving the LEED certifi -cation. The building uses about 40 percent less energy and costs about 40 percent less to heat, cool and light than the average building. Therefore, it saves approximately $175,000 in energy costs per year.

Like LEED certifi cation, seeking an ENERGY STAR label and par-ticipating in the ENERGY STAR Courthouse Campaign are voluntary

efforts. Today, 31 counties partici-pate in the NACo ENERGY STAR Courthouse Campaign, working to benchmark their county buildings, enhance their energy effi ciency and save money. The NACo Courthouse Campaign assists participating coun-ties in their energy effi ciency efforts every step of the way.

(For more information on sign-ing your county up for NACo’s vol-untary ENERGY STAR Courthouse Campaign and earning an ENERGY STAR label for one of your county buildings contact Kelly Zonderwyk at [email protected] or 202/942.4224.)


PRO FILESIn Service...

“The wisdom to know and the courage to defend the public interest”

President: Angelo Kyle • Publisher: Larry NaakePublic Affairs Director: Tom Goodman • Executive Editor: Beverly Anne Schlotterbeck

Senior Staff Writer: M. Mindy Moretti • Staff Writer: Dan MillerGraphic Artist: Jack Hernandez • Editorial Assistant: Allison Mall

Advertising Staff:Allison Mall: Job Market/Classifi eds representative

Beverly Schlotterbeck: national accounts representative

(202) 393-6226 • FAX (202) 393-2630

Published biweekly except August by: National Association of Counties Research Foundation, Inc.440 First Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001

(202) 393-6226 • FAX (202) 393-2630E-mail: [email protected] • Online address: www.countynews.org

The appearance of paid advertisements in Coun ty News in no way implies support or en dorse ment by the National As- so ci a tion of Counties for any of the products, services or messages advertised. Pe ri od i cals post age paid at Wash ing ton D.C. and other offi ces.

Mail subscriptions are $100 per year for non-mem bers. $60 per year for non-members pur chas ing mul ti ple cop ies. Ed u ca tion al in sti tu tion rate, $50 per year. Member county sup ple men tal sub scrip tions are $20 each. Send pay ment with order and address chang es to NACo, 440 First St. N.W., Wash ing ton, D.C. 20001.

POSTMASTER: send address changes to Coun ty News, 440 First St. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001(USPS 704-620) • (ISSN: 0744-9798)

© National Association of Counties Research Foundation, Inc.

LeroyMauch

CommisionerProwers County, Colo.

NACo Board of Directors

If you have a com pli ment, com plaint or dif fer ent point of view, let us know.

County News invites Letters to the

EditorPlease in clude a phone num ber with your letter. Mail, fax or

e-mail to: Coun ty News, NACo, 440 First St., N.W., Wash ing ton, DC 20001-2080; (202) 393-2630; [email protected].

Number of years active in NACO: 7

Years in Public Service: 17

Occupation: Farmer/rancher

Education: One year of college

The hardest thing I’ve ever done: Bury my best friend.

Three people (living or dead) I’d invite to dinner: Presi-dent Kennedy, Grandpa Mauch and former Commissioner John Stulp.

A dream I have is to: Get parity for agriculture.

You’d be surprised to learn that I: I was cured of cancer 10 years ago.

The most adventurous thing I’ve ever done is: Jump out of a perfectly good airplane at 13,000 feet above sea level.

My favorite way to relax is: Kick back in my recliner with a good John Wayne movie.

I’m most proud of: My wife, my family and my accom-plishments as a county commissioner.

Every morning I read: Lamar Daily News and Pueblo Chieftain papers.

My favorite meal is: Where’s the beef?

My pet peeve is: Gossip hounds and back stabbers.

My motto is: Git ‘er dun.

The last book I read was: War on the West, by William Perry Pendley.

My favorite movie: Anything with the Duke.

My favorite music is: Country music, ’50s and ’60s rock ‘n’ roll.

My favorite president is: John F. Kennedy.

BY DAN MILLER

STAFF WRITER

As smoking bans continue to go into effect in counties across the country, inmates in county jails are having their smoking privileges re-voked as well. Cook County, Ill. and McCracken County, Ky. are two of the most recent counties to make their jails smoke-free, even outdoors.

American Jail Association Execu-tive Director Stephen Ingley said that the trend of smokeless jails boomed about three years ago, although “it’s defi nitely more and more popular ev-ery day.”

“It’s no longer uncommon to find a smoke-free jail,” he said. “In fact, it’s very common to fi nd that.”

Cook County’s de-cision to ban smoking in its jails was primar-ily health-related. The county hopes to relieve second-hand smoke inhalation, especially for inmates suffer-ing from asthma and emphysema. Bill Cun-ningham, Cook County Sheriff’s Police spokesman, said that almost 30 inmates had to be taken to outside hospitals for asthma attacks last year and he hopes the ban will reduce that number.

Cunningham estimates that about half of Cook County inmates are smokers. While the smokers aren’t happy with the decision, he says that some of then begrudgingly see it as an opportunity to quit.

The county phased the ban in over two months, progressively limiting the amount of tobacco inmates were allowed to purchase. By the fi nal week the ban goes into effect, they will only be able to buy one pack.

“When you run a big city jail you deal on an everyday basis with inmates who are undergoing alcohol or illegal drug withdrawal,” Cun-ningham said. “Dealing with those withdrawal symptoms are part of everyday life. Now we’ll have to deal with people going through nicotine withdrawal and make that adjustment.”

While Cook County cites health as a primary motivation for imple-menting a smoking ban, McCracken County Jailer Cliff Gill says that security was part of his decision. According to Gill, many of his in-mates have made weapons using the matches used to light the cigarettes. Inmates made a variety of makeshift weapons by using matches, including

knives made by inserting razor blades into the ends of toothbrushes.

In addition to security concerns, Gill was also infl uenced by recent court cases brought against jails by inmates who claim they have suf-fered due to the effects of second-hand smoke.

Gill provided the inmates with a three week warning about the imple-mentation of the ban. His jail’s medi-cal director advised that going cold turkey was the best plan.

According to Ingley, planning for smoking bans is vital.

Both counties anticipated inmate unrest due to the stress of smoking cessation. While Cook County has yet to implement the ban, McCracken County reported few incidents. Gill claims that there have only been three skirmishes since the ban went into place, which is about on par with the jails normal rate.

“So far it hasn’t caused us any problems and we should be over the worst part,” Gill said.

Cook County is aware of the potential for confl icts, but expects the ban to go smoothly.

“Some people in cor-rections have expressed some apprehension about smoking bans because they fear it is going to create inmate unrest,” Cunningham said. “We, however, have checked with other jurisdictions and based on the infor-mation our medical staff has been able to collect, the number of disturbances re-lated to the smoking ban were inconsequential.”

Another benefit of smoking bans, besides

security and health, is the preven-tion of property damage. According to the AJA, smoking bans result in reduced building maintenance, less damage to uniforms and cleaner living units.

In addition, bans can result in fewer false smoke alarms, less gambling with cigarettes as tender and fewer il-legal drugs as contraband. McCracken County recently conducted a search for contraband, including cigarette paraphernalia, but found little.

Counties continue to implement Counties continue to implement smoke-free jail policiessmoke-free jail policies

“You have to do it right,” he said. “You can’t just walk into the facil-ity and announce there’s no more smoking.”

Ingley recommends implement-ing smoking cessation programs, providing any smoking cessation materials the county deems neces-sary and giving inmates notice of the ban well in advance.

Neither Cook County nor Mc-Cracken County provided inmates with nicotine gum or patches.


to Countiesto Counties

BY JAMES DAVENPORT

SENIOR ASSOCIATE

In 2002 alone, there were 42,815 fatalities and more than 2.9 million injuries on the nation’s highways, ac-cording to a GAO report. Crashes on rural roads (roadways in areas with populations of fewer than 5,000) account for more than 60 percent of these fatalities — 25,849 deaths, or about 70 each day.

Looked at another way, the rate of fatalities per vehicle mile traveled on rural roads was more than twice the urban fatality rate. The magnitude of rural road mileage and the wide-spread dispersal of crashes makes preventing and responding to rural road crashes diffi cult.

In light of these statistics, NACo invited 10 county offi cials and en-gineers to participate in a highway safety focus group in early March during the NACo Legislative Con-ference. The objective of the focus group, sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Offi ce of Safety, was to help FHWA develop an effective communications strategy on traffi c and highway safety concerns facing local governments.

The focus group aimed to build and improve the dialogue between

FHWA and local governments. The dialogue centered on where the safety program should be focused, how FHWA should work with local decision makers, and what mes-sages are relevant to counties and county offi cials. An outcome of this discussion will pave the way for a partnership that would support the nation’s counties as they work to solve highway safety challenges, especially those in rural areas.

Participants identifi ed funding for rural roads as a key issue. Though states have quotas to commit to safety, only a handful of states ensure that a substantial portion of funds target local systems where fatality rates are highest. More improvement in roadway safety might result if money was specifi cally earmarked for safety improvements.

In addition, county governments do not have the right-of-way author-ity to address safety issues for roads on federal lands. Participants agreed that since only a few states allocate federal or state safety monies to the local systems, this could be a huge role for FHWA to encourage dollars to be spent at the local level.

Participants were asked if they were aware of programs or activities

in their jurisdiction related to road-way safety. Since engineers are more aware of roadway safety programs, better communication between coun-ty engineers and elected offi cials is vital. This includes providing local offi cials with more education about local and state safety programs.

The importance of providing transportation safety information to local decision-makers is critical. This allows local offi cials a more comprehensive view of the safety and general transportation system improvement needs and priorities to the general public as well as their state DOTs.

Funds for law enforcement cam-paigns such as Safe & Sober (sting-type enforcement) are especially important for rural counties that are in the initial stages of suburbanization

County offi cials hold open dialogue on road safety

Hansen Information TechnologiesCorporate Member

Location/HQ: Sacramento, Calif.

Primary Business: Managing the business of government CEO: Chuck Hansen

Name of NACo Representative: Craig Sanders; contact Shellie White, 916/921-0883, [email protected].

Why we joined NACo: NACo is important to Hansen because it represents a forum for counties across the United States to gather, network and learn. Hansen does business with counties across the United States. We feel it is important to be there to thank people for using our product, network and to show other counties what’s pos-sible using Hansen.

What we can do for counties: Hansen Information Technologies is the leading supplier of application software that helps manage the operations of government. Hansen’s leading edge products aggregate citizen and business requests for services and business transactions, across the enterprise, offering multiple channels (i.e. Web portal, kiosk, front counter, telephone, and e-mail) of secured access to back-offi ce functions. Hansen supports more than 500 governments, including state, city, county and special districts, covering over 80 million people who conduct over 1.2 billion transactions a year.

or urbanization. Drivers on rural roads tend to disregard traffi c safety issues and “hard” compliance is often the best teacher.

Elected offi cials in the forum said they receive most of their informa-tion from their professional staff. They also obtain information from their peers (other elected offi cials), through conferences and workshops, and from national associations.

Participants offered the following ideas on how NACo and FHWA can work together to improve informa-tion dissemination on roadway safety.

• Work closely with the National Association of Development Orga-nizations (NADO). Note: NACo and NADO research foundations are partners in the current rural transportation planning project

funded through FHWA/Offi ce of Planning.

• Implement a “train the trainers” with the state associations of counties.

• Develop a peer-to-peer focus group which will provide trainings, in cooperation with FHWA, to county offi cials. Training to be scheduled through the State Associations of Counties.

• Use block grants, fl exibility to fund planning organizations where MPOs aren’t available, and

• Work closely with the National Association of County Engineers.

For more information on the forum please contact Timothy Bar-kley at [email protected], Kathy Krause at Kathy.Krause @fhwa.dot.gov or Robert Hicks at [email protected].

NACo, through Rural Health Works, supports rural county development

BY LESLEY BUCHAN

PROJECT DIRECTOR

Maintaining a full range of quality health care services in rural areas not only means a healthier population, but also means a healthier local economy. That’s the premise be-hind Rural Health Works, a NACo program funded by the federal Offi ce of Rural Health Policy, Department of the Health and Human Services.

Studies undertaken by Rural Health Works experts show that without local health care, 20 per-cent of a local economy would be lost. Rural Health Works provides the tools to measure the impact of a hospital closure, for example, on employment, income, retail sales and sales tax on the economy.

Three rural counties — Pondera County, Mont.; Grand County, Colo.; and Mason County, Wash. — received technical assistance grants earlier this year from NACo to implement Rural Health Works and to serve as demonstration sites for counties nationwide. Each county is currently engaged in a fi ve-month process during which expert Rural Health Works coaches meet with county offi cials and a diverse group of community members with the goal of expanding health services in their counties.

“The two most important things in a community are education and health care. If you don’t have good education and health care, no one is going to want to come to your county. Yet often, no one is concerned about health care until they need it or their hospital is going to close,” according

to Val Schott, a Rural Health Works coach working with the counties.

Schott, who directs the Oklaho-ma Offi ce of Rural Health, and his business partner, Gerald Doeksen, a health economist from Oklahoma State University, are the Rural Health Works team working with the three NACo member counties. “We’d like to see people using more services locally and expand services within these counties if it makes sense. This promotes county economic develop-ment,” said Schott.

What’s the economic potential for the three counties currently imple-menting Rural Health Works?

In Grand County, Colo., popula-tion approximately 13,000, the eco-nomic impact study revealed that the

total health sector accounts for 380 jobs and approximately $14 million in income. Using employment and income multipliers that are specifi c to Grand County, the Rural Health Works team demonstrated that an ad-ditional 175 jobs and $4.8 million in income were created for the local economy. The Rural Health Works team also measured the health sec-tor’s impact on retail sales and sales tax, which generated an estimated $57 million for the Grand County local economy.

According to Grand County Commissioner Duane Dailey, “This information creates a compelling case for retaining health care within

Photo by Val Schott

Gerald Doeksen, a health economist from Oklahoma State University, presents the results of a Rural Health Works economic impact study for Mason County, Wash. at a community meeting.

■ See HEALTH on page 15


NACo member counties vote on NACo policy positions, bylaws changes and elect offi cers at the Annual Meeting. Following are the number of votes for each NACo member county, parish or borough.

As prescribed by NACo By-laws, a county must be a member of NACo, current with NACo dues and have at least one paid registration to the NACo Annual Conference in order to vote.

Questions can be directed to Emily Landsman, membership co-ordinator, at [email protected] or 202/942-4242.

■ Alabama Alabama Autauga County . . . . . . . 2 Baldwin County . . . . . . . 5 Barbour County . . . . . . . 2 Bibb County . . . . . . . . . 1 Blount County . . . . . . . . 2 Bullock County . . . . . . . 1 Butler County . . . . . . . . 1 Calhoun County . . . . . . . 5 Chambers County . . . . . . 2 Chilton County . . . . . . . . 2 Choctaw County . . . . . . . 1 Clarke County . . . . . . . . 2 Clay County . . . . . . . . . 1 Cleburne County . . . . . . . 1 Coffee County . . . . . . . . 2 Colbert County . . . . . . . . 3 Conecuh County . . . . . . . 1 Coosa County . . . . . . . . 1 Covington County . . . . . . 2 Crenshaw County . . . . . . 1 Cullman County . . . . . . . 3 Dale County . . . . . . . . . 3 Dallas County . . . . . . . . 3 DeKalb County. . . . . . . . 3 Elmore County . . . . . . . . 3 Escambia County . . . . . . 2 Etowah County. . . . . . . . 5 Fayette County . . . . . . . . 1 Franklin County . . . . . . . 2 Greene County . . . . . . . . 1 Hale County . . . . . . . . . 1 Henry County . . . . . . . . 1 Houston County . . . . . . . 4 Jackson County . . . . . . . 2 Jefferson County . . . . . . 28 Lamar County . . . . . . . . 1 Lauderdale County . . . . . . 4 Lawrence County . . . . . . 2 Lee County . . . . . . . . . . 4 Limestone County . . . . . . 3 Lowndes County . . . . . . . 1 Macon County . . . . . . . . 2 Madison County . . . . . . 10 Marengo County . . . . . . . 1 Marion County . . . . . . . . 2 Marshall County . . . . . . . 3 Mobile County . . . . . . . 16 Monroe County . . . . . . . 1 Montgomery County . . . . . 9 Morgan County . . . . . . . 5 Perry County . . . . . . . . . 1 Pickens County. . . . . . . . 1 Pike County . . . . . . . . . 2

Randolph County . . . . . . 1 Russell County . . . . . . . . 2 Shelby County . . . . . . . . 5 St. Clair County . . . . . . . 3 Sumter County . . . . . . . . 1 Talladega County. . . . . . . 4 Tallapoosa County . . . . . . 2 Tuscaloosa County . . . . . . 7 Walker County . . . . . . . . 3 Washington County . . . . . 1 Wilcox County . . . . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 198

■ Alaska Alaska Aleutians East Borough . . . 1 City & Borough of Juneau . . 2 City & Borough of Sitka . . . 1 City & Borough of Yakutat . 1 Denali Borough . . . . . . . 1 Fairbanks North Star Borough. . . . . . . . 4 Haines Borough . . . . . . . 1 Kenai Peninsula Borough . . 2 Ketchikan Gateway Borough 1 Kodiak Island Borough . . . 1 Lake And Peninsula Borough . . . . . . . . . . 1 North Slope Borough . . . . 1 Northwest Arctic Borough . . . . . . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 18

■ Arizona Arizona Apache County . . . . . . . . 3 Cochise County . . . . . . . 5 Coconino County . . . . . . 5 Gila County . . . . . . . . . 2 Graham County . . . . . . . 2 Greenlee County . . . . . . . 1 La Paz County . . . . . . . . 1 Maricopa County. . . . . . 86 Mohave County . . . . . . . 4 Navajo County . . . . . . . . 4 Pima County . . . . . . . . 28 Pinal County . . . . . . . . . 5 Santa Cruz County . . . . . . 2 Yavapai County . . . . . . . 5 Yuma County. . . . . . . . . 5

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 158

■ Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas County . . . . . . . 1 Benton County . . . . . . . . 5 Chicot County . . . . . . . . 1 Clay County . . . . . . . . . 1 Craighead County . . . . . . 3 Crawford County. . . . . . . 2 Franklin County . . . . . . . 1 Garland County . . . . . . . 4 Grant County . . . . . . . . . 1 Independence County . . . . 2 Jefferson County . . . . . . . 4 Johnson County . . . . . . . 1 Lincoln County. . . . . . . . 1 Little River County. . . . . . 1 Mississippi County. . . . . . 3 Perry County . . . . . . . . . 1 Phillips County. . . . . . . . 2 Polk County . . . . . . . . . 1

Pulaski County . . . . . . . 15 Sebastian County. . . . . . . 5 Sharp County. . . . . . . . . 1 Union County . . . . . . . . 2 Washington County . . . . . 5 Woodruff County. . . . . . . 1 Yell County. . . . . . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 65

■ California California Alameda County . . . . . . 54 Alpine County . . . . . . . . 1 Amador County . . . . . . . 2 Butte County . . . . . . . . . 8 Colusa County . . . . . . . . 1 Contra Costa County . . . . 34 El Dorado County . . . . . . 6 Fresno County . . . . . . . 28 Glenn County . . . . . . . . 2 Humboldt County . . . . . . 5 Imperial County . . . . . . . 5 Inyo County . . . . . . . . . 1 Kern County . . . . . . . . 23 Lassen County . . . . . . . . 2 Los Angeles County . . . . 86 Madera County. . . . . . . . 4 Marin County . . . . . . . 10 Mariposa County. . . . . . . 1 Mendocino County. . . . . . 4 Merced County. . . . . . . . 8 Modoc County . . . . . . . . 1 Monterey County . . . . . 15 Napa County . . . . . . . . . 5 Orange County . . . . . . . 86 Placer County . . . . . . . . 8 Plumas County . . . . . . . . 1 Riverside County. . . . . . 49 Sacramento County . . . . 44 San Benito County . . . . . . 2 San Bernardino County . . 59 San Diego County . . . . . 86 San Francisco City & County31 San Joaquin County . . . . 20 San Mateo County . . . . . 28 Santa Barbara County . . . 16 Santa Clara County . . . . 63 Santa Cruz County . . . . . 10 Shasta County . . . . . . . . 7 Sierra County. . . . . . . . . 1 Solano County . . . . . . . 15 Sonoma County . . . . . . 17 Sutter County. . . . . . . . . 3 Trinity County . . . . . . . . 1 Tulare County . . . . . . . 13 Tuolumne County . . . . . . 3 Yolo County . . . . . . . . . 6 Yuba County . . . . . . . . . 3

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 878

■ Colorado Colorado Adams County . . . . . . . 12 Alamosa County . . . . . . . 1 Arapahoe County. . . . . . 17 Archuleta County. . . . . . . 1 Baca County . . . . . . . . . 1 Bent County . . . . . . . . . 1 Boulder County . . . . . . 10 Broomfi eld City and County. 2 Chaffee County. . . . . . . . 1 Clear Creek County . . . . . 1

Conejos County . . . . . . . 1 Costilla County. . . . . . . . 1 Crowley County . . . . . . . 1 Custer County . . . . . . . . 1 Delta County . . . . . . . . . 1 Denver City and County . . 20 Douglas County . . . . . . . 3 Eagle County . . . . . . . . . 1 El Paso County . . . . . . . 17 Fremont County . . . . . . . 2 Garfi eld County . . . . . . . 2 Gilpin County . . . . . . . . 1 Grand County . . . . . . . . 1 Gunnison County . . . . . . 1 Hinsdale County . . . . . . . 1 Huerfano County. . . . . . . 1 Jackson County . . . . . . . 1 Jefferson County . . . . . . 19 Kit Carson County . . . . . . 1 La Plata County . . . . . . . 2 Larimer County . . . . . . . 8 Las Animas County . . . . . 1 Logan County . . . . . . . . 1 Mesa County . . . . . . . . . 4 Moffat County . . . . . . . . 1 Montezuma County . . . . . 1 Montrose County. . . . . . . 2 Morgan County . . . . . . . 1 Otero County . . . . . . . . . 1 Ouray County . . . . . . . . 1 Park County . . . . . . . . . 1 Phillips County. . . . . . . . 1 Pitkin County. . . . . . . . . 1 Prowers County . . . . . . . 1 Pueblo County . . . . . . . . 6 Rio Blanco County. . . . . . 1 Rio Grande County . . . . . 1 Routt County . . . . . . . . . 1 Saguache County. . . . . . . 1 San Miguel County . . . . . 1 Summit County . . . . . . . 1 Teller County . . . . . . . . . 1 Washington County . . . . . 1 Weld County . . . . . . . . . 6 Yuma County. . . . . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 171

■ Delaware Delaware Kent County . . . . . . . . . 5 New Castle County . . . . 19 Sussex County . . . . . . . . 5

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 29

■ Florida Florida Alachua County . . . . . . . 8 Baker County. . . . . . . . . 1 Bay County. . . . . . . . . . 6 Bradford County . . . . . . . 1 Brevard County . . . . . . 17 Broward County . . . . . . 53 Charlotte County . . . . . . . 5 Citrus County . . . . . . . . 4 Clay County . . . . . . . . . 5 Collier County . . . . . . . . 7 Columbia County . . . . . . 2 DeSoto County . . . . . . . . 1 Escambia County . . . . . 11 Flagler County . . . . . . . . 2 Gadsden County . . . . . . . 2 Gilchrist County . . . . . . . 1

Gulf County . . . . . . . . . 1 Hamilton County. . . . . . . 1 Hendry County . . . . . . . . 2 Hernando County . . . . . . 5 Highlands County . . . . . . 3 Hillsborough County. . . . 35 Holmes County. . . . . . . . 1 Indian River County . . . . . 4 Jackson County . . . . . . . 2 Jefferson County . . . . . . . 1 Lake County . . . . . . . . . 7 Lee County . . . . . . . . . 14 Leon County . . . . . . . . . 9 Liberty County . . . . . . . . 1 Madison County . . . . . . . 1 Manatee County . . . . . . . 9 Martin County . . . . . . . . 5 Miami-Dade County . . . . 81 Monroe County . . . . . . . 4 Nassau County . . . . . . . . 2 Okaloosa County. . . . . . . 6 Okeechobee County . . . . . 2 Orange County . . . . . . . 29 Osceola County . . . . . . . 5 Palm Beach County . . . . 36 Pasco County. . . . . . . . 12 Pinellas County . . . . . . 36 Polk County . . . . . . . . 17 Putnam County. . . . . . . . 3 Santa Rosa County . . . . . . 4 Sarasota County . . . . . . 12 Seminole County. . . . . . 12 St. Johns County . . . . . . . 4 St. Lucie County . . . . . . . 7 Sumter County . . . . . . . . 2 Volusia County . . . . . . . 16 Wakulla County . . . . . . . 1 Walton County . . . . . . . . 2 Washington County . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 521

■ Georgia Georgia Appling County . . . . . . . 1 Athens-Clarke County . . . . 4 Augusta-Richmond County . 8 Baker County. . . . . . . . . 1 Baldwin County . . . . . . . 2 Banks County . . . . . . . . 1 Barrow County . . . . . . . . 2 Bartow County . . . . . . . . 3 Ben Hill County . . . . . . . 1 Berrien County . . . . . . . . 1 Bibb County . . . . . . . . . 7 Bleckley County . . . . . . . 1 Brantley County . . . . . . . 1 Brooks County . . . . . . . . 1 Bryan County . . . . . . . . 1 Bulloch County . . . . . . . 2 Burke County . . . . . . . . 1 Butts County . . . . . . . . . 1 Candler County . . . . . . . 1 Charlton County . . . . . . . 1 Chatham County . . . . . . 10 Chattooga County . . . . . . 1 Clayton County . . . . . . . 8 Clinch County . . . . . . . . 1 Cobb County . . . . . . . . 19 Coffee County . . . . . . . . 2 Colquitt County . . . . . . . 2

NACo Member Counties and Vote Allocation

■ See GEORGIA on page 7


Columbia County . . . . . . 3 Cook County . . . . . . . . . 1 Coweta County. . . . . . . . 3 Crisp County . . . . . . . . . 1 Dade County . . . . . . . . . 1 Dawson County . . . . . . . 1 Decatur County . . . . . . . 2 DeKalb County. . . . . . . 23 Dooly County . . . . . . . . 1 Dougherty County . . . . . . 5 Douglas County . . . . . . . 3 Early County . . . . . . . . . 1 Effi ngham County . . . . . . 2 Elbert County . . . . . . . . 1 Evans County . . . . . . . . 1 Fannin County . . . . . . . . 1 Fayette County . . . . . . . . 3 Floyd County. . . . . . . . . 4 Forsyth County. . . . . . . . 2 Fulton County . . . . . . . 27 Gilmer County . . . . . . . . 1 Glynn County . . . . . . . . 3 Gordon County. . . . . . . . 2 Greene County . . . . . . . . 1 Gwinnett County . . . . . . 15 Habersham County. . . . . . 2 Hall County . . . . . . . . . 4 Hancock County . . . . . . . 1 Haralson County . . . . . . . 1 Henry County . . . . . . . . 3 Jackson County . . . . . . . 2 Jasper County . . . . . . . . 1 Jeff Davis County . . . . . . 1 Jefferson County . . . . . . . 1 Jones County . . . . . . . . . 1 Lamar County . . . . . . . . 1 Lanier County . . . . . . . . 1 Laurens County . . . . . . . 2 Lee County . . . . . . . . . . 1 Lincoln County. . . . . . . . 1 Lowndes County . . . . . . . 4 Lumpkin County . . . . . . . 1 Madison County . . . . . . . 1 McDuffi e County . . . . . . 1 Mitchell County . . . . . . . 1 Monroe County . . . . . . . 1 Morgan County . . . . . . . 1 Oconee County. . . . . . . . 1 Peach County. . . . . . . . . 1 Pierce County . . . . . . . . 1 Polk County . . . . . . . . . 2 Pulaski County . . . . . . . . 1 Quitman County . . . . . . . 1 Rabun County . . . . . . . . 1 Rockdale County. . . . . . . 3 Screven County . . . . . . . 1 Spalding County . . . . . . . 3 Stephens County . . . . . . . 1 Stewart County. . . . . . . . 1 Sumter County . . . . . . . . 2 Talbot County . . . . . . . . 1 Taylor County . . . . . . . . 1 Toombs County . . . . . . . 2 Troup County. . . . . . . . . 3 Twiggs County . . . . . . . . 1 Union County . . . . . . . . 1 Walker County . . . . . . . . 3 Ware County . . . . . . . . . 2 Warren County . . . . . . . . 1 Wayne County . . . . . . . . 1

Webster County . . . . . . . 1 Wheeler County . . . . . . . 1 White County . . . . . . . . 1 Whitfi eld County . . . . . . . 4 Wilkinson County . . . . . . 1 Worth County . . . . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 269

■ Hawaii Hawaii Hawaii County . . . . . . . . 6 Honolulu City and County . 35 Kauai County. . . . . . . . . 3 Maui County . . . . . . . . . 5

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 49

■ Idaho Idaho Ada County. . . . . . . . . . 9 Adams County . . . . . . . . 1 Bannock County . . . . . . . 3 Bear Lake County . . . . . . 1 Benewah County . . . . . . . 1 Bingham County . . . . . . . 2 Blaine County . . . . . . . . 1 Boise County . . . . . . . . . 1 Bonner County . . . . . . . . 2 Bonneville County . . . . . . 4 Boundary County . . . . . . 1 Butte County . . . . . . . . . 1 Camas County . . . . . . . . 1 Canyon County. . . . . . . . 4 Caribou County . . . . . . . 1 Cassia County . . . . . . . . 1 Clark County . . . . . . . . . 1 Clearwater County . . . . . . 1 Custer County . . . . . . . . 1 Elmore County . . . . . . . . 1 Franklin County . . . . . . . 1 Fremont County . . . . . . . 1 Gem County . . . . . . . . . 1 Gooding County . . . . . . . 1 Idaho County . . . . . . . . . 1 Jefferson County . . . . . . . 1 Jerome County . . . . . . . . 1 Kootenai County . . . . . . . 3 Latah County . . . . . . . . . 2 Lemhi County . . . . . . . . 1 Lewis County . . . . . . . . 1 Lincoln County. . . . . . . . 1 Madison County . . . . . . . 1 Minidoka County . . . . . . 1 Nez Perce County . . . . . . 2 Oneida County . . . . . . . . 1 Owyhee County . . . . . . . 1 Payette County . . . . . . . . 1 Power County . . . . . . . . 1 Shoshone County . . . . . . 1 Teton County . . . . . . . . . 1 Twin Falls County . . . . . . 3 Valley County . . . . . . . . 1 Washington County . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 68

■ Illinois Illinois Alexander County . . . . . . 1 Carroll County . . . . . . . . 1 Cook County . . . . . . . . 86 De Witt County. . . . . . . . 1 DeKalb County. . . . . . . . 4 Du Page County . . . . . . 33

Gallatin County . . . . . . . 1 Greene County . . . . . . . . 1 Grundy County. . . . . . . . 2 Jo Daviess County . . . . . . 1 Kane County . . . . . . . . 14 Kankakee County . . . . . . 5 Kendall County . . . . . . . 2 La Salle County . . . . . . . 5 Lake County . . . . . . . . 22 Madison County . . . . . . 11 McHenry County. . . . . . . 8 McLean County . . . . . . . 6 Montgomery County . . . . . 2 Peoria County . . . . . . . . 8 Piatt County . . . . . . . . . 1 St. Clair County . . . . . . 11 Stephenson County. . . . . . 2 Tazewell County . . . . . . . 6 Union County . . . . . . . . 1 Will County . . . . . . . . 15

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 250

■ Indiana Indiana Blackford County . . . . . . 1 Clinton County . . . . . . . . 2 Dubois County . . . . . . . . 2 Elkhart County . . . . . . . . 7 Hamilton County. . . . . . . 5 Hendricks County . . . . . . 4 Knox County . . . . . . . . . 2 Kosciusko County . . . . . . 3 La Porte County . . . . . . . 5 Lake County . . . . . . . . 20 Madison County . . . . . . . 6 Marion County . . . . . . . 34 Marshall County . . . . . . . 2 Monroe County . . . . . . . 5 Montgomery County . . . . . 2 Newton County . . . . . . . 1 Owen County. . . . . . . . . 1 Parke County . . . . . . . . . 1 Pike County . . . . . . . . . 1 Putnam County. . . . . . . . 2 Vanderburgh County . . . . . 7 Wayne County . . . . . . . . 3 Wells County . . . . . . . . . 2

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 118

■ Iowa Iowa Allamakee County . . . . . . 1 Benton County . . . . . . . . 1 Black Hawk County . . . . . 6 Boone County . . . . . . . . 2 Bremer County . . . . . . . . 1 Buchanan County . . . . . . 1 Buena Vista County . . . . . 1 Butler County . . . . . . . . 1 Calhoun County . . . . . . . 1 Cass County . . . . . . . . . 1 Cerro Gordo County . . . . . 2 Cherokee County. . . . . . . 1 Chickasaw County . . . . . . 1 Clarke County . . . . . . . . 1 Clay County . . . . . . . . . 1 Clayton County . . . . . . . 1 Des Moines County . . . . . 2 Dickinson County . . . . . . 1 Dubuque County . . . . . . . 4 Emmet County . . . . . . . . 1 Franklin County . . . . . . . 1

Fremont County . . . . . . . 1 Greene County . . . . . . . . 1 Grundy County. . . . . . . . 1 Hamilton County. . . . . . . 1 Hancock County . . . . . . . 1 Hardin County . . . . . . . . 1 Harrison County . . . . . . . 1 Henry County . . . . . . . . 1 Howard County . . . . . . . 1 Humboldt County . . . . . . 1 Iowa County . . . . . . . . . 1 Jackson County . . . . . . . 1 Jasper County . . . . . . . . 2 Jefferson County . . . . . . . 1 Johnson County . . . . . . . 4 Jones County . . . . . . . . . 1 Kossuth County . . . . . . . 1 Lee County . . . . . . . . . . 2 Linn County . . . . . . . . . 8 Louisa County . . . . . . . . 1 Lucas County. . . . . . . . . 1 Lyon County . . . . . . . . . 1 Marion County . . . . . . . . 2 Marshall County . . . . . . . 2 Mitchell County . . . . . . . 1 Monona County . . . . . . . 1 Muscatine County . . . . . . 2 Palo Alto County . . . . . . . 1 Plymouth County . . . . . . 1 Pocahontas County. . . . . . 1 Polk County . . . . . . . . 14 Pottawattamie County . . . . 4 Poweshiek County . . . . . . 1 Sac County . . . . . . . . . . 1 Scott County . . . . . . . . . 7 Sioux County. . . . . . . . . 2 Story County . . . . . . . . . 4 Union County . . . . . . . . 1 Wapello County . . . . . . . 2 Warren County . . . . . . . . 2 Washington County . . . . . 1 Webster County . . . . . . . 2 Winnebago County. . . . . . 1 Winneshiek County . . . . . 1 Woodbury County . . . . . . 5 Worth County . . . . . . . . 1 Wright County . . . . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 127

■ Kansas Kansas Allen County . . . . . . . . . 1 Anderson County. . . . . . . 1 Atchison County . . . . . . . 1 Barber County . . . . . . . . 1 Bourbon County . . . . . . . 1 Butler County . . . . . . . . 3 Cherokee County. . . . . . . 1 Clay County . . . . . . . . . 1 Coffey County . . . . . . . . 1 Cowley County. . . . . . . . 2 Crawford County. . . . . . . 2 Dickinson County . . . . . . 1 Douglas County . . . . . . . 4 Ellis County . . . . . . . . . 2 Finney County . . . . . . . . 2 Ford County . . . . . . . . . 2 Franklin County . . . . . . . 1 Geary County . . . . . . . . 2 Grant County . . . . . . . . . 1 Gray County . . . . . . . . . 1 Greeley County . . . . . . . 1

Hamilton County. . . . . . . 1 Harper County . . . . . . . . 1 Harvey County . . . . . . . . 2 Haskell County. . . . . . . . 1 Jackson County . . . . . . . 1 Jefferson County . . . . . . . 1 Jewell County . . . . . . . . 1 Johnson County . . . . . . 15 Labette County . . . . . . . . 1 Lane County . . . . . . . . . 1 Linn County . . . . . . . . . 1 Lyon County . . . . . . . . . 2 Marion County . . . . . . . . 1 Marshall County . . . . . . . 1 McPherson County. . . . . . 2 Meade County . . . . . . . . 1 Miami County . . . . . . . . 1 Mitchell County . . . . . . . 1 Morton County . . . . . . . . 1 Nemaha County . . . . . . . 1 Neosho County. . . . . . . . 1 Ness County . . . . . . . . . 1 Norton County . . . . . . . . 1 Osage County . . . . . . . . 1 Osborne County . . . . . . . 1 Pottawatomie County . . . . 1 Pratt County . . . . . . . . . 1 Reno County . . . . . . . . . 3 Republic County . . . . . . . 1 Rice County . . . . . . . . . 1 Riley County . . . . . . . . . 3 Saline County . . . . . . . . 3 Scott County . . . . . . . . . 1 Sedgwick County . . . . . 17 Seward County . . . . . . . . 1 Shawnee County . . . . . . . 7 Sherman County . . . . . . . 1 Sumner County. . . . . . . . 2 Thomas County . . . . . . . 1 Unifi ed Govt. of Wyandotte . 7 County/K.C. Wichita County. . . . . . . . 1 Woodson County . . . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 126

■ Kentucky Kentucky Ballard County . . . . . . . . 1 Boone County . . . . . . . . 3 Bourbon County . . . . . . . 1 Boyle County. . . . . . . . . 2 Breckinridge County . . . . . 1 Bullitt County . . . . . . . . 2 Campbell County . . . . . . 4 Clark County . . . . . . . . . 2 Elliott County . . . . . . . . 1 Franklin County . . . . . . . 2 Grant County . . . . . . . . . 1 Hardin County . . . . . . . . 4 Harlan County . . . . . . . . 2 Harrison County . . . . . . . 1 Henderson County . . . . . . 2 Hopkins County . . . . . . . 2 Kenton County . . . . . . . . 6 LaRue County . . . . . . . . 1 Lawrence County . . . . . . 1 Lincoln County. . . . . . . . 1 Livingston County . . . . . . 1 Madison County . . . . . . . 3 Marshall County . . . . . . . 2

■ GEORGIA from page 6


■ See KENTUCKY on page 8


Mason County . . . . . . . . 1 McLean County . . . . . . . 1 Montgomery County . . . . . 1 Pendleton County . . . . . . 1 Powell County . . . . . . . . 1 Rowan County . . . . . . . . 1 Scott County . . . . . . . . . 1 Warren County . . . . . . . . 4 Webster County . . . . . . . 1 Woodford County . . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 59

■ Louisiana Louisiana Acadia Parish. . . . . . . . . 3 Allen Parish . . . . . . . . . 1 Ascension Parish . . . . . . . 3 Assumption Parish . . . . . . 1 Avoyelles Parish . . . . . . . 2 Beauregard Parish . . . . . . 2 Bienville Parish . . . . . . . 1 Bossier Parish . . . . . . . . 4 Caddo Parish . . . . . . . . 11 Calcasieu Parish . . . . . . . 7 Caldwell Parish . . . . . . . 1 Cameron Parish . . . . . . . 1 Claiborne Parish . . . . . . . 1 Concordia Parish . . . . . . . 1 DeSoto Parish . . . . . . . . 2 East Baton Rouge Parish. . 16 East Carroll Parish . . . . . . 1 Evangeline Parish . . . . . . 2 Franklin Parish . . . . . . . . 1 Iberia Parish . . . . . . . . . 3 Iberville Parish . . . . . . . . 2 Jackson Parish . . . . . . . . 1 Jefferson Parish . . . . . . 19 Lafayette Consolidated. . . . 7 Government Lafourche Parish . . . . . . . 4 LaSalle Parish . . . . . . . . 1 Lincoln Parish . . . . . . . . 2 Livingston Parish. . . . . . . 3 Madison Parish. . . . . . . . 1 Natchitoches Parish . . . . . 2 Orleans Parish . . . . . . . 21 Plaquemines Parish . . . . . 2 Pointe Coupee Parish . . . . 1 Rapides Parish . . . . . . . . 6 Sabine Parish . . . . . . . . . 1 St. Bernard Parish . . . . . . 3 St. Charles Parish . . . . . . 2 St. Helena Parish . . . . . . . 1 St. James Parish . . . . . . . 1 St. John The Baptist Parish . 2 St. Landry Parish . . . . . . . 4 St. Martin Parish . . . . . . . 2 St. Mary Parish. . . . . . . . 3 St. Tammany Parish . . . . . 7 Tangipahoa Parish . . . . . . 4 Tensas Parish . . . . . . . . . 1 Terrebonne Parish . . . . . . 5 Vermilion Parish . . . . . . . 3 Vernon Parish . . . . . . . . 3 Washington Parish . . . . . . 2 Webster Parish . . . . . . . . 2 West Baton Rouge Parish . . 1 West Feliciana Parish . . . . 1 Winn Parish . . . . . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 185

■ Maine Maine Androscoggin County . . . . 5 Cumberland County . . . . 11 Franklin County . . . . . . . 2 Lincoln County. . . . . . . . 2 Oxford County . . . . . . . . 3 Penobscot County . . . . . . 7 Waldo County . . . . . . . . 2 York County . . . . . . . . . 7

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 39

■ Maryland Maryland Allegany County . . . . . . . 4 Anne Arundel County . . . 18 Baltimore City . . . . . . . 31 Baltimore County . . . . . 29 Calvert County . . . . . . . . 3 Caroline County . . . . . . . 2 Carroll County . . . . . . . . 6 Cecil County . . . . . . . . . 3 Charles County. . . . . . . . 5 Dorchester County . . . . . . 2 Frederick County. . . . . . . 7 Garrett County . . . . . . . . 2 Harford County . . . . . . . 8 Howard County . . . . . . . 8 Kent County . . . . . . . . . 1 Montgomery County . . . . 32 Prince George’s County . . 31 Queen Anne’s County . . . . 2 Somerset County . . . . . . . 1 St. Mary’s County . . . . . . 4 Talbot County . . . . . . . . 2 Washington County . . . . . 6 Wicomico County . . . . . . 4 Worcester County . . . . . . 2

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 213

■ Massachusetts Massachusetts Barnstable County . . . . . . 1 Norfolk County . . . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

■ Michigan Michigan Alcona County . . . . . . . . 1 Allegan County. . . . . . . . 4 Antrim County . . . . . . . . 1 Berrien County . . . . . . . . 7 Charlevoix County . . . . . . 1 Cheboygan County. . . . . . 1 Chippewa County . . . . . . 2 Clare County . . . . . . . . . 2 Clinton County . . . . . . . . 3 Crawford County. . . . . . . 1 Delta County . . . . . . . . . 2 Eaton County. . . . . . . . . 4 Emmet County . . . . . . . . 2 Genesee County . . . . . . 18 Grand Traverse County . . . 3 Hillsdale County . . . . . . . 2 Houghton County . . . . . . 2 Huron County . . . . . . . . 2 Ingham County. . . . . . . 12 Iosco County . . . . . . . . . 2 Iron County. . . . . . . . . . 1 Isabella County. . . . . . . . 3 Jackson County . . . . . . . 7 Kent County . . . . . . . . 21 Lake County . . . . . . . . . 1

Lapeer County . . . . . . . . 4 Leelanau County . . . . . . . 1 Lenawee County . . . . . . . 4 Livingston County . . . . . . 5 Mackinac County . . . . . . 1 Macomb County . . . . . . 30 Menominee County . . . . . 2 Midland County . . . . . . . 4 Monroe County . . . . . . . 6 Montcalm County . . . . . . 3 Montmorency County . . . . 1 Muskegon County . . . . . . 7 Newaygo County. . . . . . . 2 Oakland County . . . . . . 46 Oceana County . . . . . . . . 1 Ontonagon County . . . . . . 1 Osceola County . . . . . . . 1 Oscoda County . . . . . . . . 1 Ottawa County . . . . . . . . 8 Roscommon County . . . . . 1 Saginaw County . . . . . . . 9 Schoolcraft County. . . . . . 1 St. Clair County . . . . . . . 7 St. Joseph County . . . . . . 3 Tuscola County. . . . . . . . 3 Washtenaw County. . . . . 12 Wayne County . . . . . . . 86

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 355

■ Minnesota Minnesota Aitkin County . . . . . . . . 1 Anoka County . . . . . . . 11 Becker County . . . . . . . . 2 Beltrami County . . . . . . . 2 Benton County . . . . . . . . 2 Big Stone County . . . . . . 1 Blue Earth County . . . . . . 3 Brown County . . . . . . . . 2 Carlton County . . . . . . . . 2 Carver County . . . . . . . . 2 Cass County . . . . . . . . . 1 Chippewa County . . . . . . 1 Chisago County . . . . . . . 2 Clearwater County . . . . . . 1 Cook County . . . . . . . . . 1 Cottonwood County . . . . . 1 Crow Wing County . . . . . 2 Dakota County . . . . . . . 12 Dodge County . . . . . . . . 1 Douglas County . . . . . . . 2 Faribault County . . . . . . . 1 Fillmore County . . . . . . . 1 Freeborn County . . . . . . . 2 Goodhue County . . . . . . . 2 Grant County . . . . . . . . . 1 Hennepin County . . . . . 43 Houston County . . . . . . . 1 Hubbard County . . . . . . . 1 Isanti County . . . . . . . . . 2 Itasca County. . . . . . . . . 2 Jackson County . . . . . . . 1 Kanabec County . . . . . . . 1 Kandiyohi County . . . . . . 2 Kittson County . . . . . . . . 1 Koochiching County . . . . . 1 Lac Qui Parle County . . . . 1 Lake County . . . . . . . . . 1 Lake Of The Woods County . 1 Le Sueur County . . . . . . . 1 Lincoln County. . . . . . . . 1 Lyon County . . . . . . . . . 2

Mahnomen County. . . . . . 1 Marshall County . . . . . . . 1 Martin County . . . . . . . . 1 McLeod County . . . . . . . 2 Meeker County. . . . . . . . 1 Mille Lacs County . . . . . . 1 Morrison County . . . . . . . 2 Mower County . . . . . . . . 2 Murray County . . . . . . . . 1 Nicollet County . . . . . . . 2 Nobles County . . . . . . . . 1 Norman County . . . . . . . 1 Olmsted County . . . . . . . 5 Otter Tail County. . . . . . . 3 Pennington County. . . . . . 1 Pine County . . . . . . . . . 1 Pipestone County. . . . . . . 1 Polk County . . . . . . . . . 2 Pope County . . . . . . . . . 1 Ramsey County . . . . . . 21 Red Lake County. . . . . . . 1 Redwood County. . . . . . . 1 Renville County . . . . . . . 1 Rice County . . . . . . . . . 3 Rock County . . . . . . . . . 1 Roseau County . . . . . . . . 1 Scott County . . . . . . . . . 3 Sherburne County . . . . . . 2 Sibley County . . . . . . . . 1 St. Louis County . . . . . . . 9 Stearns County . . . . . . . . 5 Steele County . . . . . . . . 2 Stevens County. . . . . . . . 1 Swift County . . . . . . . . . 1 Todd County . . . . . . . . . 1 Traverse County . . . . . . . 1 Wabasha County . . . . . . . 1 Wadena County . . . . . . . 1 Waseca County . . . . . . . . 1 Washington County . . . . . 7 Watonwan County . . . . . . 1 Wilkin County . . . . . . . . 1 Winona County. . . . . . . . 2 Wright County . . . . . . . . 3 Yellow Medicine County. . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 224

■ Mississippi Mississippi Adams County . . . . . . . . 2 Alcorn County . . . . . . . . 2 Attala County. . . . . . . . . 1 Bolivar County . . . . . . . . 2 Calhoun County . . . . . . . 1 Carroll County . . . . . . . . 1 Claiborne County . . . . . . 1 Clarke County . . . . . . . . 1 Coahoma County. . . . . . . 2 Covington County . . . . . . 1 De Soto County . . . . . . . 3 Forrest County . . . . . . . . 3 George County . . . . . . . . 1 Greene County . . . . . . . . 1 Grenada County . . . . . . . 1 Hancock County . . . . . . . 2 Harrison County . . . . . . . 7 Hinds County. . . . . . . . 11 Issaquena County . . . . . . 1 Jackson County . . . . . . . 5 Jasper County . . . . . . . . 1 Jefferson Davis County . . . 1 Jones County . . . . . . . . . 3

Kemper County . . . . . . . 1 Lafayette County . . . . . . . 2 Lamar County . . . . . . . . 2 Lauderdale County . . . . . . 4 Lee County . . . . . . . . . . 3 Lefl ore County . . . . . . . . 2 Lowndes County . . . . . . . 3 Madison County . . . . . . . 3 Marion County . . . . . . . . 2 Marshall County . . . . . . . 2 Monroe County . . . . . . . 2 Montgomery County . . . . . 1 Neshoba County . . . . . . . 2 Newton County . . . . . . . 1 Noxubee County . . . . . . . 1 Oktibbeha County . . . . . . 2 Panola County . . . . . . . . 2 Pearl River County. . . . . . 2 Perry County . . . . . . . . . 1 Pike County . . . . . . . . . 2 Rankin County . . . . . . . . 4 Scott County . . . . . . . . . 2 Smith County. . . . . . . . . 1 Stone County . . . . . . . . . 1 Sunfl ower County . . . . . . 2 Tallahatchie County . . . . . 1 Tate County . . . . . . . . . 1 Tishomingo County . . . . . 1 Tunica County . . . . . . . . 1 Union County . . . . . . . . 1 Walthall County . . . . . . . 1 Warren County . . . . . . . . 2 Washington County . . . . . 3 Wayne County . . . . . . . . 1 Webster County . . . . . . . 1 Wilkinson County . . . . . . 1 Winston County . . . . . . . 1 Yazoo County . . . . . . . . 2

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 121

■ Missouri Missouri Andrew County . . . . . . . 1 Atchison County . . . . . . . 1 Audrain County . . . . . . . 1 Barry County . . . . . . . . . 2 Barton County . . . . . . . . 1 Bates County . . . . . . . . . 1 Benton County . . . . . . . . 1 Bollinger County . . . . . . . 1 Boone County . . . . . . . . 5 Buchanan County . . . . . . 4 Caldwell County . . . . . . . 1 Camden County . . . . . . . 2 Cape Girardeau County . . . 3 Carroll County . . . . . . . . 1 Carter County . . . . . . . . 1 Cass County . . . . . . . . . 3 Chariton County . . . . . . . 1 Christian County . . . . . . . 2 Clay County . . . . . . . . . 7 Clinton County . . . . . . . . 1 Cole County . . . . . . . . . 3 Cooper County . . . . . . . . 1 DeKalb County. . . . . . . . 1 Douglas County . . . . . . . 1 Dunklin County . . . . . . . 2 Franklin County . . . . . . . 4 Gasconade County . . . . . . 1 Gentry County . . . . . . . . 1

■ KENTUCKY from page 7

■ See MISSOURI on page 9



Greene County . . . . . . . . 9 Harrison County . . . . . . . 1 Henry County . . . . . . . . 1 Hickory County . . . . . . . 1 Holt County . . . . . . . . . 1 Howard County . . . . . . . 1 Iron County. . . . . . . . . . 1 Jackson County . . . . . . 27 Jasper County . . . . . . . . 4 Jefferson County . . . . . . . 8 Johnson County . . . . . . . 2 Knox County . . . . . . . . . 1 Laclede County . . . . . . . 2 Lafayette County . . . . . . . 2 Lincoln County. . . . . . . . 2 Linn County . . . . . . . . . 1 Livingston County . . . . . . 1 Macon County . . . . . . . . 1 Madison County . . . . . . . 1 Marion County . . . . . . . . 2 McDonald County . . . . . . 1 Mississippi County. . . . . . 1 Moniteau County. . . . . . . 1 Monroe County . . . . . . . 1 Morgan County . . . . . . . 1 New Madrid County . . . . . 1 Newton County . . . . . . . 2 Nodaway County. . . . . . . 1 Oregon County . . . . . . . . 1 Ozark County . . . . . . . . 1 Pemiscot County . . . . . . . 1 Perry County . . . . . . . . . 1 Phelps County . . . . . . . . 2 Platte County . . . . . . . . . 3 Polk County . . . . . . . . . 1 Randolph County . . . . . . 2 Ray County. . . . . . . . . . 1 Reynolds County. . . . . . . 1 Scott County . . . . . . . . . 2 Shannon County . . . . . . . 1 St. Clair County . . . . . . . 1 St. Francois County . . . . . 3 St. Louis County . . . . . . 42 Stone County . . . . . . . . . 1 Sullivan County . . . . . . . 1 Taney County. . . . . . . . . 2 Texas County . . . . . . . . . 1 Vernon County . . . . . . . . 1 Warren County . . . . . . . . 1 Washington County . . . . . 1 Wayne County . . . . . . . . 1 Wright County . . . . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 205

■ Montana Montana Anaconda-Deer Lodge County1 Beaverhead County . . . . . 1 Big Horn County . . . . . . . 1 Blaine County . . . . . . . . 1 Broadwater County . . . . . 1 Butte-Silver Bow County . . 2 Carbon County . . . . . . . . 1 Carter County . . . . . . . . 1 Cascade County . . . . . . . 4 Chouteau County. . . . . . . 1 Custer County . . . . . . . . 1 Daniels County. . . . . . . . 1 Dawson County . . . . . . . 1 Fallon County . . . . . . . . 1

Fergus County . . . . . . . . 1 Flathead County . . . . . . . 3 Gallatin County . . . . . . . 3 Garfi eld County . . . . . . . 1 Glacier County . . . . . . . . 1 Golden Valley County . . . . 1 Granite County . . . . . . . . 1 Hill County . . . . . . . . . . 1 Jefferson County . . . . . . . 1 Judith Basin County . . . . . 1 Lake County . . . . . . . . . 1 Lewis And Clark County. . . 2 Liberty County . . . . . . . . 1 Lincoln County. . . . . . . . 1 Madison County . . . . . . . 1 McCone County . . . . . . . 1 Meagher County . . . . . . . 1 Mineral County . . . . . . . 1 Missoula County . . . . . . . 4 Musselshell County . . . . . 1 Park County . . . . . . . . . 1 Petroleum County . . . . . . 1 Phillips County. . . . . . . . 1 Pondera County . . . . . . . 1 Powder River County . . . . 1 Powell County . . . . . . . . 1 Prairie County . . . . . . . . 1 Ravalli County . . . . . . . . 2 Richland County . . . . . . . 1 Roosevelt County . . . . . . 1 Rosebud County . . . . . . . 1 Sanders County . . . . . . . 1 Sheridan County . . . . . . . 1 Stillwater County. . . . . . . 1 Sweet Grass County . . . . . 1 Teton County . . . . . . . . . 1 Toole County . . . . . . . . . 1 Treasure County . . . . . . . 1 Valley County . . . . . . . . 1 Wheatland County . . . . . . 1 Wibaux County. . . . . . . . 1 Yellowstone County . . . . . 5

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 73

■ Nebraska Nebraska Adams County . . . . . . . . 2 Antelope County . . . . . . . 1 Banner County . . . . . . . . 1 Boone County . . . . . . . . 1 Buffalo County . . . . . . . . 2 Burt County . . . . . . . . . 1 Cass County . . . . . . . . . 1 Chase County . . . . . . . . 1 Cherry County . . . . . . . . 1 Cheyenne County . . . . . . 1 Clay County . . . . . . . . . 1 Cuming County . . . . . . . 1 Custer County . . . . . . . . 1 Dawes County . . . . . . . . 1 Dawson County . . . . . . . 1 Deuel County. . . . . . . . . 1 Dixon County . . . . . . . . 1 Douglas County . . . . . . 18 Fillmore County . . . . . . . 1 Frontier County . . . . . . . 1 Hall County . . . . . . . . . 3 Hamilton County. . . . . . . 1 Harlan County . . . . . . . . 1 Hayes County . . . . . . . . 1 Holt County . . . . . . . . . 1 Howard County . . . . . . . 1

Jefferson County . . . . . . . 1 Keith County . . . . . . . . . 1 Lancaster County. . . . . . . 9 Lincoln County. . . . . . . . 2 Logan County . . . . . . . . 1 Merrick County . . . . . . . 1 Morrill County . . . . . . . . 1 Nemaha County . . . . . . . 1 Pawnee County. . . . . . . . 1 Phelps County . . . . . . . . 1 Richardson County. . . . . . 1 Saline County . . . . . . . . 1 Saunders County . . . . . . . 1 Scotts Bluff County . . . . . 2 Seward County . . . . . . . . 1 Sherman County . . . . . . . 1 Sioux County. . . . . . . . . 1 Stanton County. . . . . . . . 1 Thayer County . . . . . . . . 1 Washington County . . . . . 1 Wayne County . . . . . . . . 1 York County . . . . . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 79

■ Nevada Nevada Carson City. . . . . . . . . . 2 Churchill County . . . . . . . 1 Clark County . . . . . . . . 31 Douglas County . . . . . . . 2 Elko County . . . . . . . . . 2 Esmeralda County . . . . . . 1 Eureka County . . . . . . . . 1 Humboldt County . . . . . . 1 Lander County . . . . . . . . 1 Lincoln County. . . . . . . . 1 Lyon County . . . . . . . . . 1 Mineral County . . . . . . . 1 Nye County. . . . . . . . . . 1 Pershing County . . . . . . . 1 Storey County . . . . . . . . 1 Washoe County. . . . . . . 11 White Pine County . . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 60

■ New Hampshire New Hampshire Belknap County . . . . . . . 2 Carroll County . . . . . . . . 2 Cheshire County . . . . . . . 2 Coos County . . . . . . . . . 2 Grafton County. . . . . . . . 2 Hillsborough County. . . . . 2 Merrimack County . . . . . . 2 Rockingham County . . . . . 2 Strafford County . . . . . . . 2 Sullivan County . . . . . . . 2

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 20

■ New Jersey New Jersey Atlantic County . . . . . . 10 Burlington County . . . . . 17 Cape May County . . . . . . 4 Cumberland County . . . . . 6 Essex County. . . . . . . . 33 Gloucester County . . . . . 10 Hudson County. . . . . . . 24 Mercer County . . . . . . . 14 Middlesex County . . . . . 28 Monmouth County . . . . . 24 Ocean County . . . . . . . 19

Somerset County . . . . . . 10 Union County . . . . . . . 21

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 220

■ New Mexico New Mexico Bernalillo County . . . . . 20 Catron County . . . . . . . . 1 Chaves County . . . . . . . . 3 Cibola County . . . . . . . . 1 Colfax County . . . . . . . . 1 Curry County. . . . . . . . . 2 De Baca County . . . . . . . 1 Dona Ana County . . . . . . 6 Eddy County . . . . . . . . . 3 Grant County . . . . . . . . . 2 Guadalupe County . . . . . . 1 Harding County . . . . . . . 1 Hidalgo County . . . . . . . 1 Lea County . . . . . . . . . . 3 Lincoln County. . . . . . . . 1 Los Alamos County . . . . . 1 Luna County . . . . . . . . . 1 McKinley County . . . . . . 3 Mora County . . . . . . . . . 1 Otero County . . . . . . . . . 3 Quay County . . . . . . . . . 1 Rio Arriba County . . . . . . 2 Roosevelt County . . . . . . 1 San Juan County . . . . . . . 4 San Miguel County . . . . . 2 Sandoval County . . . . . . . 3 Santa Fe County . . . . . . . 5 Sierra County. . . . . . . . . 1 Socorro County . . . . . . . 1 Taos County . . . . . . . . . 1 Torrance County . . . . . . . 1 Union County . . . . . . . . 1 Valencia County . . . . . . . 2

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 81

■ New York New York Broome County . . . . . . . 9 Cattaraugus County . . . . . 4 Cayuga County. . . . . . . . 4 Clinton County . . . . . . . . 4 Dutchess County . . . . . . 11 Essex County. . . . . . . . . 2 Greene County . . . . . . . . 2 Hamilton County. . . . . . . 1 Jefferson County . . . . . . . 5 Madison County . . . . . . . 3 Oneida County . . . . . . . 11 Onondaga County . . . . . 20 Orange County . . . . . . . 13 Rensselaer County . . . . . . 7 Rockland County. . . . . . 12 Saratoga County . . . . . . . 8 Seneca County . . . . . . . . 2 Steuben County . . . . . . . 5 Suffolk County . . . . . . . 55 Sullivan County . . . . . . . 3 Ulster County . . . . . . . . 7 Westchester County . . . . 37

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 225

■ North Carolina North Carolina Alamance County . . . . . . 5 Alexander County . . . . . . 2 Alleghany County . . . . . . 1

Anson County . . . . . . . . 1 Ashe County . . . . . . . . . 1 Avery County. . . . . . . . . 1 Beaufort County . . . . . . . 2 Bertie County . . . . . . . . 1 Bladen County . . . . . . . . 2 Brunswick County . . . . . . 3 Buncombe County . . . . . . 8 Burke County . . . . . . . . 4 Cabarrus County . . . . . . . 5 Caldwell County . . . . . . . 3 Camden County . . . . . . . 1 Carteret County . . . . . . . 3 Caswell County . . . . . . . 1 Catawba County . . . . . . . 5 Chatham County . . . . . . . 2 Cherokee County. . . . . . . 1 Chowan County . . . . . . . 1 Clay County . . . . . . . . . 1 Cleveland County . . . . . . 4 Columbus County . . . . . . 3 Craven County . . . . . . . . 4 Cumberland County . . . . 12 Currituck County. . . . . . . 1 Dare County . . . . . . . . . 1 Davidson County. . . . . . . 6 Davie County. . . . . . . . . 2 Duplin County . . . . . . . . 2 Durham County . . . . . . . 8 Edgecombe County . . . . . 3 Forsyth County. . . . . . . 12 Franklin County . . . . . . . 2 Gaston County . . . . . . . . 8 Gates County . . . . . . . . . 1 Graham County . . . . . . . 1 Granville County . . . . . . . 2 Greene County . . . . . . . . 1 Guilford County . . . . . . 15 Halifax County . . . . . . . . 3 Harnett County . . . . . . . . 3 Haywood County . . . . . . 2 Henderson County . . . . . . 3 Hertford County . . . . . . . 1 Hoke County . . . . . . . . . 1 Hyde County . . . . . . . . . 1 Iredell County . . . . . . . . 4 Jackson County . . . . . . . 2 Johnston County . . . . . . . 4 Jones County . . . . . . . . . 1 Lee County . . . . . . . . . . 2 Lenoir County . . . . . . . . 3 Lincoln County. . . . . . . . 3 Macon County . . . . . . . . 1 Madison County . . . . . . . 1 Martin County . . . . . . . . 2 McDowell County . . . . . . 2 Mecklenburg County. . . . 22 Mitchell County . . . . . . . 1 Montgomery County . . . . . 1 Moore County . . . . . . . . 3 Nash County . . . . . . . . . 4 New Hanover County . . . . 6 Northampton County. . . . . 1 Onslow County. . . . . . . . 7 Orange County . . . . . . . . 4 Pamlico County . . . . . . . 1 Pasquotank County. . . . . . 2 Pender County . . . . . . . . 2 Perquimans County . . . . . 1 Person County . . . . . . . . 2

■ MISSOURI from page 8

■ See CAROLINA on page 10



Pitt County . . . . . . . . . . 5 Polk County . . . . . . . . . 1 Randolph County . . . . . . 5 Richmond County . . . . . . 2 Robeson County . . . . . . . 5 Rockingham County . . . . . 4 Rowan County . . . . . . . . 5 Rutherford County . . . . . . 3 Sampson County . . . . . . . 2 Scotland County . . . . . . . 2 Stanly County . . . . . . . . 3 Stokes County . . . . . . . . 2 Surry County . . . . . . . . . 3 Swain County . . . . . . . . 1 Transylvania County . . . . . 2 Tyrrell County . . . . . . . . 1 Union County . . . . . . . . 4 Vance County . . . . . . . . 2 Wake County . . . . . . . . 18 Warren County . . . . . . . . 1 Washington County . . . . . 1 Watauga County . . . . . . . 2 Wayne County . . . . . . . . 5 Wilkes County . . . . . . . . 3 Wilson County . . . . . . . . 3 Yadkin County . . . . . . . . 2 Yancey County . . . . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 326

■ North Dakota North Dakota Adams County . . . . . . . . 1 Barnes County . . . . . . . . 1 Benson County . . . . . . . . 1 Billings County . . . . . . . 1 Bottineau County. . . . . . . 1 Bowman County . . . . . . . 1 Burke County . . . . . . . . 1 Burleigh County . . . . . . . 3 Cass County . . . . . . . . . 5 Cavalier County . . . . . . . 1 Dickey County . . . . . . . . 1 Divide County . . . . . . . . 1 Dunn County . . . . . . . . . 1 Eddy County . . . . . . . . . 1 Emmons County . . . . . . . 1 Foster County . . . . . . . . 1 Golden Valley County . . . . 1 Grand Forks County . . . . . 3 Grant County . . . . . . . . . 1 Griggs County . . . . . . . . 1 Hettinger County . . . . . . . 1 Kidder County . . . . . . . . 1 LaMoure County . . . . . . . 1 Logan County . . . . . . . . 1 McHenry County. . . . . . . 1 McIntosh County. . . . . . . 1 McKenzie County . . . . . . 1 McLean County . . . . . . . 1 Mercer County . . . . . . . . 1 Morton County . . . . . . . . 1 Mountrail County . . . . . . 1 Nelson County . . . . . . . . 1 Oliver County . . . . . . . . 1 Pembina County . . . . . . . 1 Pierce County . . . . . . . . 1 Ramsey County . . . . . . . 1 Ransom County . . . . . . . 1 Renville County . . . . . . . 1 Richland County . . . . . . . 1

Rolette County . . . . . . . . 1 Sargent County . . . . . . . . 1 Sheridan County . . . . . . . 1 Sioux County. . . . . . . . . 1 Slope County . . . . . . . . . 1 Stark County . . . . . . . . . 1 Steele County . . . . . . . . 1 Stutsman County . . . . . . . 1 Towner County . . . . . . . . 1 Traill County . . . . . . . . . 1 Walsh County . . . . . . . . 1 Ward County . . . . . . . . . 3 Wells County . . . . . . . . . 1 Williams County . . . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 63

■ Ohio Ohio Adams County . . . . . . . . 2 Ashland County . . . . . . . 2 Athens County . . . . . . . . 3 Auglaize County . . . . . . . 2 Belmont County . . . . . . . 3 Butler County . . . . . . . 13 Clark County . . . . . . . . . 7 Clermont County. . . . . . . 7 Clinton County . . . . . . . . 2 Crawford County. . . . . . . 2 Cuyahoga County . . . . . 59 Defi ance County . . . . . . . 2 Delaware County. . . . . . . 3 Erie County. . . . . . . . . . 4 Fayette County . . . . . . . . 2 Franklin County . . . . . . 40 Gallia County . . . . . . . . 2 Greene County . . . . . . . . 6 Hamilton County. . . . . . 37 Hardin County . . . . . . . . 2 Henry County . . . . . . . . 2 Highland County . . . . . . . 2 Hocking County . . . . . . . 2 Holmes County. . . . . . . . 2 Huron County . . . . . . . . 3 Jefferson County . . . . . . . 4 Knox County . . . . . . . . . 2 Lake County . . . . . . . . . 9 Licking County. . . . . . . . 6 Logan County . . . . . . . . 2 Lorain County . . . . . . . 12 Lucas County. . . . . . . . 20 Madison County . . . . . . . 2 Mahoning County . . . . . 12 Monroe County . . . . . . . 1 Montgomery County . . . . 24 Morrow County . . . . . . . 2 Muskingum County . . . . . 4 Ottawa County . . . . . . . . 2 Pike County . . . . . . . . . 2 Portage County. . . . . . . . 6 Ross County . . . . . . . . . 3 Scioto County . . . . . . . . 4 Summit County . . . . . . 22 Union County . . . . . . . . 2 Van Wert County . . . . . . . 2 Warren County . . . . . . . . 5 Wyandot County . . . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 360

■ Oklahoma Oklahoma Beckham County. . . . . . . 1 Blaine County . . . . . . . . 1

Bryan County . . . . . . . . 2 Canadian County. . . . . . . 4 Cimarron County. . . . . . . 1 Cleveland County . . . . . . 8 Coal County . . . . . . . . . 1 Cotton County . . . . . . . . 1 Custer County . . . . . . . . 2 Grady County . . . . . . . . 2 Hughes County. . . . . . . . 1 Johnston County . . . . . . . 1 Kiowa County . . . . . . . . 1 Logan County . . . . . . . . 2 Major County . . . . . . . . 1 Mayes County . . . . . . . . 2 Oklahoma County . . . . . 25 Osage County . . . . . . . . 2 Pawnee County. . . . . . . . 1 Payne County . . . . . . . . 3 Sequoyah County . . . . . . 2 Stephens County . . . . . . . 2 Texas County . . . . . . . . . 1 Tulsa County . . . . . . . . 21 Washington County . . . . . 2 Washita County . . . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 91

■ Oregon Oregon Baker County. . . . . . . . . 1 Benton County . . . . . . . . 3 Clackamas County . . . . . 12 Clatsop County. . . . . . . . 2 Columbia County . . . . . . 2 Coos County . . . . . . . . . 3 Crook County . . . . . . . . 1 Curry County. . . . . . . . . 1 Deschutes County . . . . . . 4 Douglas County . . . . . . . 4 Gilliam County. . . . . . . . 1 Grant County . . . . . . . . . 1 Harney County . . . . . . . . 1 Hood River County . . . . . 1 Jackson County . . . . . . . 7 Jefferson County . . . . . . . 1 Josephine County . . . . . . 3 Klamath County . . . . . . . 3 Lake County . . . . . . . . . 1 Lane County . . . . . . . . 12 Lincoln County. . . . . . . . 2 Linn County . . . . . . . . . 4 Malheur County . . . . . . . 2 Marion County . . . . . . . 10 Morrow County . . . . . . . 1 Multnomah County . . . . 25 Polk County . . . . . . . . . 3 Sherman County . . . . . . . 1 Tillamook County . . . . . . 1 Umatilla County . . . . . . . 3 Union County . . . . . . . . 1 Wallowa County . . . . . . . 1 Wasco County . . . . . . . . 1 Washington County . . . . 13 Wheeler County . . . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 133

■ Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Adams County . . . . . . . . 4 Allegheny County . . . . . 56 Armstrong County . . . . . . 4 Beaver County . . . . . . . . 8 Berks County. . . . . . . . 14

Bradford County . . . . . . . 3 Butler County . . . . . . . . 7 Carbon County . . . . . . . . 3 Chester County. . . . . . . 16 Clinton County . . . . . . . . 2 Dauphin County . . . . . . 10 Delaware County. . . . . . 23 Elk County . . . . . . . . . . 2 Erie County. . . . . . . . . 12 Forest County . . . . . . . . 1 Franklin County . . . . . . . 6 Greene County . . . . . . . . 2 Juniata County . . . . . . . . 1 Lackawanna County . . . . 10 Lancaster County. . . . . . 18 Lehigh County . . . . . . . 13 Lycoming County . . . . . . 5 Monroe County . . . . . . . 4 Montour County . . . . . . . 1 Northampton County. . . . 11 Northumberland County . . . 5 Perry County . . . . . . . . . 2 Philadelphia County . . . . 66 Pike County . . . . . . . . . 2 Potter County. . . . . . . . . 1 Snyder County . . . . . . . . 2 Somerset County . . . . . . . 4 Tioga County . . . . . . . . . 2 Union County . . . . . . . . 2 Wyoming County . . . . . . 2

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 324

■ South Carolina South Carolina Abbeville County. . . . . . . 1 Allendale County. . . . . . . 1 Anderson County. . . . . . . 7 Bamberg County . . . . . . . 1 Barnwell County . . . . . . . 1 Beaufort County . . . . . . . 4 Berkeley County . . . . . . . 6 Calhoun County . . . . . . . 1 Charleston County . . . . . 13 Cherokee County. . . . . . . 2 Chester County. . . . . . . . 2 Chesterfi eld County . . . . . 2 Clarendon County . . . . . . 2 Colleton County . . . . . . . 2 Darlington County . . . . . . 3 Dillon County . . . . . . . . 2 Dorchester County . . . . . . 4 Edgefi eld County. . . . . . . 1 Fairfi eld County . . . . . . . 1 Florence County . . . . . . . 5 Georgetown County . . . . . 2 Greenville County . . . . . 14 Greenwood County . . . . . 3 Hampton County . . . . . . . 1 Horry County. . . . . . . . . 6 Jasper County . . . . . . . . 1 Kershaw County . . . . . . . 2 Laurens County . . . . . . . 3 Lee County . . . . . . . . . . 1 Lexington County . . . . . . 7 Marion County . . . . . . . . 2 Marlboro County. . . . . . . 2 McCormick County . . . . . 1 Newberry County . . . . . . 2 Oconee County. . . . . . . . 3 Orangeburg County . . . . . 4 Pickens County. . . . . . . . 4 Richland County . . . . . . 12

Saluda County . . . . . . . . 1 Spartanburg County . . . . 10 Sumter County . . . . . . . . 5 Union County . . . . . . . . 2 Williamsburg County . . . . 2 York County . . . . . . . . . 6

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 157

■ South Dakota South Dakota Beadle County . . . . . . . . 1 Bennett County. . . . . . . . 1 Bon Homme County . . . . . 1 Brookings County . . . . . . 2 Brown County . . . . . . . . 2 Brule County . . . . . . . . . 1 Butte County . . . . . . . . . 1 Campbell County . . . . . . 1 Charles Mix County . . . . . 1 Clay County . . . . . . . . . 1 Codington County . . . . . . 1 Corson County . . . . . . . . 1 Custer County . . . . . . . . 1 Davison County . . . . . . . 1 Deuel County. . . . . . . . . 1 Douglas County . . . . . . . 1 Edmunds County. . . . . . . 1 Grant County . . . . . . . . . 1 Gregory County . . . . . . . 1 Hand County . . . . . . . . . 1 Hughes County. . . . . . . . 1 Hutchinson County. . . . . . 1 Jerauld County . . . . . . . . 1 Lawrence County . . . . . . 1 Lincoln County. . . . . . . . 1 Lyman County . . . . . . . . 1 McCook County . . . . . . . 1 McPherson County. . . . . . 1 Meade County . . . . . . . . 1 Miner County . . . . . . . . 1 Minnehaha County . . . . . . 6 Perkins County . . . . . . . . 1 Stanley County . . . . . . . . 1 Sully County . . . . . . . . . 1 Turner County . . . . . . . . 1 Union County . . . . . . . . 1 Walworth County . . . . . . 1 Yankton County . . . . . . . 1 Ziebach County . . . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 46

■ Tennessee Tennessee Blount County . . . . . . . . 4 Bradley County . . . . . . . 4 Crockett County . . . . . . . 1 Dyer County . . . . . . . . . 2 Franklin County . . . . . . . 2 Gibson County . . . . . . . . 2 Grainger County . . . . . . . 1 Hamilton County. . . . . . 12 Haywood County . . . . . . 1 Hickman County . . . . . . . 1 Jefferson County . . . . . . . 2 Knox County . . . . . . . . 14 Lauderdale County . . . . . . 1 Lincoln County. . . . . . . . 2 Loudon County. . . . . . . . 2 Marion County . . . . . . . . 2 McMinn County . . . . . . . 2

■ CAROLINA from page 9

■ See TENNESSEE on page 11



Montgomery County . . . . . 5 Morgan County . . . . . . . 1 Scott County . . . . . . . . . 1 Sevier County . . . . . . . . 3 Shelby County . . . . . . . 35 Sumner County. . . . . . . . 5 Tipton County . . . . . . . . 2 Washington County . . . . . 4 Weakley County . . . . . . . 2 Williamson County. . . . . . 4

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 117

■ Texas Texas Andrews County . . . . . . . 1 Aransas County . . . . . . . 1 Archer County . . . . . . . . 1 Austin County . . . . . . . . 1 Bandera County . . . . . . . 1 Bastrop County. . . . . . . . 2 Bee County . . . . . . . . . . 2 Bell County. . . . . . . . . . 8 Bexar County. . . . . . . . 50 Bosque County . . . . . . . . 1 Brazoria County . . . . . . . 8 Brewster County . . . . . . . 1 Brooks County . . . . . . . . 1 Calhoun County . . . . . . . 1 Carson County . . . . . . . . 1 Cochran County . . . . . . . 1 Collin County . . . . . . . 11 Comal County . . . . . . . . 3 Concho County. . . . . . . . 1 Cooke County . . . . . . . . 2 Culberson County . . . . . . 1 Dallas County . . . . . . . 78 Denton County . . . . . . . 12 DeWitt County . . . . . . . . 1 Duval County . . . . . . . . 1 Eastland County . . . . . . . 1 El Paso County . . . . . . . 25 Ellis County . . . . . . . . . 4 Falls County . . . . . . . . . 1 Fayette County . . . . . . . . 1 Fort Bend County . . . . . 10 Franklin County . . . . . . . 1 Gaines County . . . . . . . . 1 Galveston County . . . . . 10 Garza County. . . . . . . . . 1 Gonzales County . . . . . . . 1 Gray County . . . . . . . . . 1 Grayson County . . . . . . . 4 Gregg County . . . . . . . . 5 Guadalupe County . . . . . . 3 Hall County . . . . . . . . . 1 Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Hays County . . . . . . . . . 3 Hemphill County. . . . . . . 1 Hopkins County . . . . . . . 2 Houston County . . . . . . . 1 Hutchinson County. . . . . . 2 Jack County . . . . . . . . . 1 Jackson County . . . . . . . 1 Jefferson County . . . . . . 10 Jim Hogg County . . . . . . 1 Jim Wells County . . . . . . 2 Karnes County . . . . . . . . 1 Kaufman County . . . . . . . 3 Kenedy County. . . . . . . . 1 Kimble County . . . . . . . . 1

Kleberg County . . . . . . . 2 Knox County . . . . . . . . . 1 Lampasas County . . . . . . 1 Lee County . . . . . . . . . . 1 Leon County . . . . . . . . . 1 Lipscomb County . . . . . . 1 Live Oak County . . . . . . . 1 Loving County . . . . . . . . 1 Madison County . . . . . . . 1 Marion County . . . . . . . . 1 Martin County . . . . . . . . 1 Mason County . . . . . . . . 1 McCulloch County . . . . . . 1 McMullen County . . . . . . 1 Medina County. . . . . . . . 2 Milam County . . . . . . . . 1 Moore County . . . . . . . . 1 Morris County . . . . . . . . 1 Navarro County . . . . . . . 2 Newton County . . . . . . . 1 Nueces County . . . . . . . 13 Palo Pinto County . . . . . . 2 Panola County . . . . . . . . 1 Parmer County . . . . . . . . 1 Polk County . . . . . . . . . 2 Presidio County . . . . . . . 1 Rains County . . . . . . . . . 1 Refugio County . . . . . . . 1 Robertson County . . . . . . 1 San Patricio County . . . . . 3 Scurry County . . . . . . . . 1 Shackelford County . . . . . 1 Tarrant County . . . . . . . 49 Terrell County . . . . . . . . 1 Terry County . . . . . . . . . 1 Trinity County . . . . . . . . 1 Tyler County . . . . . . . . . 1 Upton County . . . . . . . . 1 Washington County . . . . . 2 Webb County . . . . . . . . . 6 Wilbarger County . . . . . . 1 Willacy County. . . . . . . . 1 Williamson County. . . . . . 6 Wise County . . . . . . . . . 2 Yoakum County . . . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 500

■ Utah Utah Beaver County . . . . . . . . 1 Box Elder County . . . . . . 2 Cache County . . . . . . . . 3 Carbon County . . . . . . . . 1 Daggett County . . . . . . . 1 Davis County. . . . . . . . . 8 Duchesne County . . . . . . 1 Emery County . . . . . . . . 1 Garfi eld County . . . . . . . 1 Grand County . . . . . . . . 1 Iron County. . . . . . . . . . 1 Juab County . . . . . . . . . 1 Kane County . . . . . . . . . 1 Millard County . . . . . . . . 1 Morgan County . . . . . . . 1 Piute County . . . . . . . . . 1 Rich County . . . . . . . . . 1 Salt Lake County. . . . . . 31 San Juan County . . . . . . . 1 Sanpete County . . . . . . . 1 Sevier County . . . . . . . . 1 Summit County . . . . . . . 1 Tooele County . . . . . . . . 2

Uintah County . . . . . . . . 1 Utah County . . . . . . . . 11 Wasatch County . . . . . . . 1 Washington County . . . . . 3 Wayne County . . . . . . . . 1 Weber County . . . . . . . . 7

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 88

■ Virginia Virginia Accomack County . . . . . . 2 Albemarle County . . . . . . 3 Alleghany County . . . . . . 1 Amherst County . . . . . . . 2 Appomattox County . . . . . 1 Arlington County. . . . . . . 8 Augusta County . . . . . . . 3 Bath County . . . . . . . . . 1 Bedford County . . . . . . . 2 Bland County. . . . . . . . . 1 Botetourt County . . . . . . . 2 Brunswick County . . . . . . 1 Buchanan County . . . . . . 2 Buckingham County . . . . . 1 Campbell County . . . . . . 2 Caroline County . . . . . . . 1 Carroll County . . . . . . . . 2 Charles City County . . . . . 1 Charlotte County . . . . . . . 1 Chesterfi eld County . . . . . 9 City Of Richmond . . . . . . 9 Clarke County . . . . . . . . 1 Craig County . . . . . . . . . 1 Culpeper County . . . . . . . 2 Cumberland County . . . . . 1 Dickenson County . . . . . . 1 Dinwiddie County . . . . . . 1 Essex County. . . . . . . . . 1 Fairfax County . . . . . . . 35 Floyd County. . . . . . . . . 1 Fluvanna County . . . . . . . 1 Franklin County . . . . . . . 2 Frederick County. . . . . . . 2 Gloucester County . . . . . . 2 Goochland County . . . . . . 1 Grayson County . . . . . . . 1 Greene County . . . . . . . . 1 Greensville County. . . . . . 1 Halifax County . . . . . . . . 2 Hanover County . . . . . . . 3 Henrico County . . . . . . 10 Henry County . . . . . . . . 3 Highland County . . . . . . . 1 Isle Of Wight County . . . . 2 James City County . . . . . . 2 King And Queen County. . . 1 King George County . . . . . 1 King William County . . . . 1 Lancaster County. . . . . . . 1 Lee County . . . . . . . . . . 2 Loudoun County . . . . . . . 4 Louisa County . . . . . . . . 1 Lunenburg County . . . . . . 1 Madison County . . . . . . . 1 Mathews County . . . . . . . 1 Mecklenburg County. . . . . 2 Middlesex County . . . . . . 1 Montgomery County . . . . . 4 Nelson County . . . . . . . . 1 New Kent County . . . . . . 1 Northampton County. . . . . 1 Nottoway County . . . . . . 1

Orange County . . . . . . . . 1 Page County . . . . . . . . . 1 Pittsylvania County . . . . . 3 Powhatan County . . . . . . 1 Prince Edward County . . . . 1 Prince George County . . . . 2 Prince William County. . . . 9 Pulaski County . . . . . . . . 2 Rappahannock County . . . . 1 Richmond County . . . . . . 1 Roanoke County . . . . . . . 4 Rockbridge County . . . . . 1 Rockingham County . . . . . 3 Russell County . . . . . . . . 2 Scott County . . . . . . . . . 1 Shenandoah County . . . . . 2 Southampton County. . . . . 1 Stafford County . . . . . . . 3 Surry County . . . . . . . . . 1 Sussex County . . . . . . . . 1 Warren County . . . . . . . . 2 Washington County . . . . . 2 Westmoreland County . . . . 1 Wise County . . . . . . . . . 2 Wythe County . . . . . . . . 2 York County . . . . . . . . . 2

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 210

■ Washington Washington Asotin County . . . . . . . . 1 Benton County . . . . . . . . 5 Chelan County . . . . . . . . 3 Clallam County . . . . . . . 3 Clark County . . . . . . . . 10 Columbia County . . . . . . 1 Cowlitz County . . . . . . . 4 Douglas County . . . . . . . 2 Ferry County . . . . . . . . . 1 Franklin County . . . . . . . 2 Garfi eld County . . . . . . . 1 Grant County . . . . . . . . . 3 Grays Harbor County . . . . 3 Island County . . . . . . . . 3 Jefferson County . . . . . . . 1 King County . . . . . . . . 63 Kitsap County . . . . . . . . 8 Kittitas County . . . . . . . . 2 Klickitat County . . . . . . . 1 Lewis County . . . . . . . . 3 Lincoln County. . . . . . . . 1 Mason County . . . . . . . . 2 Pacifi c County . . . . . . . . 1 Pend Oreille County . . . . . 1 Pierce County . . . . . . . 25 San Juan County . . . . . . . 1 Skagit County . . . . . . . . 4 Skamania County . . . . . . 1 Snohomish County. . . . . 20 Spokane County . . . . . . 16 Stevens County. . . . . . . . 2 Thurston County . . . . . . . 7 Wahkiakum County . . . . . 1 Walla Walla County . . . . . 3 Whatcom County. . . . . . . 6 Whitman County . . . . . . . 2 Yakima County . . . . . . . . 8

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 221

■ West Virginia West Virginia Berkeley County . . . . . . . 3

■ TENNESSEE from page 10

■ See WISCONSIN on page 12

Boone County . . . . . . . . 2 Brooke County . . . . . . . . 2 Gilmer County . . . . . . . . 1 Grant County . . . . . . . . . 1 Greenbrier County . . . . . . 2 Hancock County . . . . . . . 2 Hardy County . . . . . . . . 1 Harrison County . . . . . . . 3 Jefferson County . . . . . . . 2 Lewis County . . . . . . . . 1 Lincoln County. . . . . . . . 1 Logan County . . . . . . . . 2 Marion County . . . . . . . . 3 Marshall County . . . . . . . 2 McDowell County . . . . . . 2 Mercer County . . . . . . . . 3 Mineral County . . . . . . . 2 Monongalia County . . . . . 4 Ohio County . . . . . . . . . 3 Pendleton County . . . . . . 1 Pleasants County . . . . . . . 1 Pocahontas County. . . . . . 1 Raleigh County. . . . . . . . 4 Randolph County . . . . . . 2 Summers County. . . . . . . 1 Tucker County . . . . . . . . 1 Tyler County . . . . . . . . . 1 Upshur County . . . . . . . . 1 Wayne County . . . . . . . . 2 Webster County . . . . . . . 1 Wetzel County . . . . . . . . 1 Wirt County . . . . . . . . . 1 Wyoming County . . . . . . 2

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 62

■ Wisconsin Wisconsin Adams County . . . . . . . . 1 Ashland County . . . . . . . 1 Barron County . . . . . . . . 2 Bayfi eld County . . . . . . . 1 Burnett County . . . . . . . . 1 Calumet County . . . . . . . 2 Chippewa County . . . . . . 3 Clark County . . . . . . . . . 2 Columbia County . . . . . . 2 Dane County . . . . . . . . 16 Dodge County . . . . . . . . 4 Douglas County . . . . . . . 2 Dunn County . . . . . . . . . 2 Eau Claire County . . . . . . 4 Fond du Lac County . . . . . 4 Forest County . . . . . . . . 1 Green County . . . . . . . . 2 Jackson County . . . . . . . 1 Juneau County . . . . . . . . 1 Kenosha County . . . . . . . 6 Kewaunee County . . . . . . 1 La Crosse County . . . . . . 5 Marathon County . . . . . . 5 Marinette County. . . . . . . 2 Marquette County . . . . . . 1 Milwaukee County . . . . . 40 Oconto County . . . . . . . . 2 Outagamie County . . . . . . 6 Ozaukee County . . . . . . . 4 Pierce County . . . . . . . . 2 Portage County. . . . . . . . 3 Price County . . . . . . . . . 1 Racine County . . . . . . . . 8



Richland County . . . . . . . 1 Rock County . . . . . . . . . 6 Sauk County . . . . . . . . . 2 Shawano County . . . . . . . 2 Sheboygan County . . . . . . 5 St. Croix County . . . . . . . 3 Taylor County . . . . . . . . 1 Trempealeau County . . . . . 2 Vernon County . . . . . . . . 2 Vilas County . . . . . . . . . 1 Walworth County . . . . . . 4 Washburn County . . . . . . 1 Washington County . . . . . 4 Waukesha County . . . . . 13 Waushara County . . . . . . 1 Winnebago County. . . . . . 6

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 192

■ Wyoming Wyoming Albany County . . . . . . . . 2 Big Horn County . . . . . . . 1 Campbell County . . . . . . 2

Carbon County . . . . . . . . 1 Converse County. . . . . . . 1 Crook County . . . . . . . . 1 Fremont County . . . . . . . 2 Goshen County. . . . . . . . 1 Hot Springs County . . . . . 1 Johnson County . . . . . . . 1 Laramie County . . . . . . . 4 Lincoln County. . . . . . . . 1 Natrona County . . . . . . . 3 Niobrara County . . . . . . . 1 Park County . . . . . . . . . 1 Platte County . . . . . . . . . 1 Sheridan County . . . . . . . 1 Sublette County . . . . . . . 1 Sweetwater County . . . . . 2 Teton County . . . . . . . . . 1 Uinta County . . . . . . . . . 1 Washakie County. . . . . . . 1 Weston County . . . . . . . . 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Grand Total . . . . . . 8,128

plete renovation of the city’s park system at a cost of more than $5 million.

In 1991, Holley became chief administrative offi cer for Suwannee County, a rural county with a popula-tion of less than 40,000. While there, he oversaw implementation of the county’s fi rst 911 Emergency Dis-patch System. Other accomplish-ments under his leadership included construction of a $7 million county detention facility and successful ap-plication for grant monies used for the renovation of low-income housing.

David ThompsonThompson, 48, is currently the

chief operating offi cer/chief fi nan-cial offi cer for FreemanWhite, Inc., the second-largest engineering and architectural fi rm in the Carolinas. FreemanWhite has offi ces in Raleigh, Charlotte, San Diego and India. Al-though he is currently in the private sector, Thompson has a long career in county government. He began his

public sector career in 1982 with the Mecklenburg County Department of Engineering. He was appointed Hertford County manager in 1985 and progressed quickly through the ranks, moving to Stanly County in 1988, Henderson County in 1991 and Durham County in 1996, where he stayed until March 2000.

“It was a real honor just to be considered as a potential heir to Ron Aycock’s legacy of service to the

New state association execs take helm in N.C., Fla.New state association execs take helm in N.C., Fla.

Visit www.naco.org/2005annualfor more information.

New executive directors will soon take the helm at the Florida and North Carolina state associa-tions of counties.

The Florida Association of Coun-ties (FAC) has hired long-time Oka-loosa County Manager Chris Holley as the association’s next executive director. Holley brings with him more than 30 years of experience as an administrator and manager for some of Florida’s fastest-growing counties and cities.

And in Raleigh, N.C., David Thompson, a veteran county man-ager, has been tapped to become the next leader of the North Carolina Association of County Commission-ers, replacing Ron Aycock, who has

served 28 years as NCACC’s execu-tive director.

Chris HolleyThis month, Holley will step

down as Okaloosa County’s chief administrative offi cer, a post he held for more than 11 years. Early in his career, Holley worked briefl y for the Florida Senate before becom-ing assistant to the city manager for Temple Terrace. After nearly four years with the city, he moved on to Collier County as assistant to the county manager and eventually ad-ministrative services director. From there, Holley went to work for the City of Naples where, among other achievements, he managed the com-

association and to the state of North Carolina,” Thompson said. “To ac-tually be chosen to succeed Ron is a former county manager’s dream come true.”

Aycock has been with the NCACC since 1973 and has been the NCACC executive director since 1977. He is retiring June 30, 2005. Thompson was chosen after a nationwide search that resulted in more than 100 applicants for the position.

“This is a landmark program be-cause the ReCompute Program does two very good things at once: it offers people with employment barriers and disabilities an opportunity to learn marketable skills and it allows elec-

tronics to be refurbished and reused,” San Mateo County Supervisor Jerry Hill said. “The ReCompute Program fi lls a need for free and convenient electronics recycling in San Mateo County.”

The collected electronics are brought to a refurbishing hub in

San Carlos where the clients sort and test them. Usable electronics are data cleansed, fi xed, loaded with legal operating systems and then sold in Goodwill stores. Older items are recycled through various electronics recycling vendors.

According to Malia Langworthy, program coordinator for Recycle-Works, the program has three rev-enue sources: earnings from the sale of refurbished computers, earnings from the sale of recyclable scrap as well as money from the state of California. The state contributes funds from a 2003 bill that charges consumers a recycling fee at the point of purchase.

“This is an exciting opportunity for Goodwill to partner with San Mateo County. We are thrilled to launch this innovative business that will drasti-cally reduce the amount of waste go-ing to landfi ll while generating new jobs and contributing to a sustainable environment,” said Deborah Alava-rez-Rodriguez, CEO and President of Goodwill Industries of San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin Counties.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, approximately 70 percent of the heavy metals found in landfi lls came from discarded elec-tronic equipment.

(To learn more about San Ma-teo’s electronic recycling program, visit RecycleWorks’ Web site at www.recycleworks.org and click on Electronics.)

■ WISCONSIN from page 11

■ RECYCLING from page 1

Recycling program offers electronic disposal


David ThompsonChris Holley


BY JOHN LEFEBVRE

ADAMS COUNTY, COLO. TREASURER

An alarming new trend in Colo-rado — establishing TIF districts on greenfi elds to subsidize retail development — is raising fairness issues and destroying the intent of the original legislation. Tax Incre-ment Financing (TIF), a tool of lo-cal general governments, is typically used by Urban Renewal Authorities (URA) to fi nance redevelopment of blighted inner city areas. Since Cali-fornia initiated the model in 1952, 48 states have passed enabling legisla-tion for URA’s.

TIFs, as a fi nancing mechanism, were designed to level the economic playing fi eld between blighted inner cities and their urban-edge alterna-tives. Cities were losing jobs and tax base while new land was being developed adding to urban sprawl.

Blight, or more accurately, the defi nition of blight, has become the battleground. To ensure that tools such as TIF and eminent domain are used appropriately a formal designation of blight is necessary. Yet, the defi nition of blight in Colorado has become so ambiguous and subjective that any place can be declared blighted.

Judge for yourself: The following

Tax increment fi nancing impacts greenfi eld development

criteria were used to “blight” 240 acres of green fi elds in Adams County, Colo.

• lack of infrastructure• incorrectly confi gured

infrastructure• site or other improvement

deterioration• faulty lot layout• unsanitary or unsafe

conditions• unusual topography, or• defective or unusual conditions

impairing economic growth.Adams County is an excellent ex-

ample of how cities, after annexing

parcels of unincorporated land, are designating open space as blighted in an effort to support retail develop-ment. The county is home to seven of the 19 URA’s in the state. There are 64 counties in Colorado and Adams is the fi fth largest (in popu-lation) with about 400,000 residents representing about 8 percent of the state’s population but 36 percent of the URA’s. In the Chicago area in the early 1990s, a new TIF district was being formed on average about once a month.

In the past, the TIF mechanism froze the current tax base and all

“incremental” growth in the value of the real estate, belonged to the URA. This was a gradual change with minimal impact. The underly-ing authorities received no fewer dollars; they just didn’t participate in the growth. However, when TIF districts are created on greenfi elds to build new retail shopping centers, the impact is maximized.

For example, in Colorado, the state “backfi lls” school districts, holding them harmless from TIF losses so all state residents subsidize these districts. The state “backfi lls” $18.4 million to all 19 URA’s, of which Adams County receives $6.4 million or 34.7 percent. The new 240-acre shopping center (the largest in the state by 50 percent) will require $15 million in new state backfi ll. The county will not receive its share of the revenue, which would have been approximately $7 million.

Cities argue that because there was nothing there before on the greenfi elds, subsequent development – which they just happen to nudge along – will require additional city services and infrastructure, mean-ing they deserve all of the income from the development to fi nance the needed infrastructure and supply

services. In this case, tax revenues on the 240-acre site are expected to jump from $59,000 to $27 million (a $26,941,000 increment) without a penny more accruing to the county.

The cities argument is rational but the problem is that counties provide services that are quite different from the municipalities, and the likelihood of greater service requirements is much higher on 240 acres of a de-veloped shopping center than it is the same amount of green fi elds.

For example, if someone were to be killed at the new shopping center, it’s the county coroner who would need to retrieve the body. The county DA would become involved. The county sheriff would jail the mur-der suspect, and the matter would be tried in the county court. All of these services are paid for by the county but no additional revenue offsets the impact of this development.

Utilizing TIF districts on the urban edge to subsidize development destroys the ability of the tool to work where it was intended — in the truly blighted ur-ban areas. TIF districts on green fi elds rob jobs and tax base from surrounding communities while increasing sprawl — the exact opposite of the intent of the original legislation.


House Labor/HHS Appropriations FY05

Enacted (in millions)

FY06 President’s

Request(in millions)

Subcommittee Action

(in millions)

Health Centers $1,734.0 $2,038.0 $1,834.0

National Health Service Corps Placements $45.0 $40.7 $40.7

Nurse Training Programs $151.0 $150.0 $150.0

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention $4,510.0 $4,041.0 $5,946.0

National Institutes of Health $28,364.0 $28,510.0 $28,507.0

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services $3,268.0 $3,215.0 $3,230.0

Ryan White HIV/AIDS $2,048.0 $2,058.0 $2,058.0

Rural Health $144.0 $29.0 $60.0

Head Start $5,454.0 $5,499.0 $5,499.0

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance $2,182.0 $2,000.0 $1,984.0

Child Care and Development Block Grant $2,083.0 $2,083.0 $2,083.0

Social Services Block Grant $1,700.0 $1,700.0 $1,700.0

Community Services Block Grant $637.0 $0.0 $320.0

Refugee and Entrance Assistance $484.0 $552.0 $561.0

Home and Community Based Centers $354.0 $354.0 $354.0

Congregate Meals $387.0 $387.0 $391.0

Home-Delivered Meals $183.0 $183.0 $185.0

National Family Caregiver Support Program $156.0 $156.0 $156.0

Grants to Local Education Agencies $12,739.0 $13,342.0 $12,839.0

Special Education State Grants $11,415.0 $11,923.0 $11,565.0

High School Intervention Initiative $0.0 $1,240.0 $0.0

Vocational Education $1,326.0 $0.0 $1,311.0

Adult Education $585.0 $0.0 $585.0

Dislocated Workers Training $1,474.0 $1,343.0 $1,405.0

Adult Training $896.6 $865.7 $865.7

Youth Training $986.2 $950.0 $950.0

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers $75.7 $0.0 $75.7

Job Corps $1,551.0 $1,517.0 $1,542.0

Community Service Employment for Older Americans

$437.0 $437.0 $437.0

Community Colleges Initiative $249.0 $250.0 $125.0

Prisoner Re-entry $19.8 $35.0 $19.8

$320 million. Vocational education was funded at $1.3 billion, a $14 million decrease.

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance is receiving an overall reduction of $196 million, for a total $1.9 billion. The subcommit-tee eliminated the $297 million

emergency allocation and moved $100 million of it to the formula grant program. Most programs for the elderly remained at current levels or received slight increases. The elder nutrition programs would increase by about $4 million for a total of $725 million.

One of the most controversial proposals in the subcommittee is on Pell Grants. Pell Grants will increase to $13.3 billion, an increase of $184 million. This translates to a maximum Pell Grant of $4,100 per student, an increase of $50. The president had pro-posed a maximum grant of $4,150.

Large losers: rural health pro-grams, which would only be autho-rized at $60 million which is nearly $85 million less than last year’s num-ber but beat the president’s request by $30 million. Another loser: the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency (SAMHSA), which would be cut by $37 million to $3.2 billion.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funding increased more than $1.4 billion to nearly $6 billion for FY06. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) also increased to nearly $29 billion for FY06, which is just $142 million over FY05’s appropriation.

The two core education programs received some increases, but they were the smallest increases in years and are below the president’s request. Basic Grants to Local Education Agencies, which are facing new profi ciency re-quirements under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law, would increase $100 million from $12.74 billion. This is roughly half of what the authoriz-ing legislation allows to be spent for NCLB-related activities.

State grants for special education would be funded at $11.5 billion, a $150 million increase. In recent years, this program has increased by nearly $1 billion a year. Similarly, the Head Start Program received $5.499 billion mark, an increase of $44.6 million.

The subcommittee rejected the president’s proposals to use vocational education for his new high school initiative and to consolidate the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) into the Strengthening America’s Communities Initiative. While the subcommittee decided to continue funding these programs under their current format, they were cut from 2005 levels. CSBG was cut by almost half for a level of

■ APPROPS from page 1

Community Health Centers gain under appropriations

BY ALLISON MALL

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

Pope John Paul II may not have been canonized just yet, but Harris County, Texas is doing what it can to honor the late pontiff. The Com-missioners Court has voted to name a future park in the northwest region of the county John Paul’s Landing.

The site for the park is a former rice farm on the Katy Prairie, one of the major fl yways used by migrating birds and waterfowl. The approved plan calls for several hundred acres of the site to be transformed into a lake with islands and walking trails.

Commissioner Steve Radack, who proposed the measure, said hiring for construction has begun, and should be completed in two years or more. “A park is a huge, dynamic undertaking, a long process, and there is a lot of dirt that has to be removed which we can hopefully use for the new toll road.”

Radack wants to name the new park for the late Pope because he admires the pontiff, and thinks “it is appropriate for a park to be named for a person who has had worldwide infl uence.”

Commissioner El Franco Lee abstained from the vote, because, as the Houston Chronicle reported in a June 8 article, he believes that “it’s not in the spirit of what the pope was about.”

Predictably, there has also been dissents from the Houston Atheists Society. Gipson Arnold, president of the society, pointed out that “The Texas Constitution has a clearly written clause forbidding the gov-ernment from spending money or using property to benefi t religious organizations.”

Radack responded that he has public support for the project, and when speaking publicly on the sub-ject, has only had dissents from “10 people or so.”

County to name park for Pope

— seven to date. Number seven expires on June 30.”

“What Congress doesn’t seem to realize is that these short-term extensions are costing the taxpay-ers money,” said Donaldson. “In Arizona, it’s meant a slowdown of transportation construction projects. As the projects take longer to complete, the cost of construction rises. We cannot get already-approved transportation projects underway for the same dollars we could have just two

years ago. Congress must act, and act swiftly.”

Also joining the call to “Get It Done Now” were Al Harf, executive director of the Potomac and Rappa-hanock Transportation Commission on behalf of APTA; and AASHTO President Jack Lettiere, commis-sioner of the New Jersey Dept. of Transportation. AASHTO represents the Departments of Transportation of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

“It is truly vital that at long last we get agreement on a bill that will bring the maximum funding possible to the

task, but will also move many of our long-identifi ed policy concerns for-ward, including guarantees, funding fi rewalls, tolling language and more access to bonding,” said Lettiere.

“Because in the end, this isn’t about roads, it’s about people—people who have put money in the Highway Trust Fund every time they buy gas—with the expectation that we are going to use those funds to improve their daily travel to work, and to get them home at the end of the day in time for the Little League game. That’s who is be-ing short-changed every day we delay. It’s time to ‘Get It Done.’”

The four represent the major owners and operators of the nation’s surface transportation system. They have joined forces in support for a new transportation bill that would:

• increase funding for the high-way and transit program to the highest possible levels to address the rapidly escalating safety, congestion relief, preservation and capacity needs of the nation

• ensure a new bill covers sev-eral years, with guaranteed annual funding protected by budgetary fi re-walls

• ensure funding is available and

a priority for core highway and transit programs

• ensure meaningful improve-ments to the transportation planning, environmental review and project ap-proval processes, and

• appoint state, transit, and local elected offi cials to a federal “blue ribbon” commission charged with examining innovative transporta-tion fi nance options.

■ BILL from page 1

New transportation bill would explore innovative fi nancial options


Counties are invited to enter the 100 Best Communities for Young People competition sponsored by America’s Promise Alliance, founded by retired Gen. Colin L. Powell. Local leaders from across the country can apply through July 29 for this award, which will bring national attention to innovative efforts by communities on behalf of children and youth.

The 100 Best Communities for Young People competition will rec-ognize communities for their best ef-forts, most innovative approaches and biggest difference-makers in 2005.

“The campaign will include com-munities of all types — urban, rural, inner-city, suburban, large and small — from every region of the country,” said Marguerite W. Sallee, president

Selection Panel

Hal Cato . . . . . . . . . Executive Director, Oasis CenterTroy Dibley . . . . . . . . President, Circle K InternationalThomas Donohue . . . . President and CEO, U.S. Chamber of CommerceBrian Gallagher . . . . . President and CEO, United Way of AmericaStephen Goldsmith . . . Partner, Knowledge Universe; Director, The Innovations in American Government Program at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of GovernmentRobert Goodwin . . . . . President and CEO, Points of Light Foundation; Board Chair, National Human Services AssemblyPaul Houston, Ed.D.. . . Executive Director, American Association of School AdministratorsKathryn Kendall. . . . . Board of Directors, Youth Partnership Team, America’s Promise -The Alliance for YouthAlfred Liggins, III . . . . President and CEO, Radio One, Inc.; Chairman, TV One, LLCSuzanne Morse, Ph.D. . . Executive Director, Pew Partnership for Civic ChangeLarry Naake . . . . . . . Executive Director, National Association of CountiesAlma Powell . . . . . . . Chair, America’s Promise - The Alliance for YouthCal Ripken, Jr. . . . . . . Founder, Ripken Baseball, Inc.; Executive Vice President, Cal Ripken Sr. FoundationRobert Rogers . . . . . . Chairman Emeritus, Ewing Kauffman FoundationTimothy Russert . . . . . Washington Bureau Chief/Moderator of Meet the Press, NBC NewsDonna Shalala . . . . . . President, University of Miami

‘100 Best Communities for Young People’ contest open for entriesand CEO of America’s Promise. “This award is less about the past and more about encouraging every community in America to be a great place to grow up.

Communities can apply through an easy-to-use online system. Per-sonal assistance will be provided to all applicants from a 100 Best Support Team who will answer questions and offer pointers to applicants on the best ways to present their community to the judges.

A distinguished panel of civic, business and nonprofit leaders will select winners. Communities named to the “100 Best” list will be recognized at a gala celebration in Washington, D.C., Sept. 21.

BY M. MINDY MORETTI

SENIOR STAFF WRITER

In this fast-paced and ever-changing world, capturing a well-articulated look at a county’s history is critical. However, with limited resources, many counties struggle with ways to record their history before it is gone.

Staff in Orange County, Fla. came up with an idea that would not only preserve the counties varied history, but would also give county writers an opportunity to get published.

The It’s About Time Writers’ Group was created in 2002 to give area writers — both published and unpublished — an opportunity to come together to enhance the exist-ing record of Orange County. The program also provides a publish-ing opportunity for Central Florida writers and provides mentors for new writers.

When the program began, writ-ers met four times per year and produced a journal two times per year. At the quarterly meetings, writers participated in workshops where “signifi cant” authors demon-strate their expertise on a variety of writing and research-related topics. The workshops also provide a great opportunity for burgeoning writers to network with writers who have already been published.

“The success of the program has been such that we now publish quarterly,” said Bob Beatty, curator of education for the Orange County Regional History Center. “It’s really expanded. We’ve gone from 2-color

It’s About Timein Orange County, Fla.

to 4-color and it’s really a much more effective piece.”

One of the goals of the program, in addition to recording county history and giving writers an opportunity to be published, was also to celebrate the county’s diverse population. To date, the published journals have featured articles by black, American Indian, Asian, Arabic, Hispanic and white writers.

Submissions are chosen by an all-volunteer editorial board. The board is made up of a variety of county staff and area writers. Beatty serves on the board as well, although he did have to remove himself for a quarter when he submitted an article for publication.

The fi rst biannual journal was published in spring of 2003. In ad-dition to a letter from the director of the program and a letter from the edi-tor, the 24-page publication included poems, factual articles, descriptive guided tours, fi rst-person accounts, personal histories and an oral history of an Orange County pioneer.

Subsequent journals have includ-ed fi ctional and non-fi ction pieces on everything from a piece celebrating the early years of rocketry in the county, to an account of how a por-tion of the Mayfl ower ended up in an Orange County park. One of the published journals even featured a fi ctional one-act play about a county citrus magnate.

Copies of the quarterly journal are mailed to all members of the Orange County Regional History Center as part of their membership. The journal,

which is free to the public, is also available through a variety of outlets including local public libraries, the county’s History Center and local schools. The fi rst run of the journal was so successful that the county had to produce an additional 500 copies to meet the demand. Each new journal is heralded with a publication celebra-tion that features a keynote speaker and a published author.

The total cost of the program runs about $30,000 per year and that includes printing, graphic design, staff costs and in-kind donations. The county received a mini-grant from the Florida Humanities Council to help defray some of the costs, but the re-mainder of the funding comes from the History Center’s budget.

Because Orange County is just one part of Central Florida, the program was recently opened up to writers in the six surrounding counties to cap-ture the history of the entire region.

(For more information on the It’s About Time Writer’s Group, please contact Bob Beatty, curator of educa-tion for the Orange County Regional History Center at 407/ 836-8544 or via e-mail at bob.beatty@ocfl .net.)

(Focus on Achievement highlights NACo Achievement Award Winners. To learn more about other winners, the program or how to submit your county program for an award visit the NACo Web site at www.naco.org/awards or contact Jackie Byers, re-search director at [email protected] or 202/942-4285.)

FOCUS ON ACHIEVEMENTFOCUS ON ACHIEVEMENT

In addition to bringing national and local media visibility, the award will also help build support that can be critical to the continuing success of youth-focused initiatives in commu-nities. “We now live in a world that is fl at — and increasingly competitive,” said Powell. “Our future as a nation truly hinges on how well we prepare

our children and youth to succeed in today’s global economy. It’s time that we join forces and recognize communities that empower their children and allow them to reach their potential.”

“This is a great program,” said NACo Executive Director Larry E. Naake. “I encourage you to enter your county in the competition. It is an excellent way to receive recogni-tion for the work you do in support of young people.”

To learn more about the na-tional search for the 100 Best Communities for Young People and apply for the award, visit www.americaspromise.org or call 800/365-0153.

our county. We want to stop the out-migration of residents seeking care out of the county and our goal is to increase utilization of health services locally. We also want to make sure that local business people, includ-ing bankers, town managers, school system personnel and the chambers of commerce understand this infor-mation and its importance.”

The other two counties are also discovering the economic effects of their health sectors through the same process using local data and informa-tion relevant to their counties.

According to Pondera County Commissioner Sandy Broesder, “Rural Health Works is good tool for us. We are a small agricultural

community of about 6,500, and it’s hard to generate economic develop-ment. However, we had 25 commu-nity members, including farmers and ranchers at our fi rst meeting, and I’m excited about the huge range of people who are working on the project.”

A workshop on Rural Health Works and the fi nal results in all three counties will be presented at NACo’s 2005 Annual Conference in the City and County of Honolulu.

USDA Education and Extension Service, Oklahoma State University and the Rural Policy Research Insti-tute helped launch the Rural Health Works model.

(For more information on Rural Health Works, please contact Lesley Buchan at [email protected].)

■ HEALTH from page 5

Rural communities fi nd quality health care with help


ARKANSASElected offi cials and volunteers

in ARKANSAS COUNTY are ap-proaching the 10 year mark in their campaign to preserve some of the state’s oldest artifacts.

Using both public and private funds, the preservationists, the Arkansas County Records Preser-vation and Restoration Committee, are working to maintain documents in the county’s courthouse that date back to at least 1808, 28 years before Arkansas’ statehood.

About 25 books of Arkansas County documents have been saved from spoilage at the rate of $1,000 per book according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

The committee helped support its effort by selling cookbooks and candles.

“Something’s got to be done or we are going to have confetti,” Arkansas County Circuit Clerk Tommy Sue Keffer told the Gazette.

HAWAIIThe HAWAII COUNTY Coun-

cil has put a stop to the longtime practice of putting aside money for vacant jobs.

Department chiefs often requested money for jobs they expected to fi ll in the next fi scal year.

County Council Chairman Stacy Higa told the Associated Press that the council has set aside hundreds of thousands of dollars in salaries and wages into a contingency fund and plans to hold on to the money until each department fi lls the vacancies or requests it for other purposes.

The approximately $800,000 in the fund has been set aside for the police, fi re and public works departments.

KANSASJOHNSON COUNTY is kicking

around an idea to bring professional soccer to the area.

Commissioners approved a feasi-bility study on the construction of 20 youth soccer fi elds and a professional stadium. The county would contrib-ute $25,000 to the $105,000 study.

The county is a hub for soccer players, with numerous soccer fi elds and young players according to the Kansas City Star.

“We’re thrilled,” said Johnson County Commissioner Dave Lind-strom told the Star. “We think this will have a tremendous economic benefi t for the entire metropolitan area.”

The study is expected to be completed by August and will examine possibilities on how to fund the project, what the total cost would be as well as the potential economic benefi ts.

A 2002 study put the cost of the soccer fi elds and a 22,000-seat sta-dium at approximately $67 million.

MINNESOTA

City councils across DAKOTA COUNTY and the Dakota County Board of Commissioners have all agreed to provide emergency re-sponse dispatch services through a new joint dispatch center.

The center, which will use an 800-megahertz radio communica-tions system, would help serve the police, fi re and emergency medical departments. Currently, there are six public safety answering points (PSAP) in the county.

Operations at the new center are expected to cost $4.3 million in the fi rst year, compared with a total of $5.7 for all six PSAPs, bringing the projected countywide savings to as much as $8 million for fi ve years.

Dakota County Sheriff Don Gud-mundson said he supports moving the dispatch center. “A consolidated 911 call center will provide the state-of-the-art ability to enhance public safety for all of the 380,000 citizens across Dakota County.”

MISSISSIPPIThe HARRISON COUNTY

Board of Supervisors voted to op-pose oil and natural gas drilling any closer than 12 nautical miles south of the barrier islands.

According to the Associated Press, coast offi cials and residents have complained that the state is moving too fast toward placing oil and natural gas rigs near the islands, which are national parks.

The supervisors voted on a resolu-tion asking the Mississippi Develop-ment Authority, which is coordinating the drilling, to take the coast’s interest into consideration.

“It was unanimous. We all concur with it,” Supervisor Bobby Eleuterius told the AP. “But all we can do is ask them to consider that because we don’t make rules for the state.”

Mississippi is one of the only Gulf of Mexico states that has never seen signifi cant oil and gas production in its state waters.

NEW YORKNew York’s state comptroller

recently recommended the creation of an oversight board to help ERIE COUNTY close an estimated $118.4 million budget gap.

The county has been faced with

a serious of budget woes since the County Legislature unanimously voted to cut property taxes by 18 percent in 2000 and 16 percent in 2001.

“We decided to cut taxes,” County Executive Joel Giambra told The New York Times. “Should we have just continued to sit on $200 million in reserves and continued to raise taxes?”

Giambra also attributed the defi cit to increases in unfunded mandates like Medicaid and pension costs.

The New York legislature was expected to approve legislation for the oversight board at press time.

OHIOPerhaps the best way to get people

interested in history is to bring the history to them. At least that’s one of the theories behind the new his-tory museum on wheels in KNOX COUNTY.

With the city of Mount Vernon in Knox is celebrating its bicentennial this year and the county celebrating its own bicentennial in 2008, the Knox County Historical Society Museum needed a way to get as much histori-cal information to as many people as possible. So the society purchased a 32-by-8-foot trailer that is currently being renovated by two classes at the Knox County Career Center.

“It was not in great shape when we got it,” said Tom Tenney II, one of the teachers involved with the project. “It’s been a good and chal-lenging project. We’ve been through the hardest work and it’s nearing completion.”

Once the students are fi nished with the trailer, Jim Gibson, Society director told the Mount Vernon News, that he was going to put as much into the trailer as he could.

“We’ll have lots and lots of pic-tures,” Gibson said.

OKALAHOMAThe Board of Commissioners in

OKLAHOMA COUNTY will soon consider a resolution, sponsored by Commissioner Brent Rinehart, calling for amending the USA Patriot Act.

The proposed resolution calls upon the president, the attorney general and Congress to closely “monitor the implementation of the (Patriot) Act and any Executive Orders designed to implement this Act and actively work for the repeal of the Act or those sec-tions of the Act and any Executive Orders that violate, threaten, or in-fringe fundamental rights and liberties as stated in the United States Constitu-tion and its Amendments.”

Rinehart, who sponsored a similar resolution as a member of the Okla-homa City Council, said, “We must

be ever vigilant to never sacrifi ce freedom for government security during a time of crisis, especially when those freedoms are imbedded in our Constitution. For at the end of the day those who hate our system of government will be the winners if our Constitutional protections are washed away.”

PENNSYLVANIA Voters in ALLEGHENY COUN-

TY recently voted, overwhelmingly, for a sweeping overhaul of the county government that will merge and replace six of 10 elected row of-fi ces with appointed positions.

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the changes, which will be phased in over the next three years, represent the broadest county govern-ment transformation since voters ad-opted a home rule charter in 1998.

The row offi ces, an element of local county government in Penn-sylvania since the 19th century, have survived repeated consolidation attempts in the past. According the

Post-Gazette, supporters of change believe that the recent vote could signal the residents’ willingness to consider larger government consoli-dations, including the possibility of a city-county merger.

“I’m excited that the voters en-dorsed change,” Chief Executive Dan Onorato told the paper. “It builds momentum for the future. We’re really moving the entire county in the right direction.”

Now that the referendum has been approved, the elected register of wills, prothonotary, clerk of courts and jury commissioner will be merged into one appointed offi ce, a director of court records. The elected coroner will be replaced by an appointed medical examiner and the elected recorder of deeds will be replaced by an appointed real estate manager.

The chief executive and the county manager will make appointments to the new positions once those currently serving have fulfi lled their terms.

NEWS FROM THE NATION'S COUNTIESNEWS FROM THE NATION'S COUNTIES

■ See NEWS FROM on page 19

■ Library of Congress Posts Exhibits Online

Can’t make it to Washington D.C. to visit the museums? The Library of Congress has the next best thing: electronic exhibits that are online versions of the existing ones. The selection

includes features on Bob Hope, Lewis and Clark, and Jewish life in America. Visit the online exhibits at www.loc.gov/exhibits.

■ Web Site Helps Recovering Meth Addicts

Similar to Alcoholics Anony-mous, Crystal Meth Anonymous (www.crystalmeth.org) focuses on the 12-steps to substance abuse recovery. The group’s Web site offers resources on fi nding and starting meetings. Users can also download a submission form for the group’s Member Stories Project.

■ List of Tips Aims to Improve Sleep Quality

Are you tired? Cranky? Per-haps you aren’t getting enough sleep or you aren’t sleeping well when you do get a few winks. To improve your quality of sleep follow the tips on the Discovery

Channel Web site at http://health.discovery.com/centers/sleepdreams/tips.html. The site’s tips include not eating two to three hours before going to bed and getting regular exercise.

(Web Watch is compiled by Dan Miller, staff writer. If you have an item that you would like featured, e-mail it to him at [email protected].)


RESEARCH NEWSRESEARCH NEWS

The “Great Migration” of blacks from the South to the rustbelt cities of the North that occurred over the fi rst half of the 20th century has now become the “Return Migration.”

Between 1995 and 2000, nearly half of black Americans residing in the Northeast, West and Midwest changed residences at a 50 percent higher rate than non-Hispanic whites. And for every one black American citizen who moved to one of the other three regions in the country, there were two migrating to the South.

St. Louis County, Mo., Baltimore County, Md. and Claymore County, Ga., had large net gains of around 31,000 each. Georgia had the larg-est net migration gain of any state, with 130,000.

Meanwhile, over the entire de-cade, return migration was readily evident in Harris County, Texas, where most black Americans mi-grated to (96,714), followed by Broward County, Fla. (91,155), Fulton County, Ga. (86,886), Prince George’s County, Md. (84,540) and

Th e Great Migration to the Return Migration:Th e Great Migration to the Return Migration:Mobility Patterns of African AmericansMobility Patterns of African Americans

Cook County, Ill. (68,125), according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

What was happening in the coun-try in the latter part of the 20th century that spawned this change?

The Schomburg Center for Re-search in Black Culture indexed several factors that helped defi ne the black return migration, in a recent

report entitled In Motion: The Afri-can-American Migration Experience. Interestingly, the study indicated that the major factors prompting a return to the South were actions taken by the Supreme Court and subsequent federal legislation in the 1950s and the 1960s, which outlawed discrimination and other laws regarding segregation and civil rights.

One of the most important deci-sions handed down by the Supreme Court during this time was the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kan-sas, which reversed the separate but equal policy. This ruling decided that state-sponsored segregation was un-constitutional. After this decision, leaders of the civil rights movement were successful in the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, 1964, and 1965, respectively. These historic landmarks in black history slowly began the disman-tling of Jim Crow in the South and black Americans began to return to their roots.

Atlanta may have served as the “hub” for the infl ux of black Ameri-cans to the South. As such, Atlanta was a leader in bolstering the new “black middle-class.” The city produced three times more general contractors in the late 1970s than any other city in the United States. The expansion of the Hartsfi eld Airport into an international hub was the basis for this increase. In an article recently published in Black Enter-prise magazine, credit is given to then Mayor Maynard Jackson for leveling the playing fi eld for minority entre-preneurs and for creating more black millionaires, than any other public offi cial.

Many other Southern communi-ties experienced increases of not only “returning” residents, but of new resi-dents as well. This return migration saw more college educated, young intellectual professionals crowding urban centers.

A Brookings Institution report ex-amining this return migration revealed that during the latter part of the ’90s, the South was the only region that saw an increase in black residents. The report further revealed that the magnetism to the South was most appealing to college-educated profes-sionals. Georgia, Texas and Maryland attracted the most black college gradu-ates from 1995 to 2000.

Black Net Migration States with Highest Loss States With Highest Gains 1965 – 1970 1995 – 2000

Mississippi (-66,614) Georgia (129,749)Alabama (-61,507) North Carolina (53,371)Louisiana (-37,067) Florida (51,286)North Carolina (-29,732) Maryland (43,549)Arkansas (-27,594) Texas (42,312)South Carolina (-26,884) Virginia (29,149)Georgia (-23,363) Nevada (19,446)Tennessee (-17,703) Tennessee (19,343)Washington, D.C. (-15,390) South Carolina (16,253)Virginia (-11,586) Minnesota (9,118)

Source: The Brookings Institution, The Living Cities Census Series, May 2004

Whoever coined the phrase “history repeats itself” could have predicted this cycle of in and out migration. The states that had the highest out-migration of blacks during the “Great Migration,” were in the top fi ve states for attracting blacks in the return migration. If this trend continues, counties and local offi cials in the South will need to implement smart growth and sus-tainable communities programs to accommodate the new diversity in their regions.

(Research News was written by Christina Crayton, research associate.)

AFFILIATE SPOTLIGHTAFFILIATE SPOTLIGHT

In today’s age of instant informa-tion, a public information offi cer (PIO) is no longer a luxury, it is a necessity. Public information pro-fessionals now manage skills like speechwriting and crisis communi-cations, Internet design and content, direct and employee communications, resource development and more. If you are a county manager in a small or rural county, it is simply impossible to do that job yourself.

The National Association of County Information Offi cers (NA-CIO) is a 250-member organization designed to share best practices, information, problems and solutions with each other and all members of NACo. We offer consultation services, training and solutions to the varied communication issues facing county governments across the country.

For years, NACIO has maintained a high profi le at both the Legislative and Annual NACo conferences. Twice a year, we sponsor a day-long, pre-conference seminar with NACo to educate county offi cials about communication issues. We have workshops, business meetings and a roundtable discussion that allows PIO’s and other conference attendees to discuss common issues. We also

provide at least one workshop per conference that specifi cally deals with communication issues, usually media relations. These workshops are traditionally some of the most popular at both conferences.

At the annual meeting, NACIO also hosts its Awards of Competition banquet. This year, NACIO received and gave out more than 200 awards. This banquet offers winners the chance to receive credit and accolades for their work on a national level, and to learn about best practices from other PIO’s around the country. Many award winners also get the opportunity to learn what NACo is all about.

NACIO continues to work hard to provide benefi ts to both our members and NACo. The partnership we have forged not only draws our members into an environment where they can exchange ideas and more with their peers, but also to help the vast majority of counties without PIO’s learn and develop communication skills they can take home with them when the conferences end.

For more information about NA-CIO, go to www.nacio.org.

(Affi liate Spotlight was written by Danny Diehl, NACIO president.)

National Association of County Information

Offi cers (NACIO)Mississippi Counties

Word Search

Created by Allison Mall

ATTALABOLIVARCARROLLCLARKEDESOTOFORRESTGREENE

GRENADAHANCOCKHINDSJASPERKEMPERLAMARLEFLORE

NESHOBANEWTONPANOLARANKINWALTHALLYAZOO


NACO ON THE MOVENACO ON THE MOVE

THE H.R. DOCTOR IS INTHE H.R. DOCTOR IS IN

NACO IN THE NEWS

• Research Director Jacqueline Byers spoke to the Associated Press for a June 11 story entitled “Anger simmers in county in crisis.” Byers commented on the prospect of the establishing a county control board that would put a county’s management under state supervision. “I’ve never heard of anything quite like that before,” she said.

NACO OFFICERS & COUNTY OFFICIALS

• Shoshone County, Idaho Commissioner and NACo Public Lands Steering Committee Chair Sherry Krulitz (above) was named 2004 USDA Idaho Multi-Family Housing Site Manager of the Year for Elderly Housing. Krulitz received the honor from the United States Department of Agriculture Rural Housing Service and Idaho Rural Development for her service, dedication and care for tenants at the Whispering Pines Senior Apartments in Shoshone County (Pinehurst), Idaho.

• NACo First Vice President Colleen Landkamer, Immediate Past President Karen Miller, David Orr, president-elect for the National Association of County Recorders, Election Offi cials and Clerks, and Alysoun McLaughlin, associate legislative director, joined state and county offi cials from across the country at an summit on the Help America Vote Act and the future of election administration June 10–11 in San Diego County. The summit was hosted by electionline.org in conjunction with NACo, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Association of Secretaries of State.

• Commissioner Randy Johnson, Hennepin

County Minn., was a panelist at the Globalization and Restructuring in Rural America Conference in Washington, D.C. June 6. The conference sponsored by UDSA’s Economics Research Service and the Farm Foundation reviewed the impact of globalization and its growing impact on rural America.

• President Angelo Kyle attended the annual meet-ing of the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Chicago June 4–6 and addressed attendees on issues such as CDBG, transportation funding and health care funding.

• Chairman Joe Giles, Erie County, Pa., was a featured expert panelist at Mercyhurst College’s seminar, “The Impact of Gambling on the Criminal Justice Community,” June 1 in Erie County.

• Landkamer also participated with representa-tives of county, state and national Extension systems in a discussion of how to strengthen Extension’s account-ability in Jackson County (Kansas City), Mo. May 20. She shared the strengths of the close connection of cooperative Extension and county government. She also helped identify and suggest ways to overcome some of the local barriers inhibiting collaboration between the two local entities.

NACO STAFF

• Steve Swendiman, FSC manager and CEO, at-tended the New Jersey Association of Counties annual meeting June 14–17 in Atlantic County (Atlantic City), where he conducted an FSC workshop.

• Jacqueline Byers, director of research, con-ducted a session on “Changing Trends in County Revenues” at the 35th Annual County Government Institute June 9 in Lee County (Auburn), Ala.

• Larry Naake, NACo executive director, at-tended the annual meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Chicago June 4–6 and met with USCM’s leadership on common issues such as CDBG, trans-portation funding and health care funding.

UPCOMING

• President-elect Bill Hansell and Andrew Gold-schmidt, director of membership/marketing, will at-tend the Mississippi Association of Supervisors Annual Conference in Harrison County, Miss. June 21–23 to discuss the benefi ts of NACo membership.

• Emily Landsman, membership coordinator, will be attending the Florida Association of Counties annual meeting in Hillsborough County (Tampa) June 21–24 to discuss the benefi ts of NACo membership.

(On the Move is compiled by Dan Miller, staff writer, and Allison Mall, editorial assistant.)

This morning while getting ready for work and slashing my face with a sharp instrument as I do most morn-ings, I realized that I spent about 15 minutes involved in the shaving pro-cess. Assuming I did that fi ve days per week, that’s an hour a week or 50 hours a year after allowing for a “vacation” from shaving of a couple of weeks per year.

A Close ShaveThis conservative estimate of 50

hours per year amounts to more than 2,000 hours of shaving time during a career of four decades. As any astute HR director can tell you, that’s the equivalent of an entire work year, averaging about 2,080 hours!

Thoughts immediately turned to questions such as if I had begun growing a beard at age 16, could I

now retire a year early? While the answer is a regrettable “no,” it is clear that rituals like shaving in the mornings nibble away at the average lifetime to the point where we wake up one morning and we’re dead, if not clean shaven.

Statistics in the HR Doctor’s new book Don’t Walk by Some-thing Wrong! include the fact that

the average American spends seven years in the bathroom, two years on the telephone and six months waiting at traffi c lights and stop signs. When you add in commute time, waiting in line at banks, post offi ces, grocery stores, etc., you begin to understand why people generally discuss how short our lives really are.

The statistics did not even include perhaps one of the greatest devour-ers of our lives in America — the four hours a day spent on average watching television. Yes, that was four hours a day!

One of the secrets to a success-ful and happy career, as well as to a life full of joy and productivity, is

time spent in continuous learning and gaining new experiences. It means investing in the development of your children through helping them achieve balanced knowledge — a mix of art and music, science and humanities, politics and history and as many other subjects as you can reasonably encourage. It means demonstrating as a role model the importance of civic engagement, and that you personally walk the same way you talk.

Community engagement means service to others. At work it may mean being a servant leader — where much of your energy is spent in the development of others and in help-ing enhance the KSA’s — there goes an HR acronym again — the knowledge, skills and abilities of those around you. It means being involved in charity work of which there is no shortage.

It means taking time to visit with your neighbors and keeping in touch with people you care about even if they are a continent away. It also means celebrating successes and accomplishments and being proud of those achievements. However, the pride must stop when it reaches the boundaries of arrogance or hubris.

When all of these things are care-fully considered and acted on right away in our fl eeting lives, the result will be a life well spent and a legacy inside the family and the commu-nity which will last far beyond the roughly 670,000 hours of life lived by the average person in America. It means productive contentment at work and, when work is over, time well spent with the family, the com-munity or with yourself.

We know that it is impossible to separate personal life and work life, however, it is also impossible to have a rewarding life without service to others and joy in what you do.

Next time you look in the mirror while shaving, putting on make-up, or whatever conversation occurs be-tween you and the mirror image in front of you, ask yourself whether all that you could be doing is being done in your life! If it isn’t, perhaps a little less TV watching and a lot more personal growth might be just the ticket to a life of greater joy!

The HR Doctor wishes you a close, and smooth shave!

Phil RosenbergThe HR Doctorwww.hrdr.net

We know that it is impossible to separate personal life and work life, however, it is also impossible to have a rewarding life without service to others and joy in what you do.

to maximize the amount of time we spend in productive and rewarding activities. The corollary is to mini-mize the time we waste on activities, or in the case of television watching, lack of activities, which substitute a vegetative state for a state of ac-complishment.

This is not to say that every wak-ing moment must be spent at work, or seated at the computer next to an autographed photo of Bill Gates. Quite the contrary, life is far more than our day jobs. Often relaxation or meditation may seem stoic or unproductive when it can really be quite the opposite.

In the HR Doctor’s experience, the sooner we each fi nd the ways to contribute to the happiness of our-selves, our families, our communi-ties, the better off we are. Contribut-ing to your own happiness certainly involves working at a job that you fi nd rewarding.

It means fi nding a career, such as HR, or public service in gen-eral, where you are motivated by a sense of accomplishment, and where you work with colleagues who are respectful, supportive and have a strong sense of humor. It also means taking good care of yourself, wearing a seat belt, not smoking and always handling sharp objects such as razors very carefully.

Your family’s happiness begins with time spent together and with


NOTICESNOTICES

FINANCIAL SERVICES NEWSFINANCIAL SERVICES NEWS

■ Summits• The city of Irving, Texas and dozens of co-host cities, counties and

national transportation organizations, including NACo, will host the Eighth Annual Texas Transportation Summit in Dallas County (Irving), Texas, Aug. 9–12. The summit has grown into one of the nation’s largest and most anticipated transportation conferences.

This year’s event will kick off a yearlong celebration of the upcoming 50th anniversary of the Interstate Highway System. As always, the multimodal conference will also feature highly relevant modal tracks on issues such as surface transportation, air, sea and rail, transit and governance.

Confi rmed speakers include U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Ellen Engleman Conners, more than a dozen members of Congress, U.S. Deputy Assistant Transporta-tion Secretary George Schoener, representatives of domestic and international transportation agencies and countless others. You will also not want to miss the historical transportation perspective given by William Withuhn, curator at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History.

For more information regarding participation and/or sponsorship, visit us on the web at www.texastransportationsummit.com or contact Trudy Hester at 214/750-0123.

• ESRI is holding a Homeland Security GIS Summit Sept. 12–14 in Denver City and County, Colo. The summit will teach about how county offi cials can learn how city, county, regional and state governments, non-government organizations and businesses have already deployed GIS data and tools through secure intranets and Internet sites. For more information, go to www.esri.com/hsssummit.

■ WorkshopsThe National Association of Regional Councils (NARC) is holding a

workshop on Climate Change: A Transportation Planning Approach to Reducing Greenhouse Gases. This workshop will be June 26 in Monterey County, Calif. as part of NARC’s 39th annual conference.

This workshop provides a forum for education and discussion on the topic of transportation/air quality planning and climate change, and is intended for air quality and transportation planners, state and local government offi cials, university professors and students, environmentalists and concerned citizens. If you are interested in participating please contact NARC at 202/986-1032 x223. To fi nd out more about NARC and its annual conference, please visit www.narc.org.

(If you have an event or publication or conference that you would like to be featured in Notices, please e-mail [email protected].)

Chatham Partners, a leading provider of market research to the fi nancial services industry, conclud-ed through its annual survey that Nationwide Retirement Solutions outperformed or exceeded Chatham client satisfaction benchmarks when compared to other similar 457 de-ferred compensation or defined contribution providers.

Chatham Partners surveyed plan sponsor clients to generate direct, unfi ltered feedback on relationship management and service delivery personnel.

“Nationwide Retirement Solutions

has participated in the survey since 2000 and continues to improve its overall scores as demonstrated by its very strong 2004 results,” said Peter Starr, president of Chatham Partners. “Nationwide continues to use survey results to adapt its service model to meet and exceed client expectations year after year.”

The study surveyed 466 plan-sponsor clients of Nationwide with $5 million or more in plan assets. The survey also evaluated client satisfac-tion levels compared to annual service quality benchmarks established in 2003 and 2002. The Chatham survey

found that Nationwide excelled in the following areas:

• client loyalty — Nationwide exceeded Chatham’s benchmark for client loyalty. Client loyalty is a mea-surement of attributes like: overall satisfaction; treats me as an important client; provides good value for the money; would highly recommend to colleagues; and likelihood to continue relationship with nationwide.

• personnel — With a very strong rating of 81 percent, person-nel continues to be the highest scoring functional area for the large market segment. High scores in this area are

driven by the “best in class” satisfac-tion rating for the Home Offi ce Plan Administrator.

• participant services — With a very rating of 79 percent, participant services is also a strength for the com-pany. The strong scores in this area are driven by “very strong” scores for customer service personnel and pro-grams and participant statements.

• processing of employee/participant transactions — Pro-cessing of employee/participant transactions is the third highest scoring functional area with a “very strong” rating of 75 percent.

Nationwide is committed to adding value to its programs and to satisfying plan participants. According to Matthew A. Riebel, president of Nationwide Retirement Solutions, “Listening to the voice of

our plan sponsor clients is essential for Nationwide Retirement Solutions to continue to be an industry leader. Using customer feedback to guide our product and service innovation can help us design retirement plans that truly prepare plan participants for a fi nancially secure retirement.”

This year marks 25 years of success for NACo, Nationwide and endorsing state associations of coun-ties delivering retirement programs to county employees.

Since 1980, the partnership has provided more than 670,000 county employees with a 457 deferred compensation program to help supplement their retirement income. Currently more than 380,000 county employees participate in the 457 de-ferred compensation program with assets exceeding $6 million.

Survey Concludes: Nationwide Provides Outstanding Service

TENNESSEEWorkers in MONTGOMERY

COUNTY have complained about the different pay classifi cations for years, and now the county is setting out to right the wrong, but it comes with a price tag.

The county director of admin-istration and development spent several months researching the possibilities and recently told the county’s Budget Committee that initially, to bring the pay scale up to market value, it will cost the county between $1 million and $2 million and would require eight to 12 ad-ditional cents on the tax rate.

For years the county, particularly in the law enforcement divisions, has been plagued with losing employees to higher paying jobs elsewhere.

“Dog catchers have been a thorn in my side because we put so much time and money into training them and then they leave for better jobs,” Commissioner John Morris told The Leaf Chronicle.

While the committee is still look-ing at the ramifi cations of bringing salaries up to scale, it did agree change a policy that would require

all raises to be awarded July 1 each year, rather than on the date that the employee was fi rst hired.

The committee also agreed that they will pursue the matter of in-equities in pay, not just individual reclassifi cation requests.

“This way, we are going to fi x it all at once instead of doing them one at a time over and over again,” Commissioner Ruth Ann Milliken told the paper.

VIRGINIAParents are going back to the

classroom in PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY.

According to The Washington Post, if parents wish to enroll their children in a county school-spon-sored driver’s education class, parents will have to spend time in the classroom as well. Parents will be required to take a 90-minute course to let them know what it is like to be in today’s driver’s seat as a teenager.

Prince William has recorded 983 people injured and eight killed in-volving teenage drivers since 2003; and offi cials are hoping having the parent in the classroom will help stem the problem.

The new program is a collabora-tive effort between the school dis-trict, county police and the Allstate Foundation. Students whose parents do not attend the refresher course will not be authorized to apply for learner’s permits.

“I haven’t heard anyone challenge the merit of coming to a meeting,” Carol Lysher, coordinator of driver’s education in Stafford County told The Post. Stafford started a similar program in 2004.

WASHINGTONAnother county is putting it all

on the line to do battle with meth. SNOHOMISH COUNTY recently began discussing how to spend $500,000 in state money to battle the synthetic drug.

According to the Everett Herald, The Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force and County Council Jeff Sax are recommending devoting two full-time deputies to battling the problems associated with meth.

Beyond law enforcement, Sax told the paper the County Council and the drug task force are also look-ing at a bigger picture that includes foster care and drug treatment. The state funding includes $20,000 per year for drug treatment.

The money will be used to focus on local, smaller meth labs because federal funding is used by the task force to go after higher-level traf-fi ckers.

(News From the Nation’s Coun-ties is written by Dan Miller, staff writer, and M. Mindy Moretti, senior staff writer. If you have news about your county, please e-mail them at [email protected] or [email protected].)

Contact Allison MallPhone: (202) 942-4256E-mail: [email protected]

■ NEWS FROM from page 16

In Virginia county, parents take driver’s ed too


JOB MARKET/CLASSIFIEDSJOB MARKET/CLASSIFIEDS

■ CITY MANAGER — CITY OF GREENSBORO, N.C.

Salary: DOQThe city of Greensboro is located

in the heart of Guilford County. With a population of 235,000, it is the largest city within the region. Greensboro is located midway between Washington, D.C. and Atlanta and appeals to national and international companies that call Greensboro home.

Greensboro boasts of its temperate climate and close proximity to both the mountains of North Carolina and Atlantic Ocean beaches. It is also a transportation hub with its easy access to major interstates and highways, an international airport, and its selection as a planned stop for future high-speed rail service.

The city operates under a Council/Manager form of government. The City Council sets policies and enacts ordinances, which are then carried out under the City Manager’s direction. The City Council includes an elected Mayor and eight council members who serve two-year terms. The Mayor and three council members are elected at-large and the remaining fi ve councilmembers are elected from districts. Greensboro’s elections are non-partisan. The organi-zation has a long history and tradition of being a very stable, strong Council-Manager form of government with signifi cant personnel authority granted to the City Manager. Greensboro is a full service, independent municipality with approximately 2,400 employees as-signed to 18 departments. The city has a triple “A” bond rating and a current operating budget of $350,819,059.

Requires education and experience equivalent to a master’s degree in public administration or related fi eld combined with signifi cant experience as a local government manager or assistant man-ager in a diverse and complex commu-nity comparable in size to Greensboro. Requirements also include expertise in budget and fi nance, community rela-tions and economic development. The successful candidate will be politically astute, have exceptional interpersonal skills and enjoy community involve-ment. He or she will clearly possess and apply superior management and leadership abilities. Send your resume by July 22 to: Robert E. Slavin, presi-dent, Slavin Management Consultants, 3040 Holcomb Bridge Road, Suite B-1, Norcross, GA 30071, 770/449-4656, [email protected], 770/416-0848 (fax). An affi rmative action and equal opportunity employer.

■ DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT — CITY OF ROANOKE, VA.

Salary: $74,613–$115,650 DOQRoanoke, Virginia (population:

95,000), the largest city in western Vir-ginia, is located near the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Appalachian Trail. The community offers stunning beauty and exceptional amenities including an historic Farmer’s Market, professional sports, greenways and art galleries.

Roanoke has received the All-America City award fi ve times, the Top Digital City three of the past four years and has recently been named the 11th best city to live in the U.S. Roanoke has the highest per capita retail sales in western Virginia.

Roanoke is a council/manager city and is seeking a person to lead and manage the city’s economic development program. Major responsibilities include developing a strategic framework for stabilizing and growing the city’s economic base. Within this framework, important initiatives will include the retention and expansion of retail development opportunities in downtown and other strategic locations; attraction and retention of commercial, offi ce and industrial development; and the development and reuse of strategic loca-tions and sites within the city. The depart-ment is responsible for parking resources as an economic development tool and the management of the city’s real estate as-sets. The Director reports to the Assistant City Manager/Community Development and is responsible for managing a staff of seven full-time positions.

Successful candidates will have education or experience equivalent to a bachelor’s degree from a four year college or university with major coursework in economics, business or related field supplemented by a Master’s degree in an appropriate fi eld and ten years related experience and/or training in economic development and in working with the business commu-nity. Excellent writing, verbal, human relations, leadership and management skills are required. The salary range for this position is $74,613–$115,650 plus excellent benefi ts. Beginning salary negotiable DOQ.

The city intends to fi ll this position as soon as possible and it will remain open until fi lled. If interested, please submit a cover letter, your resume and present salary without delay by mail, fax or e-mail to Robert E. Slavin, president, Slavin Management Con-sultants, 3040 Holcomb Bridge Road, Suite B-1, Norcross, GA 30071-1357, 770/449-4656, [email protected], 770/416-0848 (fax). An Equal Oppor-tunity Employer.

■ DIRECTOR OF HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES — CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA

Salary: $66,097–$102,450Roanoke, Virginia (Population:

95,000), the largest city in western Vir-ginia, is located near the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Appalachian Trail. The community offers stunning beauty and exceptional amenities including an historic Farmer’s Market, professional sports, greenways and art galleries. Roanoke has received the All-America City award fi ve times, the Top Digital City three of the past four years and has recently been named the 11th best city to live in the U.S. Roanoke has the highest per capita retail sales in western Virginia.

Roanoke is a council/manager city and is seeking a professional to manage

the city’s Department of Housing and Neighborhood Services. The position reports to the Assistant City Manager/Community Development. The Direc-tor of Housing and Neighborhood Services will have the opportunity to reshape housing within the city by re-focusing on a newly adopted strategic housing plan. Initiatives include creat-ing opportunities for upscale housing, development of downtown housing, and various mixed use projects. Other responsibilities include management and direction of housing and environmental code enforcement, federal housing pro-grams and citizen participation activi-ties aimed at improving the quality of neighborhoods. Supervises a staff of 23 employees.

Successful candidates will have training and experience equivalent to a bachelor’s degree from a four year college or university with major in planning, public administration or related fi eld. Master’s degree is pre-ferred. Five years experience in real estate development, economic devel-opment, community development or equivalent combination of education and experience including considerable management experience.

The salary range for this position is $66,097–$102,450 plus excellent benefi ts. Beginning salary is nego-tiable DOQ. The city intends to fi ll this position as soon as possible and it will remain open until fi lled. If interested, please submit a cover letter, your resume and present salary without delay by mail, fax or e-mail to: Robert E. Slavin, presi-dent, Slavin Management Consultants, 3040 Holcomb Bridge Road, Suite B-1, Norcross, GA 30071-1357, 770/449-4656, [email protected], 770/416-0848 (fax). An Equal Opportunity Employer.

■ DIRECTOR OF HUMAN SERVICES — MESA COUNTY, COLO.

Salary: $90,000–$100,000 DOQMesa County, Grand Junction, Colo.,

is accepting applications for the Direc-tor of Human Services. The department, with a staff of more than 200, provides multiple services to the citizens of Mesa County, a population of over 125,000. Duties consist of directing, administer-ing, and coordinating the activities of the department in accordance with policies, goals, and objectives established by the Board of County Commissioners and the State Department of Human Services. Qualifications include a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university in social services, public or business administration, or a related fi eld (a master’s degree is highly desired); a minimum of ten years in a community services setting, with at least fi ve years in a supervisory capacity; strong budget-ing and fi nance skills with knowledge of various federal programs and their implications for county human services. The Director is appointed by and reports to the Board of County Commissioners. The annual salary range for the position is estimated between $90,000–$100,000/

year depending upon qualifi cations and experience. To apply, submit applica-tion information that includes a cover letter, resume, salary history and profes-sional references to Mesa County Human Resources/Personnel, PO Box 20000-5021, Grand Junction, CO, 81502 by Friday, July 15. Additional information may be obtained at www.mesacounty.us. ADA/EOE.

■ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR — CHARLES COUNTY, MD.

Salary: Negotiable and anticipated to be highly competitive.

Charles County, Md. (growing popu-lation of about 123,000), is located on the Southern Maryland Peninsula. It adjoins Prince George’s County on the north and west and St. Mary’s County on the east. The county covers 502 square miles. La Plata, the county seat, is 71 miles from Baltimore and 32 miles from Washing-ton, D.C. Charles County is situated in one of the nation’s fastest growing areas. It is also a great place to live. The school system is progressive; housing options abound and recreational opportunities are ever present. Businesses there are ideally situated within the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore commercial region with easy access to all the area’s ame-nities. Along with offi ce, retail, and warehouse space, the county offers nine industrial parks in attractive and convenient settings. Most offerexisting water, sewer, gas and rail.

Charles County is a Code Home Rule county. This allows the Commission to enact bills of a purely local nature rather than having to gain enactment in the state legislature. The county is governed by the Board of County Commissioners of Charles County consisting of fi ve Commissioners who are elected for a four-year term. The president is elected countywide; the four Commissioner members run countywide but one must reside within each of four Commissioner districts. The Commission appoints a County Administrator to implement its policies and to administer county op-erations. The Economic Development Director will head the new Department of Economic Development and will report to the County Administrator through the Deputy County Administrator.

Requires at least a bachelor’s degree with multi-year broad-based economic development experience which must in-clude attracting non-retail businesses, developing and implementing business retention/expansion and women and mi-nority business programs, negotiating and closing deals, working with elected and appointed boards and working with state and regional economic develop-ment agencies. Prefer experience in at-tracting federal agencies and contractors. Must be an articulate self-starter and have excellent communication skills.

The county intends to fi ll this position as soon as possible and it will remain open until fi lled. If interested, please submit a cover letter, your resume and present salary without delay by mail, fax or e-mail to: Robert E. Slavin, president,

Slavin Management Consultants, 3040 Holcomb Bridge Road, Suite B-1, Norcross, GA 30071, 770/449-4656, [email protected], 770/416-0848 (fax). Charles County is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

■ PLANNING MANAGER — CHARLES COUNTY, MD.

Salary: $54,910 – $66,935 The Charles County Government

is seeking a Planning Manager to assist the Planning Director in managing the planning work program for the division and serve as authorized representative during the director’s absence; provide policy development and policy direction to staff performing land use planning. Responsible for supervision of planning staff, management of specialized plan-ning work in functional areas including development review, public facility plan-ning, and environmental planning. The county’s Department of Planning and Growth Management is located in La Plata, Md., pop. 132,750, 71 miles south of Baltimore and 32 miles southeast of Washington, D.C. Meet with individuals and special parties involved to discuss and advise in general land use issues in the county; applies various specialized analysis including environmental, land use, area and structure, economic, and/or demographic, and statistical analysis as appropriate to projects. Serves on boards and committees and work groups, makes presentations before County Commis-sioners and public; assist in formulating and implementing long range compre-hensive planning projects and policies. Master’s degree in planning and six years of progressively responsible professional planning experience or equivalent, and a valid driver’s license required. Knowledge of Maryland law and/or county planning experience de-sired. Starting annual salary: $54,910 to $66,935 based on qualifications and experience. Charles County offers excellent benefi ts and generous leave programs. Applicants must submit a completed Charles County Government employment application and resume by the closing date to be considered for this position. To receive or complete a county application on line, please access our Web site at www.charlescounty.org or call 301/645-0585 or 301/870-2681. Submit application and resume to the Human Resources Department, Charles County Government Building, P.O. Box 2150, La Plata, Md. 20646 by 4:30 p. m., Friday, July 15. Applicants with spe-cial needs, please contact the Human Resources Department voice phone number 301/645-0585 or Md. Relay Service TDD 800/735-2258.

If you would like infor-mation about advertis-ing your job openings in County News and County News Online, contact Alli-son Mall at 202/942-4256 or [email protected].

National Association of Counties • Washington, D.C. ‘Get ... · of electronics recycling from...

Documents

Transcript of National Association of Counties • Washington, D.C. ‘Get ... · of electronics recycling from...