| Author | Post |
|---|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 06:27 am |
|
| I supported the change from 5 to 8 years. It is the right thing to do. My comment last night, which of course does not make any papers, was that we are dealing with issues now for decisions made by Levy Court Commissioners 15 years ago. Growth, Rule of 70, infrastructure problems, the budget, are all attributable to decisions made by earlier Levy Court Administrations. I hoped to make a change now so that the Levy Court Commissioners sitting here in 15 years, whether it is me or not, are not having to deal with the same issues. The change is ONLY affecting new employees, not existing employees, so we were not looking for a budget fix for next year. We were looking to change the benefits package of employees who will be hired after the economy recovers, making a change that will affect future budgets 5, 10, 15 years from now. If you agree, contact you Levy Court Commissioner.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 23rd, 2009 01:58 am |
|
| Agreed. We have used the argument too often that it doesn't give a bang for the buck to start a process. If you put reasonable processes in place, you eventually don't need quick fixes to problems.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 22nd, 2009 11:10 pm |
|
mishl wrote: The state is only five years as are most governmental bodies. I believe that one of the responses against changing the vestment period was that it would take at least five years, if not more, for there to be any kind of recognizable savings to be seen.
Gotta start sometime....
|
mishl
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 22nd, 2009 05:04 pm |
|
| The state is only five years as are most governmental bodies. I believe that one of the responses against changing the vestment period was that it would take at least five years, if not more, for there to be any kind of recognizable savings to be seen.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 22nd, 2009 03:50 pm |
|
| It was disappointing to see that the Court has resisted increasing the length of time for pension vesting from 5 to 8 years, especially when most of us had to wait 10 years to be vested when working in the private sector. The old ploy about needing to offer excessive pension or other benefits to 'attract qualified candidates' is pretty lame given our current economic situations and the lack of any evidence that such incentives are really needed to get County workers.
|
mishl
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 22nd, 2009 01:36 pm |
|
Actually the elminiation of at least two row offices was recommended in a study that the county had done a few years ago, the comptroller being one. I believe the reason was that it was outdated and redundant in light of the various auditing steps that already take place within the Finance department and outside auditors.
I don't believe that the county can eliminate elected offices without first going through the state legislature however.
Last edited on Wed Apr 22nd, 2009 01:42 pm by mishl
|
taxpayertoo
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 22nd, 2009 01:04 pm |
|
| Why would the Levy Court want to eliminate certain Row Offices? Especially the auditor? Doesn't the taxpayer deserve someone that doesn't answer to the Levy Court to watch the accounts? Someone that can speak out or make recommendations without repercussions?
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 20th, 2009 10:14 pm |
|
| Let's see, the current tax rate is 25 cents per hundred. The new proposed rate is 31 cents per hundred. Explain to me how that is not a 24% increase in the rate which amounts to collecting 24% more from homeowners than you did last year?
|
tspong
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 20th, 2009 08:52 pm |
|
Copied below is a guest commentary submitted to the Delaware State News. You can post your opinions by clicking on "Reply."
By Jody Sweeney
It has been awhile since the County has faced such a deficit in funding. Blame could be placed on past Commissioners, the State government, Federal government, developers, banks, or lending institutions. We could blame all or none. In another letter, the County’s revenue was incorrectly described. The Realty Transfer and other non-property taxes account for only 9% of the county’s revenue. These revenues, along with building permits and deeds have decreased dramatically. Then, in 2008, the State Legislature added more than $1 million in additional expenses by legislating that the counties take on more of the share of Paramedic funding and Dog Control.
Since 2006, the county budget has decreased nearly 24%, from the approved $28.7 million to the current proposed budget of $21.8 million. The 2006 budget was adopted in 2005, during the previously elected Levy Court. The current Levy Court and the county staff have worked hard to keep costs under control without using drastic measures. Cost containment measures such as a hiring freeze, aggressively managing building temperature and lighting, eliminating travel, and reducing purchase of furniture, vehicles, and supplies, have reduced the budget by $1.2 million dollars in 2009 alone. By the end of this fiscal year, the number of county employees will be around 290, the same as in 2006, a reduction of more than 10%. Until the need for new employees rise, this is a de facto “reduction in force”, or layoff of 10% of the County workforce.
It is not raining yet. We have a few holes to plug in the budget tide, not a dam to build. We will not solve the budget issue by taking great strides, which could lead to bigger problems down the road. Layoffs, furloughs, depleting reserves, reducing employee wages, all constitute great strides. Some of the baby steps we have taken include freezing employees’ pay, increasing employee contributions to benefits, an early retirement incentive used by 22 of 34 eligible employees, increasing fees for services, using technology to reduce waste, fees for use of the building and parklands, moving funds from the County’s reserve and the Agricultural Preservation Funds, and a small property tax increase. In the next year, we will also be looking at increasing new employee contributions to their benefits, adjusting new employee vesting practices, adjusting our banking/investing practices, considering business and contractor licensing, eliminating some Row Offices and their staff, and many other cost saving or revenue enhancing suggestions. Not every Commissioner agrees with every suggestion and many compromises have been made.
Many people have suggested using the County’s reserve fund. This is NOT a “Rainy Day” fund as it was suggested in an earlier letter. This fund is money that is set aside for capital expenses or commitments to future expenses. The available portion of those reserves is relatively small, only about $5-6 million. We have already committed to using part of those reserves in balancing the current budget. Since we do not know if the State Legislature is going to push more on the counties, it would be irresponsible to consider more.
The proposed tax increase was a topic of much discussion. It has been described as a 24% increase, which is a misrepresentation of the facts. The increase only affects the PROPERTY TAX portion of the tax bill. School and library tax, trash and streetlight services, will not increase. The last change to property taxes was a decrease in the mid-1990’s, and not since the 80’s before that. The County has always been very careful with residents’ money.
The end of this downturn is probably only a year or so away. When that happens, development will begin again, and housing starts will increase. DelDOT, emergency services, and schools will not have the resources to handle the growth if left unchecked. I am encouraged by the fact that when all is said and done on the budget, this Levy Court will still be of one mind in addressing the real issue facing this county.
Editor’s note: Jody Sweeney represents the 5th Kent County Levy Court District.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 20th, 2009 03:14 am |
|
| I think we have to accept that there will be fewer services or less timely services as a result of spending cuts. That's OK. We got into the hole we are in by trying to do too much and depended on unsustainable revenue sources to fund it. Now lets be big boys and girls and instead of condemning service cuts, just look at them as the price of getting back to a more realistic level of government involvement in our lives. To me that is far preferable to just trying to raise more revenue for more things the government can do for us. . I'm hoping the current Levy Court has the perspective that we have to live within the limited income sources we have and not get giddy on the overdevelopment fees that fueled so much of the 'must haves' before.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 20th, 2009 01:14 am |
|
You have not increased the rate, but the amount collected has multiplied dramatically. More political double speak from your elected representatives.
Why can't you touch the rainy day fund? Redirect the $20 million before you take it from us. Rainy Day fund first. "The County currently has about $25 million in "reserve" funds. Of the $25 million, $20 million cannot be touched for any reason. These are funds that are set aside for long-term capital projects that were approved long ago. For example, the County Sheriff requires new software to handle the load of foreclosures and to better notify the parties". More political double speak.
It is OUR MONEY NOT YOURS.
Last edited on Mon Apr 20th, 2009 01:20 am by Playing the Game
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 20th, 2009 01:06 am |
|
The other question about services. Please read the letter to the editor that will come out this week. The county has cut the budget tremendously in the last few years. From Nearly $28 million down to less than $22 million. I can absolutely guarantee that that is $6 million or so in services that will not be provided to residents.
The trash bill is a completely different story. The county makes ZERO revenue from the trash. It is a completely self-sufficient service. What is taken in from residents who are in the program is given right back to the companies that provide the service. Last year, the county was told there would be an increase to the cost of the services provided. Instead of simply accepting the increase, they decided to bid it out again and chose to include a recycling pickup. So instead of increasing the cost of the service, residents went from four pickups every two weeks to three, with one ofthe three being recycling. If the county had stayed with the two pickups a week, your bill would have increased dramatically. I even think the cost went DOWN a few dollars for the service that was contracted.
On the same comment, the County has not increase property taxes in more than 20+ years, and in fact DECREASED property taxes in 1995. One other poster said this, "What else in your life do you pay for that is STILL THE SAME PRICE AS IT WAS IN 1985?" Only Kent County property taxes.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 20th, 2009 12:58 am |
|
Rainy Day fund first. The County currently has about $25 million in "reserve" funds. Of the $25 million, $20 million cannot be touched for any reason. These are funds that are set aside for long-term capital projects that were approved long ago. For example, the County Sheriff requires new software to handle the load of foreclosures and to better notify the parties. This has been written up as an audit issue for the County and will save money and may even produce revenue. The funding was approved in 2005 and has been sitting in the "reserve" funds since them. There are others like that, including the library and gymnasium funds, pension and medical benefits, etc.
Of the $5 million we could use, we have already moved $300+ thousand to the general fund. We do not know what is going to happen to the economy next year, so retaining some of the funds is prudent in case the economy continues to worsen. We also do not want to reduce the extra reserves that would affect our bond rating. The County uses bonds for projects like expanding the sewer. A higher bond rating would mean less value for the county, which costs the residents in the long run. We also do not know what the State is going to do. Last year, the State Legislature dumped $800,000 in Dog Control and $600,000 in paramedic funding back on Kent County. They tried to reduce our portion of the Real Estate Transfer Tax, but counties and municipalities outcry prevented that from happening. If the State dumps fire company, paramedic, dog control, police, or any other number of county-shared funds, we will have to pick up the balance, probably from the remainder of the "reserve" fund.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 20th, 2009 12:16 am |
|
| Levy Court doesn't give a crap about you or me. They only care about re-election and keeping the County Employees happy.
|
James Madison
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 25 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 19th, 2009 05:26 pm |
|
Jody.Sweeney wrote: Kent County Levy Court does not face issues that are partisan, that was my point. The issues that we do face are not decided based on any partisan agenda. Old Levy Court Administrations made some decisions that were based on a partisan agenda. I tend to believe it is more about the elected Commissioners than the fact that it is a 6-1 majority.
I reposted the second part of my comment because you failed to address those questions that I posed. What are your thoughts on economic theory/governing and your position on the rainy day fund?
It seems to me that it is unwise to raise taxes especially when people have little or no money. In addition, increasing consumer demand and consumer spending is the key to this economic mess, but when you raise taxes on people like me who have a moderate income it will lead more people to hoard their money thus contradicting what the government wants consumers to do which is spend. Moreover, what is the point of a rainy day fund when we do not use it when we need it the most? IF we are not going to use it for that purpose, then it should be divided among the people who actually pay taxes in this county. I consider myself to be a bluedog Democrat, but sadly, I guess that I am part of a dying breed.
|
John 001
Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 19th, 2009 03:35 pm |
|
So the county wants to raise our property taxes? Here is my problem with raising taxes: I have to live within my budget. Why can't the county? I don't have the luxury of charging the people I work for more to balance my budget. My utilities have increased 300%, my property taxes have gone up due to school referendums, the cost of food has gone up. I have cut where I can: canceled all newspaper and magazine subscriptions. Canceled Netflix. Reduced cable to basic service. Increased deductible on car insurance. Buy food in bulk when I can. No more movies or dinners out. Take my lunch to work. Now I'm facing a 10% salary reduction as a state employee. And the county wants to increase my taxes again? The county has increased the charge for trash pickup, while reducing service from twice a week to once a week.
Please tell me in what world would I be able to charge the people I work for MORE to provide less service, then ask for more money because my budget won't balance?
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 19th, 2009 01:33 pm |
|
The Levy Court, The State, and the Fed need to learn to live within their means just as every family does. When you don't have the money, you cut costs.
Increased taxation is not an option when people are losing their jobs and getting their pay and hours cut.
Thank God for the 2nd Ammendment. We might be able to reign in our government before they destroy us all. It is the people's government, not the politicians goverrnment.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 19th, 2009 03:57 am |
|
| Kent County Levy Court does not face issues that are partisan, that was my point. The issues that we do face are not decided based on any partisan agenda. Old Levy Court Administrations made some decisions that were based on a partisan agenda. I tend to believe it is more about the elected Commissioners than the fact that it is a 6-1 majority.
|
James Madison
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 25 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 17th, 2009 02:11 pm |
|
Jody.Sweeney wrote: He voted for me because my opponent disappeared after getting elected. That is what he said anyway. My opponent showed up at a Planters Run meeting and passed the buck to someone else for a problem with Delmarva Power, while I continue to talk to Delmarva Power trying to get them to admit their problem.
My actions are not associated with being a Democrat. This Levy Court is the least partisan group of Commissioners in two decades. Our decisions are not party related. As a group, while we don't all agree with the steps being taken, we are looking out for the good of the whole county. It irritates me when any time someone disagrees with a political action, they are quick to associate it with the "other" party. That is narrow-minded.
I would imagine things would be less partisan when your party outnumbers the other 6-1, so lets cut through that bull. It seems to me that it is unwise to raise taxes especially when people have little or no money. In addition, increasing consumer demand and consumer spending is the key to this economic mess, but when you raise taxes on people like me who have a moderate income it will lead more people to hoard their money thus contradicting what the government wants consumers to do which is spend. Moreover, what is the point of a rainy day fund when we do not use it when we need it the most? IF we are not going to use it for that purpose, then it should be divided among the people who actually pay taxes in this county. I consider myself to be a bluedog Democrat, but sadly, I guess that I am part of a dying breed.
|
rescue48
Member
|
Posted: Fri Apr 17th, 2009 01:23 pm |
|
| I think it's time to start a new topic. This horse is quite dead.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Fri Apr 17th, 2009 04:14 am |
|
He voted for me because my opponent disappeared after getting elected. That is what he said anyway. My opponent showed up at a Planters Run meeting and passed the buck to someone else for a problem with Delmarva Power, while I continue to talk to Delmarva Power trying to get them to admit their problem.
My actions are not associated with being a Democrat. This Levy Court is the least partisan group of Commissioners in two decades. Our decisions are not party related. As a group, while we don't all agree with the steps being taken, we are looking out for the good of the whole county. It irritates me when any time someone disagrees with a political action, they are quick to associate it with the "other" party. That is narrow-minded.
|
Rightwinger
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 17th, 2009 02:42 am |
|
PTG I seem to remember you supporting Jody prior to the election. Am I wrong?
If you voted for this guy, a DEM, you can now kick yourself in the butt!
If I am wrong, I apologize.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 17th, 2009 12:59 am |
|
On the contrary Jody, I am easily pleased. Stop pretending that my money is yours to spend as you think might be best for everyone. Thankfully, someone will probably run against you in the next election cycle if you don't open your eyes.
Jody.Sweeney wrote:
...PTG, nothing we do will make you happy. Thankfully, I am not doing this for you.......
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 16th, 2009 05:07 am |
|
The $2 million referred to is from the 2009 budget, which is what we needed to close out the budget for this year only. The reference to the next budget cycle is for the 2010 budget, current under consideration.
PTG, nothing we do will make you happy. Thankfully, I am not doing this for you. The next cut will be services, meaning not enough people to prepare deeds, perform inspections at property violations, paramedics to come to your house, or wastewater treatment engineers to process the waste. Read the posts I have put entered. The cuts are there. Just where are we supposed to cut next, I see no constructive ideas!
By the way, I never brought your family into this, leave mine out of it. Come to Levy Court on Tuesday, April 28th, and instead of complaining, come with ideas that can be discussed with respect and agreed to or refuted. State your name and ask questions. Levy Court Commissioners, the County Administrator, the Finance Director, and others will be there. We will try to answer all questions.
|
Two Cents
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1464 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 15th, 2009 11:38 pm |
|
tspong wrote: Levy Court President P. Brooks Banta and County Administrator Michael J. Petit de Mange defended it as one of a number of efforts to cope with a downturn in revenue. They said that more than $2 million in spending has been cut from the current budget and further reductions are expected in the next budget along with the tax-hike proposal.
Baloney, gentlemen. If further reductions in the budget are possible, do it right now -- not in the next budget cycle! Failure to do so provides clear evidence that your representations about future reductions in spending are nothing but empty promises, offered in an attempt to reduce the objections offered by citizens.
|
tspong
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 15th, 2009 03:19 pm |
|
What do you think?
From the Delaware State News:
Kent tax increase proposed
Hike accompanies cuts in county budget
By Bruce Pringle
Delaware State News
DOVER — Kent County Levy Court formally introduced a proposed tax increase Tuesday night and did not have to wait long to hear it criticized.
"Much of your tax base is hurting," with residents facing reductions in pay and benefits, Dover resident Bob Hartman said during a public comment session near the end of the Levy Court meeting. "We’re expecting things to get worse before they get better."
Another Dover resident, Avery Dalton, seconded Mr. Hartman’s comments. And Commissioner Allan F. Angel said he shared their opposition to the increase.
The proposed 24-percent tax hike would add an estimated $28 to the property tax on a typical home.
The current county property tax rate is 25 cents per $100 of assessed value. The increase would add 6 cents to that rate.
Levy Court President P. Brooks Banta and County Administrator Michael J. Petit de Mange defended it as one of a number of efforts to cope with a downturn in revenue. They said that more than $2 million in spending has been cut from the current budget and further reductions are expected in the next budget along with the tax-hike proposal.
Similar arguments may be featured at Levy Court’s next meeting, on April 28, during a 7:15 p.m. public hearing on the property tax, the $21.8 million budget proposal and a measure aimed at saving money by requiring county workers to begin chipping in a portion of the funds set aside for their retirement benefits.
County employees already face the prospect of making higher co-payments for prescription drugs and spending about $200 more for dental care. Those changes, approved Tuesday on 5-0 votes, with commissioners Eric L. Buckson and Bradley S. Eaby absent, will take effect July 1, along with a new budget.
In other business Tuesday, Levy Court quickly and unanimously enacted a program to issue identification cards that contain a holder’s thumbprint and vital information such as height and hair color, but do not include a photograph. The program was sparked by requests from local Amish residents, whose beliefs preclude their pictures being taken. Amish residents used to obtain such cards from the Delaware Division of Motor Vehicles, but that agency has yielded in recent years to federal demands that state-issued personal ID cards include photos.
The county cards will cost $40 for five years.
Levy Court President P. Brooks Banta praised county personnel director Allan Kujala for his work in developing the program. Amish residents "are overwhelmed and appreciative of your efforts and the county administrator’s," he said.
Post your opinions in the public issues forum at newszap.com.
Staff writer Bruce Pringle can be reached at 741-8233 or bpringle@newszap.com.
|
depeacemaker
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 38 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 15th, 2009 11:02 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: The current members of Levy Court don't have the balls to balance the budget without raising taxes and fees.
I guess they rely on their wives and children to provide the extra income at home to balance the home budget.
This shows just how out of touch you are with reality in today's world. I understand that you long for it to be 1950 again, but you need to stop blaming others for your lot in life.
Considering your post, you don't have the balls to do anything about it either.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 15th, 2009 01:08 am |
|
The current members of Levy Court don't have the balls to balance the budget without raising taxes and fees.
I guess they rely on their wives and children to provide the extra income at home to balance the home budget.
|
Vindicator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 558 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14th, 2009 09:36 pm |
|
"In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other." – Voltaire
|
tspong
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14th, 2009 06:44 pm |
|
Copied below is a letter to the editor submitted to the Delaware State News. You can post your opinions by clicking on "Reply."
I never thought I would agree with former Levy Court Vice President Ron Smith, but his guest commentary "Today is rainy day for using county reserve" is right on the mark.
With $24 million in the bank "Levy Court should temper its appetite for more taxs and help people get through this very tough time."
This time I agree with Mr. Smith. The problem with taxs — any tax — is that taxs only go one way — up.
More taxs mean more government, more government mean more taxs.
The only way to reduce taxs is to reduce government — the only way to reduce government is reduce taxs.
Fat chance.
The best we can hope for is no new taxs.
Fred Allen Bass
Dover
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sat Apr 11th, 2009 03:58 am |
|
| I do not see the Medical Trust Fund as a line item in the budget and I have been involved in the medical contribution to the budget and nothing was mentioned this year. I have been told that when the Medical Trust Fund runs out this year, the money is supposed to be gone and the panel no longer needed.
|
taxpayertoo
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 10th, 2009 06:42 pm |
|
| The medical insurances are in the budget. The money is put in a medical trust fund. Is there still a medical appeals board that can approve medical expenses up to $3000 per employee per year over and above what the insurance pays? Last edited on Fri Apr 10th, 2009 10:34 pm by taxpayertoo
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Fri Apr 10th, 2009 04:24 pm |
|
Millwood Crossing was having some real issues with further development. No one is clear on where it is going.
By the way, the "Medical Trust" fund is gone in the 2010 budget. I find it no where.
And Ron Smith's letter tot he editor is completely wrong. The hole that was dug for 15 years is now being plugged. After the 15 years we have had, I would not admit that I was in charge of the budget during that time.
|
taxpayertoo
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 7th, 2009 11:44 pm |
|
"Waiting for the land northeast of Dover to develop has been a killer. New plans are in the works, I hope it happens during my tenure, even if that time is as short as PTG hopes it to be." Sorry, Jody, I took this quote to mean that you were anxious for the development in the northeast part of the county. What did you mean? I had heard that the developer was willing to donate the land for the gym if the county would install sewer out there. Was that bad information?
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 7th, 2009 03:20 am |
|
First of all, the development on Dykes Branch Rd was approved long before I came to Levy Court. The deal was that when the Develpoment was started, the developer was going to foot part of the bill for the entrance and road to the gym complex. That Development has faltered and all but failed.
I am not sure where you got the idea that I was in favor of developing the northeast part of the county. It would be nice to be able to rescind an approval from some development that was approved in the past. We had a tough enough time forcing the APFO's on developments that were in the pipeline for approval.
You are right about the budget. We are looking at increasing revenues by charging a usage fee on use of some of the facilities in the parks for big events, like softball tournaments, as well as scheduling facilities like the pavilions ahead of time. While the programs offered at a new gym would not cover the difference, the programs are still the right thing to do as a county service.
|
taxpayertoo
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 6th, 2009 11:51 pm |
|
The Parks and Rec expenses are over a million dollars per year, the income is about $340,000 according to the budget figures. Not so many years ago the income and expenses were pretty even. It doesn't sound like the programs are paying for the department.
I don't think the taxpayers are wanting to hear that you would like to see more growth in the northeast part of the county. - or anywhere for that matter. The failure to control growth is why several LC commissioners lost elections a few years ago. There are plenty of houses on the market right now.
Last edited on Mon Apr 6th, 2009 11:52 pm by taxpayertoo
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 6th, 2009 03:43 am |
|
Okay, security at the parks: They have gates that are closed at night. Security lights that come on at night. and one of the parks has cameras for monitoring goings on. I have installed cameras for DelDOT and they are "relatively" cheap, and $400 per camera. I don't know how many, but it is a lot cheaper than a security guard.
I do not know where the gym is going to end up. There are some irons in the fire that would make a great location for the gym. The reason Breaknock was originally chosen was because the infrastructure was already there. Water, Sewer, Electric, and roads saved about $1,000,000 if Breaknock was the site. Relocating the gym to Dykes Branch Road meant that those costs were back on the table, but now there is some concern that that area is not going to develop as fast as we had hoped. I hope to be able to go formally public soon with a better choice.
And the five emloyee comment was necessary. Some people will not be happy until we get to that point.
The County used to be able to use school gyms to run the indoor sports programs, like volley ball, soccer, hockey, and they helped to cover other expenses. In order for schools to become competitive in sports, they now let their sports teams use the gyms almost every night. So, the programs that the county runs cover most expenses, but not the whole Community Services budget. With a new gym, those sports I mentioned before will come back, whether it is the teen programs or adult programs, that can't start because there is no gym space, and they will bring in revenue.
Not all Commissioners are going to the Conference. For the Spring Conference, only Commissioners Eaby and Angel went. Both are chairs of committees and bring back great ideas. For example, the Prescription card was one of Mr. Angel's ideas for the county, and the Dental card will be coming along soon. For the Summer Conference, I believe that only two Commissioners are going, and no Row Officers. I have said that even though it is my first year in office and the expereince would probably be very helpful, if I go I will pay my own way. I probably will not go.
I am not sure about medical expenses over and above what the insurance pays for. I have it as something to look into. Right now, we are still taking baby steps to correct what had gone wrong for 15 years.
Governments run a lot like low income families. During good times, when incomes are good, they spend what they make. During bad times, when income is down, they have dug themselves a hole that takes longer to get out of then it took to get into. But like anyone who has dug themselves into a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging. Governor Markell has done that, and the County is doing it too. I hope to bring the mentality that when revenue starts back up, it does not mean that we automatically start spending it because we have it.
|
depeacemaker
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 38 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 5th, 2009 02:28 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: I don't need the world, just the Kent County Voting Taxpayers.
The world called me the other day, it said it didn't need you either. As a respresentative of the Kent County Voting Taxpayers, I just don't agree with you, but you can stay around because we are a community and you take the bad with the good sometimes.
To me, the VALUE of the beautiful parks outweigh my tax bill. I went on a bus trip last fall and enjoyed that a lot too. My kids went to summer camp a while ago, and believe me, they are the best VALUE in the county!
|
depeacemaker
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 38 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 5th, 2009 02:21 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: I don't need the world, just the Kent County Voting Taxpayers.
The world called me the other day, it said it doesn't need you either. Bummer huh? I'm not sure that three other people posting on here describes the Kent County Voting Taxpayers either.
|
taxpayertoo
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 5th, 2009 01:02 pm |
|
The County has done a lot of cutbacks and reduced the budget - that is a good thing. But there has been so much waste at the county over the years that the taxpayers have a right to question what is going on and to speak up. Commissioner Sweeney has only been on Levy Court 4 months - though he is working hard and has his opinions it doesn't mean he is always right and everyone else is not. No one expects the county to operate with 5 employees that comment was unnecessary. Where will this gym be located? Why aren't the current programs paying for themselves? What makes you think a gym will change that? And for the 3rd time, Commissioner Sweeney - what kind of security do you have at the parks?
There are still a number of questions? Why do all the commissioners have to go to the same conferences? Why does the Clerk of Peace need to go to conferences? Why does the county pay for expenses over and above what the medical and dental insurances cover? Which Row Offices are you trying to do away with?
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 5th, 2009 03:30 am |
|
| I have less enthusiasm for getting worked up about the County tax increase than what I see coming at me from the State and Feds. No one likes any tax increases, of course, but when I look at the property tax bill I get every year, I'm far more impacted by the fancy schools that are going up in my district and the taxes they bring about. I'm far more impacted by a state which tripled it's budget in 10 years and now wants me to feel sorry for it's prolific spending and pay higher taxes and fees to keep it going until some gamblers show up to make the problems go away or the clowns in Washington throw out more money they don't have to quench the ever increasing thirst of states spending like they have no limitations. At least the Levy Court has done something about reducing the outlays by making a significant reduction in their budget. I still think they were too generous with pension upgrades back when things weren't as glum, but being objective about it , even I have to say "they ain't as bad as some".
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 5th, 2009 02:39 am |
|
| I don't need the world, just the Kent County Voting Taxpayers.
|
depeacemaker
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 38 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 5th, 2009 02:26 am |
|
| Good luck with that. I for one support the efforts of Mr. Sweeney. Obviously, you don't support much but yourself and your ideas. That is fine, but don't think the rest of the world will follow along. Even if you write in bold.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 5th, 2009 01:02 am |
|
Are you serious? Our government, that we pay for, is in competition for recreation dollars? You are so out of here next election cycle with thoughts like that.
Jody.Sweeney wrote:
......We lost so many programs when Dover beat us to the punch and built Pitts Gym at Schutte Park............
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 5th, 2009 12:54 am |
|
Sorry, I respectfully disagree. Parks and the Recreation Programs are important services offered by the County. Do you know that Browns Branch, even being so close to Killens Pond. If we waited until all parklands were donated, we would have, well , one park.
When the gym is built, and yes I support the gymnasium, the Recreational Programs will pay for themselves. We lost so many programs when Dover beat us to the punch and built Pitts Gym at Schutte Park. If there had not been objections to Breaknock Park, we would be enjoying that same revenue now. Waiting for the land northeast of Dover to develop has been a killer. New plans are in the works, I hope it happens during my tenure, even if that time is as short as PTG hopes it to be.
There are many areas where we are looking to cut, but the turnaround time is not going to affect the 2010 budget. We are looking at a couple of row offices, we have adjusted fees, we are reassigning people to those divisions that need help or will need help after the retirements. I hear and listen to many of the suggestions, compare it to what we have done, and still don't think anyone will be happy until we are running the County government with 5 employees. When that happens, try to get a permit to build a garage on your property, or to rezone an acre of land from agriculture to residential for your grandson's house. Then the complaints will be that "with all our taxes, why doesn't the County HIRE people to help?"
I know the old adage, you can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time, but a little agreement on what we have done so far to cut the budget instead of only raising taxes would be welcome.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 4th, 2009 09:34 pm |
|
| Careful now, you are trying to force the Levy Court to be responsible to the taxpayers.
|
taxpayertoo
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 4th, 2009 09:27 pm |
|
The whole Parks and Rec Department needs to be reviewed to make sure it is run efficiently.
Costs for the Big Oak and Brown's Branch Parks were very expensive. The county was too quick to spend money on parks. Once the parks were purchased they had to pay for parking lots, bathrooms, playground equipment, etc. but parks have ongoing expenses for maintenance, insurance, security (is there security at the parks?), cleaning of the bathrooms, paper products, grass cutting etc. that the county has to budget for. The county would not listen to objections to the parks stating that they were good for the county. One park is very close to Killen's Pond - so that wasn't necessary. Sure they are nice to have but at what expense? Brecknock Park was donated to the county and the county could afford to develop it - but 2 more??
What does the Kent County Levy Court newsletter and Parks and Rec Brochure cost to write, print and mail? Perhaps it could be strictly online - advertise the website on the sewer or tax bill. Review the programs and make sure the fees cover the cost of the programs.
|
depeacemaker
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 38 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 4th, 2009 03:45 pm |
|
| Interesting, what do you think should be done. You stop just short of an answer, why?
|
taxpayertoo
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 4th, 2009 12:40 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: I would guess those researchers are from Law Firms and Title Firms. I would suggest that they can do just fine from 9 - 5. They have to everywhere else.
Do the recreational revenues completely cover the cost of the programs including staff and facilities? I think not.
I think you are making excellent suggestions. The county recreational programs do not generate enough income to cover expenses. When was the last time they even increased fees in the Parks and Rec? How many programs are offered and there isn't enough participation that they have to refund the fees? According to the budget the Parks and Rec expenses have increased steadily for many, many years and yet the income has not increased at all.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 3rd, 2009 03:09 am |
|
I would guess those researchers are from Law Firms and Title Firms. I would suggest that they can do just fine from 9 - 5. They have to everywhere else.
Do the recreational revenues completely cover the cost of the programs including staff and facilities? I think not.
Last edited on Fri Apr 3rd, 2009 03:12 am by Playing the Game
|
Current time is 10:30 am | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|