| Author | Post |
|---|
sghang Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 7th, 2009 01:30 am |
|
| You are right on Mishi. These people who write in that we need to follow what the state is doing dont know what they are talking about. The state has thousands of workers , the county has 300. About half of them dont work in the administration bldg . so they dont know each other. WE are all spread out. The co. os the co. and its a unique family. I say "FAmily" because we are so small, it feels like family. Kent County Levy Court commisioners are all differrent, from all walks of life, thank God, and its a good thing. I have been to Levy Court meetings and they all talk and yell it out sometimes but they are fair and honest. The way I like it.
|
taxpayertoo Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 17th, 2009 09:28 pm |
|
| I, too, applaud Commissioner Buckson for looking to the future expenses of Kent County. Too many times you hear a commissioner say that they didn't cause the problems - the previous Levy Court commissioners did. Well, today they are making decisions - if they don't have sense enough to make decisions for the long term they shouldn't be in office. Makes me wonder how they manage their own personal finances.
|
Born Country Member

| Joined: | Mon Apr 20th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 14th, 2009 10:47 pm |
|
Hartlyboy wrote: This was a disappointing vote. They had a chance to fix something going forward and ducked back into turtle mode and pretended Kent County is 'different ' somehow. I could tolerate a tax increase with the expectation that some forward-looking vision was being applied but now we've been taxed and duped.
The silly explanation that it would have made two 'classes' of workers just shows the Commissioners are not in touch with the real world where that is common practice by companies looking to position themselves to survive. Of course, the companies we work for are not able to boost taxes at will to make up for poor planning.
Agreed. They kept my good will w/ the tax increase b/c they've convinced me that they really do care about Kent County's quality of life. I don't know a lot about Levy Court salaries. It's been said that these have become competitive in recent years, in addition to maintaining all the perks? That being the case, a new employee has the opportunity to plan their life accordingly with this change in pension. It's not something someone made informed, responsible choices around when building their life that is now being ripped out from under them. That's what really hurts good people.
I am delighted with Buckson's ability to look forward w/ this proposal and actually address it before it's another taxpayer problem to solve. It's very refreshing! He also sounded the alarm early for the coming loss of revenue. And, I believe he supports the idea of a new library, but understands that now is not the time. It's the type of prioritizing I've been begging for from either party. B/c I believe he really does care about my quality of life in Kent County, as a Dem. I have no problem supporting Buckson + hope he continues to serve.
Last edited on Thu May 14th, 2009 10:54 pm by Born Country
|
Hartlyboy Member

|
Posted: Thu May 14th, 2009 07:37 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Looks like we'll have 5 new Commissioners starting with the next election cycle. Cheers to Buckson and Sweeney for trying to bring some common sense to the County.
I don't think all of them are running but the ones that are will get some attention for this vote. Something as irrational as not trying to take corrective action for the future should not be forgotten. I echo your praise for Jody Sweeney and Eric Buckson.
|
Playing the Game Member

| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 14th, 2009 12:07 pm |
|
| Looks like we'll have 5 new Commissioners starting with the next election cycle. Cheers to Buckson and Sweeney for trying to bring some common sense to the County.
|
Hartlyboy Member

|
Posted: Thu May 14th, 2009 06:06 am |
|
This was a disappointing vote. They had a chance to fix something going forward and ducked back into turtle mode and pretended Kent County is 'different ' somehow. I could tolerate a tax increase with the expectation that some forward-looking vision was being applied but now we've been taxed and duped.
The silly explanation that it would have made two 'classes' of workers just shows the Commissioners are not in touch with the real world where that is common practice by companies looking to position themselves to survive. Of course, the companies we work for are not able to boost taxes at will to make up for poor planning.
Last edited on Thu May 14th, 2009 06:10 am by Hartlyboy
|
mishl Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 13th, 2009 06:49 pm |
|
Two Cents wrote: tspong wrote: The proposals, each defeated on a 5-2 vote, would have:
• Required retirees who spent less than 20 years with the county to pay 25 percent to 75 percent of the cost of their health coverage, depending on their length of service, instead of receiving it free as all current retirees do.
• Increased to 3 percent the portion of their salaries that employees pay toward their pensions — three times the 1-percent levy recently imposed on existing employees.
• Changed the pension-calculation formula to reduce payments by 10 percent.
All of the proposals would have applied only to workers hired in the future.
Why not make the solution far easier for that entire "family" to understand by simply applying those proposals to all county employees and retirees -- future and existing -- irrespective of their current status, effective July 1, 2009? In that manner, the county does not create different "classes" of employees or retires.
Ask WG about how well that worked out for him.
|
mishl Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 13th, 2009 06:48 pm |
|
"Its how the state does it." "The state pension is this way." "The state this . . . the state that . . ."
Criminy people, Kent County IS NOT THE STATE. Its apples and oranges.
The county has less then 300 employees versus the probably 30,000+ employees of the State of Delaware. The number of retirees that the county pays benefits to is around 100 (+/- maybe 5 or so).
Unlike their state-employeed counterparts, county employees have little chance for advancement. A lot of workers have been in the same position with the same title since they've been employed there. State employees have thousands of potential chances to advance within their system. Attractive benefits are what draw employees to Kent County, as its certainly not the big bucks (though I'm sure many of you would disagree).
So go ahead and whine about how its *your* tax dollars, but they're *my* tax dollars too. At least I know how wisely they're being spent -- unlike the State of Delaware.
|
Two Cents Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1464 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 13th, 2009 05:35 pm |
|
tspong wrote: The proposals, each defeated on a 5-2 vote, would have:
• Required retirees who spent less than 20 years with the county to pay 25 percent to 75 percent of the cost of their health coverage, depending on their length of service, instead of receiving it free as all current retirees do.
• Increased to 3 percent the portion of their salaries that employees pay toward their pensions — three times the 1-percent levy recently imposed on existing employees.
• Changed the pension-calculation formula to reduce payments by 10 percent.
All of the proposals would have applied only to workers hired in the future.
Why not make the solution far easier for that entire "family" to understand by simply applying those proposals to all county employees and retirees -- future and existing -- irrespective of their current status, effective July 1, 2009? In that manner, the county does not create different "classes" of employees or retires.
|
tspong Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 13th, 2009 03:45 pm |
|
What do you think?
From the Delaware State News:
Kent retirement left alone
By Bruce Pringle
Delaware State News
DOVER — Kent County Levy Court rejected three proposals Tuesday night that would have reduced retirement benefits for future employees.
Opponents said the measures would create two classes of employees, causing division among co-workers.
The county staff enjoys a family atmosphere that could be adversely affected, cautioned Cathleen McLean, a personnel office employee who has been with the county for 11 years.
"It would become apparent to a new member of this family that a different value was placed on his work than on the work of those who came before him," she said.
The proposals, each defeated on a 5-2 vote, would have:
• Required retirees who spent less than 20 years with the county to pay 25 percent to 75 percent of the cost of their health coverage, depending on their length of service, instead of receiving it free as all current retirees do.
• Increased to 3 percent the portion of their salaries that employees pay toward their pensions — three times the 1-percent levy recently imposed on existing employees.
• Changed the pension-calculation formula to reduce payments by 10 percent.
All of the proposals would have applied only to workers hired in the future.
Commissioner Eric L. Buckson, who sponsored or co-sponsored each of them, emphasized that he respects county employees — "Our guys earn what they get. We have hard-working employees." — but he fears benefit costs will create major financial problems for the county in distant years unless changes are made now.
"Folks, if you’re here in 2025, you’ll appreciate this," he said.
But only he and Commissioner George "Jody" Sweeney supported each proposal. They are state employees, and they pointed out that the state has rules similar to ones they backed.
But Commissioner Harold K. Brode, a retired state trooper, said changes in retirement rules resulted in disparity among police officers. "I think it’s going to open us up to more unions" if a similar situation is created in the county work force, he said.
The commissioners did agree on a change in retirement benefits that will apply to both existing and future employees. They eliminated the "Rule of 70," which granted immediate retirement benefits to those whose age plus number of years of service equaled 70. A 61-year-old worker with nine years on the job could retire with a pension and health benefits, for instance.
The rule was in effect only two years and only two people retired under its terms, said county personnel chief Allen Kujala.
Staff writer Bruce Pringle can be reached at 741-8233 or bpringle@newszap.com.
|
taxpayertoo Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27th, 2009 10:31 pm |
|
| If things are so slow at the County what are the employees in permits, inspections and the Recorder of Deeds offices doing all day? How can the county justify not having layoffs? Then rehire when the building and real estate business picks up. Drawing out of the reserves should be the last thing they do.
|
tspong Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 04:25 pm |
|
What do you think?
From the Delaware State News:
Kent workers can also expect pain
May be required to share pension funding and insurance expenses
By Bruce Pringle
Delaware State News
DOVER — Kent County employees may not face the 8-percent salary cut that Gov. Jack A. Markell proposed Thursday for state workers, but they are nearly certain to see their take-home pay shrink when the next fiscal year begins in July.
For the first time, they will — unless Kent Levy Court abandons a weeks-old consensus — help fund their pensions. That will cost them 1 percent of their base salary — or $390 for the average Kent worker, whose base pay is $39,000, according to county personnel director Allan Kujala.
And they will — if Levy Court sticks to a tentative decision made Tuesday — begin paying a share of their dental coverage. They long have paid for their dependents’ dental insurance, but now they would chip in an additional $186 a year toward their own.
In addition, their co-payments for medication would be higher. A 90-day supply of a brand-name drug that now costs $25 by mail order, for instance, would cost $50. The price of a similar, generic drug would rise from the current $10 to $20.
There may be no raises to help offset the higher outlays for benefits. Levy Court’s current consensus bans pay increases, except for employees promoted to higher-ranking positions.
None of those conditions is final, but all could be approved next month.
A little more than 300 people work for the county.
"The current options are a work in progress," Levy Court President P. Brooks Banta said Friday. "No specific decisions have been made. The time is drawing close when we have to make them."
A formal budget proposal is to be introduced April 14 and some version of it will be adopted following a public hearing April 28.
This is one of the most challenging budget seasons Levy Court has faced. An informal hiring freeze and a number of other cost-cutting measure have proven inadequate to head off a potential deficit.
With Delaware’s unemployment rate at a 25-year high and the construction and real-estate industries in a prolonged slump, Kent’s revenues from building permits and home sales have shriveled. Turmoil on Wall Street has ripped into county retirement-fund investments, resulting in a recommendation that the annual pension contribution be hiked by $900,000 — from this year’s $1.2 million to $2.1 million in each of the next two budgets.
Requiring employees to help make up the difference, Mr. Banta said, should help soften the impact of a tax increase Levy Court has in mind for property owners.
"The employees have expressed a desire to be part of the solution and not part of the problem," he said. "What it comes down to, I think, is that nobody will be hurt severely."
Indeed, many taxpayers may barely notice the difference on their bills. The typical homeowner would shell out only an estimated $28 more this year than last year.
The proposed rate increase is 24 percent, but that’s 24 percent atop one of the lowest county property tax rates in the East. It will not affect local school taxes, which are included on county tax bills but are set by school boards independent of Levy Court.
"We want everybody to share equally in the burden," said Francis Lally, a staff member of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which represents Kent paramedics. But he added that proposing a hefty tax increase would make "people go crazy."
That taxpayers may pay considerably less than employees hasn’t sparked large-scale worker complaints.
"They want to do their part," Mr. Lally said of the unionized medics. "They’re not out to gouge the county or the people they protect and serve."
But he said he would have to study Levy Court’s latest plans before deciding whether the employees are in danger of paying more than their fair share.
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.
|
taxpayertoo Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 17th, 2009 11:24 pm |
|
| don't forget how much they love giving money away to everyone. and the little catered events. and the travel...LC knows how to spend money and live large- (check out the budgets over the last several years) but can they learn to be more responsible with the public's money...
|
Playing the Game Member

| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 17th, 2009 02:06 pm |
|
| If our Levy Court Commissioners do not get a handle on spending now, and they merely increase taxes to compensate, when the economy improves, they will simply continue on their merry ways of spending and taxing.
|
Hartlyboy Member

|
Posted: Sun Mar 15th, 2009 08:51 pm |
|
One of the disturbing aspects of the current 'economic downturn' in Kent County is that it isn't really a downturn in the true sense of the word. While houses are selling at a lower rate than they were last year or the year before, sales are still three times what they were in the relatively prosperous days of 1998 and 1999 when tax increases weren't even thought of. In the Smyrna area, one of the worst for overdevelopment and price hikes, back in 2006 the sales of homes were 6 times the average back in 1998 and prices had almost tripled. I think our Commissioners got too used to the gobs of transfer tax income from similar unsustainable and undesirable levels of sales across the County and started handing out too many goodies , like sweeter pension plans for it's employess, etc.
The current administration had a lot to do with those perks and spending plans, too and really should have known better because they saw how the public was voting to get some control over the overdevelopment and they had to know there would be a slowdown at some point in all that easy money flowing in and a increase in actual infrastructure costs that would have to be met because of the building craze. Everybody had a nice dance, now it's time to pay the band.
Last edited on Sun Mar 15th, 2009 08:53 pm by Hartlyboy
|
Two Cents Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1464 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 15th, 2009 02:22 am |
|
Lottery Winner wrote: I think the taxpayers need to take a strong look at each Commissioner and stop deciding if they are a nice person and decide if they have the best interest of the taxpayers at heart.
That's exactly the right thought, applicable to town councils and mayors, levy court commissioners, state legislators, the governor, and other elective offices. Personality has little to do with anything. We need people who will do the right thing -- irespective of whether anybody is watching.
|
Lottery Winner Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 15th, 2009 01:42 am |
|
| I think the taxpayers need to take a strong look at each Commissioner and stop deciding if they are a nice person and decide if they have the best interest of the taxpayers at heart.
|
taxpayertoo Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 14th, 2009 01:34 pm |
|
| I think that the commissioners have already garnered their votes and made up their minds before things get to the Levy Court meetings. They get plenty of input outside of the LC meetings but do what they want in the end. I would hope that they know right from wrong. That they would be able see past the patronizing of certain people and stand up for what is right not what is easy. I feel like they depend too much on what they hear internally at the county and not what the public is saying. Some of the commissioners might not even really understand what the effects of their decisions will have for years to come or JUST DON"T CARE- they will be gone (with their pensions and benefits) and someone else will be stuck with the mess. Like I said before, the arguement was completely different last year about how they had to offer better than good benefits to attract experienced people. This year they are going to hire less experienced people. Didn't the county say recently they would open the jobs to the public and not just post jobs internally? Now I hear they will move people up? What is the correct answer?
|
Playing the Game Member

| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 14th, 2009 03:38 am |
|
By the time y'all got through slapping each other on the back, there was nothing to talk about. Too bad your president couldn't be there. Speaks volumes for the efftiveness of the Levy Court.
See you at the polls next election.
Jody.Sweeney wrote:
At the meeting on Tuesday night, I was a bit hopeful about th enumber of people there. I thought that there would be more discussion about the Early Retirement Offer (read incentive) but after a couple of presentations for one of the Dispatchers involved in the Houston Fireman incident, Employee of the month, new employees, almost the entire gallery left.
I went to a Stonegate Homeowners Association Meeting on Thursday night and was pleasantly pleased to see nearly 50 people at the meeting. I hope tha we can start to garner that much interest in Levy Court and what we do.
|
Jody.Sweeney Member

|
Posted: Sat Mar 14th, 2009 03:06 am |
|
| And for all the posts I put here that answer your questions or try to justify why I support the issues the way I do, how many of you are secretly cheering when the Delaware State News only posts the negative comments in the paper?
|
Jody.Sweeney Member

|
Posted: Sat Mar 14th, 2009 03:03 am |
|
At the meeting on Tuesday night, I was a bit hopeful about th enumber of people there. I thought that there would be more discussion about the Early Retirement Offer (read incentive) but after a couple of presentations for one of the Dispatchers involved in the Houston Fireman incident, Employee of the month, new employees, almost the entire gallery left.
I went to a Stonegate Homeowners Association Meeting on Thursday night and was pleasantly pleased to see nearly 50 people at the meeting. I hope tha we can start to garner that much interest in Levy Court and what we do.
|
Playing the Game Member

| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 14th, 2009 01:21 am |
|
| Perhaps if the commissioners had the wisdom to revise the pension and benefit rules for new hires and the remaining employees before they bestow the gift upon the aged and infirmed, it might carry some weight with the taxpayers.
|
taxpayertoo Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 11th, 2009 07:36 pm |
|
| Eric Buckson asked many of the questions I have asked here. The commissioners have been asked questions over and over and claim they don't know the answers. They rely on the people that benefit from HR decisions to explain why they can or cannot do something. Funny how last year they insisted that they had to offer top dollar and better benefits to get good employees, now they are saying they will replace with lower paid less experienced people. I guess some are just hoping the benefits and high pay will hold out until they can retire, too.
|
Hartlyboy Member

|
Posted: Wed Mar 11th, 2009 06:26 pm |
|
| You ask good questions. That should have been raised at the LC meeting last night. Anyone can attend. No invitation needed.
|
taxpayertoo Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 11th, 2009 04:12 pm |
|
| The HR Director says that there was no interest in the $15,000 one time payment compared to the 5 years extra time on pension calculation. He used for example if someone made $30,000 they would receive $1100 rather than $1000 a 10% increase. The $30,000 figure must be one of the lowest paying jobs of the 34 - if anyone at all makes only $30,000. What is the real average salary of the eligible employees? By the way how many of the 34 are Directors? It appears some people are being taken care of. What about the Row officers that aren't already retired county employees? Are they eligible?
|
tspong Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 11th, 2009 03:58 pm |
|
What do you think?
From the Delaware State News:
Kent OKs early retirement plan
Savings pegged at $1 million
By Bruce Pringle
Delaware State News
DOVER — Kent County Levy Court approved a plan Tuesday night to save money by offering retirement incentives to 34 veteran employees.
The workers will receive higher-than-average pensions if they quit by May 31.
"I can’t wait," said Jody Coulbourne, a clerk in the recorder of deeds office, who said she will accept the offer.
Ms. Coulbourne, 62, a 20-year county employee, said she probably would have remained on the job for another year if the proposal had not passed. "That was the plan, anyway" — at least until it appeared likely the incentive program would be adopted. Now, she has a long list of retirement chores, including sprucing up a vacation home in Bowers Beach.
County personnel director Allan Kujala told Levy Court commissioners the county could save $1 million in annual salaries and Social Security and Medicare contributions in the unlikely event that all 34 employees accepted the offer.
At a public hearing prior to the approval, no one came forward to speak. Several commissioners cited lack of opposition to the program as a reason to adopt it as one part of what is expected to be a wide-ranging effort to boost county revenue and curb expenses during the recession.
Levy Court also may employ such budget-balancing moves as increasing the county property tax rate and requiring remaining employees to contribute more to their benefits.
Mr. Kujala said before the meeting that the retirement incentive would raise eligible employees’ pensions by 10 percent, if they accept the offer. For example, someone who has spent 20 years on the county payroll and earned an average of $30,000 annually in his three most lucrative years would receive $1,100 a month by participating in the program — $100 more than usual.
Twenty of the affected employees are in positions deemed important enough to fill shortly after the retirements, but money is to be saved on those jobs because new employees would command lower salaries. The other 14 workers would be replaced only if county finances rebound.
The 34 affected workers are those who have 30 years' experience or who are eligible for retirement under a formula that combines experience and age. A 50-year-old worker, for example, could retire with an immediate pension after 20 years on the job.
The 34 employees have another option. Instead of taking a higher pension, they can retire by May 31 and receive a one-time $15,000 payment, plus the pension to which they ordinarily would be entitled. But Mr. Kujala said that alternative appears unpopular.
The program allows exceptions to the May 31 deadline if management determines a worker is needed for as long as a month beyond that date.
The program was approved 5-1, with Commissioner Eric C. Buckson dissenting. Mr. Buckson questioned the calculations used in estimating potential savings.
Levy Court President P. Brooks Banta was absent.
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.
|
taxpayertoo Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10th, 2009 11:20 pm |
|
| We can complain all we want - the taxes are going up whether we go to the Levy Court meeting or not. The commissioners make decisions based on information they receive - they need to dig deeper and find out exactly where the money goes. The budget is huge - they need to see the specifics. I would be happy if they asked for a breakdown once in a while of an expense - to see what exactly is being purchased. I am so thrilled that the Accounting department now reveiws all requests for purchases before the money is spent. Way to go! Now let's get the commissioners to actually look at some of the invoices once in a while - just for a reality check. Last edited on Tue Mar 10th, 2009 11:21 pm by taxpayertoo
|
Playing the Game Member

| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10th, 2009 01:31 am |
|
| LEVY COURT is looking to pad the retirements of a select few and if you don't show up tomorrow night to complain about your proposed tax increase don't bother to complain any more.
|
taxpayertoo Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10th, 2009 12:19 am |
|
How was the $750,000 savings determined? If 34 people retire with the additional 5 years pension credit how much money will the county have to put in the pension fund initially and then each year? What is the payout for the sick and vacation leave time that the employees accrued? If 20 positions have to be filled how much will it cost to advertize for the jobs, the cost for testing the hundred or so applicants, the background checks, the physicals, etc. to fill these positions. How much will the county have to put in the Other Post Employee Benefits trust fund initially and annually to cover these 34 employees? Will the county really save $750,000 per year??? Just asking a fair question.
Will the employees contributing to their pensions only be the new hires?
I am happy that the Levy Court is looking for ways to balance the budget and I am hoping that they will remember these times when things are better and learn from past mistakes. Decisions made today have long lasting effects.
Last edited on Tue Mar 10th, 2009 12:45 am by taxpayertoo
|
tspong Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3357 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 9th, 2009 05:28 pm |
|
What do you think?
From the Delaware State News:
Kent panel eyes salary savings
Worker retirement plan could save $750K annually
By Bruce Pringle
Delaware State News
DOVER — Kent County Levy Court will invite public comment Tuesday night on a plan to save as much as $750,000 annually in county employees’ salaries by making retirement more attractive to nearly three dozen workers who have remained on the payroll despite being eligible for pensions.
In a 7:15 p.m. hearing at the county administration building on Bay Road, county workers and Kent residents can discuss a proposal that would ensure fatter pensions to 34 employees if they quit by May 31.
If all 34 employees retired, 20 would be replaced by less-experienced personnel, who would earn lower salaries. The other 14 would not be replaced until the county government’s recession-wracked finances recover.
The retirement proposal is part of a wide-ranging effort to avoid a budget deficit amid the dismal performances of the real estate and development industries, two key sources of county revenue.
Other proposed parts of the effort to balance the budget include increasing the county property tax rate, requiring employees to contribute toward their pensions, freezing employee pay and continuing to limit hiring and tightly control other spending.
The 34 employees targeted for the pension offer are the only members of the county’s 320-member work force who already could have retired with a county pension, said Kent personnel director Allan Kujala.
"It’s not an early-retirement plan" allowing employees to retire at a younger age or with fewer years on the job than ordinarily required for a pension, Mr. Kujala said. "It’s a retirement incentive."
The affected workers would be credited with five additional years' service if they accepted the offer. "Five years essentially is equal to a 10-percent increase in your pension," Mr. Kujala said.
As an example, he said $1,000 is the usual monthly pension for a worker with 20 years' experience whose average salary during his three highest-paying years was $30,000. But that worker would receive $1,100 a month if credited with 25 years' service.
If Levy Court approves the retirement proposal, each of the 34 employers will have an additional option. They can take an immediate $15,000 and receive only the monthly pension to which they ordinarily would be entitled. But Mr. Kujala said that offer seems to have garnered little interest.
Kent County workers are eligible to retire with an immediate pension if they are at least:
•age 62 and have been employed for five years;
•age 60 with 15 years of service;
•age 55 with 20 years of service;
•any age with 30 years of service.
Levy Court Commissioner Allan F. Angel said he would like to reduce long-term costs by increasing the minimum service required to receive a pension. Five years, he said, is a relatively short period to serve before being vested in a pension plan.
"When you look at the corporate world ... you’re looking at eight-, 10-year vestings," he said.
In the past, Commissioner Angel said, the five-year vesting may have been needed to attract workers who otherwise would have opted for higher-paying positions elsewhere, but county salaries now are more competitive.
If you go
Kent County Levy Court public hearing on a proposal designed to save money by encouraging pension-eligible county employees to retire by May 31
7:15 p.m. Tuesday
Kent County Administrative Complex, 555 Bay Road (U.S. 113), south of South Little Creek Road
Staff writer Bruce Pringle can be reached at 741-8233 or bpringle@newszap.com.
|
taxpayertoo Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 8th, 2009 10:25 pm |
|
| You are right - control the development or the school tax will continue to rise. The school tax is raised through referendums. The majority must be voting yes because they keep getting passed. Property owners pay the school taxes but everyone is allowed to vote for the referendum. Non-owners say they pay school taxes through higher rent but maybe renters should pay separate from their rent. The impact of the school taxes will be seen when the properties are reassessed. Last edited on Mon Mar 9th, 2009 12:41 am by taxpayertoo
|
Hartlyboy Member

|
Posted: Sun Mar 8th, 2009 05:00 pm |
|
| Batting around all the possibilities Kent County has to reduce taxes hopefully will help find a way to reduce some of those costs going forward, but I think you should look at your actual annual tax bill to see how County property tax compares to the gorilla in the room -the school tax. That tax came about from all the crazy overdevelopment we've had in the past and I'd like the Commissioners to keep focused on that problem which has far greater impact on us. Yes, have the County employees pay a share of their medical and stop playing Santa Claus with the pension plan, but most importantly, keep fighting to control the impact of the developers through the ordinances and policies that will mean much more to our pocketbooks in the future. Last edited on Sun Mar 8th, 2009 05:00 pm by Hartlyboy
|
taxpayertoo Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 8th, 2009 02:05 pm |
|
The County will raise taxes because they have to find a way to balance the budget. I keep hearing that taxes might be lowered when the recession is over. Why weren't the taxes lowered when the money was flowing in during the building boom? Bethany Beach resident told me they cut the taxes during that time.- rather than just spend because they could.
Since the employees did not pay into the pension I was told that the county did not have many restrictions on what they could do with that money. They could give extra years to certain employees as incentives to stay on with the county. Once the employees begin to pay into the pension the county will not be able to do things like that. I'm not an expert - just another taxpayer trying to discuss the issues - if we are wrong then you are in a position to explain what is correct. By the way, how much will the acutary require the county to pay into the pension fund this and next year?
Last edited on Sun Mar 8th, 2009 02:06 pm by taxpayertoo
|
curiousindover Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 436 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 8th, 2009 12:45 pm |
|
| Whats the deal with Planters Run? Just curious.
|
Playing the Game Member

| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 8th, 2009 01:02 am |
|
My county tax is currently $98 and it will rise to $122. That is a 24% increase. Mr. Sweeney if you want to call out the Senior Citizens in your district go ahead. Yeah it's only $24 for me but it is a 24% increase in collections County Wide. What part of a 24% increase do you not understand?
BTW exactly what have you done for Planters Run?
Last edited on Sun Mar 8th, 2009 01:03 am by Playing the Game
|
Jody.Sweeney Member

|
Posted: Sat Mar 7th, 2009 11:55 pm |
|
THAT is what happened to WG in THAT instance. I have my opinion about the overall election.
I am pretty sure we are going to find out that making changes to employees current pensions is against Delaware Code. That is why the State of Delaware has multiple pensions plans over the years.
The next meeting of Levy Court will be on Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at 7:00PM at the Levy Court Building, Room 203. I encourage all of you to come, stand at the podium, and make your opinions known. You will be asked to stand at the podium and state your name and address, then swear on the Bible that you intend to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But please, make sure you know what you are saying when you get there.
I am not a self-serving politician. I serve the people of the 5th District and County. Other than a few folks here on the blogs, and I have spoken with hundreds, I am getting the following general response: "I don't like the government raising taxes, but I understand why it has to happen." Bloggers like PTG are infuriating because they moved here from New York, or New Jersey, and have not seen a tax increase in the entire time they lived here, but continue to inflame the situation with their rhetoric about a 24% increase. In his development, which I have fought to help with other issues, the tax increase will be between $15.30 and $18.90 per year. Is that exhorbitant? No.
Regardless, I will never know his real name to have a real dialogue with him. I will not be able to tell him how much his property tax will go up. That is why I will limit my entries on these blogs unless there is something very important to say. In the meantime, my Levy Court phone number is 943-7328, my Levy Court email address is jody.sweeney@co.kent.de.us. Feel free to contact me with any issues, opinions, or comments that you may want to share.
|
taxpayertoo Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 7th, 2009 01:03 pm |
|
| I would like to comment on what happened to WG. He wanted to bring up the issue of employees contributing to the pension and of putting an end to employees that retire after only 5 years of service and who reach the age 62 from receiving fully paid medical and dental insurance. There were people that wanted to make WG look bad and told him he a had to present those issues in the form of ordinances. Then they made sure that the employees saw copies of the ordinances. WG was trying to get the discussion on the table - not realizing that the people setting him up placed it on the agenda for discussion and a vote. Of course the employees were upset and went to the meeting to speak out against the proposals. So don't think the commissioners are all so innocent and wanting what is best for everyone. They can be manipulative and destroy chances to make good changes. Now they have to look at the very issues that WG brought up last year. Only now they put a different spin on it. Politics will continue to stink as long as people are self-serving.
|
Playing the Game Member

| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 7th, 2009 01:36 am |
|
| I am certain your Levy Court Commissioner will be more than happy to supply you with the details. They are for the people you know.......Yeah right.
|
rescue48 Member

|
Posted: Fri Mar 6th, 2009 09:02 pm |
|
| Ya got a good date and time for that?
|
Playing the Game Member

| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 6th, 2009 05:29 pm |
|
| I urge all to attend the next Levy Court meeting and express your extreme displeasure with the 24% tax increase being thrust upon the homeowners in Kent.
|
rescue48 Member

|
Posted: Thu Mar 5th, 2009 03:35 pm |
|
For a minimal tax increase for the first time in many, many years, it is a small price to pay for a family to continue to feed themselves rather than to resort to federal or state assistance. Levy Court is confident that, since we have reduced taxes once, we can certainly do it again once the economy corrects itself.
I have a hard time believing that government would reduce taxes in this day and age. That's the same argument that Tim Geithner is using these days during his testimony on Capitol Hill. Not all of us are so blind to believe the warm fuzzy that "oh we'll lower your taxes once the economy picks up" line. Once government has the tax increase they won't give it up so easily.
Mr. Sweeney, don't get tired of speaking for the county. That's what you were elected for, sir.
|
Playing the Game Member

| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 5408 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 5th, 2009 12:09 pm |
|
Yet you are willing to let those who have lost their jobs, have had no raise for over 2 years and are having difficulties on fixed incomes pay for government employees so they don't get demoralized.
Give me a break and don't give up your day job.
|
Jody.Sweeney Member

|
Posted: Thu Mar 5th, 2009 05:33 am |
|
We will be getting regular updates on the status of the budget from now on. January 2010 is when the we meet again for a specific budget strategy session for the 2011 fiscal year. Not that we don't discuss it with each other on a daily basis, mind you.
Here is where WG went wrong with that idea: He wanted to go after existing employees, and he blind-sided the employees with it. I fully believe that an organization cannot balance a budget on the back of its employees. Morale will decrease, services will decrease, and then a whole new level of complaints starts because the residents still want the same level of service. There are ways to handle those types of ideas, and one of his ideas may even be illegal. I am hoping to work with the HR Division and the other Commissioners to change the benefits package for any new employees to start aligning the County with other government agencies.
By the way, while the benefits are pretty good for the County, they are pretty close to what the State offers.
|
depeacemaker Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 38 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 4th, 2009 05:45 pm |
|
| Thanks WG! Hey, what you doing these days?
|
taxpayertoo Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 4th, 2009 12:40 pm |
|
Waiting until January 2010 might be too late - decisions today have long term effects - Levy Court cannot continue to stay behind the curve. Look at the far reaching impact and make sensible decisions.
for example: increasing hours at the county from 35 to 40 was not thought out when the Levy Court intended to place a moratorium on developement. Placing a moratorium on developement was promised during election time but wasn't really necessary when the economic slowed down developers anyway. The the county had to pay, pay, pay because the developers figured houses aren't selling anyway, they had all this investment in property - so they sued to make money. They still have the land to develop when the crisis is over. Win win for them. It's important to read the economy and make real time decisions.
example: County employees receive COLA and merit increases every year - when they were receiving the big increases that was the time to implement employee contributions to the pension. So now, no raises, decreased hours resulting in decreased pay, higher benefit costs. WG Edmanson wasn't perfect but he tried to get the others to see the need to look at the employees benefits and revise them so they would be affordable.
|
Jody.Sweeney Member

|
Posted: Mon Mar 2nd, 2009 12:20 pm |
|
| There were not any "formal" meetings. We queried the employees for ideas to cut costs to avoid forced furloughs and layoffs. A couple of Commissioners floated ideas to a cross-section of their constituents. I did that as well as had the idea posted here in the blogs. Most of the ideas that were submitted, by employees and residents, were investigated. Some will probably be used or taken deeper if the economy does not improve before January of 2010.
|
taxpayertoo Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 159 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 2nd, 2009 10:31 am |
|
| thanks for explaining the reassessment issue.
|
gators Member
| Joined: | Tue May 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 48 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 2nd, 2009 06:04 am |
|
| You are facing a no-win situation based on our economic times and you are right you are not going to please everyone. Have there been community meetings to ask the taxpayers how they feel? Just curious because I know Chris Koons in New Castle has been meeting with each district trying to get a feel for where the taxpayers stand...cuts in certain services, tax increases, furloughs, etc. Getting rid of vehicles and other "frivoulous" spending should be a given and then go from there. A combination of all options makes sense but it would be nice if voices were heard and the budget cuts were determined based on what the voters think too.
|
Jody.Sweeney Member

|
Posted: Mon Mar 2nd, 2009 05:32 am |
|
| DEPEACEMAKER, thanks for the laugh. PTG, this is REALLY about history. Before you moved here, we had low taxes. After you moved here, we still have low taxes. The difference is that the Levy Court Commissioners during the 90's and early 00's approved so many new developments that infrastructure is lagging behind. The same Levy Court Commissioners allowed the budget to increase based on the revenues from the housing boom of the times. I was NOT a Commissioner at the time. The new set of Commissioners that you are so anxious to remove, have enacted new ordinances that will fix the infrastructure problem with new developments, but now we have to work out the budget problem. Again, I apologize for a tax increase, and I do not look to have everyone accept it, just to understand the reasoning behind my decision to support it.
|
Jody.Sweeney Member

|
Posted: Mon Mar 2nd, 2009 05:13 am |
|
Man I hate being the spokeperson for the County on all of these issues. Let me try to explain reassessment, to the best of my knowledge.
The last reassessment that was done was around 1987 (New Castle and Sussex are even longer). Some towns, like Dover, have been a little more agressive about keeping their records up to date.
Reassessment is not about what the property value is worth, that comes from what the market will bear. Reassessment is about what it would COST to build the building on the property.
In discussions over the last year, it is estimated that it would cost about $3.5 million just for Kent County to reassess every property. There has been discussion about doing it in stages. The State Controller General's office has been directed by Governor Minner to produce a report on reassessment. I suspect that it will be produced along with legislation that directs all three counties to complete it in some number of years, but they will not fund it.
If reassessment is done, it has been suggested that 1/3 will have higher values, 1/3 will have lower values, and 1/3 will stay the same. In all of that, the County is, by State law, not allowed to get more than a 15% bump in revenues as a result, so we are NOT looking at reassessment, with a $3.5m price tag, as new revenues.
As it was with the tax increase and the fact that I will be paying the increased tax on my property, my house will be in the 1/3 that increases with a reassessment.
|
 Current time is 10:09 am | Page: 1 2 |
|