While the proposed budget for the new Stormwater District is better than the first proposed budget, it is far from acceptable. The new budget reflects expenditures of $902,865 for the first year. Based upon that, the district is asking that a fee rate be set at $3.91 per month for each residence in the county outside of the incorporated LaGrange and Pewee Valley areas. It is disturbing that this budget may pass due to the unjustified fear that has apparently been placed in some of the magistrates by Judge-Executive Murner and his continued desire to increase revenue at any cost.
A review of this budget reflects that $220,000 is included with no specific place or need to spend it. For example, there is $50,000 for grant matching just in case a grant might be offered that must be matched. Another $50,000 is in the fund for “emergency” expenditures even though the county has not experienced sufficient emergencies in the past to justify that. To my knowledge the county has had one environmental spill over the last several years that resulted in an expenditure of county funds. That expenditure did not nearly approach even twenty-five percent of that amount. Yet another $50,000 is in the budget to purchase land (private property) adjacent to streams so the county can control the vegetation along the streams. It should be noted that it cannot be found anywhere that either the Federal or State Government has asked them to do this. Quite simply, I can envision the county buying land from a developer that is not suitable for housing during the process of a subdivision approval. Then the county has to maintain the property and once again, the county should not be in the real estate business. Finally, then there is another $60,0000 for “unprogrammed compliance” included in this ridiculous budget. I have not heard a good explanation of that, likely because one does not exist. This makes a total of $220,000 for which there is no historical data to support the budgeting of this money. It is simply “fluff” that Judge-Executive Murner will try to further use to supplement his General Fund in creative ways.
The county engineer admitted that much of this money is intended to curry favors with state Division of Water. She referred to grant matching funds as “carrots” for the EPA. We should just be concerned with obeying the law – not toadying up to someone at the taxpayers’ expense. Judge-Executive Murner is also concerned with currying favors with the Division of Water to once again help his developer friends and supporters, who need the Department of Water to lift restrictions off of sewer treatment plants here in the county for more construction to be allowed. The same people who oversee Stormwater Management at the Division of Water also oversee sewer treatment, so using your money to “toady” up to them simply helps Judge-Executive Murner once again pay back the developers at your expense.
Next, we have the $364,000 that is included in the budget for satisfying requirements of the NPDES permit. Of that $92,000 is directly related to construction, specifically construction sites of more than one acre in total. All of this money should be collected from the developers –they should just be told that it is "Federally Mandated" as Judge-Executive Murner has told the other residents of the county. The budget even calls for the county taxpayers to pay for the cost of training the developers for compliance with the Stormwater provisions. This is inexcusable. When is Murner going to quit repaying the developers at the taxpayer’s expense? This is beginning to smell like Illinois.
These expenditures clearly reflect that $312,000 could be removed from this budget. That represents over 33% of the proposed budget. That would translate to a reduction in the proposed fee to a level under $2.75 per month. I am sure that this is not nearly all that could be cut from this budget and still allow enough to comply with the Division of Water and EPA requirements. As a matter of fact a review of this budget reflects that there is an allowance for 687 hrs to be charged to the county engineer’s office at a cost of $80 to $120 per hour. Using an average of $100 per hour this would mean that $68,700 would be used to pay expenses of the county engineer. Further, there is an allowance in the budget for one third of the county engineer’s salary. This amounts to even more general fund relief.
I heard Magistrate Diebel say that this budget is “bare bones.” I would hate too see what he considers a fat budget. It is clear that this is not a bare bones budget. Nor is the responsibility for the issue placed entirely where it should be.
This budget is nothing more than a ruse to put more money in the hands of the present administration to spend elsewhere. I believe that if this budget passes in its present form, it will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for voters – especially when they are informed of the “fluff.”
Judge-Executive Murner has done an excellent job of placing fear into the people regarding the possibility of severe fines that could be levied against the county if this budget were not passed. His efforts appear to have worked with many of the magistrates as I have also heard them express fear of the Division of Water. If fear bothers the magistrates so much, then they should be concerned about the upcoming elections because I will certainly insure that the voters are made aware of each vote that each one of them has cast to increase fees and taxes during this administration. For many of them, that list is becoming very, very long. My bet is that the magistrates have more to fear from the voters than they do Judge-Executive Murner or the Division of Water. I believe that the magistrates will be under more scrutiny in 2010 elections than at any time during the last thirty years.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
DO YOU WANT AN AIRPORT
Over the last two years, Magistrate Greenwell HAS VOTED FOR EVERY TAX AND FEE INCREASE brought before the Fiscal Court. These include increased property taxes, insurance premium taxes, stormwater fees, telephone taxes, sewer rate increases, garbage collection fees, etc. Is Magistrate Greenwell oblivious to the plight of taxpayers under these stressful economic conditions? The answer to that question seems painfully clear.
Magistrate Greenwell has consistently voted in agreement with Judge-Executive Murner on issues before the Fiscal Court. Is this a record of independent thinking or just a blind sheep following his shepherd? I’ll let you be the judge of that.
Magistrate Greenwell has also recently voted to create a Stormwater District Board and also supports new annual fees for every homeowner that will be collected by this board early in 2009. He fails to tell you that very few, if any, of the homeowners in his district are mandated by the Federal EPA for inclusion in this program. Regardless, he still wants every homeowner to pay this fee as another way to increase revenue and provide relief for the general fund to support additional spending.
Regarding the proposed Oldham County Airport, Magistrate Greenwell has TWICE had the opportunity to vote to stop consideration of this project during 2008. On both occasions, he voted in support of continuing work by the Airport Board - even after extremely stiff opposition to the first airport study by the public (and numerous constituents of his). Greenwell clearly continues to support the existence and work of the Airport Board. Just how many studies and how much input from his constituents does Greenwell need to make a decision? It is obvious that Judge-Executive Murner wants the airport, but DO YOU?
Magistrate Greenwell has consistently voted in agreement with Judge-Executive Murner on issues before the Fiscal Court. Is this a record of independent thinking or just a blind sheep following his shepherd? I’ll let you be the judge of that.
Magistrate Greenwell has also recently voted to create a Stormwater District Board and also supports new annual fees for every homeowner that will be collected by this board early in 2009. He fails to tell you that very few, if any, of the homeowners in his district are mandated by the Federal EPA for inclusion in this program. Regardless, he still wants every homeowner to pay this fee as another way to increase revenue and provide relief for the general fund to support additional spending.
Regarding the proposed Oldham County Airport, Magistrate Greenwell has TWICE had the opportunity to vote to stop consideration of this project during 2008. On both occasions, he voted in support of continuing work by the Airport Board - even after extremely stiff opposition to the first airport study by the public (and numerous constituents of his). Greenwell clearly continues to support the existence and work of the Airport Board. Just how many studies and how much input from his constituents does Greenwell need to make a decision? It is obvious that Judge-Executive Murner wants the airport, but DO YOU?
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
LAGRANGE MAYOR SUES CITY COUNCIL
LaGrange Mayor Elsie Carter has filed suit in Oldham Circuit Court in an attempt to settle disputes between her and the City Council. She filed the suit on December 4, 2008 and is represented by Oliver Barber, Attorney at Law. Word is that Jim Burd will represent the City Council. There will be a "special" meeting Wednesday night of the LaGrange City Council to discuss this matter.
It is interesting to note that the Mayor is not using Graham Whatley to represent her although he has supposedly been appointed by her to the position of City Attorney. However, the legality of that appointment is part of the lawsuit.
With all of the flap between the Mayor and the City Council there will surely be some discussion by interested parties regarding candidates to replace Mayor Carter. She has told me that she does intend to run again. Possible candidates who may try to unseat her might include Councilman Jason Taylor, Councilwoman Jean Knight and Kevin Woosley who will be serving on the Oldham County School Board.
Woosley ran against her the last time but was forced to drop out of the race due to a conflict of interest between his current job and running for Mayor. Councilwoman Jean Knight ran as a "write-in" candidate the last time and nearly unseated Mayor Carter. Jason Taylor is a young attorney who likely would be interested in seeking a higher position. He has certainly shown a willingness to take on the Mayor.
What I see happening is some of the possible candidates combining forces to bring about the demise of Mayor Carter's tenure in office. Of course there is a lot of time before the next election but you can bet that some people are already thinking about it. Some never stop thinking about it.
It is interesting to note that the Mayor is not using Graham Whatley to represent her although he has supposedly been appointed by her to the position of City Attorney. However, the legality of that appointment is part of the lawsuit.
With all of the flap between the Mayor and the City Council there will surely be some discussion by interested parties regarding candidates to replace Mayor Carter. She has told me that she does intend to run again. Possible candidates who may try to unseat her might include Councilman Jason Taylor, Councilwoman Jean Knight and Kevin Woosley who will be serving on the Oldham County School Board.
Woosley ran against her the last time but was forced to drop out of the race due to a conflict of interest between his current job and running for Mayor. Councilwoman Jean Knight ran as a "write-in" candidate the last time and nearly unseated Mayor Carter. Jason Taylor is a young attorney who likely would be interested in seeking a higher position. He has certainly shown a willingness to take on the Mayor.
What I see happening is some of the possible candidates combining forces to bring about the demise of Mayor Carter's tenure in office. Of course there is a lot of time before the next election but you can bet that some people are already thinking about it. Some never stop thinking about it.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
SPECULATION STARTS EARLY FOR 2010 COUNTY JUDGE RACE
The current county administration is essentially half over which means that people will soon begin to seriously consider running for various offices. Naturally the first office that comes to mind is that of the county judge as it is the focal point of local politics.
The next race promises to produce a crowded field at least for a short period of time. In fact many people may only enter the foray within their own minds. There have been several names mentioned as possibilities and some of those are probably mentioned only to observe the reactions of a few people.
Names I have heard include Jonathan Westbrook, David Voegele, Kevin Eldridge, Scott Davis, Doug Wampler, Stan Clark, and Paula Gish. Everyone is “assuming” that Judge Duane Murner will not run for a second term of office. Indeed, this would be a crowded field and should yield more than an ample amount of lawn ornaments (political yard signs) by election day. This list does not include any of those who might run as democrats or independents.
The obvious slight front-runner will be Kevin Eldridge, as he will likely be supported by Judge Murner and the developers who so heavily funded Murner’s campaign and now appear to control him. After all, Murner has been “grooming” him from day one through his appointment of chairman on the widely touted, though ineffective Vision Council and more recently of the Stormwater District. Previously he was the chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. To quote a term once stated to me by a current magistrate, “he has been anointed.” However, his term as chairman of the Planning and Zoning commission undoubtedly has left him with some baggage that he cannot discard as people are beginning to view the excessive development in the county as regressive. Also, the developers have not been doing anything to improve their image lately. On the other hand, they have demonstrated before that they are willing to put their money where their mouth is and we all know that money does talk.
As for Jonathan Westbrook, he probably lost any short-term chance of becoming county judge with his high visibility position as chairman of the Airport Board. His handling of the second public meeting was viewed by many people as abysmal. Also, at this point the idea of an airport has not been popular. So, I would scratch him from any list of prospects for any elective office in the near future.
Then, there is David Voegele. He is the current magistrate for the second district and is in his first term. The plus side for Magistrate Voegele is that he is willing to voice his opinion. However, many people just don’t agree with his opinion. The biggest problem with Voegele is that he sees himself as a person just learning for the first time. He has often made the excuse that this is his first time on the court and that he is “just learning”. I don’t see the people voting for a “trainee” for the county judge position. Finally, let us not forget that he did change from democrat to republican and many people believe that he did that for political purposes and it angers them. Oh well, wasn’t Kevin Eldridge a democrat not so long ago?
Doug Wampler currently works for Oldham Ahead which is a preservationist group. Without question, Wampler stays abreast of what is happening in Oldham County and the website which he maintains for Oldham Ahead is an excellent place to find many articles about current events in Oldham County. While tending to remain neutral on most issues, the site and presumably Wampler do place the blame for some of the county’s problems at the feet of developers. Could Wampler garner the money that is necessary to run for the office of Judge? He would certainly have the support of many members of Oldham Ahead. However, he has not held elective office before – at least not to my knowledge.
Scott Davis is currently the magistrate for the sixth district. In his short time in office he has been aggressive in attempting to represent what he believes to be the beliefs of his constituents and the other residents of Oldham County. In doing this he has obviously alienated other members of the court who have shown a tendency to go with the flow created by the county judge. His fiscal conservativeness and willingness to contain the growth of government seems to have been a novel idea with this administration. Certainly the present administration would not support him. On the other hand he appears to have an extremely loyal group of people who believe in what he is trying to do and would be united in supporting him. Additionally, he is confident and has an extremely high level of energy that could prove to be very valuable in a long campaign. It is almost certain that the electorate will be looking for a fiscal conservative if the economy continues in a downward spiral instead of someone looking to continue spending and then raising taxes. That would be an obvious plus for Davis.
Then there is the outstanding runner, Stan Clark. The problem is that his running experience has been as a “distance” runner. Running for a political office would certainly be a different experience for him. Clark is the county treasurer at the present time and as such, has an excellent grasp on the financial situation of the county. Without question he would be a formidable candidate just based on his inside position. However, running “for” office is very different from running “an” office. He may well be better suited for the office of Deputy Judge where he could run the day to day operations and would prove to be a very valuable asset for the county judge.
The last person on my list is Paula Gish who is the current deputy judge. In addition to her present position, Gish has also been a county magistrate having represented the first district. I have heard many rumors that Gish would be the next county judge. However, in order to be elected to that position she would need the support of the present judge. As I previously stated, I believe that he will throw his support to Kevin Eldridge whom he seems to have been grooming for the position. Without his support Gish would be left to fend for herself. It is doubtful that her successor, Steve Church, would support her as he owes his loyalty to Judge Murner for having nominated and supported him as her replacement. Additionally, it is unlikely that the developers would allow this to happen behind the scenes. Perhaps Judge Murner could sooth her hurt of being spurned by having Eldridge continue her in the position of deputy judge should he be elected. Oh, I forgot; I said that position would be a great fit for Stan Clark.
And now you have the first glimpse of the 2010 race for county judge as seen by this writer. In addition to the race for judge there will certainly be other hotly contested races in the county. There have already been rumors about the race for Property Valuation Administrator. But that topic and others will be left for another day.
The next race promises to produce a crowded field at least for a short period of time. In fact many people may only enter the foray within their own minds. There have been several names mentioned as possibilities and some of those are probably mentioned only to observe the reactions of a few people.
Names I have heard include Jonathan Westbrook, David Voegele, Kevin Eldridge, Scott Davis, Doug Wampler, Stan Clark, and Paula Gish. Everyone is “assuming” that Judge Duane Murner will not run for a second term of office. Indeed, this would be a crowded field and should yield more than an ample amount of lawn ornaments (political yard signs) by election day. This list does not include any of those who might run as democrats or independents.
The obvious slight front-runner will be Kevin Eldridge, as he will likely be supported by Judge Murner and the developers who so heavily funded Murner’s campaign and now appear to control him. After all, Murner has been “grooming” him from day one through his appointment of chairman on the widely touted, though ineffective Vision Council and more recently of the Stormwater District. Previously he was the chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission. To quote a term once stated to me by a current magistrate, “he has been anointed.” However, his term as chairman of the Planning and Zoning commission undoubtedly has left him with some baggage that he cannot discard as people are beginning to view the excessive development in the county as regressive. Also, the developers have not been doing anything to improve their image lately. On the other hand, they have demonstrated before that they are willing to put their money where their mouth is and we all know that money does talk.
As for Jonathan Westbrook, he probably lost any short-term chance of becoming county judge with his high visibility position as chairman of the Airport Board. His handling of the second public meeting was viewed by many people as abysmal. Also, at this point the idea of an airport has not been popular. So, I would scratch him from any list of prospects for any elective office in the near future.
Then, there is David Voegele. He is the current magistrate for the second district and is in his first term. The plus side for Magistrate Voegele is that he is willing to voice his opinion. However, many people just don’t agree with his opinion. The biggest problem with Voegele is that he sees himself as a person just learning for the first time. He has often made the excuse that this is his first time on the court and that he is “just learning”. I don’t see the people voting for a “trainee” for the county judge position. Finally, let us not forget that he did change from democrat to republican and many people believe that he did that for political purposes and it angers them. Oh well, wasn’t Kevin Eldridge a democrat not so long ago?
Doug Wampler currently works for Oldham Ahead which is a preservationist group. Without question, Wampler stays abreast of what is happening in Oldham County and the website which he maintains for Oldham Ahead is an excellent place to find many articles about current events in Oldham County. While tending to remain neutral on most issues, the site and presumably Wampler do place the blame for some of the county’s problems at the feet of developers. Could Wampler garner the money that is necessary to run for the office of Judge? He would certainly have the support of many members of Oldham Ahead. However, he has not held elective office before – at least not to my knowledge.
Scott Davis is currently the magistrate for the sixth district. In his short time in office he has been aggressive in attempting to represent what he believes to be the beliefs of his constituents and the other residents of Oldham County. In doing this he has obviously alienated other members of the court who have shown a tendency to go with the flow created by the county judge. His fiscal conservativeness and willingness to contain the growth of government seems to have been a novel idea with this administration. Certainly the present administration would not support him. On the other hand he appears to have an extremely loyal group of people who believe in what he is trying to do and would be united in supporting him. Additionally, he is confident and has an extremely high level of energy that could prove to be very valuable in a long campaign. It is almost certain that the electorate will be looking for a fiscal conservative if the economy continues in a downward spiral instead of someone looking to continue spending and then raising taxes. That would be an obvious plus for Davis.
Then there is the outstanding runner, Stan Clark. The problem is that his running experience has been as a “distance” runner. Running for a political office would certainly be a different experience for him. Clark is the county treasurer at the present time and as such, has an excellent grasp on the financial situation of the county. Without question he would be a formidable candidate just based on his inside position. However, running “for” office is very different from running “an” office. He may well be better suited for the office of Deputy Judge where he could run the day to day operations and would prove to be a very valuable asset for the county judge.
The last person on my list is Paula Gish who is the current deputy judge. In addition to her present position, Gish has also been a county magistrate having represented the first district. I have heard many rumors that Gish would be the next county judge. However, in order to be elected to that position she would need the support of the present judge. As I previously stated, I believe that he will throw his support to Kevin Eldridge whom he seems to have been grooming for the position. Without his support Gish would be left to fend for herself. It is doubtful that her successor, Steve Church, would support her as he owes his loyalty to Judge Murner for having nominated and supported him as her replacement. Additionally, it is unlikely that the developers would allow this to happen behind the scenes. Perhaps Judge Murner could sooth her hurt of being spurned by having Eldridge continue her in the position of deputy judge should he be elected. Oh, I forgot; I said that position would be a great fit for Stan Clark.
And now you have the first glimpse of the 2010 race for county judge as seen by this writer. In addition to the race for judge there will certainly be other hotly contested races in the county. There have already been rumors about the race for Property Valuation Administrator. But that topic and others will be left for another day.
Friday, November 21, 2008
SHOULD REMOVAL OF THE BUCKNER MALL BE A PRIORITY?
Magistrate David Voegele wants "someone" to come up with several thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to remove the buildings in Buckner which have become known as "The Buckner Mall." Obviously, he has little concern for the many problems that many other people in the county have. For example the residents of Lakewood Valley have some severe flooding problems and according to the Judge Executive the sewers have many problems. Still, both Judge Murner and Magistrate Voegele continue to seek taxpayer money to remove buildings which are not hurting anyone instead of putting the money where it is needed for real problems. The buildings do not pose a threat to anyone. The flooding and sewer problems do present a threat to the well being of many people.
Magistrate Voegele promised to remove the buildings when he was campaigning for office while also complaining about the county coffers having been depleted by the prior administration. How do you claim that the county is broke while promising to spend more money on a frivilous idea like demolishing five buildings and putting the occupants out of business? Easy, just be concerned about your own "desires" rather than the "needs" of others.
Magistrate Voegele promised to remove the buildings when he was campaigning for office while also complaining about the county coffers having been depleted by the prior administration. How do you claim that the county is broke while promising to spend more money on a frivilous idea like demolishing five buildings and putting the occupants out of business? Easy, just be concerned about your own "desires" rather than the "needs" of others.
TIME TO TURN THE CORNER WITH EDEN PARK
Now that Judge Duane Murner has announced that the latest deal with the Hocker Group has fallen through, perhaps the Oldham County fiscal Court should consider another name change for Eden Park/Oldham Reserve. One name to consider would be "Safari Land" since that is where the white elephant and the deer are located. Eden Park has certainly turned into a white elephant. Neither the county nor the City of LaGrange can afford it. I have been saying this for a long time but few people would listen.
The governing bodies of this county need to realize that Oldham County is a bedroom community where people want to live in a serene setting and educate their children. They did not move to Oldham County looking for jobs and for the most part they are not interested in turning Oldham County into the industrial center of Kentucky.
The current county administration inherited Eden Park from the prior administration which was made up of several members (5) of the present fiscal court. Thus, the current administration cannot place all the blame for this fiasco on the prior administration. However, the fact is that they do have a white elephant on their hands. The other fact is that they must do something to alleviate the problem that Eden Park presents. Simply pushing the problem to the next administration is not the best solution. Sooner or later the county has to pay the bill. Putting the issue off to the next administration has already cost the taxpayers a lot of additional money in interest.
The county and the City of LaGrange should consider cutting their losses and moving on. This should have been done before the current economic downturn but pride was allowed to get in the way of good judgement. To continue down the current path is akin to pushing rope and that is tough to do. Perhaps the land can be sold some day for more than the purchase price. However, how much suffering must be borne by the taxpayers to get to that point? Will the end justify the suffering?
It is time to do something with the land besides using it for deer hunting. I hope that the county does not get the idea that they could charge significant fees for deer hunting and then claim that an airport is needed to provide a means for the people to come to the county to hunt. Surely, they wouldn't do that.
The governing bodies of this county need to realize that Oldham County is a bedroom community where people want to live in a serene setting and educate their children. They did not move to Oldham County looking for jobs and for the most part they are not interested in turning Oldham County into the industrial center of Kentucky.
The current county administration inherited Eden Park from the prior administration which was made up of several members (5) of the present fiscal court. Thus, the current administration cannot place all the blame for this fiasco on the prior administration. However, the fact is that they do have a white elephant on their hands. The other fact is that they must do something to alleviate the problem that Eden Park presents. Simply pushing the problem to the next administration is not the best solution. Sooner or later the county has to pay the bill. Putting the issue off to the next administration has already cost the taxpayers a lot of additional money in interest.
The county and the City of LaGrange should consider cutting their losses and moving on. This should have been done before the current economic downturn but pride was allowed to get in the way of good judgement. To continue down the current path is akin to pushing rope and that is tough to do. Perhaps the land can be sold some day for more than the purchase price. However, how much suffering must be borne by the taxpayers to get to that point? Will the end justify the suffering?
It is time to do something with the land besides using it for deer hunting. I hope that the county does not get the idea that they could charge significant fees for deer hunting and then claim that an airport is needed to provide a means for the people to come to the county to hunt. Surely, they wouldn't do that.
Monday, November 3, 2008
DOES LAGRANGE CITY COUNCIL HAVE A COUNSEL?
On Monday evening a discussion over the city attorney position erupted into a shouting match and ended with five members of the LaGrange City Council walking out, thereby leaving Mayor Elsie Carter without a quorum.
At the September 2008 meeting of the City Council Graham Whatley was appointed city attorney by Mayor Carter. The approval of the appointment by the City Council was conditioned with the caveat that Whatley withdraw from a lawsuit involving Property Valuation Administrator Ron Winters and one of his former employees. At the October 2008 meeting the City Council voted to rescind the appointment because Whatley had not been allowed to withdraw from the lawsuit.
Subsequent to the October meeting Mayor Carter had Whatley handling city business. I received a letter from Whatley in which he stated that he was the appointed city attorney. At tonight's meeting Mayor Carter alleged that the action taken by the council to rescind Whatley's appointment was invalid; therefore, she had sworn him in as the city attorney today. Council member Jason Taylor tried to speak but Mayor Carter refused to allow him to speak and stated that he was out of order. When Taylor continued to try to speak Mayor Carter ordered a city policeman to remove him from the room. Taylor stated that he would leave without being escorted. As he left four other members left with him. As councilwoman Lucy Ricletts was absent that left only two council members and the Mayor. The meeting was then adjourned by the Mayor without a motion. Mayor Carter was seen being escorted from the building by a LaGrange city police sargeant.
Whether the City of LaGrange has a city attorney or not will likely be decided in court. It is very doubtful that the issue has been resolved by Mayor Carter's supposed appointment.
Is this the "redneck" method of handling your opposition, i.e. have them escorted out of the meeting? Or, is this the new method of assuring that all of those present vote with you?
Mayor Carter surely needs an attorney but it must be an attorney who satisfies the majority of the council. If this were the County Judge Murner wanting a particular person for a position there would be no problem as the members of the court have always approved whatever the judge asks for with very little questioning. Seems like the LaGrange City Council has more mettle than does the Oldham County Fiscal Court. I would urge the Magistrates to exercise a little more control over the County Judge Murner. Although he would be very upset if they did not give him what he wants, I don't believe that he would try to have one of them removed. If he were to do that, I suspect that he would find himself in another kind of court.
Oh well, this is just wishful thinking on my part - this Fiscal Court would never demonstrate any hint of independence - that just might appear to be "redneck" even though it might also be effective.
At the September 2008 meeting of the City Council Graham Whatley was appointed city attorney by Mayor Carter. The approval of the appointment by the City Council was conditioned with the caveat that Whatley withdraw from a lawsuit involving Property Valuation Administrator Ron Winters and one of his former employees. At the October 2008 meeting the City Council voted to rescind the appointment because Whatley had not been allowed to withdraw from the lawsuit.
Subsequent to the October meeting Mayor Carter had Whatley handling city business. I received a letter from Whatley in which he stated that he was the appointed city attorney. At tonight's meeting Mayor Carter alleged that the action taken by the council to rescind Whatley's appointment was invalid; therefore, she had sworn him in as the city attorney today. Council member Jason Taylor tried to speak but Mayor Carter refused to allow him to speak and stated that he was out of order. When Taylor continued to try to speak Mayor Carter ordered a city policeman to remove him from the room. Taylor stated that he would leave without being escorted. As he left four other members left with him. As councilwoman Lucy Ricletts was absent that left only two council members and the Mayor. The meeting was then adjourned by the Mayor without a motion. Mayor Carter was seen being escorted from the building by a LaGrange city police sargeant.
Whether the City of LaGrange has a city attorney or not will likely be decided in court. It is very doubtful that the issue has been resolved by Mayor Carter's supposed appointment.
Is this the "redneck" method of handling your opposition, i.e. have them escorted out of the meeting? Or, is this the new method of assuring that all of those present vote with you?
Mayor Carter surely needs an attorney but it must be an attorney who satisfies the majority of the council. If this were the County Judge Murner wanting a particular person for a position there would be no problem as the members of the court have always approved whatever the judge asks for with very little questioning. Seems like the LaGrange City Council has more mettle than does the Oldham County Fiscal Court. I would urge the Magistrates to exercise a little more control over the County Judge Murner. Although he would be very upset if they did not give him what he wants, I don't believe that he would try to have one of them removed. If he were to do that, I suspect that he would find himself in another kind of court.
Oh well, this is just wishful thinking on my part - this Fiscal Court would never demonstrate any hint of independence - that just might appear to be "redneck" even though it might also be effective.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
MAGISTRATE RASH DECOMPOSED BY FLYER
By; Dewey R. Wotring
At the close of the Oldham County Fiscal Court meeting yesterday Magistrate Rick Rash took time to express his anger at the Oldham County Wachdog for having distributed a flyer to his constituents. He made several allegations that the content of the flyer was untrue but mostly he verified the content of the flyer. For example, the flyer alleged that he and Judge Murner had taken money from developers. While he did not speak for Murner,he did admit that he had taken money from developer Bill Hinton. Duh Rick, isn't that what I said in the flyer?
Rash also insinuated that my statement about the possibility of sewer rates going up by as much as 60% were false as he stated that he did not know where I got that information. Well, he was one of the people who told me that. If Rick wants further evidence, he need look no further than the article appearing in today's neighborhood section of the Courier Journal. Oldham County treasurer Stan Clark is quoted as saying that the initial increase could be 25% with substantial raises for several years although they hope to keep the annual raise below 10%. Yes, there it is!
Mr. Rash also stated in his remarks that Crestwood had pulled out of the district. His exact words were, "especially since Crestwood has pulled out of the district." The fact is that Crestwood has not pulled out of the district as of this date. I was told yesterday, by a Crestwood commissioner that Crestwood has not yet pulled out of the district and the Courier Journal news story reflected that Crestwood is still in the district.
Magistrate Rash is just a little edgy over anything he perceives as negative about him even though he frequently makes unnecessary crude remarks and gestures about people appearing before the court. You see, Rash was barely elected the last time that he ran for office. As few as nine or ten votes could cost Rash his job, retirement, insurance and other perks!
Magistrate Rash seems to me as though he is a believer for deals in smoke filled back rooms and the old "mushroom" theory - that being, keep them in the dark and feed them "BS." I just don't believe in that. I believe in open government.
The only reason that information is beginning to come out about the sewer system now is that Magistrate Scott Davis has filed a lawsuit over a closed meeting that was held by the fiscal court.
The process by which Veolia water company was chosen to be the private vendor has not been divulged but should be. Considering some of the maneuvers that I have seen Judge Murner do concerning the secret donor, I would certainly have to question the legal advice he has been following.
Magistrate Rash needs to quit trying to be the "whip" of the Oldham Fiscal Court since it has no such position. He may envision himself as such but his small time politics are really not impressive to anyone that I know of.
At the close of the Oldham County Fiscal Court meeting yesterday Magistrate Rick Rash took time to express his anger at the Oldham County Wachdog for having distributed a flyer to his constituents. He made several allegations that the content of the flyer was untrue but mostly he verified the content of the flyer. For example, the flyer alleged that he and Judge Murner had taken money from developers. While he did not speak for Murner,he did admit that he had taken money from developer Bill Hinton. Duh Rick, isn't that what I said in the flyer?
Rash also insinuated that my statement about the possibility of sewer rates going up by as much as 60% were false as he stated that he did not know where I got that information. Well, he was one of the people who told me that. If Rick wants further evidence, he need look no further than the article appearing in today's neighborhood section of the Courier Journal. Oldham County treasurer Stan Clark is quoted as saying that the initial increase could be 25% with substantial raises for several years although they hope to keep the annual raise below 10%. Yes, there it is!
Mr. Rash also stated in his remarks that Crestwood had pulled out of the district. His exact words were, "especially since Crestwood has pulled out of the district." The fact is that Crestwood has not pulled out of the district as of this date. I was told yesterday, by a Crestwood commissioner that Crestwood has not yet pulled out of the district and the Courier Journal news story reflected that Crestwood is still in the district.
Magistrate Rash is just a little edgy over anything he perceives as negative about him even though he frequently makes unnecessary crude remarks and gestures about people appearing before the court. You see, Rash was barely elected the last time that he ran for office. As few as nine or ten votes could cost Rash his job, retirement, insurance and other perks!
Magistrate Rash seems to me as though he is a believer for deals in smoke filled back rooms and the old "mushroom" theory - that being, keep them in the dark and feed them "BS." I just don't believe in that. I believe in open government.
The only reason that information is beginning to come out about the sewer system now is that Magistrate Scott Davis has filed a lawsuit over a closed meeting that was held by the fiscal court.
The process by which Veolia water company was chosen to be the private vendor has not been divulged but should be. Considering some of the maneuvers that I have seen Judge Murner do concerning the secret donor, I would certainly have to question the legal advice he has been following.
Magistrate Rash needs to quit trying to be the "whip" of the Oldham Fiscal Court since it has no such position. He may envision himself as such but his small time politics are really not impressive to anyone that I know of.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST JUDGE MURNER BY MAGISTRATE SCOTT DAVIS
By: Dewey R. Wotring
On October 16, 2008 a lawsuit was filed in Oldham Circuit Court by Magistrate Scott Davis. The suit covers two issues. The first is a closed session that was held by the Fiscal Court on September 16, 2008 and the second issues concerns other the anonymous (secret) donor to the Oldham County Fiscal Court.
Davis alleges that the Fiscal Court went into closed session for one purpose, that being personnel, but instead discussed other issues which were not related to personnel.
In the second issue Davis filed for the name of the secret donor of $100,000 with County Judge Duane Murner. In his open records request, Davis asked that he be furnished the name of the donor and other documents related to the donation such as the cancelled check and the deposit ticket. In support of his request for the donor, Davis cited a recent Kentucky Supreme Court decision regarding open records. In his response to Davis, Judge Murner stated that the decision was not final and therefore could not be cited.
The question as to whether the closed session was legal or illegal is likely to raise some interesting arguments from both sides. However, the issue regarding the anonymous donor should result in a "slam dunk" in favor of Magistrate Scott Davis. The request for the name was filed by Davis on September 22, 2008. In that request, Davis cited the case of Cape Publications Inc. D/B/A The Courier Journal V. University of Louisville Foundation, Inc. On September 24, 2008 Murner denied Magistrate Scott Davis' request. In the denial, Murner stated that the decision cited by Davis was not final and that he should be aware of that. The fact is that the decision WAS final and Murner should have been aware of that. A search at http://apps.kycourts.net/supreme/sc_opinions.shtm will reflect that the case was rendered on August 21, 2008 and was stamped in block letters as being final on September 11, 2008 - twelve days before Davis filed his request on September 23, 2008.
Murner's statement leads to one of two conclusions. First, he relied on his own ability to review the decision and he lacked the ability to properly research the decision or, second, he relied on an attorney who was inept. Regardless, either situation does not bode well for the residents of Oldham County. When Judge Murner was running his campaign, he constantly reminded people that he was a Harvard graduate as though a degree from Harvard made him superior to someone holding a degree from any other university. Believe me, there are a lot of graduates of many lesser schools who could have discovered that the decision was final.
On two previous occasions it has been determined that Murner participated in illegal closed sessions of the Fiscal Court. In fact, he was the driving force behind the meetings. Now, he wants to deny the public access to public records which are clearly covered by the Open Records Act and are records the Supreme Court of Kentucky has determined must be released. Murner continues to cloth himself and his actions in secrecy. What has got to hide? We might be shocked.
As I have previously stated on this site, if one dime of taxpayer money is spent to fight the release of the name of the donor, the public should demand Murner's resignation. By continuing to deny the request for the name of the donor, Murner continues to demonstrate his lack of respect for the law. In my opinion a person who has no respect for the law cannot be trusted.
On October 16, 2008 a lawsuit was filed in Oldham Circuit Court by Magistrate Scott Davis. The suit covers two issues. The first is a closed session that was held by the Fiscal Court on September 16, 2008 and the second issues concerns other the anonymous (secret) donor to the Oldham County Fiscal Court.
Davis alleges that the Fiscal Court went into closed session for one purpose, that being personnel, but instead discussed other issues which were not related to personnel.
In the second issue Davis filed for the name of the secret donor of $100,000 with County Judge Duane Murner. In his open records request, Davis asked that he be furnished the name of the donor and other documents related to the donation such as the cancelled check and the deposit ticket. In support of his request for the donor, Davis cited a recent Kentucky Supreme Court decision regarding open records. In his response to Davis, Judge Murner stated that the decision was not final and therefore could not be cited.
The question as to whether the closed session was legal or illegal is likely to raise some interesting arguments from both sides. However, the issue regarding the anonymous donor should result in a "slam dunk" in favor of Magistrate Scott Davis. The request for the name was filed by Davis on September 22, 2008. In that request, Davis cited the case of Cape Publications Inc. D/B/A The Courier Journal V. University of Louisville Foundation, Inc. On September 24, 2008 Murner denied Magistrate Scott Davis' request. In the denial, Murner stated that the decision cited by Davis was not final and that he should be aware of that. The fact is that the decision WAS final and Murner should have been aware of that. A search at http://apps.kycourts.net/supreme/sc_opinions.shtm will reflect that the case was rendered on August 21, 2008 and was stamped in block letters as being final on September 11, 2008 - twelve days before Davis filed his request on September 23, 2008.
Murner's statement leads to one of two conclusions. First, he relied on his own ability to review the decision and he lacked the ability to properly research the decision or, second, he relied on an attorney who was inept. Regardless, either situation does not bode well for the residents of Oldham County. When Judge Murner was running his campaign, he constantly reminded people that he was a Harvard graduate as though a degree from Harvard made him superior to someone holding a degree from any other university. Believe me, there are a lot of graduates of many lesser schools who could have discovered that the decision was final.
On two previous occasions it has been determined that Murner participated in illegal closed sessions of the Fiscal Court. In fact, he was the driving force behind the meetings. Now, he wants to deny the public access to public records which are clearly covered by the Open Records Act and are records the Supreme Court of Kentucky has determined must be released. Murner continues to cloth himself and his actions in secrecy. What has got to hide? We might be shocked.
As I have previously stated on this site, if one dime of taxpayer money is spent to fight the release of the name of the donor, the public should demand Murner's resignation. By continuing to deny the request for the name of the donor, Murner continues to demonstrate his lack of respect for the law. In my opinion a person who has no respect for the law cannot be trusted.
OLDHAM COUNTY SEWER DISTRICT DELAYS DECISION
Change certainly appears to be on the horizon for people who are customers of the Oldham County Sewer District (OCSD). The OCSD was allegedly formed under KRS 220 for the purpose of having uniform sewage service for the residents of Oldham County. At the time of its formation, the district took control and purchased several small sewage treatment plants. Additionally, also existing in the county was the LaGrange Utilities Commission (LUC) which provides sewage service for the residents of LaGrange. Subsequently, the city of Crestwood put in a sewage system and was tied to the Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) out of Louisville. Later, Crestwood decided to join forces with the OCSD and a Joint Sewer Agency was formed under KRS 76 which makes up the OCSD as it is known today, where the LUC continues to operate as a separate entity. The board of directors of the OCSD is currently appointed from a two-fold approach. First, the County Judge-Executive, with the approval of the Fiscal Court appoints three members. Secondly, the City of Crestwood appoints two members. It should also be noted that the OCSD Board is separate from the Fiscal Court and operates independently of the court with one big exception, that being the fact that OCSD must receive approval from the Fiscal Court for rate increases.
Within the last few months it has been determined that the OCSD was in a financial crisis. Allegedly, the OCSD has requested rate increases that have been denied by the Fiscal Court in order to offset their deficit. In any event, the County Judge and the Fiscal Court gave the OCSD a few months to reduce their expenditures with the ultimatum that if the expenditures were not reduced, the court would take some action. The OCSD failed to meet that ultimatum.
However, prior to the OCSD's failure, work was already being done behind the scenes to find a new operator to manage the sewage system in Oldham County. The city of LaGrange offered to operate the OCSD and guaranteed the county that it could operate the OCSD for several hundred thousand dollars less than current expenses. Their fee was to be $400,000 annually. However, that proposal was never presented or allowed to be considered by the to the Fiscal Court by Judge Murner.
At some point in time, Judge Duane Murner took it upon himself to decide that the sewer district would be turned over to a private sector operator. Please keep in mind that he has NO authority to enter into a contract with anybody as that authority lies with the OCSD Board. On one occasion, Murner stated in open court that he was considering two different providers. However, he apparently decided on one private company of HIS choice to run the OSCD. How he selected the provider is unknown. From discussion that was held at the meeting of the OCSD Board on October 14, 2008, it appeared that the proposed contract was not put out for bid. In other words this was/is another one of Judge Murner's autocratic decisions even though the authority to enter into a contract lies with the OCSD Board.
The OCSD held a public meeting to discuss the proposed contract with the private operator. I was in attendance at the meeting and I left with the impression that Murner was attempting to force the OCSD Board to accept his decree that a private company operate the sewer district. Murner's representative, Stan Clark, was in attendance at the meeting and wanted the OCSD to reach a decision on the contract even though he admitted that all of the details of the contract had not been worked out. The OCSD Board would not make a decision on the matter nor would they make a decision on any recommendation for a rate increase for OCSD customers.
There are many unanswered questions at the present time. The city of Crestwood is considering whether to withdraw from the OCSD or remain. That decision will likely affect any rate increase and the amount that the private vendor receives.
Also of interest is the fact that when Murner started his behind the scenes chicanery, he appointed his County CFO Shawn Boyle, to the OCSD Board. To me, that is an apparent "conflict of interest" although I am sure that Murner would argue that it isn't.
There are some certainties in the whole situation. First, no contract can be approved by the Fiscal Court with a private entity as long as there is a OCSD in existence. That authority rests solely with the OCSD Board. Therefore, if they choose, they can tell Murner to mind his own business. Second, the sewer district cannot get any rate increases to help them with their financial crisis without the approval of the Fiscal Court. Without financial help, the sewer district could default on its loans in which case the banks would take over the assets of the district. If that were to happen the banks would likely hire someone to run the district or sell the assets at auction. Also, the members of the sewer district board of directors could just resign in which case new members would have to appointed. Finally, the Fiscal Court could decide to dissolve the sewer district. However, this could very well result in a lawsuit by the sewer district to prevent the Fiscal Court from doing that.
I have heard that rate increases for the customers of OCSD could range anywhere from 25% to 60%. It has not been disclosed to the public why the large variance in rates is possible. As a matter of fact, there has been a cloud of secrecy around this entire matter on the part of Judge Murner. One has to wonder what his motives are but I would look to the developers, especially those who strongly back Murner’s efforts to create additional sewer capacity for new development in the Crestwood area, being involved in some fashion.
Appearing at the OCSD meeting yesterday (10/14/08) was Tom Davis, former chairman of the OCSD. Some excerpts from his public comment to the board of directors appear below. Although they are lengthy they are worthy of reading.
"As to the relationship with Fiscal Court and how decisions are made, it is known that the following events have taken place as a part of the bail out effort.
- County representatives contacted the OCSD's lending agency and renegotiated their loan arrangements without the involvement or knowledge of the district.
- County representatives conducted a meeting with the DOW to discuss issues in the OCSD without the participation of the sewer agency.
- A backdoor effort was made in an attempt to get the Kentucky Attorney General to render an opinion that the JSA created by the merger of the CSS and the OCSD was an illegal act. I don't believe this effort was successful.
Recently a new proposal began to surface that is super secret. In spite of all my efforts, it has been virtually impossible to find out details of the proposal. Everyone that I spoke with told me that they did not know the details and this continued through the end of last week. As a result, I have classified this proposal as Oldham County's version of the Manhattan project."
Davis went on to tell the board that a reasonable person would believe that control was being exercised somewhere else (Not by the board). Frankly, he is correct.
No decision was reached on the matter at the October 14th meeting. The next OCSD meeting is scheduled for November 12, 2008, but I suspect that there will be a special meeting before that date.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
NEWS FLASH: HAS JUDGE MURNER DONE IT AGAIN?
By: Dewey R. Wotring
Has Duane Murner done it again, that is, has he held an illegal meeting of the Fiscal Court for the third time in his short career as an elected official? You would think that Murner, who claims to be a Harvard graduate, would not be a slow learner. However, it is beginning to look as though that is just exactly what he is. On the other hand, if he is not a slow learner, is he just devious, underhanded, or-well you know all the other terms that could be used to describe him?
I have received a copy of Murner's response to the allegation by Magistrate Scott Davis in which Davis claimed that Murner conducted a meeting in violation of the open meetings law. There is the old saying that "It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people wonder if you are guilty, than to open it and remove all doubt". In my opinion, Murner's response has removed all doubt. Murner states that he could have used two other sections of law to conduct the meeting. The obvious question that comes to mind is: Why didn't he use those sections of law? This statement alone is evidence that Murner discussed issues outside personnel.
As for discussing the possibility of hiring or firing sewer district employees, it is my opinion that that decision should be made by the sewer district board who pays the employees. Further, Murner had already mentioned in open court that he was considering the possibility of two private vendors taking over the sewer district. Therefore, any employee of average intelligence would have immediately known that there was a possibility that they would lose their job or that the conditions of their employment were likely to change. After all, if everything were going all right, there would be no need to consider a private vendor.
Yes, the public was made aware of the legal basis for the closed session. However, Murner has admitted that the session went far beyond the discussion of personnel. Although I do not know what was discussed during the closed session, I suspect that much more was discussed than what Murner has admitted to in his response to magistrate Scott Davis. There is just something that Judge Murner seems to like about secrecy. In addition to the illegal closed sessions in which he has been involved he refuses to make public the identity of the secret donor to the county. My bet is, that he will be forced in the very near future to disclose the name of that donor. If one penny of taxpayer money is wasted trying to defend any action to conceal the name of that donor, in light of the recent Kentucky State Supreme Court decision, the people of Oldham County should demand the resignation of Judge Murner. I am sure we will be hearing more about that here at oldhamcountywatchdog.com.
DOES BOYLE KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A JACKASS AND AN ELEPHANT?
Dewey R. Wotring
I have recently posted an article about Shawn Boyle’s presentation to the Oldham County Fiscal Court regarding the tax rate being considered by the court. As a result of the article, I received an email from Boyle in which he called me a “jackass.” Boyle took the liberty of preparing the email on the taxpayer’s time and sending it at the expense of the taxpayers from his Oldham County government email account.
Now, most people know that the donkey (jackass) represents the democratic party and the elephant represents the republican party. Since I am a registered republican, how could I possibly be a jackass?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
OCEDA REPORT TO FISCAL COURT
By: Dewey R. Wotring
On September 16, 2008, Joe Schoenbachler, the executive director of the Oldham County Economic Development Agency (OCEDA) appeared before the Oldham County Fiscal Court for the purpose of updating the court on the activities of OCEDA.
Schoenbachler tried to dazzle the court with charts and graphs. He went on to explain the position which Oldham County is in from an economic standpoint and he used much of his presentation explaining what the targeted industries for Oldham County were and how they had selected these industries.
However, what appeared to be on the mind of some of the magistrates was what OCEDA had actually done to bring industry into the county. More specifically, Magistrate Iva Davis wanted to know if OCEDA had any brochures to present to prospective clients. Apparently shortly after taking office she had questioned Schoenbachler about the availability of a brochure for prospective clients. At that time, Schoenbachler apparently had assured her that a brochure was in the making. Now, several months later, Magistrate Iva Davis wanted to know if the brochure was available, however Schoenbachler responded that it still was not. When pressed on the issue by Magistrate Iva Davis, Schoenbachler stated that there were more pressing issues such as community development and infrastructure. Magistrate Iva Davis asked Schoenbachler if OCEDA were to be approached by a prospective business, would they have any materials to give to the company? Schoenbachler stated that OCEDA does not have anything to give to a prospective business right now.
Magistrate Iva Davis pointedly ask Schoenbachler what OCEDA was doing at the present time to attract businesses. Schoenbachler stated that they were trying to make sure that their web site was available, that their contact information with the state was properly maintained, and they were trying to maintain the relationships with businesses that we have because most jobs are created by existing businesses within the community.
Magistrate Voegele wanted to know if the OCEDA was waiting for people to come to them or was OCEDA being aggressive and trying to showcase Oldham County. Schoenbachler responded by saying, “We don't have a significant marketing plan together right now. We don't have any fancy brochures and that type of thing that we send out to people.” He said that OCEDA had not done a good job of going after industries in the past since 2000. (Yes, that's right, eight years)
When asked by Voegele about creating an “incubator business” to help entrepreneurship Schoenbachler responded that a typical incubator business needed about 30,000 square feet of space while a lot of entrepreneurs were not looking for space because they could work out of their homes. Thus, rather than seeking space, they were looking for other assistance.
Magistrate Scott Davis requested that future presentations show what results have been accomplished by OCEDA. He also expressed his concern about the lack of any marketing material. He said that OCEDA should be able to do more than manage a web site and maintain contacts with the state.
It does not appear that the county is receiving much for their investment in OCEDA. To me, it was apparent that Schoenbachler’s presentation was more about smoke and mirrors than it was about accomplishments. The three magistrates who questioned Schoenbachler are to be commended for their efforts. What is sad though is that after eight years of doing a poor job of going after industry, is the fact that other Magistrates and the County Judge did not question Schoenbachler. Isn’t it time that his feet are held to the fire? Shame on the rest of the Fiscal Court members if they continue to approve financial support in the future for OCEDA if the return on investment isn’t greatly improved.
Monday, September 22, 2008
MURNER'S PENCHANT FOR SECRECY
By: Dewey R. Wotring
The Courier-Journal Newspaper reported today that Oldham County Magistrate Scott Davis has filed a complaint accusing Judge Duane Murner of holding an illegal closed session meeting on September 16th. According to the agenda for the Fiscal Court meeting, the closed session was held to discuss “personnel” according to the guidelines set forth by KRS 61.810. However, Judge Murner seems to already be implicating himself in this matter. It appears that he told the Courier-Journal that the meeting was held to discuss the possibility of an outside company taking over the sewer district in addition to getting a sense of how Fiscal Court members felt about the possible takeover.
How does Judge Murner believe that discussion about such topics relates to “personnel”? It appears that Davis likely has a valid issue with the information from this closed session not being discussed openly in accordance with law. One should remember, that this is not the first time that Murner has been involved with closed meetings that he was a part of, which were questioned for legality. It seems that Murner has a penchant for secrecy. After all, he is the same person who has kept the identity of a large donor a secret from the public.
I certainly hope that all of the facts regarding this meeting do become public and likely the matter of whether or not this meeting should have been public will be decided by either the Attorney General or Circuit Court. It is well known to many that Judge Murner has a strong desire to control the sewer system expansion throughout Oldham County, as he strives to expand capacity for additional new residential housing development. Judge Murner took in thousands upon thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from developers who expect him to do whatever necessary to ensure sewer capacity for their high density developments.
Friday, September 5, 2008
THE "NEW" PROPERTY TAX RATE
By: Dewey R. Wotring
Shawn Boyle is the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for Oldham County. As such, one of his duties is to brief the Magistrates during the Fiscal Court meeting when they consider the property tax rate. The Court is required to set this rate each year.
On September 2, 2008, the Fiscal Court was in session, and the setting of the propery tax rate was one of the items on the agenda. This is also referred to as the "ad valorem tax." Boyle appeared for the purpose of providing an overview of appropriate tax rates. Boyle made reference to two tax rates - 9.0 and 9.2. One would have thought that these were the only two rates available for the court's consideration. Boyle advised the court that the 9.2 rate was the maximum rate which could be set by the court without the rate being subject to a recall petition by the public.
Boyle advised the members of the court that the county would lose hundreds of thousands of dollars over the next few years if they chose the lower rate of 9.0, as opposed to the maximum non-recallable rate of 9.2.
However, Boyle was remiss in not telling the entire story about tax rates. Boyle should have disclosed the "compensating rate" to the court. That rate is set by the state to the county and this year that rate happens to be 8.9. The compensating rate is the foundation for any rate set by the county, and is the rate that will bring the same amount of money into the county coffers as the county received last year, plus any taxes on "new construction." Thus, had the fiscal court considered and voted for the 8.9 rate, the county would still have received more money in property taxes than it received last year.
Further, when asked by Magistrate Iva Davis if new construction was included when the compensating rate was calculated, he replied that it was. Judge Murner subsequently corrected that statement.
At no time during his presentation, did Boyle state the rate which was needed to result in a balanced budget. I suspect that the 9.0 rate will result in a surplus. If that is the situation, then the rate should have been lowered. One should not forget that the insurance premium tax has been doubled, and the 911 tax substantially increased. Further, there will be new stormwater fees forthcoming in the near future and probably higher sewer rates for many. The court voted for the 9.0 rate. Two magistrates, Scott Davis and Bob Leslie, voted against the new rate.
If Boyle is going to counsel the court, he should certainly provide facts and he should provide all of them.
Friday, August 29, 2008
WHAT IS AN OLDHAM TAXPAYER'S FAIR SHARE?
By: Dewey Wotring
However, the overall process certainly could leave the perception that some people have an advantage over everyone else. The appeals board is made up of three members, all of whom are involved in the real estate industry. One is appointed by the mayor of La Grange, one by Judge-Executive Duane Murner and the other by the fiscal court over which Murner exercises considerable influence.
Two of the developers, Schumm and Jones, gave the maximum contribution allowable under law to Judge Murner when he was seeking his party’s nomination. Further, Bob Jones played an integral part in having a memorandum created by the state which was to be used as guidance by PVAs. As previously stated, all of these actions appear to have been legal but they certainly present the perception that the playing field is not level.
The developers received a reduction of about 25 percent in the assessments of several vacant lots and about 10 percent of the assessments on spec homes and condominiums/patio homes. It is certain that most people in Oldham County would like to see a 25 percent reduction in the assessment of their home –particularly in light of the fact that essentially everyone’s home has seen an increase in assessed value within the last four years. However, not everyone has the time, wherewithal or knowledge to appeal the assessment of the PVA. Of those who have appealed their assessments, very few have been successful in receiving any reduction.
Due to House Bill 44, the amount of any person’s assessment does not change the amount of money received by the county government, school system or any other taxing district subject to HB 44. You might say that the assessment determines your “fair share” of taxes. Thus, the lower your assessment, the less your “fair share” will be.
Developer Walt Schumm received a reduction of more than $600,000 in assessments of property owned by him. By his own admission, that was not as much of a reduction as he thought he deserved. Further, he claims that he is paying more than his fair share. This is the same person who, as a member of the school board, frequently votes to raise the amount of tax that you pay for schools in this county.
Mr. Schumm believes his lots should only be assessed at an amount equal to his investment in the lots. According to testimony from Bob Jones, he also subscribes to that theory as does some other developers. Jones’ assessments were reduced in excess of $3 million. Wouldn’t it be nice if you could have your property assessed at the amount which you had in it – particularly if you have owned your property for several years? It just doesn’t work that way for everyone else and it shouldn’t work that way for developers.
Developers Jones and Schumm have both stated that vacant lots do not use police protection, fire protection or ambulance service, insinuating that could be a justification for lowering the assessments of those lots. There are thousands of people in Oldham County who do not have children in the school system but pay the majority of their taxes to the school system.
Following the arguments made by Mr. Jones and Mr. Schumm, people who have no children in school should not be paying any property taxes to the school system. Obviously the school system would quickly go broke. What would happen to the value of homes and property in Oldham County then? The PVA, in making his assessments throughout the county, followed section 172 of the Kentucky Constitution which states that all property is to be assessed at its fair cash market value. It does not differentiate between vacant lots owned by developers or vacant lots owned by other residents or homes developed by other residents.
Fortunately for the residents of Oldham County, the PVA has appealed most of the decisions made by the Board of Assessment Appeals. He is trying to get an accurate decision on just what is every person’s “fair share.” After watching several hours of the hearings before the appeals board a few thoughts came to mind. The appeals board is supposed to have a chairman.
However, I was never able to determine if there was a chairman of the board. Second, it was my belief the county attorney was supposed to represent the PVA. This certainly did not appear to be the case.
Finally, the board seemed to discuss many of the vacant lots separately but a review of the final decisions reflects more of an across the board 25 percent reduction than a reduction based on individual lots. The board certainly had a lot of appeals to consider but there are provisions in the law to create temporary boards when the workload is excessive. This should have been considered in this instance.
There will probably be some fallout from this action by the Board of Assessment Appeals and there should be. The board did not appear to be well organized regarding procedures and, as stated before, if there was a chairman, he could not be distinguished from the other members of the board. Nor did the board appear to have the same idea of what methodology should be used to determine the fair cash market value of property – especially vacant lots.
Finally a review of the final decisions did not reflect what, if any, evidence was presented by the appellees to support their claims and the final decisions did not reflect the basis for changing the decisions of the PVA. The final decisions contained the bare minimum of information which leaves the PVA with a more difficult task when preparing his appeals. Should the PVA lose the appeals his job will be much more difficult next year as many people will appeal their assessments.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
OLDHAM COUNTY NEEDS TO GAIN CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT
By: Dewey R. Wotring
For years developers have had their way in Oldham County. Oldham County development really began to flourish in the '70s after school busing was ordered in Jefferson County. The people who moved to Oldham County from Jefferson County were very interested in the education that their children received. Therefore, they demanded better schools than they had left.
Realtors really began to sell the Oldham County schools to clients – especially those who were coming from outside the metro Louisville area. Soon there was more demand for housing in Oldham County than there was housing. The developers were ready and willing to provide that housing while making huge profits. All of this growth brought about the need for more schools and other infrastructure such as fire protection, sewers, police protection and ambulance service.
Naturally, those services demanded more resources than the county had. The demand to provide those resources was placed on the taxpayers rather than the people who were making the huge profits – the developers and realtors. The developers should have been required to pay higher fees to augment the Planning and Zoning Commission, the schools, the sewer system and other infrastructure. They were not required to do so and still do not adequately share the responsibility of growth management in the county. The next time that you hear someone talk about expanding the capacity of the sewer system remember that the bill to do so will be funded by the taxpayers, not the developers who will benefit from the expansion. Sure, they give a little bit of land for a school, pay a little bit to have a lane added to a road or a traffic signal installed but these gifts are mere drops in the bucket when the overall cost to the county is considered. They are superfluous at best.
Developers still control the county government insofar as fees and long term planning are concerned. Some of those developers do not even reside in the county, but have a voice. Case in point, the Fiscal Court recently considered additional fees for Planning and Zoning as it operates in the red. Who was consulted to assist in the determination of appropriate fees – the developers?
Were the fees raised sufficiently to allow for Planning and Zoning to operate in the black? – of course not! The taxpayers will continue to pay for the deficit. Recently Fiscal Court created a "Stormwater District" whose largest expense will be to manage storm water at new construction/development sites. Once again the taxpayers will fund this. The latest gig that developers have come up with is to have their assessments lowered, which means that the average taxpayer will have to pay more to make up for what they don’t pay.
At some point, the developers need to pay up front for the cost of development to the county. This may never happen due to the influence the developers have. This influence is achieved by giving and raising large sums of money for politicians. There are people who believe that the developers need to be coddled because they comprise the largest industry in the county. That is pure hogwash. This county would be in a better financial situation if new housing ceased today. Enough is enough!
Monday, August 18, 2008
YOUR MAGISTRATE - DAVID VOEGELE
By: Dewey Wotring
I want to inform you that Magistrate David Voegele now wants to place more restraints and barriers on your opportunity to address the Oldham County Fiscal Court! Magistrate Voegele introduced a measure which would reduce the opportunities for residents (TAXPAYERS) to address the Fiscal Court by one-half. The current process for public comment in Fiscal Court has been in place for several years and has worked well.
He believes that some people have been abusing the current system by requesting to address their elected officials for up to 16 minutes per month (yes, per month, not per meeting). However, Magistrate Voegele is the ONLY person that I have ever seen led from the courtroom by an Oldham County Deputy Sheriff for not abiding by the rules when HE HIMSELF was addressing the court prior to his election.
Several weeks ago Magistrate Voegele made a motion before Fiscal Court which failed to receive a second from any other member. In early August, he made a motion regarding the stormwater district. After the motion was seconded (which is no certainty for Voegele’s motions) by another court member, HE HIMSELF VOTED AGAINST HIS OWN MOTION. Is it any wonder that other Magistrates are unwilling to second his motions? Maybe we should expect flip-flopping from Magistrate Voegele as he did switch his political party registration from Democrat to Republican just prior to running for political office.
Are you aware that Magistrate Voegele wants to demolish the buildings in Buckner on KY 146 that have come to be known as the “Buckner Mall”. What is important to understand is that the cost of this will likely exceed $100,000 in taxpayer money - YOUR MONEY! In a time when revenue and budget issues are so prevalent within our local and state government, why does Magistrate Voegele feel that you and I (THE TAXPAYERS) should spend money to pay for his pork project which is on land that is currently PRIVATELY OWNED? Also, why is Magistrate Voegele advocating a pork project outside of his own Magisterial District?
Have you also noticed that Magistrate Voegele HAS VOTED FOR NEARLY EVERY TAX AND FEE INCREASE during his time on the Fiscal Court? Has he done this (at your expense) to gain favor with Judge-Executive Murner in order for Murner to support his pork project of removing the Buckner Mall? Where is his mind when he casts his vote - on the issue or at the Buckner Mall?
If you are concerned about the actions of Magistrate Voegele, you need to let him know. You can reach him at 222-5780 or by email at davidvoegele@aol.com.
DEVELOPERS RECEIVE HUGE REDUCTIONS IN ASSESSMENTS
By: Dewey R. Wotring
Oldham county developers Bob Jones, Walt Schum, Joe Pusateri, and Jay Hall filed appeals of their property tax assessments and the appeals were heard in June of 2008. As a result of those appeals the developers received reductions amounting to an average of 25%.
The assessments were originally made by Property Valuation Administrator Ron Winters and he refused to reduce the initial assessments. The developers then appealed their assessments to the Oldham County Board of Assessment Appeals.
Bob Jones' total reduction was over $4,000,000 - yes, over 4 million. Walt Schum, who sits on the school board and frequently votes to raise your taxes received over a $600,000 reduction in his assessment. Both gave the maximum contribution allowable to Judge Duane Murner's primary election campaign in 2005 which is $1,000.
Apparently, everyone should appeal their tax assessment. There will be more forthcoming on this site regarding this issue.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Thursday, May 1, 2008
STORMWATER TAX
By: Dewey R. Wotring
Stormwater tax coming soon. Just what will that mean for the residents of Oldham County? For certain it will mean higher taxes. Will it mean cleaner streams- or will there be responses from officials to residents' complaints about drainage problems and bigger government?
First, as of the last meeting of the Stormwater Advisory Committee (SWAC) the plan was to tax each household in the county $6.81 per month. Overall private households would pay 82% of the cost of the stormwater expenses with businesses paying 18%. Is it necessary to set tax rates at this level? That is certainly debatable. The additional taxes will not provide for any additional services. For example, don't expect to complain about a drainage problem and get any action on your complaint as a result of the new taxes. According to the SWAC the additional taxes are only for the purpose of meeting the mandates of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The SWAC has stated that at least two new positions are needed -an engineer and an inspector. It seems to me that the majority of the duties of the inspector would be for the purpose of checking construction sites, i.e .., new developments for compliance of the EPA regulations. However, as usual the developers get a free ride. Since developers do most of the construction in Oldham County, it would only seem fair that they pay some type of "impact fee" in order to help support the impact of the new stormwater impact on the county. However, that will never happen under the current administration.
Stay tuned for more on this new opportunity for the county government to put their hands on your wallet.
CONTACT MAGISTRATES AND COUNTY JUDGE-EXECUTIVE
Judge David Voegele: dvoegele@oldhamcounty.net
Michael Logsdon: mllogsdon@earthlink.net
Wayne Theiss: wtheiss@bellsouth.net
Kevin Eldridge: Kevin@keldridge.com
Steve Greenwell: springhillsteve@bellsouth.net
J.D. Sparks: jd@jd4oldham.com
Bob Dye: electbobdye@yahoo.com
Bob Leslie: rleslie@oldhamcounty.net
Brent Likins: brentlikins@bellsouth.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)