Wicomico County Council – Page 5

WCRC meeting – August 2011

Last night’s was an interesting and informative Wicomico County Republican Club meeting to be sure, as County Council president Gail Bartkovich filled us in on some of the ins and outs of county government as it stands now.

As always we began with the Lord’s Prayer, Pledge of Allegiance, and my reading of the previous month’s minutes, with a treasurer’s report added for good measure. But Bartkovich began with some good red meat, announcing the elected school board resolution will be discussed once again – she also detailed how she came to be aware of the changes Delegate Conway proposed in a last-second meeting before the hearing. They were also getting input from the local NAACP regarding both the school board issue and redistricting in a future face-to-face meeting.

The key point of Gail’s discussion, though, settled on the creation of a Charter Review Committee. Required by charter on a decennial basis, Bartkovich announced that 25 county residents (some who had served on the previous committee a decade ago) were volunteering their time and talents – of that group, about 15 to 17 would be selected and the County Council would appoint the committee’s chair, with the committee then deciding on a vice-chair. The selection process would occur next month, with the first meeting (open to the public, by the way) to be held sometime in October and most likely at Council chambers. The series of public meeting would lead to recommendations, which would be voted on by County Council. They would vote whether to present the question to the public at the 2014 General Election. Continue reading “WCRC meeting – August 2011”

Wicomico GOP gets its wish

Well, if I happen to get a chance to speak to Governor O’Malley tomorrow I’ll have to thank him for granting our wish and selecting the two best candidates for the Republican seats on the Wicomico County Board of Education. Of the three we interviewed, we decided Michelle Wright and Carolyn Elmore were the better choices. As of last week, those two became members of the board for five-year terms.

Yet perhaps there’s an end game to this. Consider the following scenario: two people the Republicans didn’t interview and who may not even be Republicans are instead selected to the board. It’s a surefire method for fueling the drive toward an elected school board. Obviously the issue has a partisan divide, given the vote for County Council’s adoption of the resolution to ask for the introduction of the bill allowing the straw ballot was a 6-1 party-line vote and the person chiefly responsible for stopping it in the General Assembly – despite our testimony in favor – is Democrat Norm Conway.

On the other hand, picking the two we favor makes the question somewhat moot in that we got our choices selected, so why should we complain?

That’s not the point. Yes, I’m pleased that the Governor’s Appointments Secretary saw things our way in this instance. But this is about a principle – the idea that the people know better who should be the stewards of their tax money as members of the Board of Education than a governor in far-off Annapolis or even those party regulars select to represent their interests as a Central Committee.

I suspect the winners in a contested Board of Education district election here in Wicomico County would receive just as many votes as I did (2,139) to place ninth in a countywide election. (In the 2010 general election, all but one district council member did just that. The other won by two votes out of 4,072 cast.) And instead of just voters who declared a particular party affiliation getting the say, it will be up to everyone – Republicans, Democrats, minor parties, and unaffiliated voters each have their equal vote in a general election. Sure, as a Republican I’d love to see a conservative body elected because I think it would reflect the county politically. But others may feel differently.

In short, I’m not stopping the push for an elected board and I think my cohorts on the Wicomico County Republican Central Committee would agree. While I believe the selection of Carolyn Elmore and reappointment of Michelle Wright are victories for those who want a sound, fiscally conservative school board, I’d be willing to bet if they stuck their necks out on the line for election and won they would have a more sturdy platform from which to enact needed changes. (It should be noted, though, that not all of those we interviewed were interested in the post if it became an elected one.)

I was assured by Delegate McDermott a couple months back that the bill allowing our straw vote would be reintroduced earlier, if not prefiled. This time we want a clean bill with an up-or-down vote on whether the school board should be an elected body – none of that hybrid hokum. After the reaction to his stance the other night on the toll increases, it may behoove Delegate Conway to let that bill slip through unmolested.

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.

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.

WCRC meeting – March 2011

It wasn’t a particularly eventful meeting insofar as controversy went, but we got to hear from a rookie County Council member who shared his opinions on a lot of issues facing the county. That’s how the first new-look meeting went for Larry Dodd and the remaining WCRC officers. Perhaps the additional structure was nice, as Dodd asked me to compile an agenda and I made it fairly detailed. It did make the meeting run a little long, but not overly so.

After we took care of our normal business (Lord’s Prayer, Pledge of Allegiance, minutes, and Treasurer’s Report – unchanged from the last administration) we welcomed Bob Culver for his first WCRC speaking engagement as an elected official.

Bob told the assembled group that he “was having a great time” saying no to Rick Pollitt’s financial requests and that County Council has “jelled very well” since it took over.

He brought up three key issues County Council had addressed over the last few months; these issues included Bennett Middle School, an elected school board, and speed cameras.

Regarding Bennett Middle School, Bob informed us that the possibility of alternative financing would be more expensive to the county, which has as its goal paying off $10 million in bonding this year rather than borrowing. Culver asserted that the Board of Education had a “secretive” construction fund that wasn’t used, but any negotiations on its use should be conducted away from the press or county Public Information Officer. He also believed that we should attempt to bring other schools up rather than build anew, giving the example of water fountains which do not work at Beaver Run Elementary. An example of a good and comparatively inexpensive renovation project could be found at Stephen Decatur High School in Worcester County, said Bob.

Proposed changes to the elected school board bill by Delegate Norm Conway were “too confusing,” and Bob wanted a straight yes or no vote. Amendments to the bill were being pushed by Mary Ashanti of the NAACP – we need to “make the public know that Norm Conway owns this bill.”

Speed cameras were “a revenue thing,” Culver said, and he worried about both declining revenues as people adjusted to the cameras and using them as a backdoor way to fund the county’s LEOPS program as the town of Fruitland does.

“I represent the people…that’s the neat thing about it,” Bob concluded. He then opened the floor to questions. One surprising statement in his answers was his call for a provision to keep business within the county, citing a local company who lost out on a bid to provide tents for Pork in the Park by just a couple hundred dollars to a Queen Anne’s County firm. He also spoke about early retirement buyouts offered to county employees, stating that the big question about Obamacare’s effects hung over everyone’s heads.

Dave Parker gave the Central Committee report, noting the upcoming state convention in Ocean City and recommending that those interested in running for office or helping on campaigns make an effort to show up – it’s well worth the $50 for the training sessions.

We heard other brief reports from Shaun Jester, who had a twofer as Lower Shore Young Republican president and representative for Delegate Mike McDermott. Mark McIver chimed in with an update on Congressman Andy Harris and revealed that we should expect him in Salisbury at least one day a month to hear constituent concerns. McIver believed Andy’s most recent visit to the area was a success, as it included visits to manufacturing facilities in Princess Anne and Crisfield along with two townhall meetings, including one in Salisbury.

One departure from the norm will occur next month, as for the first time in recent years the Republican Club is taking a hiatus from the Salisbury Festival. But we will be back in 2012, and the Crab Feast will go on as usual August 27.

Two other pieces of business involved internal communications and voter registration. Our June meeting will be a working meeting in order to certify us for a registration push, which should be interesting.

In the meantime, we are considering a speaker for next month; most likely it will be Delegate Mike McDermott who will provide the annual legislative wrapup. See you on April 25th!

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!

WCRC meeting – February 2011

I know, this meeting was so last month. But when you have an election to cover and like to keep people informed on what’s up on the state level this event coverage wasn’t going anywhere.

This meeting was one of transition. After our usual recitation of the Lord’s Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance, longtime Secretary Dave Parker read the minutes one last time and we recieved the Treasurer’s Report from Tom Hughes, who is staying on.

Ann Suthowski asked a question about membership and wasn’t pleased with the answer. “We should have at least 200 members,” she asserted, and perhaps she’s correct. Having said that, though, I’d rather have 50 good, active members than 200 who simply send in a dues check and do nothing else. Although most don’t attend the meetings, the core membership has stagnated or dwindled over the years so maybe the change in leadership will make a difference. (Personally I’d like to see more of a TEA Party influence.)

For the second month in a row, our featured speaker was a County Council member – this time it was District 2’s Stevie Prettyman. Outgoing President Marc Kilmer introduced her by reminding us “the county taxpayers have a friend in her.”

Stevie stated the obvious in her opening – “the last several years have been difficult.” In the next few weeks we’ll get the County Executive’s budget plan for FY2012, which begins July 1, 2011. While the numbers for this fiscal year can change at any time thanks to moves by state government, Prettyman briefly went through the process for passing the budget. The County Council can only decrease the budget or move money around (aside from increasing money for educational needs) but if they can’t pass an alternative by June 15 the Executive’s budget stands.

Digging into a bit of history, Stevie noted that FY2009 was the first time in a decade revenues fell short of the budget, and FY2010 brought us a $10.1 million gap between revenues and expenses – revenues that were shorter still this fiscal year and were threatening to be even shorter next year as the state made cuts and shifted expenses to the county level – she then recited a litany of proposed state cuts. “The low-hanging fruit is gone” for FY2012, she said, adding the budget will have to undergo “significant, permanent structural changes.”

“This is the time when leaders make real choices,” Stevie went on to say. “We need your help and support.” She was “very anxious to receive (the) budget.”

When asked about the capital budget, specifically the proposed Bennett Middle School, she noted that construction funds would indeed come out of the capital budget but bond repayment comes out of the operating budget. Previous Councils “would only borrow what they paid off” but larger projects have changed that approach. Still, our indebtedness is well under what the county’s charter allows, added Stevie.

A questioner asked why the existing Bennett Middle School can’t be renovated – it’s slated for demolition so the high school project can be completed in Phase 4 so that option isn’t really on the table as a permanent solution. (The next night, County Council voted to delay the Bennett Middle School project for a year, citing its cost and the county’s debt level.)

Dave Parker gave the Central Committee report, calling the Lincoln Day Dinner a “fantastic time.” While it was good to hear from our new Congressman Andy Harris, second banana Eric Grannon, the MDGOP’s Third Vice-Chair also made “an excellent impression.” Dave awarded the Republican of the Year plaque to Ed Nelson, who missed the Lincoln Day Dinner, and recounted the story of our Republican Youth of the Year, Margaret Gaetano.

Our next Central Committee meeting is Monday at 7 p.m. with a speaker to be announced. It will be a postmortem on the LDD as well – we are looking to make it bigger and better for 2012.

With an Andy Harris report, Mark McIver excitedly spoke about the new office at 212 W. Main Street and the “good media coverage” the opening received. In Washington the talk was about budget cuts, McIver continued, and while Andy wanted the full $100 billion promised we would get around $61 billion, with $4 billion included in a two-week continuing resolution extension.

Woody Willing chimed in that the club should be more active in pushing for an elected school board.

Joel Dixon, who is still in the running for Salisbury City Council pending Friday’s absentee ballot count, claimed “I didn’t come here to politick” but asked for our vote at the meeting.

Cathy Keim gave us an update on the same-sex marriage bill in Maryland, which has passed the Senate but – as it turned out later – ran into a snag in the House of Delegates.

After nominations were closed, the 2011 officers were elected by acclamation (there were no contested races.)

The new officers are:

President: Larry Dodd
1st VP: Dustin Mills
2nd VP: Marc Kilmer
3rd VP: Carl Kurten
4th VP: Deb Okerblom
Secretary: Michael Swartz
Treasurer: Tom Hughes

Yes, I’m now the chief notetaker for both the Central Committee and Republican Club. Makes sense, doesn’t it?

After Marc Kilmer asked the club to “please treat (Larry) gently,” Dodd thanked us for the support and reminded us that the upcoming city elections affected the county as well.

Our next meeting will be March 28.

The sprinkler controversy

On Tuesday evening, Wicomico County Council will hold a public hearing and perhaps adopt an exemption to the fire sprinkler requirements now contained in the 2009 International Residential Code. While the state has adopted the 2009 IRC, counties are allowed to exempt themselves from portions therein and this is where the controversy lies.

The issue has pitted two sides which are normally allied against each other. TEA Party activists generally align themselves with those in the public safety industry, but part ways on this issue because of the added cost and regulations on new construction. (At this time, existing structures don’t fall under the jurisdiction of the code in question unless another type of building, such as a one-room schoolhouse, were to be converted to a single-family dwelling.)

I’ll admit my code knowledge has become a little bit rusty due to time away from the building industry, but in general the building code (now embodied in a series of International Codes; the former situation of three different code organizations has disappeared with their merger) has become more stringent over the years when it comes to life safety. (Conversely, though, they have tended to allow greater flexibility in achieving that goal.) The overarching concern of those who write the codes, though, remains in allowing those in peril to have the maximum opportunity to reach a place of safety – so they heavily stress maintaining the integrity of egress paths and use the tactic of separating larger spaces into smaller ones where a fire may be contained in order to shorten escape routes. These mostly occur in spaces where public occupancy is intended.

Yet the principles remain the same in residential dwellings, where the paramount concern is egress. In general, one doesn’t have nearly as far to travel to safety as they would in a public building; on the other hand, oftentimes they are much closer to the hazard of a fire. Occupants may have fewer exits to choose from as well, perhaps needing to resort to escaping through a window.

The idea behind sprinkers is obvious: eliminating the hazard of fire by having a system in place to neutralize it. While it’s not a foolproof strategy, dousing the fire to prevent its spread would gain occupants precious time in escaping the hazard.

The element of safety, though, comes at a price: it’s estimated that a sprinkler system would cost a new homeowner perhaps $10,000 to $20,000 in up-front costs. Granted, the cost could decrease somewhat as demand increases and additional players enter the market; still, in a market where new home prices can run as little as $100,000 that is a significant increase. Even without the requirenent, homeowners are free to add the system on their own.

But who else benefits? As I note above, the group coming out most strongly in favor of sprinklers are local firefighters, who ostensibly would have less to do if the work at a burning home is done for them by a sprinkler system. But they would still have to answer the service call, and it’s doubtful they’ll be asking for less monetary assistance from the county should they reject the idea of exempting themselves from this requirement.

Certainly insurance companies are foursquare behind this idea as well, since property damage would be limited in the instance of home-based sprinklers. Of course, the small break one would get on a premium pales in comparison, and just try getting a claim from water damage settled if the sprinkler system goes awry and douses your room full of electronic equipment.

It can even be argued that this promotes employment, since someone has to install the sprinklers and certainly those who are qualified to do so will see a spike in the demand for their services.

Even so, I think the exemption needs to be adopted. Yes, there are benefits to having a sprinkler system in one’s house, and the option is already available to the homeowner should he or she choose to adopt it and pay the extra cost.

But there are those groups (like Habitat for Humanity) who work to fill a void in the market at the low end, and adopting this requirement could price their clients out of the market. Certainly if you’re building a $400,000 house an extra $10,000 isn’t much of a hassle, but on an $80,000 budget sprinklers can be a deal-breaker. Builders already have to deal with a multitude of fees and red tape from local government, and this additional burden comes at a bad time.

And where does the nanny state stop? Perhaps the next edition of the IRC comes out and mandates a sprinkler system be installed with any major renovation to an existing dwelling. Obviously there’s an argument that requiring smoke alarms and detectors in single-family dwellings didn’t hurt anything, but for the most part those are relatively unobtrusive (except for the ear-splitting tone when you burn that steak in the broiler) and inexpensive. Retrofitting a sprinkler system is a much more dicey proposition.

There are compelling arguments to both sides, but with fire deaths in Maryland on a long-term downward trend the adoption of this ordinance seems to have a larger cost than benefit. Obviously one can’t dismiss the eight people who lost their lives in Wicomico County due to fire from 2004 to 2008 but we also don’t want to underestimate the negative impact such a move would have on the local economy, either.

It’s time to adopt the exemption. As I noted above, a homeowner or builder is free to install a system for their new homes – but I notice they rarely do. Since the cost doesn’t outweigh the benefit to them, why should our county government allow the international code agency to put its thumb on the scale?

By the way, since I often take potshots at him, let me give kudos to County Executive Rick Pollitt for placing the exemption before County Council.

WCRC meeting – January 2011

It’s a new year, but many of the same cast of characters met at the Salisbury Chamber of Commerce building to kick off the beginning of a new election cycle.

We first did the usual recitation of the Lord’s Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance, then went over minutes from both the October and November meetings. Following that was the Treasurer’s Report, although the treasury was increasing by the minute as members paid their 2011 dues.

Our speaker for the evening was County Council Vice-President Joe Holloway, who wanted to speak about the capital improvement budget but was prodded by questions and comments into a more general discussion. After being a skeptic about the concept when he first came into office, Joe now believes the recent MACo conference was “very informative.” A lot of interesting things were uttered there as well, said Joe. (I’m not at liberty to repeat them.)

Joe also told us that the latter half of 2010 was sparse as far as legislation went, but this year promised to be different. He cited a number of issues County Council may address: residential sprinklers for new single-family dwellings (which Joe was leaning against requiring,) speed cameras, which Joe stated had “a lot of work to do on them,” the prospect of an elected school board, the comprehensive plan, and the monetary issues of our operating and capital budgets.

The capital budget drew attention from the group as the prospect of taking $14 million in principal and interest from the operating budget usually does, particularly when the County Executive wants to borrow $16 million more. Also on the radar screen is the possible adoption of “special taxing districts” to replace revenue – as Joe said, “you can special tax district anything.” For example, a volunteer fire department could have the benefits of a special taxing district but would risk a loss in donations since it would be assumed the tax would cover all their expenses.

With the asking of a question regarding the wisdom of building the new Bennett Middle School now, the tenor of Holloway’s presentation changed. For him, that would be a “tough call” as he’d have to weigh the current low interest and construction costs vs. the declining revenues we’re receiving. (In fact, the newest batch of assessments are running about 25% lower than the last cycle three years ago.)

Another question regarding school construction which came up was the status of intersection improvements near the new Bennett High School, which was a case of the city perhaps not being ready for the school to be finished a year ahead of schedule. But the questioner called the situation there “a fatal accident waiting to happen.”

Yet a different quandary piqued the interest of a number of people – could the county do without the inventory tax? (This is also referred to as the personal property tax, and apparently we are the lone county in the state charging one.) Obviously the question would be that of how to replace the revenue gained, but quite honestly the onus would be on the County Executive to make do should that barrier be removed. (In the FY2011 budget, the total revenue from the personal property tax is estimated at about $9.7 million.) Meanwhile, Holloway brought up the fact that the county’s budget had increased by $34 million between 2002 and 2008 – they spent plenty during the boom times.

A question of a different sort awaited the group after Holloway finished – did any of them wish to step up and become club officers for 2011? Hearing no willing volunteers, it appears the slate will be as follows:

President: Larry Dodd
1st VP: Dustin Mills
2nd VP: Marc Kilmer
3rd VP: Carl Kurten
4th VP: Deb Okerblom
Secretary: Michael Swartz
Treasurer: Tom Hughes

Of the group, most are already officers. Larry Dodd starts at the top, with Kilmer taking my old spot as 2nd Vice-President. I’m stepping into Dave Parker’s longtime job as Secretary – if I do half as well as he, I would do a decent job. Dave will be a challenge to top.

The aforementioned Parker gave the Central Committee report, putting out the welcome mat for visitors. He went over our advocation of an elected school board, adventures at the Martin Luther King dinner, and the upcoming Lincoln Day Dinner where Congressman Andy Harris and state Party 3rd Vice-Chair Eric Grannon would be featured speakers.

Mark Biehl gave a short Lower Shore Young Republican report, a group where he’d turned leadership over to Shawn Jester. They were taking a bit of a hiatus after a busy election season, not meeting again until April 13. But they would do their annual canned food drive during the late spring.

“I’m having a ball.” Those were the words of newly appointed lower Eastern Shore liaison Mark McIver, so designated by Congressman Andy Harris. “We’ll really be strong on constituent services,” promised Mark, who also revealed that Harris will serve on three House committees: Natural Resources, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Space, Science, and Technology. (But I still want to know if Andy will be on both the Republican Study Committee and TEA Party Caucus.)

Greg Belcher made mention of an upcoming Senate TEA Party caucus event on Thursday, with an effort to carpool to the event from here. (I’ll have more on this tomorrow.)

Joe Collins announced the AFP would meet Wednesday, and they were looking for new leadership as he had to step aside for various reasons.

Upcoming speakers and guests were the subject of suggestions by both John Palmer and Cynthia Williams. Palmer suggested we hear from the County’s internal auditor, Steve Roser, while Williams believed that we should allow Salisbury City Council candidates to speak their piece. (I noted our next meeting was on the eve of the primary, though.)

That next meeting will be February 28, with our speaker scheduled to be County Councilwoman Stevie Prettyman.

Adding to the agenda

Counting comments by members and the public and a scheduled work session, there were fifteen items on the agenda for last night’s County Council meeting. But much of the discussion from the two dozen or so members of the public who attended had to do with an item not mentioned – the prospect of an elected school board.

I’m not planning to do a blow-by-blow report on each upcoming County Council meeting as my work and personal schedules probably wouldn’t allow me to attend them all. But last night’s was an exception because I wanted to see just how amenable the new Council will be to this idea; meanwhile, another item piqued my interest for the work session.

I’ve found it intriguing just how little Council disagrees on most issues they face, even before the split went to 6-1 Republican. In fact, out of the nine resolutions which were voted on last night only one had any sort of opposition. As it turned out, the East Side Mens Club only received its property tax exemption for this fiscal year – their original proposal of forgiveness for fiscal years 2009 through 2011 was rejected because County Council President Gail Bartkovich thought it a poor precedent and most agreed – only Bob Caldwell and Stevie Prettyman objected to the deletion of the 2009 and 2010 tax abatement while Joe Holloway abstained.

Otherwise, most of the discussion centered around a contract for food services at the county jail, and that was mostly technical questions about paying for new equipment should one side or the other back out of the deal.

A new proposal which may be quite contentious is the county’s effort to exempt one- and two-family residential dwellings from new provisions in the International Building Code and International Residential Code requiring fire sprinklers. The legislation will have a hearing on February 1st, with Bartkovich stating this should be discussed at an evening meeting to promote more public input.

The fun part of the Council session came in public comments, where a series of speakers pleaded with County Council to get moving on adopting an alternative to the currently appointed school board.

Leading off the parade was local political activist Matt Trenka, who stated, “I would like to see some leadership” on the issue. It was the “obvious answer” to the lack of responsibility he perceived from our current appointed body.

Joe Collins followed up with a detailed analysis of the various methods other counties use to select their school boards – while most Maryland counties have fully elected school boards, Caroline and Harford counties employ a “hybrid” of elected and appointed members. He also pointed out an alternative similar to that Joe Ollinger unsuccessfully campaigned on, where the County Executive selects the board with the advice and consent of County Council.

Kay Gibson, another frequent commentor at County Council meetings, chimed in that she “had very little say” on the school board as currently comprised because she has little effect on the Governor’s race. She, too, favored an elected board of education.

The question was “what is best for the children of the county?” suggested local GOP Chair Dave Parker when he spoke. Why should it be up to the Central Committee to do the job of sending the applicants they prefer up to Annapolis?

G.A. Harrison echoed these other speakers and urged the County Council to consider this quickly since the 2011 General Assembly session is about to start and bills introduced late have to go through the Rules Committee.

Perhaps the most cautionary proponent of change was Marc Kilmer, who asked us to keep in mind the purpose of a school board and noted that elected school boards don’t always create positive change – some of the country’s worst schools are saddled with poorly-performing, partisan school boards.

On the other hand, there was one voice who made clear her opposition to the concept. Mary Ashanti, head of the local NAACP, fretted that certain groups and economic classes would be disenfranchised and that an elected school board “would never have the balance” of party and racial makeup to be successful. The NAACP is against the idea, she added.

Personally, I don’t care if those elected are black, white, male, female, or polka-dot – I just want the best people elected. That was part of my statement before the Council, where I also told Ashanti that “good people can disagree.”

I have my own ideas for a proposed school board, which I’m going to save for a later date. (It’ll come in handy as I anticipate perhaps a minor break in the action on this end.)

In their comments, four members of County Council spoke at least somewhat favorably toward the idea, with Joe Holloway clearly stating “I would like to see us move ahead” on this process. He asked how people would feel if the County Council itself was appointed in a similar manner, an analogy Bob Caldwell liked. Also agreeing were newly elected at-large members Bob Culver and Matt Holloway, who added that “he hadn’t seen a good argument against” the concept.

After this discussion, Council President Bartkovich promised the idea will be on the agenda. For me it’s a case of “trust but verify” and we’ll see when that happens.

The second part of the meeting was a Council work session dealing with two subjects: a presentation by the county’s auditors and a measure legally known as Legislative Bill 2010-12. That bill would be enacting legislation to bring speed cameras to county roads. As you should be aware I’ve visited this subject here on a previous occasion or two and I spent a good portion of my public comment speaking about how Fruitland abuses their privilege.

Well, the folks from RedSpeed and both Sheriff Mike Lewis and his deputy Gary Baker tag-teamed the County Council trying to convince us that “we can use 21st century technology…to protect our children” as Lewis said during the presentation.

Now, I have no doubt that having a very attractive brunette on the sales force could turn some heads in a male-dominated arena like the Sheriff’s office. (Since I was sitting diagonally behind Lewis, I couldn’t help but to notice that during the preceding auditor’s report this lady either quietly conversed with Mike on some subject or checked her Facebook page with her mobile phone. I doubt she and I will be Facebook friends after this post!)

But I think Mike was sold a little bit of a bill of goods by the RedSpeed team. If Sheriff Lewis has an issue with the state not returning any of the money collected when a ticket is written for any traffic offense, that’s a problem he should take up with the state instead of having Big Brother looking over our shoulder. As I noted back in July, this is a process ripe for abuse.

In fact, the RedSpeed team admitted that “they’re not sending anyone to court (to collect) $15, nor do they have any idea what sort of revenue we could expect. (The state mandates a fine of $40 for an offense, which means the company and county would have a $15/$25 split, respectively.) One problem they faced was that there was no applicable contract to review, as the company used Fruitland’s contract as a template for their presentation to Council. Meanwhile, no one could answer the question about the time and effort required for, say, a deputy to drive out and fetch a vehicle daily because to do otherwise could incite vandalism.

Another concern expressed by County Council was that this would be a backhanded way of funding LEOPS, as Fruitland apparently does. While Lewis protested that “what you decide to do with the money is entirely up to you,” it’s obvious that Council saw Fruitland’s example and the declining revenue they’re getting.

If RedSpeed and the county do come to an agreement, it would likely be a 2-year term with up to three automatic renewals.

And while it was alluded to that the city of Salisbury may follow Fruitland’s lead and adopt speed cameras, I have a number of objections to not just the concept but to the practice. Of course I think we should drive safely and be careful around school zones, but while Lewis cited the number of accidents which had occurred over the last decade in these areas, I had no context of whether they actually involved excessive speed – more likely the cause was inattention. That’s not solved with a speed camera, and seeing the warning sign could lead to even more accidents like those which happen at intersections with red-light cameras.

Yet my biggest fear is that, as the county or municipality begins to get used to a revenue stream from scofflaws, these amounts will start to fall short of expectations for both the local government and for RedSpeed. (Also, there will eventually be market saturation as more and more localities get the cameras.) Naturally, both entities will put pressure on the state to:

expand the area where speed cameras can be used from school and work zones to anywhere along a roadway;
increase the fine from $40 to $50 or more, and;
reduce the leeway speed from 12 mph over the limit to 10, 8, 6, etc. Pretty soon they’ll be nailing you for one mile per hour over – and I know from experience my speedometer varies by a couple miles per hour from posted radar sites. So it’s hard to know just how accurate the cameras would be and if they’ll be properly calibrated.

I think I know how the Council will be receiving this legislation when it comes to a vote, but I’m not going to tip my hand on which members are leaning toward approval and which ones oppose. I’ll keep my poker face on for that because, frankly, I don’t want Mike Lewis or RedSpeed to know.

I’m very disappointed that a Sheriff who is sworn to uphold the law in a nation founded on the rule of law can embrace a technology which presumes guilt rather than innocence. The system is flawed in that they can only provide a photograph of a car’s license plate and make the owner liable, even if he or she wasn’t driving. To get out of the ticket, the owner has to narc on the actual driver if he or she knows. That’s some example to set – anyone else see the Orwellian aspect here?

They’re not called “scameras” for nothing. Let’s stop Big Brother in his tracks.

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.