Cabarrus Cheap Seats

21 responses so far ↓

• 1 david // Mar 13, 2008 at 10:26 am

  There is more than enough money to go around. I have lived in this county for 43 years and it is wrong to increase the property value or rate on the citizens. A hundred acres in the farm program brings in about 2500 dollars in property tax, however; when you tax the farmer off of his property and a developer builds houses on the same hundred acres, it brings in approximately 400,000 dollars. Don’t raise my taxes. In Orlando county Florida, there is a homeowners preservation act which allows the life long residents, defined by anyone who has lived in their home for over ten years, to have their property taxes frozen for all time. This lets the locust who prey upon their county for profit foot the bill. We need this here! These out of county developers are nothing more than locust and once they leave, they leave the devastation and the cost of what they have done resting on my back. Im tired of this and am ready to go to war to preserve my place. You as cabarrus county commisioners are ultimately to blame because you allow the developement.

  GET OUT OF MY WALLET NOW!
  David S Leonard

• 2 Justin Thibault // Mar 13, 2008 at 10:39 am

  David - Again, let me pose the same question as I did to Mark in another thread: What do you propose cutting?

• 3 Aaron // Mar 13, 2008 at 8:17 pm

  That’s a tough question for anyone to answer.

  The reality you need to look at are the redundant services that city AND county residents pay for. Sure, City residents need to pay county taxes to pay for the jail and bailiffs. But do they really need to pay for the sheriffs patrol in Harrisburg? Do they need to support volunteer fire departments in Midland? or Parks in Odell?
  Or my favorite do nothing office WASAC. The Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County. I love them because they don’t produce, sell or distribute any water but still get a few thousand dollars per house in permit fees.

  County Parks and Rec is another great example. Concord and Kannapolis already have P&R departments. The YMCA and First assembly have duplicate programs that cost the taxpayer nothing (in the YMCA’s case, that’s only in theory). The question is why am I paying for parks in unincorporated areas of the county?

  This exists at all levels of government and most folks know how I feel about it.

  It really comes down to the equalization of taxes not the reduction. Think of it in medical insurance terms. Most doctors have absolutely no clue what their own office charges for the procedures they perform every day. Since they don’t know the cost they do the standard package for everyone. The patients don’t know either so they pee in the cup and turn their heads and cough without too much worry. Finally, when the insurance company send them the bill they go through the roof on the “excessive charges.”

  It’s basically the same here. Most voters have no idea what is and isn’t supposed to be the job of government anymore so they just accept whatever they see as needed. Then when the re-evaluation rolls around they complain about “excessive spending.”

  I averaged out my re-evaluation amount. It averaged 3% per year. That keeps pace with inflation so I can’t complain too much. I imagine if most folks did the same, they’d see the same results.

• 4 Justin Thibault // Mar 13, 2008 at 10:12 pm

  Aaron -
  

  County Parks and Rec is another great example.

  Are you wanting to shut down Frank Liske and North Cabarrus Parks?

• 5 Aaron // Mar 14, 2008 at 5:45 am

  Nope, Frank Liske is now technically a city park since annexation. I’d transfer operations of it to the City of Concord. Same with North Cabarrus, it’s near the line of Kannapolis and Concord. Have one claim it and transfer ownership.

  As I said, it’s not about saving money, but simply creating truth in price. City taxes would have to rise in order to pay for the new aquisition of the parks. These higher taxes would be looked at harshly by the folks having to pay them. And maybe, just maybe, they’ll have a clearer picture of what it actually costs to have all these neato thingy’s.

• 6 Justin Thibault // Mar 14, 2008 at 7:30 am

  Aaron - According to the map Concord is around Frank Liske. But regardless of that - take this logic out for a spin.

  First, the staff that takes care of Franke Liske takes care of other parks in the County. Size and/or proximity to schools and other county facilities is what generally distinguishes a County Park from the City ones. If we followed your plan, we’ve taken away some economies of scale. At the very least, you’re putting in more administrative time working out all of the issues involved with splitting expenses. So, would you be more in favor of more administrative bureaucracy or design a system to eliminate unnecessary administration?

  Second, “higher taxes” don’t come from “neato thingys” As much as “Don’t Tread On Me” parrots love to point out nickel and dime issues like their favorite Limbaugh clones. In the grand scheme of things - they really don’t amount to much. To see a substantial reduction in taxes, you’ll have to “tread” in areas where people don’t care to “tread”.

  I remember the budget battles of ‘04 and ‘05 where Privette, Freeman, and Suggs wanted to set the tax rate at 0.53/$100 valuation and John Day listed the things they would have had to shut down: Parks, Libraries, Senior Centers, and Veterans Services.

  This battle had a large part to do with Suggs’ poor performances since then.

  When someone tells me they are going to cut taxes - I want to see, on the budget, what they are cutting and make the cuts BEFORE they cut the taxes. As I’ve pointed out before the only part of the budget that has outpaced inflation and population growth is debt service. That’s why, this year, what I’m looking for in a candidate isn’t someone that’s going to nickel and dime John Day; but someone who’s going to make some structural changes to the budget over the long haul. Right now, Bob Carruth is the only County Commissioner candidate who has a record of doing that.

• 7 Andy // Mar 14, 2008 at 10:39 am

  Just an fyi…Volunteer Fire Departments are mostly and I think completely funded by local fire district taxes just on the areas that are part of that fire district…

• 8 Andy // Mar 14, 2008 at 10:53 am

  The best way to cut taxes at the local level is for the state to get control of its spending problem, and return more money to local governments without mandating how its spent (and remove many of the mandates that are on the money that is now being returned from the state)….It’s why its so important that we elect a Republican governor and put Republicans in charge

  South Carolina recently began returning more sales tax money to county governments and schools in SC are now totally funded out of sales tax revenue. This has allowed counties to reduce their property tax rate by as much as 50 to 60 percent.

  I’ve given serious consideration to moving to the SC side of the Charlotte Metro area because the quality of life is virtually the same and the property, income, and gas taxes are so much lower…

• 9 Justin Thibault // Mar 14, 2008 at 11:02 am

  Andy-
  

  The best way to cut taxes at the local level is for the state to get control of its spending problem…why its so important that we elect a Republican governor and put Republicans in charge

  Amen.

  I’ve given serious consideration to moving to the SC side of the Charlotte Metro area because the quality of life is virtually the same and the property, income, and gas taxes are so much lower

  Friedman called that “voting with your feet”

• 10 Aaron // Mar 14, 2008 at 12:32 pm

  “So, would you be more in favor of more administrative bureaucracy or design a system to eliminate unnecessary administration?

  I don’t know. How much extra administration did Windstream need when they bought out CTC? Judging by the house cleaning they did I’d say not much.

  I’ll agree with you that the “neato things” aren’t as much of an issue as what really matters (road’s, schools etc.) But you have to strip away all the “pocket pool” first. This goes directly to Andy’s point: Stop the State!

  Stop taking our gas taxes and sending the money to Richmond county to widen 74 when it get 1/100th the daily traffic we do. Stop taking our sales tax money and using it to build Teapot museums and other neato things in other counties.

  But that wasn’t the question. The question was: are Cabarrus County Taxes too high? My answer in realistic terms is, no.

  The truth is, the county can’t blame someone else for everything. Such as their newest idea to raise taxes to fund roads. I think its brilliant! The new commision is finally working in reality instead of blaming ALL their problems on some other demon. But where is our local representation screaming in the direction of Wake County about the stupidity of even having to do this?

  I shouldn’t have to remind you of the primary principle all libertarians use (this includes Capital L libertarians and lowercase libertarians like me.)

  This is the Principle of Subidiarity. “The most restrictive forms of government are kept at the lowest and most localized level.”

  In a libertarian world county taxes would be much higher than they are now exactly for the reasons I’ve stated above. Your point to Friedmans ideas of “voting with your feet” is a good one but if I’ll only save 10% per year at a cost of uprooting my family and moving to SC is it really worth it in the long run?

  That’s where all this comes from. By enacting redistributionist policies at all levels of government you reduce or completely remove any meaningful difference between one local government and the next. Or you keep the requirements low. Example: Cabarrus versus Meck county. All Cabarrus county has to do is keep their property tax rates a smidge lower than Meck and it’s still attractive for folks to look here. (not withstanding the runaway crime, revolving door judicial system and general stupidity of the local government in Mecklenburg County)

  But there are enough Ted Kennedy’s and Jim Blacks to keep the status quo, the status quo at the state and federal levels.

  This means you have to look at other, more localized areas to save money. When you need to save money at the house, you don’t call the Cable company and demand they lower their rates, you reduce your other costs or you cancel the service.

  For the life of me, I don’t understand why things can be this simple in peoples minds when it comes to their own personal lives but it’s somehow becomes insane to ask your government to do the same.

  Oh, and you’ll be happy to know that even though I have a radio in my office. The dial stays on FM all day…

• 11 Justin Thibault // Mar 15, 2008 at 6:42 am

  Aaron - Regarding the issue of Subsidiarity, if you go back to your issue with the parks, dividing the administration of the county’s large among various municipalities would cost about twice as much to do the same thing at the County level. That’s why smaller parks are taken care of at the town/city level and larger ones at the County level.

  Similarly with roads, we’re well on our way to paying for our roads twice. Democrats have managed to gerrymander the state and will enhance it for the 2010 elections. So, we’ll be dependent on them for inadequate funding AND, even if we fund it locally, DOT administers the construction.

  The issue is that we’ve got enough experience to know what’s handled well locally (police) and what’s handled at a state and national level. The point shouldn’t be to find out what we can do at the smallest level; but what configuration will give the most effective administration for everyone.

• 12 Bob Carruth // Mar 15, 2008 at 8:55 am

  I hope to be writing (and posting) more about this on this site in a few days.

  Aaron -

  Consolidation is good. I know this may sound cliche’, but I have always supported it where it made sense. Where it doesn’t make sense, then try to clearly define roles. This in the long run will lower the cost of government, and turn lead to lower taxes.

  For almost 80% of our citizens in the county, they also have a municipal government that provides some level of service. In NC, there are things cities only can do, things only counties can do, and other items that the constitution and laws are silent on.

  As for the parks, there was a shift a few years back to let the county develop parks, on land that for the most part was donated, then once the park is developed, turn over the operation of it to the particular municipality. A good example of this cooperation is the WW Flowe park near Central Cabarrus. In addition, most of the programs that are offered through P&R are now city programs.

  There are two areas that have “low-hanging” fruit, that we have set as goals to address - one is the fact that we have 3 (yes, 3) 911 centers in the county, all independent of each other. We have set a goal that these should be consolidated into one central center, given that a state of the art center, along with an emergency operations center, will be established in the new sheriff’s administration building when it opens later this year. Second, there are at least 5 separate waste contracts across the county with either Allied Waste or Waste Management. We should also investigate how we can consolidate all of these under one, and what the overall savings could be.

  Finally, I encourage you to learn more about WSACC - it is actually a huge success story in how to consolidate our services, and meet a public need. Without them, there would be all kinds of issues regarding wastewater treatment in the county, as each city would have to spend money themselves to treat their sewage. As it is now, everyone shares in the operational costs of operating a central plant, and from the fees that are collected, the utility is close to the point of being able to operate a 100% pay as you go system, where expansions of the treatment capacity at the two plants in the county can be paid for with cash.

  It is an example I hope we can move to in the county.

  BTW - I am also a big believer in Subsidiarity (Justin, thanks for my big word of the week). Why should we send $1 to Washington or Raleigh, only to get 50 cents back (if we are lucky) along with a string of mandates, when we can spend the same $1 locally, and be able to use 90-95% of it in direct service provision?

• 13 Justin Thibault // Mar 15, 2008 at 12:40 pm

  Bob -
  

  Justin, thanks for my big word of the week

  Don’t thank me…I just took the word that Aaron was using and ran it through spell-checker

• 14 Aaron // Mar 15, 2008 at 1:05 pm

  Yeah Justin, I saw that too. But my work PC doesn’t have Google spell check and I’ve always been a horrible speller (should’ve paid more attention to multi-syllable words in 2nd grade!) . Plus, I’ve always hated it when folks post a comment and then re-post corrections too it. It just fills up the board with pointless posts. So I just sat back and waited for it all to blow up in my face.

  Bob- I like the idea of consolidating comm centers. There are a myriad of questions as to how it will work and I’m sure Sheriff Riley will have some solid input. When I was an officer I never understood Concord Communications having to transfer folks needing EMS to the county. But, these things aren’t always a sure thing.

  Meck County has consolidated dispatch and most of the officers and deputies I know there, wish that wasn’t the case. Then there’s the question of who will get the say so. Right now city communcations in Concord is independent of police and fire supervision. County dispatch is run by deputy sheriffs themselves. Kannapolis used to be under police jurisdiction and I’m pretty sure nothing’s changed.

  You stand to get into a huge pissing contest when the various authorities get to arguing about who should be most important; so what happens? They put some autocrat in place at an inflated salary to play referee and the whole thing ends up costing more than 3 separate ones did in the first place. And to top it off Concord City Council has never really cared too much about communications. It took them 5+ years of begging to finally grant some money to build a new repeater tower near Concord Mills so those officers could have radio coverage. (I often fantasized about being the first officer killed out there because the radio didn’t work and the lavish life my wife and kids would’ve lived once the negligence lawsuit settlement came in…)

  My greatest fear is that we’ll move to full consolidation like Meck. County. We’ve all seen what a lot of garbage that has turned out to be. But then again, we’ve seen what a bunch of crap the light rail has been too, and City of Concord powers are practically peeing their pants in anticipation to jump on the very same bandwagon.

  And as if this reply wasn’t rambling enough,

  Bob- Where do you stand on 1/2 cent increase to fund transportation.

  I will fully support it (even though the Captial “L”ibertarians will scream and cry) BUT ONLY if it’s designated for ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ONLY!

  We’ve got a test tube baby on mass transit in our neighbors to the southeast. I say let’s let them fall flat on their faces-yet again- before we go jumping into the speculative side of things and focus on what we know will work (like gosh, widening roads, wow, how insightful)

  Justin-Same Question: Where do you stand on the double taxation issue and it’s proposed uses?

• 15 Justin Thibault // Mar 15, 2008 at 2:28 pm

  Aaron -
  

  My greatest fear is that we’ll move to full consolidation like Meck. County. We’ve all seen what a lot of garbage that has turned out to be.

  You don’t have to worry about that, IMHO. Kannapolis and Concord swap the distinction of being the largest city in the County.

  Where do you stand on the double taxation issue and it’s proposed uses?

  We need money for roads and that’s as good as any other way to get it.

  As for uses…I’m not opposed to more mass transit in the Western part of the County, but given the unsafe condition of our road system - I’m opposed to Grace Mynatt’s proposal that 20% of the new funds are diverted to public transit

• 16 Aaron // Mar 16, 2008 at 10:32 am

  I was hoping you’d specify the safety issue!

  My biggest fear has always been that when we moved from a CTA commission to an actual commission that we’d fill it full of inferiority complexes whose main desire was to become a mirror image of Mecklenburg County. Thus far I’ve been pleasantly surprised although the majority of Concord folks are still playing Sim City using Charlotte as their model.

  I’d love to see the county file suit against the state for their out and out negligence in returning OUR tax money to OUR county but I don’t know what the long term ramifications would be…

  BTW: I’ve started putting the occasional post on my corner of the web. It seems my cost cutting initiatives have worked and their cutting hours-mine included!

  Some things are changing over at my blog. Right now, I’m cleaning out the closet of the old posts that I started but never finished…

• 17 Bob Carruth // Mar 16, 2008 at 6:10 pm

  Aaron, as far as the sales tax goes, I am for and against it. (How about that for politician double-speak!)

  Anyway, given the makeup of our local economy, with our county being one of the tourist and visitor magnets in NC, it only makes sense that we should try to get every dollar we can from that group of folks, who drive on our roads, eat at our restaurants, and stay in our hotels. I recall vividly telling the rest of the board in the CTA days back in 2002 that we could not continue to survive just on the property tax. By having a sales tax that is 5 cents on a $10 purchase, and having it designated for roads, will be very helpful in solving our transportation issues, as well as reducing the property tax burden on our senior adults, working families, and farmers.

  ON THE OTHER HAND - If we are just going to ask the state to give us the increase by legislative fiat, then I am opposed. We have just finished a reval. Everyone has read that the schools demand will lead to a higher tax rate in the future. Our economy is tanking right now, and I have to sell off another child (just kidding) to fill up my Durango, which pretty much sucks the asphalt off the road. Given this, I think it would be prudent not to push for a sales tax increase at the moment, and let things go another year. Then, we should put it to a vote of the citizens.

  The good news is this - by 2005, the CTA boys had drained our reserves (some were for schools, the rest to build the jail), that doing something like this would not have even been an option four years ago. Now that we have restored the county to “fiscal stability”, I believe we can safely delay this a year to see if the economy is going to turn around.

• 18 MarkMartin // Mar 18, 2008 at 10:11 am

  All very good points and further justification for creating voting districts and expanding the BOC. Then special tax levels can be established based on voting districts. Essentially taxing those who create the greatest demand on the system.

  Of course, I completely agree that the State needs to return more tax revenue to the counties. The budget in Cabarrus County looks good in relation to service levels versus tax revenue. And Bob has pointed out the ‘low hanging fruit’, which I support consolidation efforts 100%. I also support any ‘going green’ measures that municipalities and the county can develop jointly. I had developed a plan to add public transportation in Harrisburg by expanding the Rider Red Line from Concord Mills Mall to Harrisburg Town Center. This of course would take a collaborative effort between Concord and Harrisburg. This plan is now in the hands of the Harrisburg Mayor and I await news of the anticipated acceptance by the Harrisburg Council.

  FYI: The Town of Harrisburg has a contract directly with the Sheriffs Department which defines the number of deputies on patrol and the level of service provided. And of course, the financial terms to pay for the services so people living outside of the Harrisburg Town limits are not burdened with paying for police services in Harrisburg.

• 19 Justin Thibault // Mar 18, 2008 at 5:22 pm

  Mark -
  

  Then special tax levels can be established based on voting districts. Essentially taxing those who create the greatest demand on the system.

  Really? So, regardless of if I get a the same or a lower level of service I pay more taxes than the Downtown crowd?

• 20 Andy // Mar 20, 2008 at 6:51 am

  Special tax levels based on voting districts levied based on the amount of services that area uses….that scares the crap out of me! Its kind of like the Dem’s targeted tax cuts, how the heck do you decide to come up with a fair way to do that? You love me, you love me not, you get higher taxes, you do not…

  What if I live in Cabarrus County just inside the Meck. County line, have no children, don’t take advantage of parks and rec., drive 95% of the time on Meck. roads and spend most of my time in Char/Meck, but its determined that my area use more services than most (even though I use an extremely low amount) so my area, including me, ends up with a higher tax rate? How exactly is that fair?

• 21 MarkMartin // Mar 20, 2008 at 8:42 am

  Justin/Andy - any additional tax per voting district would not be granular. It would focus primarily on education. If one area of the county is a target for new residential growth (i.e. people moving in like crazy), then they are creating a much greater demand for new schools. Perhaps they should contribute more to offset the burden. The per lot fee just isn’t making up the difference. People move to specific areas of the county to attend the so called ‘best schools’. What they don’t realize is by overloading a given area, they actually can diminish the quality of the education provided.

  I am just thinking out loud. Trying to figure out how to offer the highest quality in services for an affordable price. I often hear people make comments related to ‘why am I paying for something I don’t use’? Because that is the American way?

Leave a Comment