|
Post by strangerintown on Oct 10, 2015 7:23:58 GMT -5
I DID NOT HAVE AN EXTRA FIRE FEE BUT I KNOW OTHERS HAVE. DOES ANY ONE HAVE A NEWS STORY ON THIS THAT CAN SHED LIGHT ON WHAT THE COUNTY COUNCIL HAS DONE WITH THEIR SECRET TAX INCREASE. HOW CAN THIS BE A TAX INCREASE AND THE NEWSPAPER HAVE NOT MNETIONED IT.
|
|
|
Post by pickenscoresident on Oct 10, 2015 7:45:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by conservative on Oct 10, 2015 8:42:05 GMT -5
There are many layers to the County's involvement in fire protection and related tax collection. With cursory questions and discussions with honest and exemplary parties involved, my conclusion is the County Council has been lulled into a hands-off status with the fire districts. The politics in these local organizations are last vestiges of "good ole boys" in charge with little or no public sunshine on their important roles. As long as their responsibilities, costs and fees are indecipherable, nothing will change. I've been told the County is not in the business of fire protection, only the financing of it. Is that a rule or a custom?
Changes in fire protection in Pickens county over the last several years have exposed questions related to many County citizen's concerns about fairness and equity in this matter.
One question is why (or are) the fire districts not required to have on-going, incremental improvements in the fire ratings that impact insurance cost? What other goal would any district have if not constantly improving it's fire fighting capabilities? There are wide discrepancies now. Why? Can the County Government bring pressure (with their financing role)to bare?
|
|
|
Post by geraldgarrett on Oct 10, 2015 9:37:47 GMT -5
By law, the County is responsible for the rural fire service and for providing a funding mechanism for it. It is their CHOICE (and a good one, I think) not to be directly involved in the BUSINESS of fire protection. For decades, the County allowed rural fire districts to tend their own businesses, with most of them contracting with nearby cities that already had costly equipment to deal with the task at hand. It was a win-win for everybody: Cities got additional revenue to support their fire services (and, by the way, calling it a "business" is a misnomer - nobody really profits from the service), the rural population had reasonably effective fire service in most areas, and the county's elected officials could sleep well at night knowing their job was done.
Then, a decade or so ago, a couple of those rural fire districts and contracted cities decided to defecate in their own chili. (Alex's built-in censor forced me to use an eight-letter word when a four-letter one would have worked just fine there.)
Back in the old days, when a man could still pee (LOOK! I didn't have to say "urinate") off his own porch without worrying about the neighbors calling the Sheriff's Office, it was relatively straightforward. In an emergency, rural volunteers and regulars from one of the city departments would show up, save lives when possible, prevent the spread of a fire and salvage whatever was left of the structure and contents. Now, courtesy of Mr. Anthony and a lot of people who want houses in what's left of the woods so they can complain about other people who want to build houses in the woods, the demands are much greater.
Different districts have different needs; therefore, people in some districts have to pay higher "fees" than those in other districts. (That's nothing new - the public scrutiny of the process for political purposes IS relatively new.)
The County has in place the means to flatten out that funding and make it uniform throughout the unincorporated areas of the counties (about 61 percent of the population, last time I checked), along with any cities that want to help themselves and voluntarily participate. But after that worthless piece of trash Bob Nash publicly trashed the Special Purpose Tax District concept and distorted its purpose following its establishment for the Eighteen Mile Creek project (despite the fact that he had pushed it and voted for it), no member of County Council has had the balls to touch it.
Now, we have what we have. I think County Council is doing a good job given the hand they were dealt. And if they could ever get past the current voter mindset that government should give them everything they want for nothing, they'll get credit for that job well done.
By the way, if you want to see unfairness, take a look at water bills throughout the county. That's where the good ol' boys are still lining their pockets at our expense.
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Oct 10, 2015 18:20:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Oct 20, 2015 8:38:03 GMT -5
I heard they repealed the new fire tax and corrected bills will go out in 2 weeks.
|
|
|
Post by conservative on Oct 20, 2015 13:08:23 GMT -5
What were they thinking? Anyway........taxpayers, return to normal. Nothing to see here, move on.
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Oct 23, 2015 6:53:14 GMT -5
Here is the story. www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2015/10/20/pickens-county-rescinds-controversial-fire-fee/74278044/It appears they weren't thinking. To pass something and then reverse it. To me it was a lack of process. First determine you are using all your fire money efficiently. Second, if you need more make a proposal and invite the public and press in for input. Third, tweak, change or scrap the plan and start over so the final plan is a combination of the elected leaders and the public. Too many public bodies don't go through that process, just formulate plans and then decree them to the public.
|
|
|
Post by geraldgarrett on Oct 23, 2015 9:34:10 GMT -5
It appears they weren't thinking ...
No, Alex, it appears to me that they WERE thinking. It's also probable that they were discussing this, more than likely in meetings that were open to the public. The problem is that nobody was listening until this showed up on the tax bills.
The problem nowadays is that too many supposedly "informed" voters sit on their duffs while the process is underway, then react when something rises up and bites them in the wallet. At that point, those who are pro-active - i.e., elected officials are trying to advance the process - are made out to be the bad guys. And, of course, it always seems to be griping by a bunch of people who want government to give THEM everything for nothing while complaining that (in their minds) government wants to give everybody ELSE everything for nothing.
Hypocrites, all.
We live in a government system called a "representative democracy." Voters cast their ballots for leaders they want making decisions for them, then turn 'em lose and let 'em vibrate. The only time the voter is directly involved in individual decisions after that is if a referendum is called. Beyond that rare referendum, our direct choices involve making a lot of noise leading up to the next election.
I like the concept of representative democracy myself. Many of you seem to think we should live under plebiscite form of government, where almost every major decision is made after a direct vote by the citizens.
Just remember how well that worked out for Roman Empire once the voters realized they could write themselves a check from the treasury.
If any of you are really serious about reducing fire ratings in your respective districts, you need to understand that reducing those ratings in order to reduce insurance costs is going to cost money somewhere on the front end to improve fire service, particularly response times and capabilities. The money for those improvements has to come from somewhere, and in 65 years of living in this county, I have yet to find a money tree or that rumored long-lost Cherokee goldmine.
Before you blast County Council for what they did in their efforts to be pro-active, why don't some of you suggest what they SHOULD do to fund needed improvements. And, Alex, that "efficient use of existing funds" is a great line, but it's all but useless in this case. Fire insurance ratings are high in rural districts for a reason. Firefighting services are stretched thin already. Available water sources are limited by demographics, geography and geology. There are no hidden surpluses tucked away in Swiss bank accounts to fund improvements, and many of the voters in our lovely county don't want to pay what they're already being asked to pay, let alone pay more for necessary services to benefit the "greater good" if it won't fix the pothole in their own driveways.
Suggestions? The ball's in your court.
That's just my opinion. Y'all carry on as always.
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Oct 24, 2015 19:12:27 GMT -5
For councilmen to vote for something in June and reverse it 4 months later, indicates something went wrong in the process.
I don't believe government should function the way you suggest, although it does run that way for the most part unfortunately. This is how it runs. Candidates every 4 years run for office and tell you all these things they are going to do, and what they stand for. They get elected, and you never hear from most of them again. They have the feeling, it is my turn to do what I believe and they vote this way and that way. There are people running for city council for the 2nd or 3rd terms, can you tell me what any of them stands for? What they have accomplished? They come out once every four years, get their needed votes to go back in and we never hear from them again.
I see how government should function much differently. I think elected officials must communicate with the voters all through the four years, not once when they need something from them -- mainly getting their votes on election day. Elected leaders are there to identify problems, put forth potential solutions in the press, letters to the editor and in public meetings. This educates the public to the point they start to weigh in via emails to councilmen, on Facebook, and speaking at meetings. There input in this process is essential and it is up to the elected leaders and the press to create a process that solicits it effectively. Then plans are tweaked or changed or even scrapped so in the end the final solution is a by-product of that democratic process of council, administration and the public.
I don't have a solution to the fire tax problem, because I have not researched it. But I have not argued for it or against it -- reread my posts. My complaint was with the process in passing this, which I do believe was flawed, and that is one reason I think the council did a 180 degree turn on their decision.
I was involved with fire issues from 2005 to about 2009 or so. What I saw was a lack of focus in how time and funds were spent. My local fire department was running more car wrecks than fires, even though the police and Rescue could handle most all those wrecks without the Fire Department being there.
My local department was charging $76 per house in 2009-10. Once local citizens stopped going to meetings and such, the fire tax skyrocketed to $116 or 52% in 5 years (or up 10% a year). I would be shocked if the number of houses in the district rose more than 1% a year. If there is no oversight, budgets go through the roof whether there is a need or not. My advice to the council is first step-up the oversight and see how efficiently current fire tax dollars are being used.
|
|
|
Post by conservative on Oct 25, 2015 10:51:44 GMT -5
"For councilmen to vote for something in June and reverse it 4 months later, indicates something went wrong in the process."
The question begging an answer is what was the County going to do with the new tax receipts? If that question has been asked it has not been (adequately) answered by the County Council based on news paper reporting. If we need to pay more fire taxes, then why and on what? In which district? If these questions are not extremely easy to answer for council members then Pickens County citizens should be suspicious of the entire County budget. The fact that the new tax was jettisoned at the hint of debate indicates we should know more. Unless it's none of our business. (Disclosure: I too was a target of the new tax and assumed it was needed.)
|
|
|
Post by conservative on Oct 25, 2015 11:18:20 GMT -5
"There are no hidden surpluses tucked away in Swiss bank accounts to fund improvements, and many of the voters in our lovely county don't want to pay what they're already being asked to pay, let alone pay more for necessary services to benefit the "greater good" if it won't fix the pothole in their own driveways."
"http://www.co.pickens.sc.us/_fileUploads/forms/IssuedCAFRFY2014-electronic.pdf"
Alex, Do the unrestricted fund amounts in the general and/or the fire district audited report indicate immediate new taxes are needed for undisclosed or not-debated improvements in County fire protection (or anything else)?
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Oct 29, 2015 12:19:18 GMT -5
I looked at their audit. The cash balances for the county seemed high on June 30th relative to what the school district would have on hand that day as a percentage of the budget. But that June 30 money has to get the county through the rest of the year. If no additional money comes in after June 30, then their cash balance would not be high and they probably don't have any extra or not that much anyways.
Like most boards and councils, the council lacks a financial person by training on the board. Like the school board has a former teacher and a financial person, the county council has a former employee, but probably could use a strong financial person too.
|
|
|
Post by geraldgarrett on Oct 30, 2015 22:04:16 GMT -5
Like most boards and councils, the council lacks a financial person by training on the board ... I can only assume, Alex, that you have absolutely no idea about Neil Smith's background? I actually trust his understanding of government and finance far more than I trust yours. And that's saying a lot, because when - as is frequently the case - you remove the Wall Street prism. avoid tea parties and put on your Main Street glasses, you do get it right most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by geraldgarrett on Feb 4, 2016 3:26:11 GMT -5
Back in 1999, a career political hack by the name of Bob Nash managed to find a creative (and illegal) way force the resignation of then-County Administrator Tom Hendricks from the job. Hendricks sued the county - and won.
Thursday, 16 years and five months after Nash's ill-advised coup, County Council announced that Hendricks will return as County Administrator on an interim basis.
Took 'em long enough.
I'll say very little about this, other than to note that if you see me out on the town smiling over the next few days, it's because even though Karma can often be a bi-atch, I still love her sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Feb 4, 2016 6:27:16 GMT -5
Gerald I just saw your post. My comment was in the wake of the questions about election finances and I guess the fire district tax increase, that they later did a 180 degree turn. Neil Smith is my favorite councilman and extremely capable, but he isn't a trained financial analyst. (See what I wrote, the council doesn't have a trained financial person and you disagreed and said that was Neil. Is he a trained financial analyst and then worked at the job? If so, I stand corrected.
I don't know Tom's capabilities (was before my time -- got here in 1999), but he is very knowledgeable and straight forward so we agree on that.
|
|