Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist

Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist
Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Md Troopers Assoc #20 & Westminster Md Fire Dept Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist

Saturday, May 06, 2006

20060503 KDDC Speak or forever hold your peace

“Speak or forever hold your peace”

April 30th, 2006

© Kevin Dayhoff

As of May 3rd, 2006, my latest Westminster Eagle column is up on the Eagle website.

It is more commentary on the Westminster City budget… Recently the City of Westminster (City) announced a proposed budget of $27,334,713.00 for Fiscal Year 2006 - 2007, (FY 2007)...

The proposed budget includes a 6-cent increase in the City’s property tax. This will raise the property tax from 40 cents to 46 cents – a fifteen percent increase, probably the largest in the City’s history.

The Westminster Eagle does not use permalinks, but the current link is.

At a later date, you may need to go to “archives:” Local news archives, to find the piece. Once that page comes up, scroll down and push the radio button by my name.

Below please find the unedited version of my column – the album cut, long version. It contains a great deal more on the subject of the history of taxation in Carroll County. This version is called:

“Speak or forever hold your peace.”

_________________

Perhaps one of the most difficult tasks for any local government is preparation of the annual budget. There just simply is never enough money to go around to do all the things everyone wants to do.

Walking that fine line of balance between an appropriate amount of taxation and government spending has never been easy and in an era of increased demands for service in the face of finite resources, it is easy to trip up and fall.

Property taxes in one form, shape or another have been with us in Maryland since colonial days. And issues concerning taxation have always contentious.

“From the founding of the colony in 1634 to the confiscation of Lord Baltimore's property in 1781, including the period from 1689 to 1715 when Maryland was ruled by Royal governors, the Lords Baltimore collected an annual tax on the land amounting at first to 2 shillings per hundred acres, and then later to 4 shillings per hundred acres…” (Clarence Gould, The Land System in Maryland 1720-1765)

Even before there was a Carroll County, Carroll Countians have never tolerated big government and have always agitated for the lowest taxation rate possible. Perhaps we get it honest. The gentleman for whom the county is named for, Charles Carroll,

In the late 1750s when Catholics in Maryland were faced with a double tax on their property to pay for defense against the French and Indians… Charles Carroll of Annapolis became so angry that he declared he would go "anywhere so long as there be freedom…" (“A brief history of the origins and functions of the Department of Assessments and Taxation.” Drafted by Karen A. Hare, 12 April 2002. Edited and expanded by Dr. Edward C. Papenfuse, 13 May 2002 and Ann C. Van Devanter, ed. "Anywhere So Long As There Be Freedom:” Charles Carroll of Carrollton The Baltimore Museum of Art, 1975)

“… the first successful taxpayer’s revolt in Maryland occurred in 1765 when Parliament attempted to impose a stamp tax on all the colonies to help pay for the French and Indian War. Cries of 'no taxation without representation,' were heard throughout the land. Led in Maryland by the prominent attorney Daniel Dulany who wrote a persuasive pamphlet on the evils of the tax, and by Jonas Green the publisher of the Maryland Gazette, the colonists burned the tax collector in effigy on a gallows erected near the Liberty Tree on what is today St. John's College campus, and tore down his office.” (“A Brief History…” Hare and Papenfuse)

Thankfully, the budget process has become increasingly transparent and open. The days of byzantine intrigue and no meaningful citizen recourse are hopefully gone, never to return.

This year, Carroll County has completely opened up its budget process with televised hearings and a series of community meetings and everyone has benefited. Additionally, out of respect for the Internet – information age, the proposed budget is on the county’s Web-site.

Such open disclosure and public accountability wasn’t always so. Dr. Jesse Glass reports in his 2004 book, “Carroll County Newspaper Wars,” after the election of 1856, “ a new opportunity presented itself to embarrass the Democratic party.”

Dr. Glass writes, “From 1848 to 1854, Jacob Myerly, the Clerk of the County Commissioners of Carroll County, and Commissioners Jonathan Dorsey (both Democrats) issues a series of spurious County certificates in order to pay off interests on debts incurred by the creation of the County, as well as the building of the County Alms House (now the Carroll County Farm Museum). The false certificates were “sold” to Myerly, Dorsey… Once investigated by State’s Attorney Charles W. Webster, and threatened with legal action, Myerly and Dorsey gave back the money they collected as holders of these certificates, thus admitting their guilt.”

In the 1840s and 1850s, Carroll County’s finances were a wreck. Folklore has it that the county government teetered on insolvency and almost failed before it could get on its feet. This was all to the delight of the many who were against the county being formed to begin with.

Carroll County had the misfortune to be formed at the beginning of the “Panic of 1837, one of many, but arguably one of the worst recessions (depressions) of the 1800s. Carol Lee laments in her book, “Legacy of the Land,” that by 1843, local newspapers “carried an average of twenty insolvency notices per weekly issue…”

In the late 1840s, the roads and transportation structure in Carroll County was essentially in a state of total collapse. Ms. Lee writes, “The county commissioners could do little about road conditions… After 1846, more tax revenue was coming in and road building advanced.”

In March 1791, when George Washington was president, the federal government passed “The Whiskey Tax.”


In a published account by noted local historian Jay Graybeal, “Col. Joshua Gist and the Whiskey Boys” – “farmers were morally outraged by the tax and they led the open revolt in the summer of 1794… public orations and heated discussions led to open warfare on July 16, 1794. Rebels attacked the homes of tax collectors and destroyed the stills of farmers who had obeyed the tax law.”

The rebellion reached Westminster in the summer of 1794.

Miss Mary B. Shellman picks up the story here: "A mob of men, known as the "Whiskey Boys", marched into Westminster, and set up what they called a "Liberty Pole". Becoming alarmed, and knowing the personal bravery of Col. [Joshua] Gist … was sent for, and responded immediately. Riding into town with a drawn sword in his hand, he ordered the pole to be cut down, and dismounting, he placed one foot upon it, and stood there until the pole was cut in pieces, the whiskey boys leaving quietly while it was being done."
The tax was subsequently repealed by President Thomas Jefferson after the rebellion, mostly concentrated in southwestern Pennsylvania, was suppressed. Mr. Graybeal revealed, “Gen. Washington summoned more than 12,000 men and charged Gen. Henry "Lighthorse Harry" Lee with ending the revolt in Pennsylvania. Federal troops arrested 150 rebels on November 13, 1794 and effectively put an end to organized resistance.”

Several years later, when Westminster was first incorporated in 1818, the acts of incorporation were very short and to the point.

Section 5 of “An Act to incorporate Westminster, in Frederick County. Lib. TH. No. 6, fol. 341 - That the three adjoining towns, now called and known by the names of Westminster, New London, and Winter's Addition to Westminster, shall for ever hereafter be called and known by the name of Westminster,” read:

“AND BE IT ENACTED, That the said commissioners shall have full power and authority to enact and pass all laws and ordinances to preserve the health of the town, prevent and remove nuisances; to impose and appropriate fines, penalties and forfeitures, for the breach of their by-laws or ordinances; to lay and collect taxes for opening and extending the back and necessary cross alleys of the said town, provided that the said taxes shall not exceed twenty cents on every hundred dollars worth of taxable property in any one year, which they may collect as county taxes are collected, by such persons as the burgess may see fit to appoint; all ordinances and by-laws to be signed by the burgess.”
Over a hundred years after the Whiskey Rebellion, Westminster experienced a period of unprecedented growth. The incredible gains in commercial and industrial tax base, public infrastructure and quality of life proceeded in spite of the worst depression of the 1800s, the Panic of 1893. One of the reasons can be found in the city’s first directory published on January 1, 1889 – low taxes. “The county tax rate is fifty cents on the $100, the lowest of any county in the State, and the municipal rate is but twenty cents on the $100, five of which are for water.”

Fast forward to the present. After several years of a depressed economy, when tax revenues for Westminster actually decreased in at least one year and the state balanced its ailing budget on the backs of local government, our city government recently announced a budget that included a 6-cent tax increase. Roads need repair, and there continues to be increased demands for services in the face of rapidly escalating costs.

Most importantly, city employees have gone for too many years without an appropriate adjustment in their pay and benefits. Westminster has one of the finest municipal public works, water and wastewater treatment, and police departments in the state. However, now more than ever, they need our support. Fortunately, this budget year is witnessing, a surge in income tax and property tax revenue.

The budget is still excruciatingly tight and our elected officials have no doubt worked hard to trim the budget as best as possible. However, they need our help. It is important that citizens get involved. There is no need to be angry like Charles Carroll or have “Liberty Pole” demonstrations. Get in touch with your elected officials today. Please be friendly, positive and constructive.

After all, our elected officials, who are struggling with their responsibilities, are our friends and neighbors.

Now is the time to “speak or forever hold your peace.”

The history of that anachronistic phrase in a wedding ceremony is clouded in mystery. But perhaps it evolved from a time when most marriages were arranged. According to some old notes, without attribution, “The bride's father had to provide a dowry. If the father had not fulfilled his part of the bargain, that proclamation was an opportune moment for the groom's family to speak up before it was too late.”

In light of the “arranged” marriage that Westminster citizens has with Westminster elected officials - the actionable phrase is “speak up before it is too late.”

Whatever, the City of Westminster ultimately decides; we have to pay the dowry – err, bill.

The City of Westminster is asking residents what they think of the proposed budget for the new year - and its proposed tax rate increase of 15 percent.

My opinion on this matter can be found in The Winchester Report at The Westminster Eagle’s Web site, www.thewestminstereagle.com. Those are my thoughts - where are yours? Let us know what you think by writing to The Westminster Eagle at thewestminstereagle@patuxent.com.

Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA.

E-mail him at: kdayhoff@carr.org

####

Friday, May 05, 2006

20060504 The Six Makes No Cents

Friday, May 05, 2006

20060504 The Six Makes No Cents


"The Six Makes No Cents"
May 3, 2006
(c) Kevin Dayhoff

20060503 Baugher’s Restaurant


Baugher's Restaurant (c) Kevin Dayhoff
May 4th, 2006

Labels: Restaurants, Baugher’s,

Thursday, May 4th, 2006, I had dinner at Baugher’s Restaurant in Westminster Maryland.

To tell you just a little bit about Baugher’s Restaurant I have excerpted the following from my December 1st, 2004 Westminster Advocate column…

“The Baugher family has a 100-year history of leadership (and risk-taking) in our community, so such involvement is not a surprise. Baugher’s Restaurant is one Westminster landmark easily recognized by folks throughout the state.

Ed and Romaine Baugher were married in 1932. Their son, Allan was born in 1935, delivered at home by Dr. Bare for $12.50. In 1947, they built Baugher’s Restaurant for approximately $75,000.

“According to a family history, when the restaurant opened in January 1948, public opinion was that the restaurant would fail. Indeed, the restaurant did not make money until the 1960’s.

“In the late 1960’s, I would go to Baugher’s with Tom Senseney, Bobby Warner and Scott Bair, Jr. Then, Baugher’s for Breakfast was where community leaders would meet and discuss the pressing issues of the day.

“As a child, I would watch with rapt attention, consumed in observing the intense discussions. Particularly impressive to me was, no matter how much they disagreed, they were always friendly, respectful and courteous.

© Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA.

E-mail him at: kdayhoff@carr.org

####

20060504 The Six Makes No Cents


"The Six Makes No Cents"
May 3, 2006
(c) Kevin Dayhoff

20060504 Mrs Tractor


"Mrs Tractor" (c) Kevin Dayhoff

May 3, 2006

Mrs. Tractor was drawn for the purpose of being donated for an upcoming Carroll County Maryland 4-H silent auction to raise money for 4-H programs.

20060504 Noonan’s WSJ Column: They should have killed him

Peggy Noonan: “They should have killed him.”

Gee, I sure wish Ms. Noonan could be a bit clearer in what she means. I mean, Peggy, why all the sugar coating?

If you missed Peggy Noonan’s column in the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, you may want to take a moment to read it. You can find: “They Should Have Killed Him,” here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110008330

The beginning of her piece reads:

PEGGY NOONAN

They Should Have Killed Him


The death penalty has a meaning, and it isn't vengeance.

Thursday, May 4, 2006 12:01 a.m.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP)--Moussaoui said as he was led from the courtroom: "America, you lost." He clapped his hands.

“Excuse me, I'm sorry, and I beg your pardon, but the jury's decision on Moussaoui gives me a very bad feeling. What we witnessed here was not the higher compassion but a dizzy failure of nerve.

“From the moment the decision was announced yesterday, everyone, all the parties involved--the cable jockeys, the legal analysts, the politicians, the victim representatives--showed an elaborate and jarring politesse. "We thank the jury." "I accept the verdict of course." "We can't question their hard work." "I know they did their best." "We thank the media for their hard work in covering this trial." "I don't want to second-guess the jury."

“How removed from our base passions we've become. Or hope to seem.

“It is as if we've become sophisticated beyond our intelligence, savvy beyond wisdom. Some might say we are showing a great and careful generosity, as befits a great nation. But maybe we're just, or also, rolling in our high-mindedness like a puppy in the grass. Maybe we are losing some crude old grit. Maybe it's not good we lose it.

“No one wants to say, "They should have killed him." This is understandable, for no one wants to be called vengeful, angry or, far worse, unenlightened. But we should have put him to death, and for one big reason.

This is what Moussaoui did…”

Thursday, May 04, 2006

20060503 Baugher’s Restaurant


Baugher's Restaurant (c) Kevin Dayhoff
May 4th, 2006

Labels: Restaurants, Baugher’s,

Thursday, May 4th, 2006, I had dinner at Baugher’s Restaurant in Westminster Maryland.

To tell you just a little bit about Baugher’s Restaurant I have excerpted the following from my December 1st, 2004 Westminster Advocate column…

“The Baugher family has a 100-year history of leadership (and risk-taking) in our community, so such involvement is not a surprise. Baugher’s Restaurant is one Westminster landmark easily recognized by folks throughout the state.

Ed and Romaine Baugher were married in 1932. Their son, Allan was born in 1935, delivered at home by Dr. Bare for $12.50. In 1947, they built Baugher’s Restaurant for approximately $75,000.

“According to a family history, when the restaurant opened in January 1948, public opinion was that the restaurant would fail. Indeed, the restaurant did not make money until the 1960’s.

“In the late 1960’s, I would go to Baugher’s with Tom Senseney, Bobby Warner and Scott Bair, Jr. Then, Baugher’s for Breakfast was where community leaders would meet and discuss the pressing issues of the day.

“As a child, I would watch with rapt attention, consumed in observing the intense discussions. Particularly impressive to me was, no matter how much they disagreed, they were always friendly, respectful and courteous.

© Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA.

E-mail him at: kdayhoff AT carr.org

####

20060503 Congressional Pork: The Other Red Meat by Kevin Dayhoff



20060503 Congressional Pork: The Other Red Meat by Kevin Dayhoff

Congressional Pork: The Other Red Meat

May 3, 2006, by Kevin E. Dayhoff

The Tentacle

A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll provided insight into the mind of the electorate. We are tired of pork, otherwise known as “earmarks.” And, rightfully so.

Even the least knowledgeable among us of the machinations and meanderings of Congress understands that someday the bill for our elected representative current obsession with credit card debt will eventually have to be paid.

Wasn’t it the Clinton administration that was so often criticized for not having any convictions, vision or plan of its own, except to go in the direction the latest poll? Maybe that’s why there is so much emphasis these days on poll numbers.

Bold leaders lead and only spineless superficial political sycophants are pre-occupied with news media fad polls. News media polls often involve selective trivialities trumping substance in an obvious attempt to distort the facts or promote an agenda.

Nevertheless, the results of this current Wall Street Journal/NBC poll are resonating as congressional pork has evolved from a minor annoyance into a major irritation. Voters are noticing that Congress has a bad habit of irresponsibly including local project expenditures into appropriation bills, which bypass the budgeting process, are authorized without debate, and have nothing to do with the focus of the national issues being addressed.

Advancing age allows us to ignore the folly of becoming unnecessarily excited about the manic swings and obsessive gnashing of teeth over “inside baseball” issues that ultimately will be but a mere blip in the history books. Thirty-five years from now, the hysteria over the Valerie Plame affair will be little more than a sentence in a chapter on the beginnings of this century. But those reading that sentence still will be cognizant of the debt with which we saddled them.

The agitation over the newfound, undisciplined spending and fiscal irresponsibility of the Republican-led U. S. Congress has staying power; and, if we are not careful, it may very well become a real issue in this fall’s elections.

Read the rest of the column here: Congressional Pork: The Other Red Meat

####

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

20060503 A nomination for picture of the year

May 3rd, 2006

This has gotta be one of the early forerunners of picture of the year.

This is the face of an unnecessary 6-cent property tax increase in Westminster, MD.

Look up dyspepsia and you see this photo illustration.

For more information, see: Westminster residents protest tax increase

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

20060501 Advertisement for Westminster City Administrator position

Advertisement for Westminster City Administrator position

Downloaded May 1, 2006

http://www.mercergroupinc.com/

http://www.mercergroupinc.com/CurrentSearches.htm

http://www.mercergroupinc.com/westminca3.html

http://www.mercergroupinc.com/pdf/westminca.pdf

CITY ADMINISTRATOR

CITY OF WESTMINSTER, MARYLAND

This is an exciting opportunity to live and work in a growing city known for its beautiful countryside, clean water, and healthy climate.

The City of Westminster, Maryland, with a population of approximately 36,000, (sic) is seeking a highly qualified individual to become its new City Administrator.

The City Administrator will provide leadership and management to the City and will work under the direction of the Mayor and Common Council to administer the day-to-day activities of city government.

The ideal candidate for the City Administrator position should be an experienced leader with a background in city management.

He/she should be a strong leader, manager and administrator with excellent communication skills. The successful individual will also possess as a minimum a bachelor’s degree from a four-year college or university with a major in Public Administration or a related field. A related graduate degree is preferred and experience in Maryland city administration would be a plus.

The ideal candidate should possess five to seven years of progressively responsible experience in city administration/management. The successful candidate for the Westminster City Administrator position should possess wide knowledge of public administration, planning, public works, and finance, as well as practical experience with urban governance issues.

The City Administrator is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Mayor and Common Council. The City Administrator and staff provide the link between the elected governing body and the staff of the City’s various departments. The City Administrator shall be the chief administrative officer of the city and shall be responsible to the Mayor and Common Council for the proper administration of all of the City’s affairs.

The City Administrator is an at-will employee of the city and may be removed for whatever reason by a majority of the Mayor and Common Council or by a four-fifths majority of the Common Council.

The City of Westminster was chartered in 1838 and currently operates under a Mayor/Council form of government. (sic)

The governing body of the city consists of five Common Council Members one of whom is elected by his/her peers to serve as president of the council. The members are elected at-large for four-year staggered terms. The Common Council is the legislative body of the City and provides overall policy direction to the City.

The Mayor and Common Council relationship is very collegial. The current annual operating budget for the City of Westminster is $25 million.

The City is in very good financial condition and has very little debt.

Westminster is a full-service city government, except for Fire Service and Emergency Rescue which is provided by a combination paid/volunteer Department that is separate from city government.

The starting salary is competitive in the range of $100,000 to $110,000 per annum depending on qualifications and experience plus a competitive fringe benefit program and reasonable relocation expenses.

Confidential resumes should be sent by close of business May 29, 2006, to: James L. Mercer, President, The Mercer Group, Inc., 5579B Chamblee Dunwoody Road, #511, Atlanta, GA 30338.

Voice: 770-551-0403; Fax: 770-399-9749.

E-Mail: mercer@mindspring.com; Website: www.mercergroupinc.com.

The City of Westminster is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

Click here to download brochure

Monday, May 01, 2006

20060501 Columbia Bus. School Spoof on Bernanke


Weekend Video: Columbia B-Schoolers Rock on Fed Chair

While reading the New York Times’ blog “Dealbook,” edited by Andrew Ross Sorkin, I came across this must see video for the economically oriented geeks who read kevindayhoff.com. It was posted on the New York Times’ blog on Apr. 28, 2006 3:20 pm.

Go now to: http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=2478

The narrative introduction reads:

“After Alan Greenspan announced he would retire, the chattering classes floated a select few names as his possible replacements. Though the job went to Ben S. Bernanke, one of the top contenders was Glenn Hubbard, dean of Columbia Business School and former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. Based on a recent comedy sketch by Columbia Business School students, however, it appears Mr. Hubbard hasn’t gotten over his snub. Weird Al Yankovic may have some new competition.”

Enjoy. Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA.

E-mail him at: kdayhoff@carr.org

####

Sunday, April 30, 2006

20060430 An analysis of the FY 2007 Westminster City Budget

An analysis of the FY 2007 Westminster City, Carroll County, Maryland Budget

Why a tax increase is not necessary.

The following was posted on the Westminster Eagle Website on April 30, 2006.

©2004 MyWebPal.com. All rights reserved.
Contact us at webmaster@mywebpal.com
All other trademarks and Registered trademarks are property
of their respective owners.

Feedback on Westminster budget? Here's mine

The Westminster Eagle does not use permalinks, so you may need to go to archives to find it on line.

April 30, 2006 By Kevin Dayhoff

Recently the City of Westminster (City) announced a proposed budget of $27,334,713.00 for Fiscal Year 2006 - 2007, (FY 2007) which begins July 1, 2006, ends June 31, 2007, and has requested feedback from Westminster citizens.

The proposed budget includes a 6-cent increase in the City’s property tax. This will raise the property tax from 40 cents to 46 cents – a fifteen percent increase, probably the largest in the City’s history.

There have since been published reports of folks who do not want a tax increase. Well duh, who among us wants to pay more for anything unless we are to receive a commensurate increase in a tangible product or services in return?

The City, in press reports, has said that the 6-cent increase is needed for “rising fuel prices (an increase of $65,000;) health care costs (an increase of $212,542;) the city's growth ($?;) new technology (an increase of $40,000 – G10.-391 and the General Fund’s portion of the last installment on the new financial accounting system - $348,468;) road maintenance (an increase in the road overlay program of $500,000) and ‘so many other things ($?)…’”

What has been lacking in this year’s budget discussion is any published analysis of the budget so that citizens may arrive at an informed decision. Citizens need to know what has been proposed for our health, safety and welfare and just what a 6-cent increase in the property tax looks like to those of us who have to pay the bill.

Moreover, it is imperative upon those folks who disagree to do more than be disagreeable; they must recommend a thoughtful and intelligent alternative suggestion for debate and discussion.

Disagreement is not inherently a negative thing, as long as it promotes a meaningful and constructive exploration of the issues in order to arrive at a win-win consensus that will make as many folks happy as possible.

Westminster has one of the more sophisticated, intelligent and well-educated citizen-bases in the state; and yet, an alternate proposal has not been presented.

So, let’s explore the matter and see what we can do to develop an intelligent alternative approach that says no to a tax increase.

For this analysis of the City budget, it would be helpful if you had a copy of the proposed budget handy. Most of the expenditures and revenues will be identified by their “account number” - a “G” number; for example, “G26.5000” is the identifier for “Hospital Insurance.”

A copy of the proposed budget should be easily available by calling (410) 848-9000 or stopping by City Hall.

Nevertheless, do not worry if you do not have a copy of the budget handy at the moment, as hopefully, I will still be able to explain where cuts are possible to avoid a tax increase.

If, after reading this analysis, you agree that there are cuts available to avoid a tax increase, it would be certainly helpful for the City to know where your suggestions of additional proposed cuts can be found by referring to the “G – account number.”

As we discuss the following numbers, bear in mind that each penny increase in the City’s property tax nets the City $143,947.50. A 6-cent increase will net the City $863,684.00.

The last several budgets have been very difficult.

To be sure, the last number of budget years have been extraordinarily difficult. For several years after September 11th, 2001, the economy was stagnant and municipal revenues greatly curtailed – and in some instances, City revenues got smaller or even disappeared. To add insult to injury, the state balanced its budget on the backs of local government.

All the while, in the last several years, the City has witnessed an increased demand for services and expenses have disproportionately increased.

For example, one line item in the City’s budget, account number G26.5000, “Hospital Insurance,” was $767,920 in FY 2005; $948,054 in FY 2006 and has now jumped another $212,542 for this year to $1,160,596.

The salary and operating cost of trash removal, G12.4300, increased from $752,245 in FY 2005 to $858,134 in the FY 2007 budget or an increase of $105,889.

Fuel costs have increased for FY 2007 by $65,000.

Beginning July 1, 2003, the new police retirement plan, the Law Enforcement Officers Pension System (LEOPS) began an increased expenditure in excess of $364,000 per year.

During these difficult budget years – through FY 2006: the City built two parking decks; re-built a portion of Uniontown Road, upgraded the parking meters, built a much needed additional parking lot on West Main Street, supported the renovation of the Carroll Arts Center, embarked on an expensive upgrade of the 25-year old - 1978 financial accounting systems, gave the police officers an enhanced pension system - the Law Enforcement Officers Pension System and gave the police officers a unilateral last minute, “triple-step” pay increase for FY 2006, which cost $125,686.

All of this was accomplished without a tax increase. In fact, FY 2005 had $812,000 left over – almost the amount of money generated by a 6-cent tax increase.

How was this accomplished without a tax increase? For one thing, it involved many sleepless nights and an exacting conservative approach to examining each and every budget line item and making many difficult decisions. Not to mention, an overriding conservative approach to keep government as small as possible and meet the many demands on finite resources with no tax increase.

It should be noted that the Westminster Common Council took the $125,686 in unilateral pay increases for the police out of my proposed FY 2006 budget line item of $250,000 set aside to address the increasing salary disparities for the City’s employees. In addition, while take home vehicles were taken away from non-police officers, that benefit was expanded for police officers.

Did the police officers deserve the pay increase? Yes. So do the other employees.

In the last several years, what did not happen is any substantial pay or benefit increase, beyond routine cost of living increases for the out-of-date and uncompetitive salary structure of non-police employees, in spite of the fact that it has been well known that it is needed, since February of 2003.

Needless to say, this has disheartened many city employees.

Where to begin?

The City budget is divided into four funds: General, Housing, Sewer, and Water. Most of the following is a discussion of the General Fund budget.

A review of the water and sewer budget indicates that water and sewer service will never be as inexpensive as it is today. It is a matter that is beyond the City’s control.

In the last number of years, federal and state regulations, (unfunded mandates - laws passed down without the money to pay for the costs,) and changing interpretations of existing water and sewer appropriation laws have caused a great deal of financial strain on the City’s water and sewer service.

And we must not ignore a 1966 court decision that requires the City to provide water to anyone requesting it within a reasonable distance of the existing water service area – whether it is in the city limits or not. It may be time to find a good court test of that decision which causes the city to have essentially no say in many residential annexations, for which we, as a community have made a collective decision, that we have no interest.

We must support the City employees.

First off, the $555,375 for City employee salary reserve that is set aside for pay equity implementation needs to remain in the FY 2007 budget.

The $92,164 - two percent matching contribution to the preferred compensation plan for eligible employees, must be funded.

It has been suggested that to not support the tax increase is to not support the employees. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Scapegoating the employees is unquestionably unfair, especially since the main reason we have not had a tax increase in the last several years is because the hardworking, dedicated professionals who work for the City. They have consistently rolled up their sleeves and done more with less – all the while doing the work for less pay than they deserve. It should also be noted that the City fully funded LEOPS for the police officers without a tax increase or unwanted political attention.

How are we to pay for this?

Let’s not forget the $812,000 unallocated surplus carryover (money left over in the previously audited budget at the end of the year) for this year’s FY 2007 budget - an increase of $258,944.

And this year, for FY 2007, the City will see an increase in state Highway User Fee (HUR) revenue of $96,809.

Tax revenue for the FY2007 budget will increase by $1,706,438 – read: 1.7 million dollars - due to increased property values and increased commercial tax base through annexations. Compare that to a decrease of $11,832 for FY 2005 to 2006.

To recap - please add $258,944 in increased unallocated surplus carry-over; to $96,809 in increased HUR revenue; to $1,706,438 in increased tax revenue and that adds up to: $2,062,191 ($2.06 million dollars) in additional funds with which to balance this year’s budget.

And yet, a review of this year’s budget indicates that it is extremely tight.

Where’s the money going?

Well, it includes the $555,375 pay equity implementation; $212,542 for increased health care costs; $65,000 in increased fuel costs; the general fund’s portion, $110,156, of the last installment of the financial accounting technology upgrades; and trash and waste collections will increase $105,889. Your calculator should say: $983,962.

Okay, something doesn’t add up – looking at the big numbers, we still have approximately $1 million available.

Other additional increases in the proposed budget:

Well, FY2007 proposes an increase in the road overlay program of $500,000 from the previous fiscal year (for a total commitment of $750,000, this year.)

And then, for example, there are other increases FY2007 over FY2006:

$40,000 in technology upgrades, G10.-391;

$23,750 to replace the carpet in City Hall, G10.-921;

$26,660 increase for downtown revitalization, G10.1014;

$24,100 for engineering services to correct City boundaries with GPS, G12.21OH/G12.210H2;

$400,000 to purchase “workforce” properties for resale to qualified low-income residents, G10.10952;

$119,000 to repair the City swimming pool, G18.14103;

$223,000 to replace Trucks #40 and 24, G12.61003;

$51,428 to replace two police cars, G11.151103;

$25,000 for Pa. Avenue phase two streetscape improvements at the intersection with Union Avenue, G12.52PH3;

$75,000 for the SHA sidewalk retrofit program, which is the City’s 50 percent share of $150,000, G12.52SW3.

This totals another $1,007,938 – to include the road overlay program brings the total increases to $1,507,938.

Rescind the recent decision to hire a City Administrator.

Not mentioned in this list is the newly created City Administrator position, which has been reported to cost $100,000. Perhaps we may want to amend that cost by adding the $22,500 for the consulting group hired to find this person and additional dollars for benefits, relocation expenses, office space, staff support and computer equipment. It has been whispered that this new position will cost the taxpayers as much as $200,000 – over a penny to the tax rate.

Hiring a City Administrator is an affront to the employees and destroys a sense of team. Westminster citizens “hired” the mayor to do this job. In 1991, the last time the city hired a City Administrator it didn’t work. Previously in the 1980s, the City also did away with the position in lieu of the department-director cabinet form of government. It works. If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.

Money to be used on the City Administrator is not necessary and could be better spent elsewhere. The City Administrator will only add an additional insulating layer between employees and the elected officials. The City Administrator position does not have support of many employees. Often citizens currently have direct access to city employees and can get things done quickly and efficiently. The City Administrator adds a complicating layer between public and city departments.

A City Administrator is another step towards “Big Government.” Westminster has never been tolerant of “Big Government or “tax and spend” management.

How many additional cuts in the budget are necessary to avoid a tax increase?

The simple answer is that a 6-cent increase in property tax will net the City $863,684. If you would like to avoid a tax increase, $863,684 in additional cuts are necessary.

Please go to the previous section and identify the cuts you would propose.

To get the conversation started, how about considering cutting:

$23,750, G10.-921, to replace the carpet in City Hall;

$40,000, G10.-391 in technology upgrades – pay for Finance’s technology upgrades first;

$223,000, G12.61003, to replace Trucks #40 and 24 – re-evaluate at half year;

$51,428, G11.151103, to replace two police cars – re-evaluate at half year;

$25,000, Pa. Avenue phase two streetscape improvements – apply for state grant;

$75,000, G12.52SW3, SHA sidewalk retrofit program;

$100,000, City Administrator position;

$24,100, G12.21OH/G12.210H2 for engineering to correct City boundaries;

$300,000 reduction in the road overlay program (that leaves $450,000 for this important work).

That totals $862,278 – and no tax increase.

This is not the year for a property tax increase.

The above is just a suggestion that attempts to spread the cuts over the widest range of expenses, without a cut in core services. Perhaps you may want to develop a different list of cuts and give that feedback to the City for their consideration.

Taking into consideration the precipitous increase in property assessments, citizens will already be paying a great deal more in property tax this year. Add to that, for example, the increased costs of gasoline, gas and electric, and health insurance; this is not the year for a property tax increase. Not to mention the chilling affect a tax increase will have on vital economic development and jobs creation right here at home.

What do you think?

Please get a copy of the proposed budget, review the above proposed expenditures and perhaps identify some different expenditures that we, as a community may want the City to consider cutting.

After doing your homework, write or e-mail our elected officials today. Better yet, attend the public hearing, with your proposed cost cuts and present them to the City. Be friendly, positive and constructive – after all, these folks are our friends and neighbors.

The location of the Public Hearing on the Proposed Real Property Tax Increase for the Tax Year beginning July 1, 2006 has been changed from City Hall to the John Street Quarters of the Westminster Fire Department located at 28 John Street, Westminster, Maryland. The time and date remain the same: 7:00 P.M. on Monday, May 1, 2006. Please contact the City Clerk at (410) 848.4938 with any questions. If you can’t attend the meeting, the public comment period should remain open for several weeks, so still submit your suggestions.

Putting together a budget is hard work. The choices and decisions are difficult. We are all in this together. Only by putting out heads together and working with the City, we can be sure to arrive at win-win for everyone.

Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA.

E-mail him at: kdayhoff@carr.org

####

20060430 An analysis of the FY 2007 Westminster City Budget - Why a tax increase is not necessary





An analysis of the FY 2007 Westminster City Budget
Why a tax increase is not necessary.
The following was posted on the Westminster Eagle Website:
on April 30, 2006.
©2004 MyWebPal.com. All rights reserved. Contact us at webmaster@mywebpal.com All other trademarks and Registered trademarks are property of their respective owners.
Related posts: Dayhoff issues and position papers
April 30, 2006 © By Kevin Dayhoff
Feedback on Westminster budget? Here's mine
Why a tax increase is NOT needed • April 30, 2006
04/30/06 By Kevin Dayhoff
Recently the City of Westminster (City) announced a proposed budget of $27,334,713.00 for Fiscal Year 2006 - 2007, (FY 2007) which begins July 1, 2006, ends June 31, 2007, and has requested feedback from Westminster citizens.
The proposed budget includes a 6-cent increase in the City’s property tax. This will raise the property tax from 40 cents to 46 cents – a fifteen percent increase, probably the largest in the City’s history.
There have since been published reports of folks who do not want a tax increase. Well duh, who among us wants to pay more for anything unless we are to receive a commensurate increase in a tangible product or services in return?
The City, in press reports, has said that the 6-cent increase is needed for “rising fuel prices (an increase of $65,000;) health care costs (an increase of $212,542;) the city's growth ($?;) new technology (an increase of $40,000 – G10.-391 and the General Fund’s portion of the last installment on the new financial accounting system - $348,468;) road maintenance (an increase in the road overlay program of $500,000) and ‘so many other things ($?)…’”
What has been lacking in this year’s budget discussion is any published analysis of the budget so that citizens may arrive at an informed decision. Citizens need to know what has been proposed for our health, safety and welfare and just what a 6-cent increase in the property tax looks like to those of us who have to pay the bill.
Moreover, it is imperative upon those folks who disagree to do more than be disagreeable; they must recommend a thoughtful and intelligent alternative suggestion for debate and discussion.
Disagreement is not inherently a negative thing, as long as it promotes a meaningful and constructive exploration of the issues in order to arrive at a win-win consensus that will make as many folks happy as possible.
Westminster has one of the more sophisticated, intelligent and well-educated citizen-bases in the state; and yet, an alternate proposal has not been presented.
So, let’s explore the matter and see what we can do to develop an intelligent alternative approach that says no to a tax increase.
For this analysis of the City budget, it would be helpful if you had a copy of the proposed budget handy. Most of the expenditures and revenues will be identified by their “account number” - a “G” number; for example, “G26.5000” is the identifier for “Hospital Insurance.”
A copy of the proposed budget should be easily available by calling (410) 848-9000 or stopping by City Hall.
Nevertheless, do not worry if you do not have a copy of the budget handy at the moment, as hopefully, I will still be able to explain where cuts are possible to avoid a tax increase.
If, after reading this analysis, you agree that there are cuts available to avoid a tax increase, it would be certainly helpful for the City to know where your suggestions of additional proposed cuts can be found by referring to the “G – account number.”
As we discuss the following numbers, bear in mind that each penny increase in the City’s property tax nets the City $143,947.50. A 6-cent increase will net the City $863,684.00.
The last several budgets have been very difficult.
To be sure, the last number of budget years have been extraordinarily difficult. For several years after September 11th, 2001, the economy was stagnant and municipal revenues greatly curtailed – and in some instances, City revenues got smaller or even disappeared. To add insult to injury, the state balanced its budget on the backs of local government.
All the while, in the last several years, the City has witnessed an increased demand for services and expenses have disproportionately increased.
For example, one line item in the City’s budget, account number G26.5000, “Hospital Insurance,” was $767,920 in FY 2005; $948,054 in FY 2006 and has now jumped another $212,542 for this year to $1,160,596.
The salary and operating cost of trash removal, G12.4300, increased from $752,245 in FY 2005 to $858,134 in the FY 2007 budget or an increase of $105,889.
Fuel costs have increased for FY 2007 by $65,000.
Beginning July 1, 2003, the new police retirement plan, the Law Enforcement Officers Pension System (LEOPS) began an increased expenditure in excess of $364,000 per year.
During these difficult budget years – through FY 2006: the City built two parking decks; re-built a portion of Uniontown Road, upgraded the parking meters, built a much needed additional parking lot on West Main Street, supported the renovation of the Carroll Arts Center, embarked on an expensive upgrade of the 25-year old - 1978 financial accounting systems, gave the police officers an enhanced pension system - the Law Enforcement Officers Pension System and gave the police officers a unilateral last minute, “triple-step” pay increase for FY 2006, which cost $125,686.
All of this was accomplished without a tax increase. In fact, FY 2005 had $812,000 left over – almost the amount of money generated by a 6-cent tax increase.
How was this accomplished without a tax increase? For one thing, it involved many sleepless nights and an exacting conservative approach to examining each and every budget line item and making many difficult decisions. Not to mention, an overriding conservative approach to keep government as small as possible and meet the many demands on finite resources with no tax increase.
It should be noted that the Westminster Common Council took the $125,686 in unilateral pay increases for the police out of my proposed FY 2006 budget line item of $250,000 set aside to address the increasing salary disparities for the City’s employees. In addition, while take home vehicles were taken away from non-police officers, that benefit was expanded for police officers.
Did the police officers deserve the pay increase? Yes. So do the other employees.
In the last several years, what did not happen is any substantial pay or benefit increase, beyond routine cost of living increases for the out-of-date and uncompetitive salary structure of non-police employees, in spite of the fact that it has been well known that it is needed, since February of 2003.
Needless to say, this has disheartened many city employees.
Where to begin?
The City budget is divided into four funds: General, Housing, Sewer, and Water. Most of the following is a discussion of the General Fund budget.
A review of the water and sewer budget indicates that water and sewer service will never be as inexpensive as it is today. It is a matter that is beyond the City’s control.
In the last number of years, federal and state regulations, (unfunded mandates - laws passed down without the money to pay for the costs,) and changing interpretations of existing water and sewer appropriation laws have caused a great deal of financial strain on the City’s water and sewer service.
And we must not ignore a 1966 court decision that requires the City to provide water to anyone requesting it within a reasonable distance of the existing water service area – whether it is in the city limits or not. It may be time to find a good court test of that decision which causes the city to have essentially no say in many residential annexations, for which we, as a community have made a collective decision, that we have no interest.
We must support the City employees.
First off, the $555,375 for City employee salary reserve that is set aside for pay equity implementation needs to remain in the FY 2007 budget.
The $92,164 - two percent matching contribution to the preferred compensation plan for eligible employees, must be funded.
It has been suggested that to not support the tax increase is to not support the employees. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Scapegoating the employees is unquestionably unfair, especially since the main reason we have not had a tax increase in the last several years is because the hardworking, dedicated professionals who work for the City. They have consistently rolled up their sleeves and done more with less – all the while doing the work for less pay than they deserve. It should also be noted that the City fully funded LEOPS for the police officers without a tax increase or unwanted political attention.
How are we to pay for this?
Let’s not forget the $812,000 unallocated surplus carryover (money left over in the previously audited budget at the end of the year) for this year’s FY 2007 budget - an increase of $258,944.
And this year, for FY 2007, the City will see an increase in state Highway User Fee (HUR) revenue of $96,809.
Tax revenue for the FY2007 budget will increase by $1,706,438 – read: 1.7 million dollars - due to increased property values and increased commercial tax base through annexations. Compare that to a decrease of $11,832 for FY 2005 to 2006.
To recap - please add $258,944 in increased unallocated surplus carry-over; to $96,809 in increased HUR revenue; to $1,706,438 in increased tax revenue and that adds up to: $2,062,191 ($2.06 million dollars) in additional funds with which to balance this year’s budget.
And yet, a review of this year’s budget indicates that it is extremely tight.
Where’s the money going?
Well, it includes the $555,375 pay equity implementation; $212,542 for increased health care costs; $65,000 in increased fuel costs; the general fund’s portion, $110,156, of the last installment of the financial accounting technology upgrades; and trash and waste collections will increase $105,889. Your calculator should say: $983,962.
Okay, something doesn’t add up – looking at the big numbers, we still have approximately $1 million available.
Other additional increases in the proposed budget:
Well, FY2007 proposes an increase in the road overlay program of $500,000 from the previous fiscal year (for a total commitment of $750,000, this year.)
And then, for example, there are other increases FY2007 over FY2006:
$40,000 in technology upgrades, G10.-391; $23,750 to replace the carpet in City Hall, G10.-921; $26,660 increase for downtown revitalization, G10.1014; $24,100 for engineering services to correct City boundaries with GPS, G12.21OH/G12.210H2; $400,000 to purchase “workforce” properties for resale to qualified low- income residents, G10.10952; $119,000 to repair the City swimming pool, G18.14103; $223,000 to replace Trucks #40 and 24, G12.61003; $51,428 to replace two police cars, G11.151103; $25,000 for Pa. Avenue phase two streetscape improvements at the intersection with Union Avenue, G12.52PH3; $75,000 for the SHA sidewalk retrofit program, which is the City’s 50 percent share of $150,000, G12.52SW3.
This totals another $1,007,938 – to include the road overlay program brings the total increases to $1,507,938.
Rescind the recent decision to hire a City Administrator.
Not mentioned in this list is the newly created City Administrator position, which has been reported to cost $100,000. Perhaps we may want to amend that cost by adding the $22,500 for the consulting group hired to find this person and additional dollars for benefits, relocation expenses, office space, staff support and computer equipment. It has been whispered that this new position will cost the taxpayers as much as $200,000 – over a penny to the tax rate.
Hiring a City Administrator is an affront to the employees and destroys a sense of team. Westminster citizens “hired” the mayor to do this job. In 1991, the last time the city hired a City Administrator it didn’t work. Previously in the 1980s, the City also did away with the position in lieu of the department-director cabinet form of government. It works. If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.
Money to be used on the City Administrator is not necessary and could be better spent elsewhere. The City Administrator will only add an additional insulating layer between employees and the elected officials. The City Administrator position does not have support of many employees. Often citizens currently have direct access to city employees and can get things done quickly and efficiently. The City Administrator adds a complicating layer between public and city departments.
A City Administrator is another step towards “Big Government.” Westminster has never been tolerant of “Big Government or “tax and spend” management.
How many additional cuts in the budget are necessary to avoid a tax increase?
The simple answer is that a 6-cent increase in property tax will net the City $863,684. If you would like to avoid a tax increase, $863,684 in additional cuts are necessary.
Please go to the previous section and identify the cuts you would propose.
To get the conversation started, how about considering cutting:
$23,750, G10.-921, to replace the carpet in City Hall; $40,000, G10.-391 in technology upgrades – pay for Finance’s technology upgrades first; $223,000, G12.61003, to replace Trucks #40 and 24 – re-evaluate at half year; $51,428, G11.151103, to replace two police cars – re-evaluate at half year; $25,000, Pa. Avenue phase two streetscape improvements – apply for state grant; $75,000, G12.52SW3, SHA sidewalk retrofit program; $100,000, City Administrator position; $24,100, G12.21OH/G12.210H2 for engineering to correct City boundaries; $300,000 reduction in the road overlay program (that leaves $450,000 for this important work).
That totals $862,278 – and no tax increase.
This is not the year for a property tax increase.
The above is just a suggestion that attempts to spread the cuts over the widest range of expenses, without a cut in core services. Perhaps you may want to develop a different list of cuts and give that feedback to the City for their consideration.
Taking into consideration the precipitous increase in property assessments, citizens will already be paying a great deal more in property tax this year. Add to that, for example, the increased costs of gasoline, gas and electric, and health insurance; this is not the year for a property tax increase. Not to mention the chilling affect a tax increase will have on vital economic development and jobs creation right here at home.
What do you think?
Please get a copy of the proposed budget, review the above proposed expenditures and perhaps identify some different expenditures that we, as a community may want the City to consider cutting.
After doing your homework, write or e-mail our elected officials today. Better yet, attend the public hearing, with your proposed cost cuts and present them to the City. Be friendly, positive and constructive – after all, these folks are our friends and neighbors.
The location of the Public Hearing on the Proposed Real Property Tax Increase for the Tax Year beginning July 1, 2006 has been changed from City Hall to the John Street Quarters of the Westminster Fire Department located at 28 John Street, Westminster, Maryland. The time and date remain the same: 7: 00 P.M. on Monday, May 1, 2006. Please contact the City Clerk at (410) 848.4938 with any questions. If you can’t attend the meeting, the public comment period should remain open for several weeks, so still submit your suggestions.
Putting together a budget is hard work. The choices and decisions are difficult. We are all in this together. Only by putting out heads together and working with the City, we can be sure to arrive at win-win for everyone.
Kevin Dayhoff writes from Westminster Maryland USA. E-mail him at: kdayhoff@carr.org
####
©2004 MyWebPal.com. All rights reserved.
Contact us at webmaster@mywebpal.com
All other trademarks and Registered trademarks are property
of their respective owners.