Today, I was able to address the Maryland State Senate Committee about PlanMaryland and provided the following testimony:
"Good afternoon, I am Evan Slaughenhoupt, Calvert County Commissioner. I am pleased to give this testimony on behalf of all concerned citizens of Calvert County.
First, I thank the Maryland State Senate’s Committee on Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs for putting together this forum permitting testimony from local elected officials.
Calvert County, the smallest county in Maryland, is proud of its role over the years in land preservation where we have permanently preserved 30,000 acres of land while on a path towards 40,000 acres.
We have a successful Transferable Development Rights program that not only helps direct and focus commercial and residential development into our Town Centers, and preserves farm lands, but has served as a model for many other counties throughout America.
We have maintained much of the rural character of Calvert County by controlling residential growth and “promoting a higher quality of life for our citizens”.
In short, “we know what we are doing”, “we are doing this locally”, and unless specifically requested, “we do not need intrusion by the state as described in the current draft of PlanMaryland.” …and yes, we have read the plan several times, and we understand it clearly.
Our success to date, however, did not occur by planners staying in the confines of their cubicles in Prince Frederick. We collaboratively met with citizens, individually in some cases, with community associations and their representatives, and various citizen commissions as well as volunteer organizations.
Our success to date is because our citizens are involved in the development and implementation of our County Comprehensive Master Plan and Town Center Master Plans. We have done so without the need for greater insertion by the state into our activities as envisioned in the current draft of PlanMaryland.
Your involvement today should have the affect of placing on hold the current draft of PlanMaryland. More importantly, however, is how PlanMaryland moves forward as a result of your efforts today.
Calvert County contends that the Maryland Department of Planning be instructed to set aside the current plan. Instruct the department to follow a path that is collaborative rather than insular. Engage the County planning organizations which have intimate knowledge in the uniqueness of their county, identify commonality within the various comprehensive master plans and zoning ordinances. Expand the current AgPrint, GrowthPrint, and GreenPrint concepts in PlanMaryland, to include an EconPrint to demonstrate just how friendly the business atmosphere is in the State of Maryland.
Bottom line, build a new plan based upon commonality and collaboration. The future generations are counting upon us getting PlanMaryland correct. Let’s not permit the process to be short-sighted while having the state and local officials talking past each other. Instead, let us work together as that is what the citizens expect of us.
Thank-you."
Monday, December 12, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
PlanMaryland aka State Controls Locals
For your reading pleasure, please feel free to visit: http://plan.maryland.gov/ and then the following may make more sense:
Review of PlanMaryland Revised Draft Plan, September 2011
If you have not yet read the nearly 100 pages of the updated PlanMaryland Revised Draft Plan, September 2011, the following may be considered a set of Crib Notes (opinionated of course):
Overall, PlanMaryland is devoid of creating a Maryland that is business friendly. Indeed, the document provides much fodder to those who claim Maryland is anti-business. Worse, an overriding concept exists that takes away individual freedom for choosing where to live and work; and replaces that with a view that the state will decide (see Page 1 – 4), “conducive for people to be nearer to jobs.”
The introduction chapter makes about 10 claims that the state does not intend to take over local planning. William Shakespeare said it well, “Methinks thou dost protest too much.” The remaining 5 chapters then proceeds to lay out exactly how the state will dictate its takeover of local planning.
Chapter 2 is extremely long and dual purposed (Trends and Land Uses). Editorially, it should be two separate chapters.
The trends cited are the typical ones expected: Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Demographics, and Economic. The Land Use portion of the chapter addresses: Agriculture, Natural Resources, Water Quality, Greenhouse Gases and so-called Climate Change, Government and Private Fiscal Issues, and Lands Affected by Local & State Policies.
Land Use Trends Laying the background for this document is the Trends section of Chapter 2. Land use identifies the number of acreage developed (650 k Pre-1973), (1 M since 1973), (806 k projected for next 24 years). The projected rate for developed acres/year appears dubious considering the current prolonged state of the depressed U.S. economy.
Transportation Trends appears to present a bunch of facts which serve no real perspective other than “travel is bad as envisioned by the most extreme environmentalists”. The Central Planners of PlanMaryland should stop fighting this losing battle and simply accept that we are a “commuting society” in Maryland; and plan accordingly.
Housing Trends discusses the 3 waves of population migration within Maryland away from the urban (read very liberal policies & high crimes) to the rural areas. Also identified is the flight to Pennsylvania (but not mentioning the primary reason is caused by the tax burden Maryland places on retired seniors).
Clearly, these Central Planners view that they should decide where one lives and works; citizens should not have cars, but ride a bus or train (or walk to work). “A clear priority is more affordable, desirable housing near existing job centers & public transit.” (see Page 2 – 7) From the references to large homes, it is clear these planners do not like them as well. In my view, jealously (of those who can afford large homes) and centralized planning are poor foundations for a state-wide plan.
Demographic Trends essentially says that population is increasing, but the numbers per household are decreasing.
Economic Trends is very much where one could say, “Pardon, your slip is showing.” Under the title of Economic Trends, the Centralized Planners write about employment and workers. While having employment is an important component of the economy, it is not the economy.
Economy is the exchange of goods and services for something of comparable value. The more friendly a government is to foster that exchange (such as lower tax burdens and reduced regulations), the more freedom and wealth is generated.
The PlanMaryland as written is very much focused upon controlling employment businesses and opportunities and thereby harmful to free enterprise growth. The lack of an EconPrint (comparable to the included GreenPrint, AgPrint, and GrowthPrint give credence to those who rightfully claim Maryland is anti-business.
Following the trends portion of Chapter 2, the remainder, Land Uses begins laying the foundation as to how the state assumes and controls local zoning. Subsequent chapters build on that foundation.
Chapter 3 is essentially the listing of Vision, Goals and Objectives. However, critical to this chapter is the description of how the various measurements will be made to evaluate achieving those goals. These benchmarks (currently left unmeasured and identified as xx%) is where the state could use the hammer on the locals. Note the goals of achieving the goals of:
90% new dwelling units in Priority Funding Areas between last year and 2030
Retain xx% of the Green Infrastructure acres identified in the GreenPrint
Increase Tree Cover Statewide by xx% by 2030
Double transit ridership by 2020
Reduce Maryland’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 25% by 2020
Chapter 4 provides the Designated Places. Note some interesting phrasing such as “local governments may choose to nominate Place and Special Area Designations”. Clearly, this is a subordinate to supervisor relationship established between the State and Locals.
There are 5 designated categories:
Growth & Revitalization
Established Community Areas in Priority Funding Areas
Future Growth Areas
Low Density Development
Rural Resource Areas
Apparently, there are also five Special Area designations where the locals either apply to the Maryland Department of Planning, or nominate for approval:
Priority Preservation for Agriculture (apply )
Ecological (nominate)
Water Resources (nominate)
Historic and Cultural (nominate)
Areas subject to “Climate Change” (nominate)
Question for the Central Planners. Do you envision that we locals must place our various geographical areas under one of these mandated categories?
Lastly for this chapter (see Page 4-13), “A State-nominated Special Area that does not have local government support through its capital and non-capital plans, programs and procedures, may still warrant State Designation.”
Chapter 5 State Coordination and Implementation is where the state builds the institutions they need to force this effort upon the local governments. One organization is “Smart Growth SubCabinet”. Perhaps foretelling true intentions, later in Chapter 6 is the likely typo that refers to this organization as Smart Growth Cabinet (see Page 6 – 4).
This chapter identifies that Implementation Strategies will be developed (sort of that contract between what the state wants and what the locals must do). It identifies what is or is not covered. Note the phrase used, “active participation of local governments helping to follow through these strategies that come out of this process.” (see Page 5 – 9).
Chapter 6 is the Management and Tracking Progress section where simply stated, “Big Brother is Watching.” Identified within this chapter is the Maryland Sustainable Growth Commission that may or may not currently exist.
Review of PlanMaryland Revised Draft Plan, September 2011
If you have not yet read the nearly 100 pages of the updated PlanMaryland Revised Draft Plan, September 2011, the following may be considered a set of Crib Notes (opinionated of course):
Overall, PlanMaryland is devoid of creating a Maryland that is business friendly. Indeed, the document provides much fodder to those who claim Maryland is anti-business. Worse, an overriding concept exists that takes away individual freedom for choosing where to live and work; and replaces that with a view that the state will decide (see Page 1 – 4), “conducive for people to be nearer to jobs.”
The introduction chapter makes about 10 claims that the state does not intend to take over local planning. William Shakespeare said it well, “Methinks thou dost protest too much.” The remaining 5 chapters then proceeds to lay out exactly how the state will dictate its takeover of local planning.
Chapter 2 is extremely long and dual purposed (Trends and Land Uses). Editorially, it should be two separate chapters.
The trends cited are the typical ones expected: Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Demographics, and Economic. The Land Use portion of the chapter addresses: Agriculture, Natural Resources, Water Quality, Greenhouse Gases and so-called Climate Change, Government and Private Fiscal Issues, and Lands Affected by Local & State Policies.
Land Use Trends Laying the background for this document is the Trends section of Chapter 2. Land use identifies the number of acreage developed (650 k Pre-1973), (1 M since 1973), (806 k projected for next 24 years). The projected rate for developed acres/year appears dubious considering the current prolonged state of the depressed U.S. economy.
Transportation Trends appears to present a bunch of facts which serve no real perspective other than “travel is bad as envisioned by the most extreme environmentalists”. The Central Planners of PlanMaryland should stop fighting this losing battle and simply accept that we are a “commuting society” in Maryland; and plan accordingly.
Housing Trends discusses the 3 waves of population migration within Maryland away from the urban (read very liberal policies & high crimes) to the rural areas. Also identified is the flight to Pennsylvania (but not mentioning the primary reason is caused by the tax burden Maryland places on retired seniors).
Clearly, these Central Planners view that they should decide where one lives and works; citizens should not have cars, but ride a bus or train (or walk to work). “A clear priority is more affordable, desirable housing near existing job centers & public transit.” (see Page 2 – 7) From the references to large homes, it is clear these planners do not like them as well. In my view, jealously (of those who can afford large homes) and centralized planning are poor foundations for a state-wide plan.
Demographic Trends essentially says that population is increasing, but the numbers per household are decreasing.
Economic Trends is very much where one could say, “Pardon, your slip is showing.” Under the title of Economic Trends, the Centralized Planners write about employment and workers. While having employment is an important component of the economy, it is not the economy.
Economy is the exchange of goods and services for something of comparable value. The more friendly a government is to foster that exchange (such as lower tax burdens and reduced regulations), the more freedom and wealth is generated.
The PlanMaryland as written is very much focused upon controlling employment businesses and opportunities and thereby harmful to free enterprise growth. The lack of an EconPrint (comparable to the included GreenPrint, AgPrint, and GrowthPrint give credence to those who rightfully claim Maryland is anti-business.
Following the trends portion of Chapter 2, the remainder, Land Uses begins laying the foundation as to how the state assumes and controls local zoning. Subsequent chapters build on that foundation.
Chapter 3 is essentially the listing of Vision, Goals and Objectives. However, critical to this chapter is the description of how the various measurements will be made to evaluate achieving those goals. These benchmarks (currently left unmeasured and identified as xx%) is where the state could use the hammer on the locals. Note the goals of achieving the goals of:
90% new dwelling units in Priority Funding Areas between last year and 2030
Retain xx% of the Green Infrastructure acres identified in the GreenPrint
Increase Tree Cover Statewide by xx% by 2030
Double transit ridership by 2020
Reduce Maryland’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 25% by 2020
Chapter 4 provides the Designated Places. Note some interesting phrasing such as “local governments may choose to nominate Place and Special Area Designations”. Clearly, this is a subordinate to supervisor relationship established between the State and Locals.
There are 5 designated categories:
Growth & Revitalization
Established Community Areas in Priority Funding Areas
Future Growth Areas
Low Density Development
Rural Resource Areas
Apparently, there are also five Special Area designations where the locals either apply to the Maryland Department of Planning, or nominate for approval:
Priority Preservation for Agriculture (apply )
Ecological (nominate)
Water Resources (nominate)
Historic and Cultural (nominate)
Areas subject to “Climate Change” (nominate)
Question for the Central Planners. Do you envision that we locals must place our various geographical areas under one of these mandated categories?
Lastly for this chapter (see Page 4-13), “A State-nominated Special Area that does not have local government support through its capital and non-capital plans, programs and procedures, may still warrant State Designation.”
Chapter 5 State Coordination and Implementation is where the state builds the institutions they need to force this effort upon the local governments. One organization is “Smart Growth SubCabinet”. Perhaps foretelling true intentions, later in Chapter 6 is the likely typo that refers to this organization as Smart Growth Cabinet (see Page 6 – 4).
This chapter identifies that Implementation Strategies will be developed (sort of that contract between what the state wants and what the locals must do). It identifies what is or is not covered. Note the phrase used, “active participation of local governments helping to follow through these strategies that come out of this process.” (see Page 5 – 9).
Chapter 6 is the Management and Tracking Progress section where simply stated, “Big Brother is Watching.” Identified within this chapter is the Maryland Sustainable Growth Commission that may or may not currently exist.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Editorial and Response
The following editorial was published by The Calvert Recorder:
http://www.somdnews.com/article/20110824/OPINION/708249956/1084/basic-care-is-not-a-luxury&template=southernMaryland
The following was my response (also printed by The Calvert Recorder):
I appreciate the Calvert Recorder providing an editorial view (August 24, 2011) on the recent contract award that provides free medical services to prisoners detained at our local detention center. The cost to Calvert’s citizens is over half a million dollars.
Awarding this contract was done by a 4 to 1 vote. I was the Commissioner who expressed concerns about this prisoner benefit, and confirmed that concern by voting my conscience (against the contract).
This contract is consistent with the recently passed FY12 budget and typical as one of the many expenses we ask our citizens to fund. However, during the budget build process, this level of detail into the county budget is not readily observed by our citizens.
With the Calvert Recorder editorializing this subject, perhaps we may now begin a more detailed dialogue with the citizens regarding what should, or should not be provided, or otherwise modified through the county’s use of taxpayer dollars.
Should our citizens, many who are struggling to “make ends meet” during this prolonged depressed economy fund “free medical treatment” for prisoners?
Is it acceptable having a program in place knowing there is no mechanism that requires the prisoners to make a Co-payment, or otherwise reimburse the citizens for the “luxury” of having medical treatment provided for free?
The issue is not providing basic care. The real issue remains that prisoners receive medical treatment without any mechanism requiring them to pay even a portion of that treatment. So, my expressed view was more long-term and clearly not “short-sighted.” I welcome hearing the views of fellow citizens. Feel free to e-mail me at slaughek@co.cal.md.us
Evan K. Slaughenhoupt, Jr.
Calvert County Commissioner
http://www.somdnews.com/article/20110824/OPINION/708249956/1084/basic-care-is-not-a-luxury&template=southernMaryland
The following was my response (also printed by The Calvert Recorder):
I appreciate the Calvert Recorder providing an editorial view (August 24, 2011) on the recent contract award that provides free medical services to prisoners detained at our local detention center. The cost to Calvert’s citizens is over half a million dollars.
Awarding this contract was done by a 4 to 1 vote. I was the Commissioner who expressed concerns about this prisoner benefit, and confirmed that concern by voting my conscience (against the contract).
This contract is consistent with the recently passed FY12 budget and typical as one of the many expenses we ask our citizens to fund. However, during the budget build process, this level of detail into the county budget is not readily observed by our citizens.
With the Calvert Recorder editorializing this subject, perhaps we may now begin a more detailed dialogue with the citizens regarding what should, or should not be provided, or otherwise modified through the county’s use of taxpayer dollars.
Should our citizens, many who are struggling to “make ends meet” during this prolonged depressed economy fund “free medical treatment” for prisoners?
Is it acceptable having a program in place knowing there is no mechanism that requires the prisoners to make a Co-payment, or otherwise reimburse the citizens for the “luxury” of having medical treatment provided for free?
The issue is not providing basic care. The real issue remains that prisoners receive medical treatment without any mechanism requiring them to pay even a portion of that treatment. So, my expressed view was more long-term and clearly not “short-sighted.” I welcome hearing the views of fellow citizens. Feel free to e-mail me at slaughek@co.cal.md.us
Evan K. Slaughenhoupt, Jr.
Calvert County Commissioner
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Public Statement on Building Code/Sprinkler Systems
April 5, 2011
I have heard the arguments both for and against implementing Sprinkler systems into new single family home construction. I appreciate the discussions on phasing-in the implementation, and/or tailoring based upon community or individual water sources. Builders cited associated expenses being burdensome. Some citizens have cited the ordinance being simply another greater governmental intrusion into the privacy and property rights of individuals.
However, this section of the updated building code is about life and property. This topic is where we identify our priorities: we either support, or not the life & safety of our fire-fighters; support, or not the life and safety of residents; and support, or not quick extinguishing of fires to reduce property damage. These sprinkler systems save lives. They reduce property damage caused by fire or from excessive amounts of water needed if the fire spreads.
To those who construct homes, I have a brief story. In 2004, I moved into a newly constructed home which was the first one on my street. This was during the time when the sales agent told us each subsequent home was being sold with a minimum price increase of 1%.
Upon moving-in, a fire fighter friend of mine commented about how relieved he was to see that the floor joists were made of “solid” wood and not the cheaper manufactured floor joists. He said those manufactured joists were a nightmare during a fire when the glue quickly melts and the floor gives away.
As subsequent homes were being constructed on my street, I observed the introduction of those manufactured “cheaper” floor joists into those homes (whose prices were increasing). Did the builder increase their profits from using cheaper material and raising the price of the home? Yes.
Did the builder include or offer the sprinkler systems for those more expensive less fire-safe homes? No. Builders tell us they recommend having more time to incorporate the sprinklers into their home construction plans. I say no.
To suggest builders need time to gather cost and scheduling data is less than acceptable. These builders also build homes in other counties who already have a sprinkler ordinance. I say, tell them to gather those blueprints and use them here. Builders expressed concerns that implementing this ordinance would raise the price of new home construction. If they are so concerned, they could minimize that expense on the new homeowner by not doing a “mark-up” of those systems.
Lastly, to suggest using sprinklers only where there is public water is not supported by this commissioner. These sprinklers are needed in the very homes that are in most need – those which are rather remote and have only their private wells as the primary source of water.
To wait until 2013, I ask what will you say if the loss of one life occurs in a fire that could have otherwise be saved? I support Option 2 which calls for immediate implementation, but modified to except those who have already begun the permit application process.
I have heard the arguments both for and against implementing Sprinkler systems into new single family home construction. I appreciate the discussions on phasing-in the implementation, and/or tailoring based upon community or individual water sources. Builders cited associated expenses being burdensome. Some citizens have cited the ordinance being simply another greater governmental intrusion into the privacy and property rights of individuals.
However, this section of the updated building code is about life and property. This topic is where we identify our priorities: we either support, or not the life & safety of our fire-fighters; support, or not the life and safety of residents; and support, or not quick extinguishing of fires to reduce property damage. These sprinkler systems save lives. They reduce property damage caused by fire or from excessive amounts of water needed if the fire spreads.
To those who construct homes, I have a brief story. In 2004, I moved into a newly constructed home which was the first one on my street. This was during the time when the sales agent told us each subsequent home was being sold with a minimum price increase of 1%.
Upon moving-in, a fire fighter friend of mine commented about how relieved he was to see that the floor joists were made of “solid” wood and not the cheaper manufactured floor joists. He said those manufactured joists were a nightmare during a fire when the glue quickly melts and the floor gives away.
As subsequent homes were being constructed on my street, I observed the introduction of those manufactured “cheaper” floor joists into those homes (whose prices were increasing). Did the builder increase their profits from using cheaper material and raising the price of the home? Yes.
Did the builder include or offer the sprinkler systems for those more expensive less fire-safe homes? No. Builders tell us they recommend having more time to incorporate the sprinklers into their home construction plans. I say no.
To suggest builders need time to gather cost and scheduling data is less than acceptable. These builders also build homes in other counties who already have a sprinkler ordinance. I say, tell them to gather those blueprints and use them here. Builders expressed concerns that implementing this ordinance would raise the price of new home construction. If they are so concerned, they could minimize that expense on the new homeowner by not doing a “mark-up” of those systems.
Lastly, to suggest using sprinklers only where there is public water is not supported by this commissioner. These sprinklers are needed in the very homes that are in most need – those which are rather remote and have only their private wells as the primary source of water.
To wait until 2013, I ask what will you say if the loss of one life occurs in a fire that could have otherwise be saved? I support Option 2 which calls for immediate implementation, but modified to except those who have already begun the permit application process.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Just a Quick Update
March is nearly over causing me to think I need to update the Blog site with a quick update.
The Board of County Commissioners position continues to keep me busy and that is anticipated for the full four year term. You will never hear me say, "I'm bored."
We are in the midst of the Budget Build for FY-12 (which starts July 1, 2011). As such, besides getting the staff recommended budget, we are asking questions, taking ideas and concerns from fellow citizens and preparing for public presentation of the budget for later adoption.
We are also getting ready to make the yearly trip to New York City (I know, those who know me already know that big city is not my cup of tea). Anyway, the trip there will be to meet with the bond agencies who will determine the bond rating of Calvert County. It's like a credit rating and helpful for when we need to make large purchases like schools and firehouses.
We also have a couple of ordinances (fancy term for local laws) pertaining to updating the building code (which this year has the inclusion of sprinkler systems within new houses being a prominant item), a draft Noise Ordinance, and hopefully soon an updated Ethics Code for county employees.
Besides the above, we continue to address many of the issues that get presented to the board from either the staff of county government, or various citizens. We also continue touring various facilities within the county to learn as well as to maintain dialogue with various institutions. The many we've visited included Calvert Nuclear Plant, Dominion Liquid Natural Gas, Library, and various citizens groups such as Cheasapeake Ranch Estates (CRE). More are scheduled, so the quick pace will continue.
We also attend many functions throughout the public. At one time, I counted us receiving an average of about 20 - 30 invites a week.
We also are providing some guidance to the county staff regarding our expectations, so some internal work is underway there pertaining to improvements that are needed to better serve the citizens. Some of that activity will evolve over time with some being more obvious and some more subtle.
The Board of County Commissioners position continues to keep me busy and that is anticipated for the full four year term. You will never hear me say, "I'm bored."
We are in the midst of the Budget Build for FY-12 (which starts July 1, 2011). As such, besides getting the staff recommended budget, we are asking questions, taking ideas and concerns from fellow citizens and preparing for public presentation of the budget for later adoption.
We are also getting ready to make the yearly trip to New York City (I know, those who know me already know that big city is not my cup of tea). Anyway, the trip there will be to meet with the bond agencies who will determine the bond rating of Calvert County. It's like a credit rating and helpful for when we need to make large purchases like schools and firehouses.
We also have a couple of ordinances (fancy term for local laws) pertaining to updating the building code (which this year has the inclusion of sprinkler systems within new houses being a prominant item), a draft Noise Ordinance, and hopefully soon an updated Ethics Code for county employees.
Besides the above, we continue to address many of the issues that get presented to the board from either the staff of county government, or various citizens. We also continue touring various facilities within the county to learn as well as to maintain dialogue with various institutions. The many we've visited included Calvert Nuclear Plant, Dominion Liquid Natural Gas, Library, and various citizens groups such as Cheasapeake Ranch Estates (CRE). More are scheduled, so the quick pace will continue.
We also attend many functions throughout the public. At one time, I counted us receiving an average of about 20 - 30 invites a week.
We also are providing some guidance to the county staff regarding our expectations, so some internal work is underway there pertaining to improvements that are needed to better serve the citizens. Some of that activity will evolve over time with some being more obvious and some more subtle.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Catching One's Breath
I recently received a note from someone who promised during the campaign to "keep me on my toes". This reminder was welcomed as I instinctively knew I should be keeping individuals aware as to what I was doing now that I was elected and serving in office. I've been remissed not updating a newsletter that I was using. Frankly, we've been so busy, some things simply fell through the cracks.
I believe the most efficient means to update you is through this Blog site instead of the newsletters or the web site.
As a board, we've been primarily doing orientation which included 3 days on the eastern shore with an organization called Maryland Association of Counties MACo). Included in that effort is an educational credit program covering many topics that local officials face to include ethics, budget, local constraints (difference between state and local). Additionally, we've begun understanding the county government organizational structure (needed so we can work to identify the specific areas needing improvements; the improvements will take some time to implement).
Another aspect of MACo includes visiting Annapolis every Wednesday to understand and weigh-in on the various items under consideration by the state legislature. This is not a complaint, just an appreciation that time management is a challenge.
Besides the above, we've dealt with some topics such as the issue regarding spending money or not appropriately with the county-owned golf course (see another Blog entry that provides more details). We've begun to get into the nuts and bolts of the zoning ordinance which will be quite time consuming and will hopefully have much input from citizens.
We've begun meeting with the Board of Education (BOE) as education comprises about half of the county budget. This is important as we are now beginning to construct the planned budget for the next fiscal year (which begins 1 July).
We've also been attending a host of events as the Board of County Commissioners receive about 20 - 30 invites a week to attend various events and meet with various individuals and groups.
Having said the above, I have not forgotten to push for Ethics Reform (look to see that emerge before summer). We are also beginning to focus upon the various process management tools I spoke about during the campaign. One of the reasons for that is to begin an objective look at the county government structure and to make streamlined improvements there.
I will try to improve my status reports besides those that I present during our regularly scheduled televised board meetings on Tuesdays (also viewable online at:
http://ccg.mavenspire.net/.
Take care, Evan
I believe the most efficient means to update you is through this Blog site instead of the newsletters or the web site.
As a board, we've been primarily doing orientation which included 3 days on the eastern shore with an organization called Maryland Association of Counties MACo). Included in that effort is an educational credit program covering many topics that local officials face to include ethics, budget, local constraints (difference between state and local). Additionally, we've begun understanding the county government organizational structure (needed so we can work to identify the specific areas needing improvements; the improvements will take some time to implement).
Another aspect of MACo includes visiting Annapolis every Wednesday to understand and weigh-in on the various items under consideration by the state legislature. This is not a complaint, just an appreciation that time management is a challenge.
Besides the above, we've dealt with some topics such as the issue regarding spending money or not appropriately with the county-owned golf course (see another Blog entry that provides more details). We've begun to get into the nuts and bolts of the zoning ordinance which will be quite time consuming and will hopefully have much input from citizens.
We've begun meeting with the Board of Education (BOE) as education comprises about half of the county budget. This is important as we are now beginning to construct the planned budget for the next fiscal year (which begins 1 July).
We've also been attending a host of events as the Board of County Commissioners receive about 20 - 30 invites a week to attend various events and meet with various individuals and groups.
Having said the above, I have not forgotten to push for Ethics Reform (look to see that emerge before summer). We are also beginning to focus upon the various process management tools I spoke about during the campaign. One of the reasons for that is to begin an objective look at the county government structure and to make streamlined improvements there.
I will try to improve my status reports besides those that I present during our regularly scheduled televised board meetings on Tuesdays (also viewable online at:
http://ccg.mavenspire.net/.
Take care, Evan
Chesapeake Hills Golf Course
Read Into the Record, Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Thank-you General Services, Parks & Recreations, and management staff at Chesapeake Hills Golf Course for the continual improvements made over the past 18 months. The construction to address water run-off and stream flows; remodeling of the men’s and women’s restrooms, club-house roofing replacement, and club-room kitchen flooring among others all showed incremental enhancements.
Without going into why the county owns and runs a golf course, a decision was made a few years ago to purchase Chesapeake Hills instead of letting it be acquired for developing some 300 homes. Acquisition prevented increased residential density, construction of additional schools, and infrastructure that could have resulted in the county spending several additional 10’s of millions of dollars.
Given the county owns this as part of Parks and Recreations, it is fitting that due diligence is paid to ensure effective management and operation. Expenses associated with improvements are understandable.
A complete renovation of the club house, replacement of the maintenance & storage buildings, continued grooming of the fairways & greens, irrigation system, modifications to mitigate errant golf ball damage to neighboring homes; and appropriate fencing all comprise part of a long list of remaining necessary improvements.
I believe this board of county commissioners is about as informed on the condition of Chesapeake Hills as is possible. We’ve received several comments, insights and suggestions from golfers, neighboring residents, and other interested parties; and yes toured the entire course and buildings. We hear you.
We understand much work is ongoing as an effort to move forward, and in doing so demonstrating intent to make improvements. As we all know, forward movement sometimes increases and decreases in speed.
Had these several improvements not been made over the past 18 months, our discussion today might not be focused upon a proposed club house architectural plan. Rather, we might be discussing closure and disposition. Thank-you for the many projects and improvements made to date.
Today presents us with an opportunity to demonstrate who we are as a board. We are asked to support (or not) spending of budgeted funds to pay for an architectural plan which will yield details needed to renovate the existing club house into an overdue usable complex. Yet, the plan itself will not produce any improvements until additional funds are spent for actual construction. To support that construction, a $3 Million request for bonding authority is currently in front of the Maryland legislature. So, as with so many things, the bottom line is money and timing.
We are truly blessed to live in Calvert County for many reasons. To help keep Calvert the Charm of the Chesapeake, those of us in elected office need to find that balance among valid needs, wants & desires, and financial & environmental constraints. Among the strongest constraint for the moment is financial; most notably the uncertainty of what the political leaders in Annapolis will decide during their current legislative session.
While many claim our nation is slowly recovering from a prolonged economic down-turn, we remain close to danger if national and state governmental spending and taxing is not brought under control. Calvert County citizens can be proud knowing that at the local level, a conservative and responsible approach occurred for several years. I believe this board is determined to continue that philosophy.
As part of the ongoing budget build for the upcoming fiscal year, the governor of Maryland submitted his proposed budget. Without going into all the dollar figures, it appears the intent is one that offers increases by the state in various public education and retirement programs while decreasing the amount of aid to the counties. The impact to us is not yet fully known.
As citizens, we should all be concerned with ongoing activity in Annapolis. We are aware that the state has dedicated revenue streams to pay for certain programs. For example, the real estate transfer tax funds Program Open Space; the so-called flush tax supports the Bay Restoration Fund, which finances sewage system upgrades. This state then raids those funds to pay for general operations, such as education, health care, state police and other essential government functions.
State did not put those programs on hold while their funds were being raided. It simply took on more debt by issuing general obligation bonds and used the proceeds to preserve more land, continue building the Inter-County Connector, replace the Medevac helicopter fleet, and so on. Making capital expenditures that otherwise would have been paid for with cash results in the state effectively taking on debt to backfill its general fund.
It’s a question of faith. Is there anything offered to date that causes one to conclude political leaders in Annapolis desire to do anything other than a continual policy of tax & spend while passing along failed policies to the counties to solve?
Sadly, we hear political leaders in Annapolis bemoan that state employees are furloughed while Calvert County employees are not. Many claim that Calvert County is one of the richest counties in the nation presumably meaning it should be the entity that now funds all ills. The news recently reported that harm could come even to wealthy counties. Nassau County, New York where property taxes are the second highest in the nation has a long-prosperous government accustomed to high levels of services. It is having difficulty adapting to protracted lean times. “It’s the crisis of affluence,” said E. J. McMahon, director of the Manhattan Institute’s Empire Center for New York Policy. He cited “high spending, high taxes, intransigent unions, a pronounced taste for debt, and a sense that too many people in both parties have a stake in keeping it all that way.”
Given the political and financial environment this board faces, our actions today will send a message for several months. A yes vote may be interpreted as our county being rich enough for growth and enhancements. Indeed, while the economy is down, this may be exactly the right time to have an architectural plan created (as those looking for that work may offer a considerable discount). Doing such, however, may be perceived as us being in a position that is able to absorb financial cuts from the state while still providing a wide range of services.
There may be other interpretations to a yes vote; some positive and some negative. A no vote may be interpreted as a lack of support for the golf course and the improvements made to date. Others may view it as a clear-eyed assessment of financial & political realities. I submit that any no vote today should be considered a “not yet” vote.
This board understands the overall plan for Chesapeake Hills Golf Course is to become a self-sustaining enterprise. Are we to ensure that any tax dollars spent on this effort are solely a loan which would be returned to the county after the golf course becomes self-sustaining?
Should we measure this effort using Calvert Marine Museum as a benchmark? CMM draws tourists into Calvert County. The museum is a public, non-profit community museum, established in 1970 by local residents. It also raises money through membership, grants, donations, and special events which has allowed the museum to grow into an exceptional facility, providing history, education, and culture to all of Southern Maryland. Could the golf course become such an attraction?
Helping the golf course achieve its vision as a jewel in the Charm of the Chesapeake is a role the county government has performed. The real question therefore goes towards a matter of speed. How quickly should we make all the necessary improvements to achieve its full potential of being a self-sustaining enterprise?
Thank-you General Services, Parks & Recreations, and management staff at Chesapeake Hills Golf Course for the continual improvements made over the past 18 months. The construction to address water run-off and stream flows; remodeling of the men’s and women’s restrooms, club-house roofing replacement, and club-room kitchen flooring among others all showed incremental enhancements.
Without going into why the county owns and runs a golf course, a decision was made a few years ago to purchase Chesapeake Hills instead of letting it be acquired for developing some 300 homes. Acquisition prevented increased residential density, construction of additional schools, and infrastructure that could have resulted in the county spending several additional 10’s of millions of dollars.
Given the county owns this as part of Parks and Recreations, it is fitting that due diligence is paid to ensure effective management and operation. Expenses associated with improvements are understandable.
A complete renovation of the club house, replacement of the maintenance & storage buildings, continued grooming of the fairways & greens, irrigation system, modifications to mitigate errant golf ball damage to neighboring homes; and appropriate fencing all comprise part of a long list of remaining necessary improvements.
I believe this board of county commissioners is about as informed on the condition of Chesapeake Hills as is possible. We’ve received several comments, insights and suggestions from golfers, neighboring residents, and other interested parties; and yes toured the entire course and buildings. We hear you.
We understand much work is ongoing as an effort to move forward, and in doing so demonstrating intent to make improvements. As we all know, forward movement sometimes increases and decreases in speed.
Had these several improvements not been made over the past 18 months, our discussion today might not be focused upon a proposed club house architectural plan. Rather, we might be discussing closure and disposition. Thank-you for the many projects and improvements made to date.
Today presents us with an opportunity to demonstrate who we are as a board. We are asked to support (or not) spending of budgeted funds to pay for an architectural plan which will yield details needed to renovate the existing club house into an overdue usable complex. Yet, the plan itself will not produce any improvements until additional funds are spent for actual construction. To support that construction, a $3 Million request for bonding authority is currently in front of the Maryland legislature. So, as with so many things, the bottom line is money and timing.
We are truly blessed to live in Calvert County for many reasons. To help keep Calvert the Charm of the Chesapeake, those of us in elected office need to find that balance among valid needs, wants & desires, and financial & environmental constraints. Among the strongest constraint for the moment is financial; most notably the uncertainty of what the political leaders in Annapolis will decide during their current legislative session.
While many claim our nation is slowly recovering from a prolonged economic down-turn, we remain close to danger if national and state governmental spending and taxing is not brought under control. Calvert County citizens can be proud knowing that at the local level, a conservative and responsible approach occurred for several years. I believe this board is determined to continue that philosophy.
As part of the ongoing budget build for the upcoming fiscal year, the governor of Maryland submitted his proposed budget. Without going into all the dollar figures, it appears the intent is one that offers increases by the state in various public education and retirement programs while decreasing the amount of aid to the counties. The impact to us is not yet fully known.
As citizens, we should all be concerned with ongoing activity in Annapolis. We are aware that the state has dedicated revenue streams to pay for certain programs. For example, the real estate transfer tax funds Program Open Space; the so-called flush tax supports the Bay Restoration Fund, which finances sewage system upgrades. This state then raids those funds to pay for general operations, such as education, health care, state police and other essential government functions.
State did not put those programs on hold while their funds were being raided. It simply took on more debt by issuing general obligation bonds and used the proceeds to preserve more land, continue building the Inter-County Connector, replace the Medevac helicopter fleet, and so on. Making capital expenditures that otherwise would have been paid for with cash results in the state effectively taking on debt to backfill its general fund.
It’s a question of faith. Is there anything offered to date that causes one to conclude political leaders in Annapolis desire to do anything other than a continual policy of tax & spend while passing along failed policies to the counties to solve?
Sadly, we hear political leaders in Annapolis bemoan that state employees are furloughed while Calvert County employees are not. Many claim that Calvert County is one of the richest counties in the nation presumably meaning it should be the entity that now funds all ills. The news recently reported that harm could come even to wealthy counties. Nassau County, New York where property taxes are the second highest in the nation has a long-prosperous government accustomed to high levels of services. It is having difficulty adapting to protracted lean times. “It’s the crisis of affluence,” said E. J. McMahon, director of the Manhattan Institute’s Empire Center for New York Policy. He cited “high spending, high taxes, intransigent unions, a pronounced taste for debt, and a sense that too many people in both parties have a stake in keeping it all that way.”
Given the political and financial environment this board faces, our actions today will send a message for several months. A yes vote may be interpreted as our county being rich enough for growth and enhancements. Indeed, while the economy is down, this may be exactly the right time to have an architectural plan created (as those looking for that work may offer a considerable discount). Doing such, however, may be perceived as us being in a position that is able to absorb financial cuts from the state while still providing a wide range of services.
There may be other interpretations to a yes vote; some positive and some negative. A no vote may be interpreted as a lack of support for the golf course and the improvements made to date. Others may view it as a clear-eyed assessment of financial & political realities. I submit that any no vote today should be considered a “not yet” vote.
This board understands the overall plan for Chesapeake Hills Golf Course is to become a self-sustaining enterprise. Are we to ensure that any tax dollars spent on this effort are solely a loan which would be returned to the county after the golf course becomes self-sustaining?
Should we measure this effort using Calvert Marine Museum as a benchmark? CMM draws tourists into Calvert County. The museum is a public, non-profit community museum, established in 1970 by local residents. It also raises money through membership, grants, donations, and special events which has allowed the museum to grow into an exceptional facility, providing history, education, and culture to all of Southern Maryland. Could the golf course become such an attraction?
Helping the golf course achieve its vision as a jewel in the Charm of the Chesapeake is a role the county government has performed. The real question therefore goes towards a matter of speed. How quickly should we make all the necessary improvements to achieve its full potential of being a self-sustaining enterprise?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
