80MM surplus is all you need to know in tis instanceGeorge Costanza said:
99.9999% of folks have no idea what is in the budget, how the budget is created, what the tax rate is, could be or should be. It's easy to complain on the internet with generic hyperbole though.
Once again thank you Steve Aldrich and Russ Ford. [Staff Edit about lock]
8,541 Views |
109 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by ChampsAg
ChampsAg said:
Thank you for putting Brazos County second. The implications of their actions will be felt long after they are out of office.
Aldrich is conspicuously absent from all these kbtx interviews. Does has an agenda not related to the tax rate.
I want to see Ford and Aldrich donate their salary for the time they have missed. Don't see how they feel right about taking the taxpayers money and not doing their jobs.
Just so we're clear, you want the residents of Brazos County to have their taxes increased 10%+. That's what would happen if Aldrich and Ford allowed the vote to go forward. It's just that simple.
ChampsAg said:
It's amazing how many people think they know how government works. Maybe you should be attending the meetings and talking to the county employees that handle the finances to see how this is affecting everyone.
I want lower taxes as much as the next person, but as I stated earlier, these gentlemen are being paid to do a job and the bottom line is they ARE NOT DOING IT.
Heard on the radio today that county employees are upset about them not showing up as well.
Well, it's on the radio so it must be true.
And your assertion that you want low taxes fails in contrast to your assertion that you want them to stop blocking a vote that will increase taxes by 10%+ on property owners in Brazos County. You can't have it both ways.
ChampsAg said:
And many feel that they are not. Hence the election results
I doubt very seriously the majority who voted for these Commissioners and Judge were voting to have their taxes raised 10%+.
That aside, Aldrich and Ford are completely within their rights to take the course of action they're taking.
you keep saying that some on here are "more informed" than others and implying that they have inside knowledge. perhaps the pot is calling the kettle black
My stance is that Ford needs to do his job. In my opinion, Aldrich is just following along. I haven't seen an interview or statement from Aldrich, but Ford is all over the media.
Vote your conscience and live with the decision. Avoiding conflict by not showing up is juvenile.
My stance is that Ford needs to do his job. In my opinion, Aldrich is just following along. I haven't seen an interview or statement from Aldrich, but Ford is all over the media.
Vote your conscience and live with the decision. Avoiding conflict by not showing up is juvenile.
By just showing up, everyone's taxes go up. Don't show up, they don't (well not near as much anyway). I'm ok with it.ChampsAg said:
Avoiding conflict by not showing up is juvenile.
It's actually a very good strategy to bring the other's to the table.ChampsAg said:
you keep saying that some on here are "more informed" than others and implying that they have inside knowledge. perhaps the pot is calling the kettle black
My stance is that Ford needs to do his job. In my opinion, Aldrich is just following along. I haven't seen an interview or statement from Aldrich, but Ford is all over the media.
Vote your conscience and live with the decision. Avoiding conflict by not showing up is juvenile.
The only question is, who blinks first?
ChampsAg said:
you keep saying that some on here are "more informed" than others and implying that they have inside knowledge. perhaps the pot is calling the kettle black
My stance is that Ford needs to do his job. In my opinion, Aldrich is just following along. I haven't seen an interview or statement from Aldrich, but Ford is all over the media.
Vote your conscience and live with the decision. Avoiding conflict by not showing up is juvenile.
His job as an elected representative is to represent his constituent's wishes. You're mad because by doing so he's standing in the way of your representative representing your views. That's the representative republic our Founders envisioned. Your understanding of how our form of government is designed to work isn't as sound as you think it is.
Might want to review that Political Science class you considered a blowoff class.
"Government does not tax to get the money it needs, government always finds a need for the money it gets."
"You can't be for big government, big taxes, and big bureaucracy and still be for the little guy" Ronald Reagan
"You can't be for big government, big taxes, and big bureaucracy and still be for the little guy" Ronald Reagan
a little bit of an apples and oranges comparison.BattleGrackle said:
How many of you supported the democrats leaving Texas to avoid a vote in July 2021?
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/12/texas-democrats-walk-out-voting-bill/
The democrats left because they didn't want better voting laws, that they call voter restrictions and in other sates were even likened to Jim Crow laws...sensationalize much... These same people say there is no voter fraud when there clearly is.
Democrats leaving results in no vote and nothing gets passed. Partisan politics at its best
The difference is that in our little local case here there are ramifications if the two sides do not come to an agreement. They will either work together to come to an agreement that works for both sides or the two hold outs will win big time. Chances are they come to an agreement next week.
If our county Judge was any kind if leader he would be bringing the sides together. Where is he? Out if town at a taxpayer paid conference trip. He is not a leader. Our county roads are horrible and we missed the best time this century to issue very low interest bonds and get things fixed. Now they want to HOARD MORE TAX DOLLARS.
All this by a judge whose pet project of remodeling a chapel in the county building was put in front of county infrastructure that is falling apart. Please go drive I&GN/Stousland/Straub south of Greens Prairie and tell me that sitting on an $80 million surplus and then wanting to add to it is good leadership.
All this by a judge whose pet project of remodeling a chapel in the county building was put in front of county infrastructure that is falling apart. Please go drive I&GN/Stousland/Straub south of Greens Prairie and tell me that sitting on an $80 million surplus and then wanting to add to it is good leadership.
Overall I have little confidence in any of the Commissioners or the Judge from a fiscal or planning perspective.
A huge recent gripe is the roadwork along Greens Prairie. This is a project that was well along in 2018. Phase 1 was completed in 2020 with Phase 2 planned to start after that. Phase 2 started on the COCS side in January 2022. Apparently the county hadn't been paying attention and never got funds for a project that could have been completed all at once. When called out on it they finally decided to look into it and found the money that should have been set aside years earlier.
How COCS wasn't pushing the county on the Greens Prairie project to get them moving is beyond me.
Peters in Feb 2022 when first questioned about it after Phase 2 work had already started on the COCS side, while the county was sitting on $80M in extra funds. "It would add significantly to the county budget," said Peters. "We've had those discussions, we're still looking at how we can try to come up and get that project done."
https://www.kbtx.com/2022/02/16/brazos-county-residents-voice-concerns-about-area-roads/
In April the county decides to talk about it.
https://wtaw.com/brazos-county-commissioners-to-consider-widening-greens-prairie-road/
Approved in August
https://wtaw.com/brazos-county-commissioners-approve-spending-more-than-4-million-to-widen-greens-prairie-road-between-improved-sections-in-college-station/
A huge recent gripe is the roadwork along Greens Prairie. This is a project that was well along in 2018. Phase 1 was completed in 2020 with Phase 2 planned to start after that. Phase 2 started on the COCS side in January 2022. Apparently the county hadn't been paying attention and never got funds for a project that could have been completed all at once. When called out on it they finally decided to look into it and found the money that should have been set aside years earlier.
How COCS wasn't pushing the county on the Greens Prairie project to get them moving is beyond me.
Peters in Feb 2022 when first questioned about it after Phase 2 work had already started on the COCS side, while the county was sitting on $80M in extra funds. "It would add significantly to the county budget," said Peters. "We've had those discussions, we're still looking at how we can try to come up and get that project done."
https://www.kbtx.com/2022/02/16/brazos-county-residents-voice-concerns-about-area-roads/
In April the county decides to talk about it.
https://wtaw.com/brazos-county-commissioners-to-consider-widening-greens-prairie-road/
Approved in August
https://wtaw.com/brazos-county-commissioners-approve-spending-more-than-4-million-to-widen-greens-prairie-road-between-improved-sections-in-college-station/
I think you sensationalized your apples/oranges editorializingExpert Analysis said:a little bit of an apples and oranges comparison.BattleGrackle said:
How many of you supported the democrats leaving Texas to avoid a vote in July 2021?
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/12/texas-democrats-walk-out-voting-bill/
The democrats left because they didn't want better voting laws, that they call voter restrictions and in other sates were even likened to Jim Crow laws...sensationalize much... These same people say there is no voter fraud when there clearly is.
Democrats leaving results in no vote and nothing gets passed. Partisan politics at its best
The difference is that in our little local case here there are ramifications if the two sides do not come to an agreement. They will either work together to come to an agreement that works for both sides or the two hold outs will win big time. Chances are they come to an agreement next week.
for sure. but the ramifications of the no vote are different.
Nope. I haven't taken a second to look at the county budget, tax rate, etc. Has anyone on this thread?
If so, what should be cut from or added to the budget, what should the tax rate be? My only point is a bunch of generic and uninformed complaining on the internet from either "side" is pointless and so typical of politics.
If so, what should be cut from or added to the budget, what should the tax rate be? My only point is a bunch of generic and uninformed complaining on the internet from either "side" is pointless and so typical of politics.
"80MM surplus is all you need to know in tis instance"
1. So what should the surplus be and why?
2. I haven't looked at the budget. Is there a $80million surplus or fund balance? Those are two very different things.
1. So what should the surplus be and why?
2. I haven't looked at the budget. Is there a $80million surplus or fund balance? Those are two very different things.
George Costanza said:
Nope. I haven't taken a second to look at the county budget, tax rate, etc. Has anyone on this thread?
If so, what should be cut from or added to the budget, what should the tax rate be? My only point is a bunch of generic and uninformed complaining on the internet from either "side" is pointless and so typical of politics.
So you want us to engage you in a debate on a subject about which you acknowledge you are ignorant? How about you educate yourself first.
It is a rainy day fund, the county does not have a 80 million dollar budget surplus. I agree, huge difference.
When I worked in government years ago, they told us, "we have to spend this money or we'll lose it!" Me, "lose it, we don't need anything, give it back to the taxpayers"…
It was quickly pointed out that it doesn't "go back to the taxpayers", but gets put in a general fund to be spent at the top politico's whim….
I left that job and never went back to work for government again. They are all crooks.
It was quickly pointed out that it doesn't "go back to the taxpayers", but gets put in a general fund to be spent at the top politico's whim….
I left that job and never went back to work for government again. They are all crooks.
Well he did ask a legitimate question. What should be cut from the budget if it does in fact go through at the lowest rate? For instance county employees got a cost of living raise, should that be taken back? Should money from savings be spent? If savings is dipped into how do you propose it be replenished?
cslifer said:
It is a rainy day fund, the county does not have a 80 million dollar budget surplus. I agree, huge difference.
We just had a huge "rainy yearish" (COVID) and they still have $80m sitting around? More like a war chest.
Not sure I would call 90ish days of operating expenses a "war chest"…
"So you want us to engage you in a debate on a subject about which you acknowledge you are ignorant? How about you educate yourself first."
Nah. Internet "debates" are goofy and there is no point in debating a topic apparently no one is knowledgeable about. Nuance is a lost concept in modern political discourse.
Nah. Internet "debates" are goofy and there is no point in debating a topic apparently no one is knowledgeable about. Nuance is a lost concept in modern political discourse.
cslifer said:
Well he did ask a legitimate question. What should be cut from the budget if it does in fact go through at the lowest rate? For instance county employees got a cost of living raise, should that be taken back? Should money from savings be spent? If savings is dipped into how do you propose it be replenished?
California, as things stand today there are two choices. Every taxpayer in Brazos County pays what they paid last year, or every taxpayer pays 10%+ more than last year. I'm more concerned with how much money the government takes from me. Anyone who says the government can't be more efficient is a fool. There's not a governmental entity in America that can't do with less than they're getting. It's not their money.
TrueExpert Analysis said:
for sure. but the ramifications of the no vote are different.
Didn't "we" vote out Ford for the next term? I bet some people are kicking themselves in the rear right now over that, as his replacement would (likely) be right there voting with the three.
I guess the "California" thing is supposed to be some sort of insult? Anyway, reading your response it would appear you are unable to actually name a single item you would change to make it work with the lower rate. Saying "be more efficient" is a cop out, let's hear some specifics on how you would make it work.
hopeandrealchange said:
Thank you for standing firm for the tax paying portion of Brazos County.
Since we have a sales tax, who are the non tax paying portion of Brazos County?
FlyRod said:hopeandrealchange said:
Thank you for standing firm for the tax paying portion of Brazos County.
Since we have a sales tax, who are the non tax paying portion of Brazos County?
Just for informative purposes, what would the sales tax have to increase to equal the total dollar increase of the additional money generated from the proposed tax rate? Ex. 8.25 to 8.35? 9.0? 12?
Yep. Seen that first hand. Not only excess money that you didn't spend not go back to the taxpayers but the next year's budget was reduced due to money not spent. Nothing ever goes back to the taxpayers.Hornbeck said:
When I worked in government years ago, they told us, "we have to spend this money or we'll lose it!" Me, "lose it, we don't need anything, give it back to the taxpayers"…
It was quickly pointed out that it doesn't "go back to the taxpayers", but gets put in a general fund to be spent at the top politico's whim….
I left that job and never went back to work for government again. They are all crooks.
One year towards the end of the fiscal year our department head stated that we had a pool of money that we needed to spend or it would be taken from the program's budget. We were told to find some conference or symposium we wanted to go to as the money needed to be spent. People were search for meetings to go across the county whether the trip was beneficial or not.
Also, we as a department went out and bought five or six state of the art at the time pH meters and titrators for a cost of about $2,000 each. We got them in and we put them on top of a cabinet and they sat there for a decade and the boxes were never even opened. When I left the department years later they have been moved to a storage room.
After a few years of this an edict was passed that no major equipment expenditure or out of state travel could be made after June 1 of the fiscal year without special permission from the gods above. The departments just moved their purging of the budget excesses by equipment expenditures and its travel commitments to earlier in the year.
This was the way it was done years ago, so things may be different now but I doubt it.
do we need 80M in savings? Why does it need to be replenished. Maybe it should be something closer to half of that.cslifer said:
Well he did ask a legitimate question. What should be cut from the budget if it does in fact go through at the lowest rate? For instance county employees got a cost of living raise, should that be taken back? Should money from savings be spent? If savings is dipped into how do you propose it be replenished?
My vote would be to start with the health department. Their record hasn't been all that great over the past 30 months....
They were really successful at stoking fear during their briefings. That has to count for something.cavscout96 said:do we need 80M in savings? Why does it need to be replenished. Maybe it should be something closer to half of that.cslifer said:
Well he did ask a legitimate question. What should be cut from the budget if it does in fact go through at the lowest rate? For instance county employees got a cost of living raise, should that be taken back? Should money from savings be spent? If savings is dipped into how do you propose it be replenished?
My vote would be to start with the health department. Their record hasn't been all that great over the past 30 months....
cslifer said:
I guess the "California" thing is supposed to be some sort of insult? Anyway, reading your response it would appear you are unable to actually name a single item you would change to make it work with the lower rate. Saying "be more efficient" is a cop out, let's hear some specifics on how you would make it work.
You are correct I cannot list one single specific item.
For me it is the attitude that needs to be clipped.
Yesterday I was in the county office to renew registration on a boat trailer. That building is absolutely beautiful with it architectural design and fourty foot high vaulted ceilings. And the massive air ducts coming out of the wall 30 feet up.
My position is a more than adequate building could have been built for 30% of what that beauty cost.
It is an attitude that needs to be changed.
It is like the county is trying to keep up with the Jones with the jones being the City of CS.
How about the city sell the new city hall to the University for 10 cents on the dollar and move the city offices to the mall.
As has been discussed, Governmental accounting is an absolute sham. That makes this issue very important. The only way to "get money back" is to lower the amount the government takes in.
So your idea of a good financial decision is to sell a property at a 90% loss to an entity that would not pay property taxes on prime real estate? Then you would compound that by moving into currently tax paying commercial real estate thus removing that from the tax rolls as well? That idea pretty much says all we need to know about your financial acumen.