Taking a waiver off the table
To me, this is a confusing request Rick Pollitt has made. In a letter released today, he told the state to not bother giving Wicomico County a Maintenance of Effort waiver for the next budget year:
Wicomico County Executive Richard M. Pollitt, Jr., announced today that he has notified the Maryland State Board of Education that he is withdrawing the county’s application for a waiver of the Maintenance of Effort (M.O.E.) standard for funding public education for Fiscal Year 2012. Pollitt was to lead a Wicomico County delegation to Baltimore to appeal to the State Board for a waiver on May 24, but the withdrawal negates that presentation. Wicomico is the last of the six counties that initially filed for the waiver to take this action.
In a letter to the State Board, Pollitt said, “Withdrawal of the requested waiver does not indicate that Wicomico County will reach the M.O.E. level of funding in the next fiscal year. In fact, it will not.”
Under normal circumstances, if a county funds its local school system to the level designated as Maintenance of Effort, it receives millions of dollars in new State aid. However, as a reflection of the current state of the economy, no additional State funds are at risk next year for failure to meet M.O.E.
Pollitt noted that there is currently a legal challenge involving the Montgomery County Board of Education and their county government where the Board claims that M.O.E. is mandatory upon the counties and the only way to avoid funding M.O.E. is through the waiver process. “We, along with the Maryland Association of Counties (MACo), are watching that case with a great deal of concern as a ruling favorable to the Montgomery Board could be devastating to county fiscal policy. I believe the major risk to failing M.O.E. is the loss of additional State money. With no new money at stake, the exercise is moot.”
Recently, the Wicomico County Board of Education, by a tie vote, declined to endorse the county’s application for the waiver. Pollitt noted without the support of the local educational community, gaining the waiver would have been unlikely. Pollitt was successful in receiving a waiver last year but then had the support of the local school system.
Pollitt concluded, “providing adequate funding for the superior education of our young people is the most serious challenge we face. While I deeply believe that most Maryland jurisdictions have a strong commitment to do the right thing for our children; the precarious state of the economy, further exacerbated by an antiquated system of public school funding, points to a troubled future for local school funding and I have called on the State Board of Education to join with MACo, local boards of education and the Maryland General Assembly to work vigorously to develop a better plan for funding public schools.”
I suppose I can see the point if the question is moot, but it can’t be determined whether the point is moot until the court decides the Montgomery County case, can it? Perhaps leaving the request in may have been a better move. Sure, there’s no state money at stake – for now.
But more interesting to me is the tie vote at the Board of Education. Since there are seven members of the board, my question is who abstained, who voted to seek the waiver, and who voted against the deal. All I know is that it was a 3-3-1 split.
So apparently our ball is in the court of the court deciding the Montgomery County case. If things don’t go Wicomico’s way we may have another fiscal emergency come up later this year as the county scrambles to cut other areas to feed the beast that is our Board of Education.
Update: I’m told the three “no” votes were Don Fitzgerald, Ron Willey, and Michelle Wright, with Robin Holloway abstaining.
The silent majority
While it isn’t unprecedented, it is rare that I open up monoblogue to guest opinion. This is the case today, though, as Marc Kilmer of the Maryland Public Policy Institute counters the argument made by Wicomico County PIO Jim Fineran in a recent Daily Times opinion.
As Mr. Pollitt’s public spokesman, Jim Fineran is paid to put a positive spin on his boss’s proposal to raise our property tax rate. However, I’d caution anyone from mistaking the apathetic public response to Pollitt’s tax hike proposal for approval.
Yes, the people who showed up at the budget meetings generally spoke in favor of a tax hike. Government programs have concentrated benefits and diffused costs. Those who use programs are few and focused; those who pay for them are many and inattentive. Of course people who are benefiting from taxpayer largesse are going to rally when their favored programs are threatened.
During last year’s election, however, a large number of people spoke when they cast their ballots. They elected six very strong fiscal conservatives to the county council. Mr. Pollitt barely won a second term. Mr. Pollitt’s re-election was no doubt aided by the fact that last year he didn’t propose raising the tax rate even though the revenue cap would have allowed it. Now that it’s not an election year, Mr. Pollitt is certainly singing a different tune.
The results of the 2010 elections indicate a majority in Wicomico County supports low taxes. They may be silent at budget meetings but they speak loudly at election time. If our county council members stay true to the fiscally conservative message they advocated during the election, they should know that the people of Wicomico County support them.
Marc Kilmer is a Maryland Public Policy Institute senior fellow specializing in health care issues. He and his family reside in Wicomico County.
Observations on a budget
It seems to me that political theater in Wicomico County only comes around once or twice per annum, and that occasion reared its head again last night.
Since I have a life which doesn’t revolve completely around local politics, and since I already knew just how the proceedings would go from previous experience, I chose to sit and watch the hearing from the comfort of my living room on PAC-14. And while there were a couple occasions when I was ready to bolt out of my chair and make the five-minute drive down to the Civic Center, I refrained knowing that I would have the opportunity to say my piece in this space. Besides, I write better than I speak and I’m not limited to five minutes at the mike sitting here in my easy chair.
In essence, what this fight boils down to is whether we need to tax ourselves into oblivion or not. Sure, it’s only a 5 cent per $100 tax which affects only property owners that’s the largest controversy. But increasing the property tax rate also increases the personal property tax (also known as the ‘inventory’ tax) because it’s calculated on the property tax rate, times a factor of 2.5. So that rate will leap 12.5 cents per $100. Other fee tax increases proposed (remember, according to the Democrats, a fee is a tax) include charging homeowners more for mosquito spraying, setting a minimum tipping fee of $5, and increasing the price of solid waste permits by 9 percent.
A large part of last night’s discussion seemed to center around the Board of Education’s budget, with one commentator stating the case that a decrease in the BOE budget would end up increasing the budgets for law enforcement and the county corrections facilities. The school board seemed to have the largest lobbying group there.
However, the grousing shouldn’t be at the local board of education. Nope, our problems began when no one had the guts (or a judge who exhibited a little common sense) to tell the Thornton Commission to go pound sand. Supposedly the state didn’t fund education enough, so a formula was established to mandate how much counties were required to spend per pupil. Whether the number has any basis in reality or not, that’s what the state and county has to come up with to meet ‘maintenance of effort’ requirements. Some whined about the fact Wicomico needed a waiver from MOE, but I think we should have a permanent waiver. The state would be far better served to let the money follow the child and allow the parent more choice, but that’s a discussion far beyond the scope of a modest-sized county’s budget.
G.A. Harrison brought up a point I’d brought up before, and one promised by the County Executive before he was even elected. We were told that the budget would be stripped down to nothing (as County Executive Rick Pollitt claimed to do in Fruitland) then rebuilt as needs were apparent.
Unfortunately, our process seems to lean too heavily on department heads who aren’t even willing to level-fund their departments, let alone make cuts. Perhaps the budget building needed to proceed as follows – and bear in mind Rick Pollitt has threatened to create a ‘shadow budget’ in the past.
We generally have an idea of what our revenues should look like before the budget is even created. I’ll present the following scenario, with numbers that are generally close to the mark but may not be exact.
Let’s assume that projected revenue without tax or fee increases of any sort is $110 million. By prioritizing what services need to be provided, the budget is prepared as if that would be the actual revenue. We should have an idea of what employees are paid, how much facility costs are, price of office supplies needed, and so forth.
At that point, we can estimate the impact of any tax or fee increases, regardless of how small, and then assign an extra expenditure to each – it doesn’t necessarily have to be in that department. Let’s say the $5 tipping fee creates $100,000 in revenue and thanks to that influx of cash we can hire (or retain) two teachers. For that matter, it could be any of a menu of options that we can think of – it’s two teachers, or staffing for an economic development office, or new radio equipment for the sheriff’s department, or HVAC renovations to a county facility. Whatever it is, at that point we can determine whether we want to bear the extra cost among ourselves for (the statists’ code phrase for this would ’invest in’) the additional service or improvement.
Instead, we are just told that to maintain this county’s ‘quality of life’ (and how do we measure the cost/benefit analysis of that?) we have to increase these taxes and fees to match the budget wants County Executive Pollitt has set forth. If we don’t tax ourselves this way then someone has to suffer.
This method is working the system exactly backwards - it’s like walking into a restaurant with $15 and wanting the $19.95 buffet. They’ll let you up to the serving line, but you can’t have the steamed crabs, prime rib, or cheesecake. All you can eat are the items no one else will have like the Brussels sprouts and tofu. Maybe – just maybe - we’ll allow a plain lettuce salad; no dressing.
The better way would be to have the buffet come with a selection of inexpensive foods and cost $15, with the steamed crabs, prime rib, and cheesecake a $4.95 additional option if you desire to pay for it.
Our problem is one of perception. Everything goes up in price constantly, and the pound of flesh the federal and state governments extract out of us every year is beginning to feel more like they’re extracting five pounds apiece. Meanwhile, the quality of services doesn’t improve as quickly as the costs escalate. People notice this most in the perceived quality of our educational system, citing anecdotal evidence of high school graduates who can’t count change, speak proper English, or fill out a job application. Roads which were fixed a couple years earlier are already falling apart, they say, and they have to visit four governmental offices to get a simple permit. We all have our horror stories of dealing with government bureaucrats.
Of all the suggestions made during the portion of the county budget proceedings I watched, I thought those made by Tom Taylor made the most sense. His campaigns were always ones of thinking out of the box, seeking limited government solutions. (It was surprising that Tom twice sought the Democratic nomination for County Executive, but perhaps he’ll change those political stripes someday.) Contrast that with the person who spoke after him, Joe Ollinger – he basically said go ahead and raise my taxes because you’ve always (except for last year) raised them the maximum amount allowed. Sometimes precedents are made to be broken, and he of all people should realize there was a reason taxes weren’t jacked up to the max in 2010 - it was an election year! Rick Pollitt may not look like the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he possesses some political savvy.
If my math is correct - and generally it is - doing without the 5 cent tax increase would require about $4.5 million in cuts from a budget of $111 million. (Property tax revenue consists of about $3.9 million of that, with the corresponding inventory tax increase accounting for the other $600,000 or so.) That’s essentially a 4 percent across-the-board cut, and I believe that’s doable if the budget is pieced together in the proper fashion. (Remember, my theory is that it should have been based on the lower number, with optional buys and personnel placed as extra line-items.)
Instead, we get this annual (or semi-annual, as lean times have sometimes forced a mid-year course correction) whinefest where everyone pleads to either not have their pet services cut or not have their taxes raised. It’s pretty apparent whose side I’m on, because I don’t equate spending taxpayer money with gaining a better quality of life like Brad Gillis does. In my eyes, we should worry about the core of the core services first, then come up with the extras as we can afford them – taking into consideration their economic impact.
I trust our County Council will do just that, and the ball is now in their court. They just have to stand strong against the seductive pressure of constantly hearing that it’s only a little tax increase of money we’re entitled to anyhow under the revenue cap. Until the working people don’t have a revenue cap placed on them, the county government needs to do with less.
One final note: the speed camera legislation we thought was dead is rearing its ugly head again. Be at the County Council meeting June 7th and tell them they don’t need Big Brother as a revenue source. Speed cameras are not about safety, they’re about the cash. And Wicomico County will be the first to tell you they need more cash.
Not taxed enough already?
And to think I voted for this guy?
Perhaps Joe Ollinger doesn’t explain his case very well in a recent Letter to the Editor published in the Daily Times, but his contention is that we should gladly pay the nickel per $100 increase in property taxes here because, “in those years that property values decrease, such as this year, to maintain a revenue flow that keeps pace with inflation and population growth, the tax rate must increase by the maximum allowed by the cap.”
But it didn’t last year because his opponent, incumbent County Executive Rick Pollitt, was fretting over his re-election chances. So where was Joe then? Certainly he wasn’t advocating that Rick bleed local property owners dry! Remember, Pollitt was the one who complained for the entire first three years of his term about the cap and threatened to create a “shadow budget” with items he had to cut because revenues weren’t to his liking.
Yet even after the piece in the Daily Times, Joe was at the Republican Club meeting last night handing out a flyer which claimed Pollitt’s proposal to zero out the homestead credit has several “shortcomings.” These are directly from the flyer:
- It is unfair. One group will benefit at the expense of other groups (renters, commercial property owners, future homebuyers, our own children and/or grandchildren)
- It is a subsidy, and as with all subsidies, one group receives an economic benefit to the detriment of others.
- It is not the “American independent – I’ll pay my own way” conservative attitude. Instead, it is a liberal socialist idea that expects a faceless society to pay for a portion of your expenses.
- It will artificially increase the real property tax rate.
- It will artificially increase the personal property rate.
- It is bad for business and economic development.
- It will decrease residential real estate activity.
- It will increase the complexity of the tax code.
I suppose the best way to look at this is point by point. Joe has some good arguments, and some clunkers.
First of all, I don’t care a lot for the emotional appeal of calling something unfair; that sounds like something an eight-year-old would do. While it’s indeed true that the government is using the tax code to promote a certain behavior, I don’t think that a family or a homeowning couple is going to let a tax break of a few hundred dollars over time stop them if they want to move to a better school district, buy a larger (or smaller) home, or pursue a better economic opportunity. Unfortunately, our modern society is littered with these cases where one group has an advantage over other groups; case in point - the home mortgage interest deduction, which is a much larger incentive to buy a home than a minor property tax break.
My thought on point number two (the “subsidy” point) is much along the line of the first item.
But I don’t see where that tax break is such a “liberal socialist” idea – after all, we all want lower taxes. Right now, we have two options on the table: a 10% homestead exemption or a zero homestead exemption. So far, given Joe’s track record of questioning the opposition to a nickel property tax increase (even one which falls within the revenue cap) I wonder why he’s chosen this hill to fight on. No one has yet justified why we couldn’t cut another three percent from our overall budget, which is approximately the amount being discussed.
Since I don’t know whether our current homestead exemption is factored into the existing rates for either property tax or personal property tax (better known as the inventory tax; a tax Wicomico County is alone among Maryland jurisdictions in charging) I can’t rebut or agree with Joe’s fourth and fifth points.
But I do think it’s a stretch to say that a homestead tax exemption change would be “bad for business and economic development.” Perhaps I need some examples of counties which have tried this and how they fared. My guess is that there were a number of much larger factors which had to do with other overtaxation, red tape, and regulation that sent them spiraling downward economically.
I’d also like to see proof of point number seven (“decrease residential real estate activity”) with examples. We’re pretty much at the bottom of the barrel now.
I can agree with Joe’s final point, though. But then again, we should already have a pretty complex system based on the rates in effect when a home was purchased and then increased by the maximum amount when times were good and assessments shot through the roof. Does the 10% increase now in effect take into account all the money “lost” to the county when a property’s value shot up 40 percent but taxes only increased 10 percent? Is there a “catch-up” provision?
For example, take a mythical home assessed at $100,000 in a particular tax year and taxed at $1 per hundred dollars of valuation; their annual tax would be $1,000. The way I figure it, raising the assessed value a year later to $150,000 (assuming the same tax rate) would increase taxes to $1,500 – but under the 10% rule they could only go up to $1,100 because your taxable assessed value only can go up to $110,000. Does the county lose out on that $400 entirely or is that worked into the next year’s tax rate?
The whole idea behind the zero homestead exemption is to have a tradeoff; as Pollitt notes in his budget presentation:
“(I)n return for a slightly higher tax rate, I’m proposing to make sure our home-owning citizens get a permanent tax break starting in fiscal year 2013 to go with the increase.”
Beginning in FY2013, Pollitt wants the amount you’re assessed on to never go up – if your FY2013 assessment is $100,000 that’s where it will stay. But (and this is a BIG but,) that doesn’t mean your taxes wouldn’t increase. Whatever the state determines for “constant yield” and can be slid under the revenue cap, that rate increase will still hit you. Next year it may be a nickel again – or it could be a dime.
Of course, there’s a corollary to this as well – what if assessed values continue to plummet? Does this provision allow you to have a lower assessed value and remain there? We don’t know the answer to that, but there’s a very real possibility we haven’t weathered the real estate storm yet and that this scenario could apply.
The proposal needs to be explained in terms a layman can understand, with real-life examples from counties which have taken the lead in this area.
Julie Brewington has her take on the situation as well.
The tax calculation
It’s a handy-dandy way to figure out just how much more the county will take out of your pocket.
On Thursday Wicomico County Executive Rick Pollitt announced through his spokesman Jim Fineran that county property owners now have a calculator to figure out how much more they’ll pay in property taxes next year.
In presenting the proposed Fiscal Year 2012 Budget to the Wicomico County Council on April 19th, County Executive Richard M. Pollitt, Jr., promised that a “tax calculator” to measure the suggested nickel tax increase would be on the county website “as soon as possible.” Mr. Pollitt announced today that, “It is up and running.”
The Wicomico County website is http://www.wicomicocounty.org/. On the homepage, there is a column on the right called “What’s New?” At the top of that column is a link titled “Proposed Tax Rate Comparison Calculator.” Users are advised to click on that link to go to the calculator.
There are two steps. If you do not know your most recent assessment value, the first is a link to the State of Maryland Real Property Database where users can access that information. County officials urge users to follow the directions carefully when they reach the link. The second is the calculator. Users may simply enter their assessment value, click on “calculate” and the device will provide specific numbers of the impact of the proposed nickel increase on the user.
In announcing the calculator, Mr. Pollitt said that, “I want to take the guess work out of this for our tax payers. I have proposed a nickel tax increase to maintain vital county services. I want the property owner to know exactly how much this is going to cost.”
The calculator does not take into effect changes in assessment from year-to-year or effects of the Homestead Credit. It is intended merely to define the effect of a nickel tax increase.
Actually, I can do the math pretty easily – for every $10,000 your property is worth, it’s going to cost you an extra $5. Someone with a modest $100,000 house will be on the hook for an extra $50, while a residence in Nithsdale or Tony Tank might see a $200 per year jump.
But, more importantly, the key question is where the extra money would be going. Pollitt claims that we’re just staying in place because assessed value in the county dropped by $300 million from last year to this year. Obviously those who were reassessed this year saw a decline of up to 1/3 in their rates, so a nickel increase may not necessarily hurt them but instead just cut into their savings.
(For example, a house assessed at $150,000 under the old rate would pay $1,138.50 in taxes, but dropping the assessment to $100,000 at the new rate makes the taxation $809.00. That’s over $300 in the homeowner’s pocket despite the increase.)
But those who didn’t get the benefit of the changes yet will have to bear the increase described above. And the increase stayed ahead of what would be considered constant yield, which is a departure from Pollitt’s previous practices. Of the five-cent increase, about 3.8 cents is constant yield while the other 1.2 cents is allowed under the revenue cap – and thank goodness for that, because otherwise we could have seen rates go up a full dime or 15 cents per hundred dollars of valuation.
Pollitt also promises to change the homestead exemption from 10 percent to zero, beginning next fiscal year. Of course, I’m not sure if that enables the tax paid to go down if an assessment is lower. Since those who were last assessed in 2009, just before the bottom really dropped out of the local housing maket, have their turn next year, will that affect them adversely? And how much more will Pollitt raise rates next year to make up for the change in homestead exemption? These questions won’t be addressed in this year’s budget – unlike the federal government, we don’t make long-term projections.
Yet if you look at the new operating budget, the largest increases seem to be in the personnel benefits, along with $200,000 devoted to a ‘time and motion study’ in the ‘Administration/Executive Function’ budget. Even without that, the executive branch didn’t suffer the cuts much of the remaining budget was forced to endure.
According to Pollitt’s budget guide, each penny in property tax brings in roughly $750,000. So in order to simply maintain the constant yield rate increase of 3.8 cents per $100 of assessed value, the County Council would have to shave about $1 million from the budget. It’s probably doable, but look for everyone potentially affected to scream bloody murder when the public hearing is held. Out of a budget of a little over $110 million, we’re actually talking about less than 1 percent cuts.
But, as I mentioned, cuts are just fine when they come out of someone else’s hide. Look for the victim card to be played early and often over the next couple months. In the end, the victims may be those homeowners who haven’t seen their assessments retreat downward to reflect the market just yet.
Maybe that will make you choke on your Easter ham, but it’s an upcoming fight we need to gird for.
Update: I wrote this last night, before Greg Latshaw at the Daily Times had his take.
We support the County Council
A letter to which I was a willing co-signer appeared yesterday in the Daily Times.
In it, the nine of us who comprise the body agreed that two key votes made by our County Council were emblematic of their promise of fiscal responsibility and accountability.
Obviously the vote to push back Bennett Middle School construction by one year was not taken lightly, but we felt it was the right decision at a time when the county isn’t in a position to be forced to repay indebtedness. And while it seemed like an easier decision on the surface to call for an elected school board, it was a vote we’ve seen not taken by previous County Councils - even the last one where Republicans were in the majority.
At this time, our county exists in a situation akin to that of the federal government – a strong, left-of-center executive being kept in check by a conservative legislative body. Of course, Rick Pollitt isn’t exactly Barack Obama but he spent the first three years of his tenure whining about revenue lost to him because the county has a revenue cap – it was only when re-election stared him in the face that he moderated his tune. (Indeed, we may see this about 120 miles up the road in Washington, D.C. as well.)
But here was a chance to give the County Council some ‘attaboys’ (and ‘attagirls’) for making a tough but correct decision. When you think about it, students have succeeded from schools in far worse shape than Bennett Middle School – yes, the school shows its age but the building remains structurally sound. There’s no one rushing over to condemn it. And the new BMS may be overpriced – unfortunately, some of that cost comes from ill-considered state mandates like LEED Silver certification. (I’d like to know the payback period on these additional features, if there is one.) Unfortunately, we can’t build a functional, inexpensive school building anymore and expect state assistance.
There’s no doubt that the next 42 months or so will bring many more difficult decisions, but right now it’s a case of so far so good. Keep up the great work, folks!
Sizzle without the steak
Because of the inclement weather which hit us on Sunday the annual State of the County address from County Executive Rick Pollitt was postponed. While the original indication was that it would not be rescheduled, Pollitt’s own statement leads me to believe otherwise.
I believe Pollitt’s spoken remarks – whenever given – will be of great assistance in discerning the direction Wicomico County will travel in 2011, for while the Annual Report released today is heavy on achievements it needs to be considered in the context of Pollitt’s prepared remarks. Most of what was included in the 24-page report dealt with items already completed or issues we already knew were in the pipeline, such as the upcoming comprehensive plan; however, the spoken remarks for at least the last two State of the County addresses were more forward-looking.
While we are doomed to repeat history we don’t understand, to me as a county resident the future agenda is the more important part of the program. ”I believe that the time has come to grasp the reins of government with vigor and solid purpose to bring our community to its fullest potential” reads as a nice statement Pollitt adds to his Annual Report but gives little clue to how that goal is achieved. Obviously Pollitt’s reins will be yanked by the demands of a much more conservative County Council than he has dealt with in the past.
His brief written statement in the Annual Report also demands an end to the “moaning and groaning about how bad things are” and calls on citizens to become more involved. But will he follow his own admonishment if the state decides to pass the hot potato of teacher pensions on to the county? (Secondary to that is Pollitt’s stated desire to adopt the LEOPS pension plan for sheriff’s deputies - a state-run defined-benefit plan similar to the teachers’ plan that the state wants to offload. The prospect of change for educators has drawn the ire of the Maryland State Education Association.)
Furthermore, if the citizens are involved as Pollitt wishes but aligned against his interests, will he listen? Obviously there will be a number of issues where friction between the Republican-dominated County Council and the executive’s office will cause no shortage of heartburn for Rick and the executive branch. Contention could ensue over a number of issues, not just the budgetary process – leading contenders include the county’s comprehensive zoning plan, the need for a Public Information Officer, new land acquistion, and the prospect of an elected school board. On the other hand, talk of repealing the revenue cap – a favorite Pollitt whipping boy in the past - is most likely off the table, or at least on the far back burner.
Certainly it’s good that Rick has adopted a more healthy personal attitude leading to a leaner physique (as the report notes in a page about the Executive’s Council on Physical Fitness and Healthy Living.) But for the next four years, our fair county will most likely be placed on a strict financial diet where budgets will be lean and mean – that is, unless we can bring increased economic activity to the Salisbury area. It’s worthy to note that simply bringing back income tax collections to FY2009 levels would allow Wicomico County to roughly restore the spending cuts made in FY2010 to public safety and education – the shortfall in income taxes collected between the two fiscal years totaled nearly $4 million. We receive more income tax when jobs are created.
Needless to say, the chicken and egg scenario often uttered by Pollitt is that job creation depends on the quality of life, but we can’t pay for quality of life items with the reduced budgets brought about by a lack of job creation. Yet I contend that quality of life is created by people and not government policy – a better policy for business growth where innovation and entrepreneurship are encouraged will eventually place citizens in a position where they can invest in their own quality of life in the manner they desire. It’s up to all of us, and not the place of society to wait on the government to take the lead – in fact, ’tis better if government retreats out of the way.
Without getting to hear the remarks Rick Pollitt would have provided as context and guidance to the Annual Report, we are left with the sizzle but not the steak. In a county hungry for answers, let’s hope that the rescheduled presentation will occur sooner rather than later.
Odds and ends number 24
Note: updates to the final news item are at the bottom. There is a link to a RNC whip count included too.
As one may expect, the combination of the snow and the season makes this a deathly slow news week – but here are some things I found interesting.
If you are a thinking conservative as I aspire to be, I came across a list of questions one can ask those of the liberal persuasion in a piece by Oleg Atbashian at Pajamas Media today. It always seems to me that those who have lived through statism as practiced around the world (in the former Soviet Union, Communist China, Cuba, former Eastern European Soviet satellites, etc.) and escaped to America have both a keener appreciation of the freedom we enjoy and the memory of just how their homelands arrived in the state they became.
I’m not sure if the book tour he describes will make it anywhere around these parts, but you can certainly tell Atbashian has embraced capitalism by looking at his The People’s Cube website. And you can certainly ask questions – after all, wasn’t the mantra of ‘question authority’ popular in the 1980′s? So why did we stop then?
Speaking of authority, the authority behind the Republican National Committee is at stake in an election held next month. Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post broke down who he considers the contenders and pretenders in a post which appeared late last night.
Seeing that we have a ‘favorite son’ of sorts in the race (Maryland’s incumbent Chair Michael Steele) it may be a shock to see Cillizza rank him among the three-person ‘second tier’ of contestants. I would presume Steele has the support of at least two of Maryland’s three-person delegation to the convention and most likely would get newly-installed state party Chair Alex Mooney’s vote as well. But I encourage all three to consider a second choice because I think Michael Steele has worn out his welcome, despite the successes of the 2010 campaign.
And unlike our recent state Chair election which relied on a complicated vote-tallying formula, every state and territory in the RNC universe will have an equal say – so the three votes Steele could presumably count on from Maryland are balanced by the three votes Saul Anuzis would get from his home state of Michigan, the trio of ballots Reince Priebus would secure from Wisconsin, and so on.
As a reminder, I looked at the other contenders a couple weeks ago. I suspect Maryland will have to deal with the post-Steele era in the RNC beginning next month.
Update: Heather Olsen alerted me to an ongoing whip count – judging by his comment our state Chair may be withholding his support for Michael Steele, at least for the moment.
Turning to state politics it’s worth noting that Delegate Michael Smigiel, who was re-elected in November, has prefiled two measures which were attempted last year – the eniment domain reform bill which was HB63 last year will be HB8 this time around, while the firearm licensing reciprocity bill known as HB52 in the last session was assigned to be HB9. Hopefully they will get out of committee this time around since there need only be four thoughtful Democrats necessary to bypass the committee and bring legislation to the floor (assuming all 43 House Republicans sign on.)
Finally, a weather-related note – the State of the County is snow-covered, thus Rick Pollitt has cancelled the State of the County speech scheduled for tomorrow morning. (This was announced today by county PIO Jim Fineran.) I have a question in to Jim regarding rescheduling, so if I find out I’ll amend the post to share the information.
Update: according to Jim Fineran, the speech will not be rescheduled. I’ll receive a copy for my review later today.
Update 2: Rick Pollitt released a statement with the annual report, which read in part, “Each year, I have published a printed ‘County Executive’s Report to the People’ in compliance with the terms of the Charter and then chosen to follow with an oral presentation from the council chambers. However, due to the current snow emergency and a variety of other significant items of business currently underway, I plan to publish the usual report as required but will postpone an oral presentation to a future date.” (Emphasis mine.)
No word on what the ‘significant items of business’ are. Later today I will have a review of the report.
A new era for local Republicans
For the first time – at least in recent history - as of today the majority of elected officials in Wicomico County will be Republicans once County Council is sworn in at tonight’s meeting.
Traditionally Wicomico has been one of the last vestiges of the old-fashioned Democratic Party that ruled the South for decades after Reconstruction ended. Many’s the case where Democrats are so because “my daddy was a Democrat and he would roll over in his grave if I switched.” In fact, Democrats still hold a small registration edge in the county.
But in the privacy of the voter booth, many Democrats aren’t faithful to their registration. In the last twenty years the GOP has begun to make inroads into the traditional Democratic dominance, beginning at the top of the ballot and working its way downward. In 2006 Republicans became a 4-3 majority on County Council, but, of the 15 elected offices in Wicomico County government Democrats remained in control of nine. As of today, though, that 9-6 advantage flips to Republicans thanks to the pickup of two County Council seats and a new State’s Attorney.
Perhaps even more frightening for local Democrats was that four of their six remaining officeholders were unopposed for re-election - two judges of the Orphan’s Court, the Clerk of the Courts, and Register of Wills are all longtime incumbents. And neither of the contested winners won by huge margins since neither garnered over 60% of the vote.
More telling, though, Democrats could not find a challenger in three of the five County Council districts or for Sheriff. And perhaps their temper tantrum in the State’s Attorney race, where longtime incumbent Davis Ruark was dumped by rank-and-file Democrats in favor of Seth Mitchell, cost them that seat. Mitchell was soundly defeated by Matt Maciarello, who only made the ballot as a Central Committee selection to represent the GOP.
By and large, except for the two-vote margin of victory Bob Caldwell sweated out, Republicans romped to victory in most races. The fact that Sheree Sample-Hughes ran a general election race after facing only primary opposition four years ago is enough to make the contention the GOP was making a local push.
But now it will be up to the Grand Old Party to govern – with a vetoproof 6-1 margin on County Council they will be calling the tune for County Executive Rick Pollitt. Certainly it will push Pollitt toward the center, and most likely this will end Pollitt’s continual call for eliminating the revenue cap – he will have to set a budget which lives within our means and like it. Otherwise there’s presumably enough support for a Council-created alternative.
Personally I don’t think that we’re down to the bone yet, as Pollitt seems to suggest. However, there are a few wild cards in the equation where Republicans could have to tinker with the tax system with the biggest being the prospect of teacher pensions being forced onto the counties as the state attempts to balance its budget. (This will also be a signal that the long-overdue switch to a defined-contribution system from a defined-benefit one is nigh. That may be the only budgetary saving grace, and we may have to endure a teachers’ strike to get it.)
I believe the timing of this changeover couldn’t be better for Republicans, though. Besides the continuing fiscal woes there are other thorny issues like a new comprehensive plan and redistricting on the horizon and I certainly prefer a conservative, common-sense approach to both – insofar as possible with the state always breathing down our necks, that is.
But the onus will be on us now in 2014. Before we had a very tenuous majority on County Council and losing one Republican (as often happened) gave the opposition Democrats a victory to back their County Executive. Now the ball is in our court, and Rick Pollitt could have room to shift blame if things don’t turn out for the best. I think they will, but time will tell.
If I were to make a prediction, though, this could be the start of a new prosperity for our fair county. Sure, Rick Pollitt will get some of the credit (whether deserved or not) but we have the chance now to place conservative principles in action and I’m sure that, beginning today, we will succeed.
Caldwell officially in
It may not be his WORST nightmare, but Wicomico County Executive Rick Pollitt will be matching wits with a solid vetoproof bloc of six Republicans on Wicomico County Council.
Bob Caldwell just let me know: “It is official! The count was done today, and the original numbers stood.”
His 2 vote margin was perhaps the smallest in the state for a race of such a size, but Bob will join fellow new members Bob Culver and Matt Holloway in beginning his Council tenure next Tuesday. Four incumbents remain: Stevie Prettyman, Gail Bartkovich, Joe Holloway, and Sheree Sample-Hughes (who is now the lone Democrat.)
Let’s hope the closeness of the margin doesn’t affect Bob’s friendship with outgoing Councilman David MacLeod, whom I suspect isn’t leaving the stage of county affairs.
But things are going to be different around here beginning next week, and they better hit the ground running!
Bonds, beer, and other items of local interest
I don’t use them too often, but I am on the e-mail distribution list for press releases from Wicomico County. Jim Fineran was a busy guy today since I received two, and I thought both deserved a little bit of comment.
The first one I’ll ponder is “County Scores High Marks From Wall Street’s Annual Evaluation.” One bragging point generally made by County Executive Rick Pollitt is that the bond firms love our county because they believe it’s run on sound financial footing. Of course, it’s a good thing they believe this because otherwise we’d be paying interest out the wazoo once the bill for county capital projects comes due.
And Pollitt states this again here, with a little slap at Joe Ollinger in the process.
During the recent campaign, my challenger stated that the county’s strong fiscal grades from Wall Street were a result of the Revenue Cap. However, the agencies have made it clear that our success has actually come in spite of the Revenue Cap. The following is from Moody’s Report:
RECENTLY HEALTHY FINANCIAL OPERATIONS MAY BE CONSTRAINED BY TAX REVENUE LIMITATIONS
Wicomico County has maintained a healthy financial position during recent years despite the impact of property tax revenue constraints, supported by proactive management and conservative fiscal policies and practices. (Emphasis in original.)
Yes, the election is over and Rick is back to his complaining about the revenue cap. Tell Moody’s that they don’t get a vote on changing this and it’s doubtful the five or six GOP members of County Council (depending on the election’s final outcome) are going to see it any other way. Certainly one tug-of-war likely to result next year as the budget is discussed will be whether to make up for the shortage that Pollitt voluntarily took this year when he opted not to raise the property tax rate to the constant yield rate.
Anyone with half a brain realizes that running a county and performing legitimate functions of county government costs money – the question is and will continue to be just how much can those of us living in the county afford to give when the other branches of government ask for an increasing share and costs for everything else (like gasoline and groceries) continue to add up?
Pretty soon we won’t be able to afford beer or wine, which brings me to my second press release.
Even though it’s generally after the fact, I talk about the Autumn Wine Festival and made sure to mention its baby brother the Good Beer Festival quite a bit this year, too. Obviously the group I’m associated with uses the events for political purposes given their calendar date in the midst of campaign season but I’d like to see both thrive for other reasons as well.
So I was pleased to actually see some attendance and financial numbers from each this year, for the first time in my memory. And my guesses were actually pretty good on attendance.
I recall that the prediction made by Parks and Recreation for attendance at the Good Beer Festival was 2,000 for the weekend, but the nice weather Saturday made me sure they came pretty close to that number on just that day alone. Sure enough, the event drew 1,628 that day. I also thought the Sunday crowd was about half, and indeed Sunday drew 750. Overall, they exceeded expectations by nearly 20 percent – but still suffered a small loss financially (about $1 per person.) Hopefully, the event will get more vendors to help make up the difference because otherwise I thought it was well run – the department was “ecstatic” about its future so perhaps in October 2011 we can do it again!
As for the AWF, year 8 was great as they drew 4,651 patrons and made a profit of about $24,000, mostly on the strength of the number of vendors (ticket sales made about 1/4 of the profit.) So they are set to go after a couple tough years of weather. And given the fact the AWF is now “twice its original size” it seems the Good Beer Festival is also on track to become as successful.
One thing unaccounted for insofar as the financial numbers at the festival grounds is the impact of over 7,000 visitors. Granted, there is some percentage who are local but even if just five percent come from far enough away to merit an overnight stay that packs hundreds of hotel rooms and helps keep the restaurants and gas stations in business. Just on an anecdotal basis from working a booth I notice a lot of people come here from across the bay so even if it’s a day trip we’re bringing money to the local economy. These events do well for paying for themselves and I suspect with decent weather next year the GBF will move into the black.
Finally, I wanted to point one thing out about this ‘Third Friday’ video.
I find it interesting that this video is featured on the ‘jimiretonformayor’ Youtube channel. Is that kosher with Salisbury’s campaign finance laws? I think it’s a question worth asking so I’m going to.
Honestly, I don’t mind Jim Ireton taking the time to promote this event as part of his duties but under the auspices of a campaign Youtube site I think this could be considered an in-kind contribution by the person uploading the videos (one can ask who does that and whether that’s on city time too.) Perhaps the city of Salisbury needs its own Youtube channel which can be used for these sorts of announcements.
Since I’m the burr in the saddle to a lot of people in power, why not ask this question too?
Autumn Wine Festival 2010 in pictures and text
Call it the invasion of the politicians. However, it was a well-attended event thanks to the good weather.
I took this photo about 2:30 on Saturday – despite the cooler, windier conditions there were more people who came on Saturday. The first picture below came from in front of the stage around 3:30 Saturday, the next one down was from 5:30 Saturday, and the last 3:15 Sunday.
As you can see, the AWF was a well-attended event. Of course, being an election year that means a lot of politicians were there too. I’m going to start with the Democrats, who were well-represented Saturday because part of their statewide ticket was present.
Along with Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown (center in above photo with blue shirt), Congressman Frank Kratovil was also here to shore up his support. Here he’s pictured with Wicomico County Councilman Sheree Sample-Hughes.
While the lady next to him was much more camera-shy, County Executive Rick Pollitt was also gladhanding Saturday morning.
He was standing next to the Democrats’ tent, which served as their home base for the event. Much like a walkaround in Crisfield, the Democrats did a brief tour around the Wine Festival.
You really can’t miss those nearly day-glo green O’Malley shirts, much as you might like to. But they had their table full of info as well.
Needless to say, there were other Democrats who made time over the weekend to do some campaigning and perhaps drink a little wine. Among that group was County Council hopeful David Cowall (left-center in picture below) along with Orphan’s Court Judge candidate Peter Evans, who was a fixture at the festival.
District 38B Delegate candidate Gee Williams came over from Berlin on Sunday to shake some hands as well.
I didn’t get a picture of her, but also looking for votes was Patrice Stanley of District 37B. And lest you think the GOP didn’t get into the game, here are the two current ladies who represent that district, Addie Eckardt and Jeannie Haddaway. They’re joined by one of my volunteers, Woody Willing.
The other District 37 Republicans were present, too. Here’s Rich Colburn talking to County Councilwoman Gail Bartkovich.
Rounding out the District 37 slate was Dustin Mills (left) with his campaign manager Mark Biehl.
Two other state candidates from District 38 were in the house as well – in the first picture, Mike McDermott made sure to keep a sign with him. Below that, fellow District 38B hopeful Marty Pusey (left) was campaigning with a friend Sunday.
Of course, county GOP hopefuls were represented too. County Council at-large candidate Bob Culver stopped by our tent to say hello. Stevie Prettyman did too, but I didn’t get her picture.
Perhaps topping everyone, though, was this guy, Matt Maciarello.
He didn’t use our tent as a base since he had his own, cleverly bringing to the crowd’s attention some key endorsements.
Our tent was a little more low-key, with part of the reason being the heavy wind – less stuff to chase!
Bob McCarroll and Leonard Jett (pictured) are two of my helpers who I need to thank for their efforts. I also owe a shout of over the last two weekends to Mark McIver (for the tent), Ann Suthowski, Greg Belcher, Woody Willing, Ryan Hohman, Bob Miller, Bob Laun, and the Jesters (Jim, Cindy, and Shawn) for their assistance.
I also had fun with some of the photographic opportunities and wanted to give some free advertising to the people who make GREAT ice cream!
I just liked the way the banners looked from these two. It’s worth noting that the Cygnus tent had a minor collapse with Saturday’s winds; fortunately, no one was injured.
Bottle shots make a nice and colorful still life – these are from Far Eastern Shore Winery.
This one appealed to me because of the round shadow created by the large tent behind me and the perfect sun angle.
Finally, a sun-dappled reminder of the whole point of the event.
Given the attendees present, I think a growing number did and will.
Eastern Shore Political Buzz Examiner
Syndicate
Subscribe to this site's RSS feed.
-
-
-
Advertise with monoblogue and you’ll reach a lot of people!
Click on the photo for details.
Link to Maryland Democratic Party
In the interest of being fair and balanced, I provide this service to readers. But before you click on the picture below, just remember their message:
Locals flock to monoblogue
Click on the photo for details on advertising opportunities.
Please note that the opinions expressed on monoblogue are not necessarily those of the Wicomico County Republican Party Central Committee, of which I'm a member. (But they probably should be.)
