NCCo Budget 2010
Yesterday evening, County Executive Chris Coons delivered his budget address. He took about 40 minutes to deliver this, including an extensive setup of his Listening Tour (which rhetorically at least) looks like the approval cycle and then he got to a summary of the bad news:
- Property taxes will increase an average of $8.00/month (I imagine this number includes the reduced taxes paid by the City, right? In which case this average would be higher if the City was excluded.)
- Sewer taxes will increase an average of $2.00/month.
- Layoffs and/or furloughs are coming, and they are still negotiating with the unions. These go across all departments, including Public Safety. Layoffs would save $4.5M. But Coons indicates that he is still negotiating with unions and if they can come up with an alternative that still gets his savings number, he wants to hear that. But in an interview with Allan Loudell afterwards, Chris seemed to say that they’d definitely do layoffs by early May if they couldn’t make an alternative deal with the unions. He was very clear on this point, though, that county employees have to share some of the pain too.
- The budget looks to eliminate overlap in funding of services provided by others
- Cutting $75M from the Capital Budget — delaying some projects and canceling others.
- Cutting Grant Funding (WILMAPCO, Boy and Girl Scouts, Ministry of Caring, etc)
- Cutting volunteer Firefighters 8% ($300K)
- Cutting Contractual Services (engineering, landscaping)
- Eliminating/defunding 97 vacant positions for a savings of $6.5M
- No new vehicles
The text of the speech is up on th County’s website here.
The 2010 Budget Overview is here.
And the complete Recommended Operating Budget is here.
WDEL does have the video.
The additional bad news is that there is an expectation that 2011 won’t be much rosier, budget-wise.
Did you see it or hear it? So what do you think?
Where is Gordon when you need him?
Probably still making promises he couldn’t keep.
You have something constructive to say about this issue or just doing a drive-by?
Alright, I was just feeling an evil urge to get something going. I am sorry.
Much discussion could be had about the fact that NCC overspent and that made matters worse. Now it is time to pay the piper. The people voted for all of these programs, now they need to pay for them.
I think that you outlined this issue very well. The sadly interesting choice will be the union’s choice. Should the pain be spread through furloughs or should there be layoffs? Just get it over with so you can readjust and start rebuilding morale. I think the public would best be served with layoffs. I think either choice is rotten. The fact that Mr. Coons can’t make a decision bothers me more than what ever decision he will make.
If you are looking at these numbers that are being cut, it is hard to take “overspent” seriously. On top of that, you do know that Gordon was promising more money to many of the groups/unions/departments that are being cut now. It is fair to say that perhaps the County should not have been running Little League programs, or funding knitting classes, but a blithe “overspent” fails on every level to to understand the magnitude of the collapse of this economy AND the over dependence of the County on real estate for its revenue stream.
He “polled” the public. I can see him deflecting blame now, if it comes his way: “Hey, the people wanted it!”
Anyway, it was unavoidable. Given that, I’d much rather have seen re-assessments than a 25% increase.
I think that if you listened to Coons yesterday he has certainly made a decision and that means that the monetary equivalent of the savings to be gained by cutting 75-100 jobs. I think he is doing the fair thing by working through options with the unions but he was pretty clear that if they can’t come to some accommodation, he would start layoffs in early May.
It is no doubt that two thirds of the problem is related to the economy. No matter who was Executive, the county would be facing tough choices right now. I am just saying that it was made worse by the raids on the surpluses and eight years of partying. There could have been a cushion to avoid layoffs.
That was then. It is time to dig out of the mess and support the leadership. If they succeed, applaud them. If they fail, dump them. Right now they need room to act.
Still it feels like Mr. Coons is trying to cover himself politically by trying to get shared responsibility. That was appropriate before the deadline, but now I can’t help but wonder if it is time to lead.
I’m still skeptical of a 25% increase without first a reassessment. From what I understand, a reassessment can be ordered, unlike a tax increase, which needs votes. I might be wrong, but that is how I understood it. Based on that, I am skeptical of 25% via a vote, followed up by a reassessment a short time later. It would make that $8/month look like change.
I went to one of the meetings on the budget tour. I thought Coons did a good job in laying out the problems and the possible solutions. I feel for the people who are going to lose their jobs.
I hope the county takes this opportunity to rebalance their budget and sources of funding (overdependence on the transfer tax). I hope that this will mean we won’t starting raiding our rainy day funds when things start to get sunny again.
Coons has voiced his support for reassessment publicly and has received an estimate that it will cost the county roughly $8 million or so to do. Prob is, it needs to happen statewide, not just in NCC, so hopefully the gov can weigh in.
It will also be interesting to see what Markell lays out tomorrow–700 Million deficit??? yikes!
The county has made alot of cuts and are working on the employees–step in the right direction.
Anon is correct. Reassessment is not cheap, and in the short run it does not actually increase revenues any significant percent, as there are Code requirements that the overall tax burden cannot change significantly (I can’t remember the number offhand) for an individual tax payer for at least a couple of years. Reassessment gets you back in parity and some sense of reality on property values. In the long run it could produce more revenue, but in the short run it is a revenue drain, or – at best – revenue neutral.
Everyone is looking for short term solutions right now. If they have long term beneficial effects, so much the better. If they don’t we’ll deal with that later. That’s the attitude in all levels of government right now. And it almost has to be, because there is no such thing as “investing in future savings” when there’s no money to spend to get you to those long term savings.
EDIT: note that PO’s comment was posted while I was entering mine. I’ll leave it as it originally was, but PO’s point is taken.
I concede there is NO easy answer or fix. There isn’t. Obviously, I could crow about cutting costs, cutting costs, cutting costs, but that is simply a generic talking point. I agree that we are now at a time where increased tax is unavoidable. The $8mil bill is disconcerting, but honestly, it would not surprise me if a full reassessment shows more inflow of tax money than a 25% increase.
I have a real concern about resetting the rate to a one-quarter jump first, then reassessment later. One of the advantages we have in Delaware is our property tax rates relative to neighboring states. Granted, our rate is far lower than other states. Where will a 25% increase slot us in comparison, though? We don’t need a huge advantage, like it is now, but we should still maintain some advantage. It does work for us to have people live here, if, for nothing else, the tax base. A 25% increase will kick us up closer (if not equal or past – I have no idea) to other nearby states immediately. A subsequent reassessment could very well send the nominal dollars of property tax beyond those states.
The thought of a significant % increase now with the reassessment door wide open really makes me wonder what an overall increase will look like, say five years down the road.
‘Bulo agrees w/Smitty (maybe they should do ‘Ebony and Ivory’ at a karaoke night) that a reassessment should come first.
However, the Beast Who Slumbers thinks (he’s not sure) that such a reassessment would have to first be approved by the Delaware General Assembly. There was a legislative movement to do just that about 15 years ago when times were flush, but legislators never were Profiles in Courage, and nothing was done. Without a statewide reassessment, there would be statewide inequities caused by differences between how the counties reassess.
Perhaps someone with a better understanding of the workings of County government can tell us if counties can unilaterally do this. Not that County Councilpersons are Profiles in Courage either…
Legalize marijuana and tax, tax, tax it!! Just like they do to liquor and cigarettes. The savings in law enforcement, courts, prison stays, etc. combined with the tax revenue . . .well, you can kiss the layoffs and property tax hikes good-bye! Not to mention, you’d take the criminal element out of it. Maybe they’d have to get a real job and start contributing in terms of payroll taxes — adding more money to the revenue party! Sounds like a win-win to me.
Ah . . . dare I dream.
Yeah, and while we are at it let’s add gambling to the mix. We can solve all of our problems with more vices.
I admit that you could benefit from a careful regulated pot market, but you can’t do it with your eyes closed to just to get money. It has to be done thoughtfully.
There are serious implications. How would marketing the nation’s pot capitol go in economic development? Would dope heads flock to Delaware and cost us more in welfare? Easy answers don’t exist except to create difficult questions.
The county has no jurisdiction on that issue anyway.
Wine is to a sommelier as marijuana is to a ??
‘Bulo might want to brush up his resume…
Thoughts to ‘bulo:
and this leaf here we think is of the finest grade. You can literally pulvurize it into a fine powder simply by rubbing between your index finger and thumb. This allows for better packing and slower burn, whether your preference is a bowl or papers. Speaking of papers, we can’t overlook such an imortant aspect. May I recommend a fine wrap made, simply enough, from fine hemp.
Not that I’d know anything about this.
David, you’re right that it would need to be on the Federal level. It’s not as easy as just saying it’s legal. There are a lot of questions that would need to be answered. That being said, I believe it is definitely something that Congress should start looking into. The revenue potential is well worth it.
Marijuana revenues aren’t a quick fix, either — and you’d have to stand up some kind of infrastructure to collect and audit those taxes.
I’m still for decriminalizing marijuana, but I really don’t think you will get fast revenues from this and you will have to spend money to collect the money.
Back to reality…. legalizing pot might be a good idea for social reasons, but not one that would produce significant revenue.
Because if you remove the legal risk, pot is cheap. It grows just about anywhere.
So to get a lot of revenue, you would need a massive tax on it. And then, you are back to the black market and crime. Instead of running from the narcs, the growers would be running from the revenooers, probably shooting at them too.
Are you kidding me? The black market would so not be needed. All of the stoners would be way too lazy to grow their own when they could walk down to the corner store and purchase a pack of joints! Americans purchase convenience! We are all about it.
Do all of us have vegetable gardens in our backyards? Couldn’t we just as easily grow tobacco? (I’m not sure — this is a serious question.)
Each county can, under Home Rule, do a reassessment. That’s been the problem. No one will up and do it on a regular basis, so the tax burden can be properly allotted. It has been easier and less politically risky for county government to suck from the teat of transfer revenue. Which is all good and fine when people are actually buying and selling property. So the longer you have inaction and can say with a straight face “We have not raised property taxes in a gaillion years” the harder it becomes politically to reassess. Just like our state budget has become moribund in terms of the diversity and stability of revenue streams, so have the counties.
The counties have all the power they need, they just have not used it. The legislature considered at one point forcing the counties to reassess, but then realized their political butts would then be on the line.
Sussex County in particular, missed a perfect opportunity to do what needed to be done. The three controlling votes that retired at the same time could have voted it in and left graciously to cat calls from the R’s, who would have damned the move, but would never have undone it after the election. Kent County’s Levy Court, while having, in my opinion, some of the more courageous political spirits in the state, will not do it, because it is a loser at the polls. At least they are in better shape than the other counties because reassessment was done more recently.
By the way, here is the Code section dealing with what happens after reassessment. Obviously it could be changed, but, for the most part it is good policy.
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title9/c080/index.shtml
It does allow for as much as a 15% increase in overall tax collection from the FY immedaitely prior to the adoption of the reassessment, but the rates must be rolled back to achieve equality in tax collection to that prior year, or so must be advertised as a tax increase.
Interesting, PO, thanks. So ( hamster and wheel in head spinning rapidly), might Coons be able to combine a reassessment with rolling back the proposed tax increase to 15%? That might give the Council members cover in that they could claim to have forced the rollback to 15% in exchange for a reassessment which will place a more equitable value on properties.
Granted, that leaves Coons short of the proposed 25%, but who’s to say that he really expects or hopes to get 25% from Council in any event?
‘Bulo agrees w/Smitty (maybe they should do ‘Ebony and Ivory’ at a karaoke night) that a reassessment should come first.
The Smitty is starting to wonder…does the ‘Bulo know him outside of blogging?
‘Bulo really doesn’t think so. Perhaps at some kind of get-together down the road…
Nosy: Growing tobacco isn’t hard, though it needs heavy fertilization. The hard part (well, time- and space-consuming, anyway) is curing it. Our Amish neighbors do it all over this region.
anon says:
“Coons has voiced his support for reassessment publicly and has received an estimate that it will cost the county roughly $8 million or so to do. Prob is, it needs to happen statewide, not just in NCC, so hopefully the gov can weigh in.”
A reval DOES NOT have to be done statewide. Revals are done by each county and Mr Coons can do one whenever he wants. He wants it done state wide and he wants the State to kick into the pot. If anything, the school districts should kick in…they’re the ones who benefit most from property taxes. And, school districts have their own budgets.
Did Coons mention taking the Paoli Bros. off the teat?
Have you seen Nello’s (sp) brand spanking new heavy equipment? Wonder how many county contracts he’s pulling?
I doubt any of Coons Goons will get the axe. If the Italian Stallions had to dump their respective paramours due to budget cuts Chrissy better get himself some knee pads……Goonies could turn and roll like that. 😉