Roth Passes On Third Term As Commissioner

PRESS RELEASE – For Immediate Release AS IS - 8 am October 11, 2011

PARKER COUNTY – John Roth today announced that he will not seek a third term as County Commissioner of Precinct Three to pursue other opportunities. Roth will complete his term which ends December 31, 2012.

“Serving the people of Precinct Three and Parker County has been very rewarding, but “I’m excited about rejoining the private sector,” Roth exclaimed.  Making a difference in local government was important to Roth; becoming a career politician was not.

Commissioner Roth is humbled and appreciative that the citizens of Precinct Three gave him the opportunity to serve Parker County.  “Having a voice in the decision making of the county has been an honor and I hope the people are pleased with my relentless push of conservative values,” Roth said.

Since taking office in 2005, Roth was instrumental in the passage of a Certificate of Obligation bond to expand a critically overcrowded jail as well as a Transportation bond which has significantly improved county-wide travel.  Pushing for technology advancements in county offices and improving public safety were high on Roth’s list of priorities as well.  When asked what he has been most proud of, Roth didn’t hesitate, “Besides voting against tax rate increases, helping establish the H.E.A.T. (Heavy Equipment Assistance Team) is what brought the most satisfaction.  We assisted our volunteer firefighters on numerous fires by cutting fire breaks with our dozers and blades which helped them save many properties.”

Precinct Three has made significant progress in the maintenance of over 350 miles of county roads under Roth’s leadership.  “With the demands being placed on our roads, which were never built for the loads and volume they are experiencing, keeping them in good condition has been a daunting task,” Roth claims.  Since Roth took office, Precinct Three has implemented numerous cost-saving ideas.  When rebuilding a road, the material is ground up and reused instead of hauling off the old material and replacing it.  They have also replaced many small-load zoned bridges with thick-wall railroad tankers which are faster to install and saved significant tax dollars.  “We have also saved well over a million dollars on federal surplus equipment,” Roth says.  “We have purchased great equipment for pennies on the dollar and have also accepted many hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment as a donation from the Feds.”

A few years ago, his precinct implemented a web-based application that documents citizen requests so that work orders can be prioritized and assigned.  Commissioner Roth commends his staff and crew for their dedicated service and superior work ethic. “I’ll put my folks up against any around…they make me look good, but they deserve the credit,” Roth said.

When asked about his experiences at Commissioners Court, Roth noted “All in all I really enjoy it…even the times when the discussion gets a little lively.  I study the issues, listen to the point of view of others, throw my thoughts out for mental consumption, and vote for what is right for the county and the people.”

Roth is available to talk with anyone who is interested in serving as County Commissioner.  “I am willing to show those who are considering the job what it entails…anything I can do to help,” he said.

When asked if he was through with public service, Roth said “You never know what the future may hold.”

Commish 3′s views on Parker County Politics and the 2011-2012 Budget Process

 

LOOKS CAN BE DECEIVING….

All of Parker County’s elected officials have been Republican for quite a few years.  In the last Presidential election,Parker County voters overwhelmingly voted for the Republican candidate(s).  Because of those two factors, you—like me—would think that Parker County could be a model that other counties look to for conservative leadership.  Well, looks can be deceiving!

NAÏVE ME!

After being elected to office in 2004, I had no idea that being a conservative would bring such controversy to commissioner’s court.  Naïve me, I thought all republicans were grounded in the party platform.  I thought it was a given that we were united on principles such as less government, personal responsibility, pro second amendment and private property rights.  Boy was I wrong!

MY FIRST CLUE….

A few months after taking office the first alarm of a non-conservative agenda rang out.  In early 2005, Commissioner’s Court voted to spend close to one million dollars on a building and property that we have yet to formally identify a county use.  More puzzling was that the money used to purchase the property was from a bond that was designated specifically for Jail expansion. 

The bond did allow for excess Jail funds to be used for other county property, but the property in question was purchased one year prior to the signing of the jail expansion contract.  

To this day, the seller of the property continues to occupy the building and while I have repeatedly asked to see a written lease agreement, one has yet to be produced!  Whether this was a political favor or real estate speculation, neither in my mind are a proper use of tax dollars.

The vote taken on the purchase of that property really opened my eyes and I started to realize the battle I stepped into.  I was extremely puzzled as to how four “fellow republicans” could vote to buy anything without identifying a county purpose.  That day was not a fluke.  Since then, the liberal “D” agenda has been quite evident…all the while hiding behind the big “R”.

Personally, I don’t really care if you are Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, or even purple with green stripes.  I would respect you more for standing up for your beliefs and being proud of it!  One of the great things about America is that we have the freedom to express our views and opinions.  I believe that—with that freedom—there is a responsibility for elected officials to behave in a manner consistent with the political label they pin beside their name.  Party principles have little to do with many of the decisions made in Commissioner’s Court, but are critical when it comes to decisions dealing with budgets and tax rates.

LET’S TALK ABOUT BUDGETS AND TAXES….

I have voted against the past two budgets and have voted against what is proposed this year as well.  The year before last, I voted against the budget mainly because it pulled a significant amount of money out of our already insufficient reserve fund (fund balance/rainy day fund) so as to give the appearance of a “balanced” budget.  Since spending exceeded revenue for the budget year, it wasn’t really a “balanced” budget.  Last year I was strongly against the Commissioner’s Court games that were being played with the Lateral Road tax (Road and Bridge) and the Debt Service tax to shift money to help prop up the County’s inflated General Fund budget.   

The price of goods and services has gone up for governmental entities just like it has for individuals and families.  When times get tight for taxpayers, we are forced to tighten our belts.  I believe Government should have to do the same.  The easy way out for taxing entities is to raise the tax rate when they should be looking at ways to reduce spending.  Wouldn’t it be nice if we could give ourselves a raise to balance our family budget?  Moreover, in the day of the TEA Party, how can anyone on the political right even consider raising tax rates?

THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATE & MINERAL VALUES….

This year you are being told that the tax rate being adopted is the effective tax rate.  The effective tax rate, in theory, is the rate that will generate the same revenue as last year’s rate on the same property.  Any new property on the tax roll will result in additional revenue over the previous year.  This may need some extra elaboration.  What does this mean to the average taxpayer?  This year’s budget as proposed by Judge Riley contains $1,277,487 of additional revenue to the General Fund while only $347,283 is generated by new value on the tax roll.  No matter how you spin it, the Judge has proposed a $930,204 tax increase over the new value that entered the tax roll this year.

The effective tax rate calculation was legislated years ago as part of “Truth in Taxation” so that taxpayers would know when their taxes were increased.  But, do you know how mineral values are treated in the calculation?  Allow me to explain.  Mineral values are treated as existing value (not new value) and thus DO NOT add to the bottom line tax revenue.  The good news—when mineral values enter the tax roll, the tax burden on the rest of the taxpayers is reduced.  Over the last couple of years, many of the gas wells in Parker County have been plugged and/or production has dropped.  That, coupled with the decrease in value of Natural Gas, means that some of the tax burden that once was being picked up by mineral owners and energy companies has now been shifted back to the rest of the taxpayers.  The bad news—this results in higher taxes for many property owners.

Having minerals values included in the effective tax rate calculation causes confusing and unnecessary fluctuations in the rate itself.  Maybe one day our state legislature will recognize this and adjust the calculation worksheet.

THE VALUE OF CONTINUING EDUCATION….

The effective tax rate CAN BE a confusing subject and the majority of taxpayers may not fully understand it…but it is imperative that County Commissioners and County Judges DO!  This calculation is the heart of how tax rates are calculated and there is no excuse for court members to not fully grasp the concept.  Even with a degree in Business Finance, I needed the additional training to feel comfortable with my understanding of “CountyBusiness.”

It has always been and still is my belief that continuing education is critical for leaders to fully understand the intricacies of their job responsibilities.  Without extensive training, court members can’t have full grasp of how to maneuver through all the rules and mandates placed on counties by the state.  Newly elected officials need to go to school and do their homework instead of relying on what one member of the court thinks to make their decisions for them.  This IS the way to better serve our constituents.

Unfortunately, county government is not set up to run as an effective business.  All county elected officials have the total say in how their office operates, but their budgets must be approved by Commissioner’s Court.  Contrary to the  process, it would seem reasonable, therefore, for Commissioners to be involved with the preparation as well as approval.

 GENERAL FUND AND LATERAL ROAD TAXES  

To clarify, the General Fund is made up of basically all county departments except for the road and bridge precincts.  The general fund tax rate funds general fund activities while the lateral road tax supports precinct road budgets.  The third tax is the debt service rate which is set to make the payments on the county’s general fund and transportation bond debt.

The lateral road tax was established in the 1950’s by a vote of the people.  It is specifically dedicated to be used for the construction and maintenance of county roads.  Prior to the road tax being approved by the voters, the general fund was responsible for funding road and bridge operations.  The purpose of the tax was not to replace the general fund’s obligation, but to add supplemental money to road and bridge operations to get Parker County roads in good shape and keep them that way.

Over the past few years, there has been a push by Judge Riley to shift road and bridge money to the general fund by reducing the road and bridge tax rate and raising the general fund tax rate.  Doing this would totally defeat the original purpose of establishing the road tax.

When established in the ‘50’s, the road tax was set at 30 cents per $100 valuation.  Sixty some odd years later, it has dwindled to a little over 8 cents per $100.  To compound the funding issue of our roads, the recent oil and gas exploration has added hundreds of year’s worth of typical damage to the roads in just a few years.  Throwing road and bridge money at the general fund doesn’t address the problems in the general fund and forces precincts to neglect maintenance of some county roads.  In the last 3 years (including this year’s proposed budget) the property tax revenue in the general fund has increased by over 14% while the road and bridge tax revenue has decreased by over 7%.  If you look back over the past 7 Years, general fund property tax revenue has grown by 142% while over the same period road and bridge has grown by 69%.  This data makes the shift in funding very evident. 

In my opinion,

 this prolongs the needed adjustments in the general fund,

while compounding the maintenance issues of county roads.

These are complex issues which deserve to be analyzed by the whole court.  In my seven years on the court, this year is the longest the Judge has waited to start budget talks with the commissioners.  This year—of all years—the budget process should have begun many months ago.  Instead, our first budget meeting of the entire Court was on September 6^th with adoption of the budget and tax rate scheduled for September 26^th.

In counties under 225,000 in population the County Judge is designated as the budget officer and is required to file a proposed budget by July 31^st each year.  Judge Riley met that requirement, but waited over a month to set budget meetings with the whole court. 

With two new members of the court and another in just his third budget season…waiting until virtually the last minute, hasn’t given them much time to absorb all the details of roughly a fifty million dollar county budget.

THE JUDGE AND ME….

Recently in court, I made a challenge to Judge Riley that we put all politics aside and suggested that next year we start the budget process many months sooner.  Unfortunately, all the Judge could muster up to my challenge were personal attacks like claiming this is the first year I’ve asked good questions, stating I don’t do my homework and accusing me of not taking my job seriously.  These accusations had no purpose except to divert from the issue being debated, bolster his ego and make light of my efforts. My challenge is still on the table and I hope he will accept it before the next budget season.

BUDGETING IS SERIOUS BUSINESS 

Now, I like to do my share of kidding around, but folks this budget isn’t something to joke with.  In a recent budget meeting Commissioner Conley was joking around in Court and made a motion to eliminate Precinct 3 and transfer most of the money to the general fund which he said would solve this year’s general fund budget problems.  I seconded the motion.  Please understand that seconding a motion doesn’t always mean you agree with it (which of course I didn’t).  It is, however, a way to advance into discussion.  When I called for a vote and Commissioner Conley didn’t withdraw his motion, a vote was taken.  He, then, is on record for voting to eliminate a precinct.  The others voted to keep Precinct 3.  Since he wouldn’t withdraw his motion, he must have intended it as something more than a joke.

THIS IS NOT A JOKING MATTER!

YOUR CHANCE TO SPEAK UP…

This is the second year in a row that Judge Riley and George Conley want to raise the tax rate.  Once again, I am opposed.  The two new members of the court are split — Dusty Renfro has been very vocal that he will not go for a rate increase while Craig Peacock seems to be in lock step with Riley and Conley.

To better accommodate taxpayers and to allow our working citizens an opportunity to participate, I made a motion to set a PUBLIC HEARING to discuss and adopt the budget and tax rate for Monday night, September 26 @ 7pm in the 2^nd floor court room of the main courthouse.  To my knowledge, this is a first.  Normally, this meeting occurs on a weekday morning while most people are at work.  Hopefully, this will make our meeting accessible to many more taxpayers.  I invite you to attend.  This is a PUBLIC HEARING.

It’s time to get this blog going again

It’s been a while since I’ve posted on my blog.  The time has come for me to crank this site back up again.  I will be posting shortly about Parker County Politics and the 2011-2012 Budget.  I look forward to engaging folks again in this format.

Conley’s Endorsement of Riley with Roth’s Comments

The following letter ran as a paid advertisement in the Springtown Epigraph and the Weatherford Democrat prior to the March 2^nd Primary.  George Conley made some statements in the letter which are misleading at best.  After his comments I respond to set the record straight.

Reading my Guest Editorial (which ran in the Weatherford Telegram on February 17, 2010) would make Conley’s letter and my comments more understandable.  Here is a link to my Guest Editorial.  http://commish3.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/guest-editorial-commissioner-john-roth/#comment-38

 

 

Conley’s Endorsement of Riley

CONLEY:  As County Commissioner, I am asked by many which candidates in local elections are, in my opinion, going to represent their best interest if elected.  For the following reasons, which are a mere few of many, I strongly recommend you keep a proven conservative leader as your County Judge and vote to re-elect Mark Riley.

 ROTH:  I’m not quite sure what George’s definition of a conservative is, but just saying it doesn’t make it so.  Look at voting records and you decide.

CONLEY:  Being a relatively new Commissioner, I’ve observed studied, and listened intently to the many issues discussed during each meeting of Commissioners Court.  I take the time to investigate words written and/or spoken which are portrayed to you as being factual.  I believe to be factual the information should also be complete.

 ROTH:  I challenge anyone to prove that the information I provide is not factual.  If anything I have said is not correct, I will correct the information ASAP.  One of the main reasons I created my blog was to provide more complete information on the court’s decisions.

CONLEY:  I read and re-read the information written by Commissioner John Roth, Precinct 3, per the Guest Editorial printed in the February 17, 2010 issue of the Weatherford Telegram.  I investigated and searched for facts that would support each statement made by Roth.  I believe his statements are either non-factual or incomplete.   The following is what I believe to be the facts and the reason I urge you to join me in keeping dedication, experience and conservative leadership by re-electing Mark Riley for County Judge.

 ROTH:  Twice, so far, Mr. Conley insinuates that I do not tell the truth.  He says my statements are non-factual or incomplete.  Which is it?  He needs to be consistent with his argument and provide complete and factual information.  Be specific!

CONLEY:  The following is what I’ve concluded to be the facts about our existing county government under the guidance of County Judge Mark Riley:

Fact 1:  The average general fund reserve is 60-90 days not simply 9 days. 

 ROTH:  There is no such thing as an average “fund balance”.  On the General Fund’s Balance Sheet under Equity, line 2-271-000-010 shows the Fund Balance to be $1,614,749.63.  Fund Balance does not float around…it is exact, to the penny.  He may be confused with cash flow in our bank account balance…that has nothing to do with the Fund Balance of the General Fund.

 Let’s do the math to figure out how many days of fund balance we have in reserve…

If you take the fund balance on the balance sheet and subtract the amount of fund balance used to balance this year’s (2009-2010) budget, then the amount remaining is the fund balance reserve that is available in case of unforeseen expenses or an emergency situation.  The amount of fund balance used in the 2009-2010 budget can be found on the county’s website home page…just click on Adopted Budget and go to page 82 where you will find line 3-399-000-001 Unexpended Fund Balance $742,697.  On the same page, just under that line is the Total Revenue Line with an amount of $35,961,003.  The Total Revenue equals the Total Expenditures which can be found on page 78.  Hang in…we are almost there. 

 

Fund Balance – Committed Fund Balance = Available Fund Balance

$1,614,749.63 – $742,697 = $872,052.63

Total Budget divided by the number of days in the year = Daily Needs

$35,961,003 / 365 = $98,523.30

Available Fund Balance divided by our Daily Needs = Days in Reserve

$872,052.63 / $98,523.30 = 8.85 Days in General Fund Reserve

 Please let me set the record straight.  To say we had 9 days in reserve was indeed not factual.  I did not intend to mislead anyone.  The fact is: Parker County has 8.85 Days available in General Fund “Fund Balance” Reserves.

CONLEY:  The bond rating of any county must be considered in the formula.  Under the leadership of Judge Riley, Parker County has been upgraded to a bond rating of AA.  This can be compared to the “credit scores” you and I look to.  The AA rating means lower interest on any borrowed money.

ROTH:  Actually, it’s  AA-, but he wasn’t too far off.  Good bond ratings depend on having adequate General Fund Reserves.

 CONLEY:  County Judge Mark Riley did not support raising taxes to add to the reserve funds as his experience told him the reserve funds will grow as fees and sales taxes rebound, which is happening now.  I learned the county has collected 58% of the budgeted (expected) revenue in only 4.5 months.  Judge Riley has lead Parker County to being 30+ days ahead of schedule in the collection of revenues.  Reserve funds grown this way.

ROTH:  If it were only that simple.  Reserve funds grow at the END of the budget year if revenues exceed expenses.  The best way to accomplish this is to cut expenses…not raise taxes!

 It is absurd to say that the County Judge led us to being 30+ days ahead of schedule in revenue collections.  Ad valorem tax revenue makes up 62.1% of the county’s projected revenue and at this point in our budget year 90% of those taxes have been received.  That’s not because someone did a good job collecting revenue…it’s because people pay their taxes starting in December.

CONLEY:  County Judge Mark Riley once told me decisions made in Commissioners Court are often difficult and sometimes unpopular.  Endless hours were dedicated to the budget process as Judge Riley shared his knowledge and expertise.  Pay raises were not given to Parker County employees, elected officials, employee contribution for health insurance was increased and new jobs were not allowed.  Funds were needed to cover increases in the cost of fuel, utilities, and insurance.  Instead of raising taxes, difficult decisions were made.

ROTH:  Judge Riley is right that decisions made in Commissioners Court are often difficult and unpopular.  This was my fourth budget season and we spent less time on this budget than any of the others.  The Judges General Fund budget for the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year is $2,452,149 higher than the total actual 2008-2009 General Fund expenses.

CONLEY:  A $450,000 expenditure for a radio system was approved by majority vote to come from reserve funds.  Taxes were not raised, but all citizens can be assured emergency services in Parker County will be there for them.  Decisions may have been difficult, but were made to avoid raising taxes.  This was done under the conservative leadership of County Judge Mark Riley.

ROTH:  The expenditure for the radio system is being paid out of a $3 million tax note and was not paid for with General Fund “Fund Balance” reserves.  A tax note is a loan (in this case for capital purchases) secured by future tax dollars.   The $450,000 he refers to is an installment payment and not the total purchase.  The actual payment is $470,877.67 and was paid last year on January 26, 2009 and this year on January 25, 2010.

CONLEY:  Commissioner Roth indicated you might not hear much about local county government.  He failed to tell you may go to www.co.parker.tx.us where you will find all financial information, including the budget, as well as other facts.  Only 3 of the 254 Texas counties received the Texas State Comptroller’s Gold Star Award for Transparency in Local Government.  I’m proud Parker County is 1 of the 3.  Because County Judge Mark Riley wants you to have facts as to how our tax dollars are spent he led the way to make this happen.

ROTH:  The transparency on the website is great but it is not enough.  The way the information is displayed is way too confusing and needs to be better organized.  Archived Commissioners Court minutes should be on the website as well so that the public can see if we do what we say we are going to do.

CONLEY:  Commissioner Roth claims long term planning is not in place.  Having been a commissioner for over 6 years it seems to me he should have noticed it is in place.  I guess he didn’t know the $915,000 (market value) purchase of real estate is part of long term planning.  Interest has already been expressed by the State for its use in the future.  He should have noticed we are under budget and ahead of construction schedule for the outer loop highway.  He should know neither commissioners nor the County Judge have authority over roadways belonging to the State or a City.  As a Court we can and do support their efforts.

ROTH:  There is no long range transportation plan.  The bond projects are great, but it is not part of a comprehensive 5, 10 and 20 year plan.  The real estate purchased was bought for appraised value…I wonder what it is worth in today’s market?  No purpose for the property was given when we purchased it and no purpose has been given in court since.  If the State is interested in the property then that needs to be discussed in open court and not in private meetings.

CONLEY:  John Roth, Commissioner of Precinct 3 voted against the current budget – the budget that did not raise our taxes.  By his vote he did not support allocated funds to ESD #6 which provides fire protection in Precinct 3.  He did not support the budget for law enforcement, for the people’s court in Precinct 3, or funding for his own budget.  At any time he was able to place any item on the Commissioners Court agenda.  I believe he should have at least placed issues to support his constituents in Precinct 3.  To do so would have exposed the fact that Precinct 3, under his ‘conservative’ direction is in debt more than all other precincts combined.

ROTH:  Those statements are so ludicrous that they don’t deserve a reply.    

I know that as a Commissioner I am elected to protect and serve Precinct 1 first and then all of Parker County.  I am confident that asking you to re-elect Mark Riley as your County Judge all of Parker County will be better served by a true conservative with the experience, knowledge, and the fiscal responsibility we need and expect from a County leader.

Respectfully submitted,

George Conley

Parker County Commissioner, Precinct 1

P. O. Box 660 Springtown, Texas 67082

 

 

Post Primary 2010 Letter to the Editor

This letter was submitted to the Weatherford Democrat, Weatherford Telegram, Springtown Epigraph and the Community News.

March 5, 2010

Dear Editor:

Congratulations to Mark Riley for his successful re-election bid as County Judge.  Also, congratulations and welcome to the court (in January) to Dusty Renfro.  There is so much that goes into campaigning for office…I know how relieved both of them are to have election day behind them.  Run-offs are tough; hats off to Steve Harris and Craig Peacock for making the cut.  It’s going to be refreshing to have new commissioners on the court.

A few people erroneously tried to take my endorsement for Cary McKay as something personal between Mark and myself.  That is not true.  What is true is that Mark and I are both passionate about what we believe.  Thank God for the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect our freedom so that we can express our beliefs.
This campaign season has yielded a significant benefit for our court.

The concern about wasteful spending in Washington D.C. has sifted down to the local level and people are becoming more interested in Parker County government and how we spend tax dollars.

Some people have expressed a concern that Commissioner’s Court might be different because McKay was endorsed by me and Riley was endorsed by Brinkley and Conley.  I really don’t think it will.  On the majority of our votes we all agree.  On those issues where we don’t agree, I will continue to fight for the principles I believe best represent my constituency.  My core values influence my decisions.  They are not goals which are evaluated and adjusted every year…they are my permanent compass.  The concern about potential turmoil in court is valid, but professionals must look past campaign rhetoric and focus on the issues at hand.

Sincerely,

John Roth

Fortune Teller – Letter to the Editor

The following letter to the editor was published in the Weatherford Telegram on February 24, 2010.  Please read my response to this letter in the comment section of this post.  – John Roth

 

Fortune teller

My Commissioner (John Roth) must have a crystal ball that gives him the foresight to endorse Cary McKay for County Judge. This position will work if his selection gets the job. But what if the incumbent holds his ground? This prospect could impact our precinct in the negative if the incumbent has a long memory.

Duly noted was the thinly veiled attempt to assume the position as a “voice of reason” with conservative values. The two big money items noted were mentioned without full disclosure.

The $13 million referenced expenditure on “…a jail design that limits future expansion…,” this recent construction was mandated by the lack of space for the number of Parker County jail inmates. The county cannot make law and must obey state law that mandates county compliance. You are correct that jail expansion is not an option because a variance had to be obtained for the construction to take place on the same land as the existing jail. Full disclosure, the jail now makes money because Parker County is paid for federal inmates that are housed in our jail.

The $915,000 expenditure was for the purchase of the senior center and yes, you did vote against this in 2005. The county will need additional land in the future and this was a reasonable expenditure for the cost.

Parker County is not bleeding red ink and once again your reference to words used by Judge Riley slants to the “good ol’ boy” thing. A new County Judge with two new commissioners might just take us back to yesteryear. There was a time in the 1990s that Parker County had a three ring circus with Commissioners Court, City Council and PCAD. The members of these entities rarely agreed on anything and had more infighting than the World Wrestling Federation.

Your decision to publicly distance yourself from the incumbent by characterizing it as an indictment against waste and perceived inept county spending was weak. I don’t know Judge Riley’s opponent, but oratorical skills and claiming to be a conservative republican may not get the county where it needs to be in the next decade. If Parker County gets a new county judge with two new commissioners and one commissioner that only has a year on the job, that has to present a problem of some discription for the current negotiations relating to our Transportation Bond works.

The transportation development that is underway was discussed back in the mid 1980s and Judge Riley wasn’t a factor then, but he is now. This transportation development (on track and ahead of schedule) is vital to county growth and tax revenues for the future.

These attacks on Judge Riley’s character, dedication and record are being made without regard to the truth.

I don’t always agree with him and the court, but suffice to say he has my support.

K.A. Gibbins Jr.

Weatherford

Guest ed: Brinkley supports County Judge Mark Riley

Below is Joe Brinkley’s guest editorial which appeared on the Weatherford Telegram website today.  I think it is extremely important for Parker County citizens to hear both sides of any issue.  My guest editorial supporting Cary McKay for County Judge appeared in last weeks paper.

In my letter I gave you facts about the issues and explained why I voted the way I did.  Unfortunately, Mr. Brinkley did not do the same.  It is imperative that when politicians make statements that they tell the truth.  Some of his statements are misleading at best.  I did not try to speak for any member of the court, but Joe seems very comfortable speaking for me.

I will interrupt the article, at times, to insert my comments and factual information.  You be the Judge.

Brinkley’s letter and my responses will make more sense if you read my guest editorial endorsement for McKay.  http://commish3.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/guest-editorial-commissioner-john-roth/#comment-34

 

Guest ed: Brinkley supports County Judge Mark Riley

BRINKLEY:  Occasionally in this life we meet someone who consistently believes their individual wisdom is greater than the wisdom of the whole.

Fortunately, this happens only occasionally. My fellow Commissioner John Roth of Precinct 3 used this space last week in an attempt to convince Parker County residents that he alone knows what is best for you, the taxpayer.

Considering this, I would like to summarize for you some, but not all, of the positive actions of Parker County Government under the leadership of County Judge Mark Riley.

First, in 2003, Commissioner’s Court voted unanimously to freeze property taxes on persons 65 years of age or older as authorized by the State Legislature with an effective date of 2004. This was prior to Commissioner Roth being on the Court. This has resulted in a savings to those taxpayers of about $2 million and the County has continued to have balanced budgets and a low tax rate.

Under Judge Riley’s leadership, your tax rate was lowered from what it was when he took office. Under Judge Riley’s management of the Parker County budget, our bond rating has improved to a AA-, which saved tax payers $600,000 in interest on the Parker County Transportation Bond that was approved overwhelmingly by you, the voters. You don’t get a AA- bond rating without having a well-managed and conservative fiscal policy, which we have under Judge Riley.

As a new commissioner, Roth opposed proceeding with the construction of the Parker County Jail expansion at a time when you, the taxpayer, were paying for Parker County inmates to be housed in other county jails due to lack of jail space in our own jail.

ROTH:   I made the motion to initiate a Certificate of Obligation for the Jail expansion.  When you make a motion you must vote for the motion.

BRINKLEY:  The design was not Commissioner Roth’s, but it met architectural and engineering standards and those of the State Jail Commission, and was cost effective. Due to the design of the current jail facility and the contract with a private jail management company, Parker County has enjoyed a cost savings of more than $300,000. Now we not only have enough bed space to house all of our prisoners, but also we are now being paid to house federal prisoners, which is estimated to generate up to $250,000 in annual revenue.

ROTH:   The problem I had with the jail design was that the drawings authorized by the court were an inefficient use of the land.  Drive on the west side of the jail on Mill Street and you will see what I am talking about.  There is approximately a half-acre of unused crawl space under a suspended slab.  The 10′ to 14′ fall across the property offered the possibility to build a two-story structure on portions of the site.  I was also a big advocate for the privatization of the jail management.

BRINKLEY:  Commissioner’s Court voted 4-1 to close the Parker County Health Clinic, which was somewhat of a trial facility and did not prove to be cost-effective. The results in savings was something more than $200,000. Commissioner Roth voted against this.

ROTH:   Mr. Brinkley is referring to our Employee Health & Wellness Center.  This is an idea that many large private companies implement to reduce bottom line costs.  We contracted with a third party health provider for group rates which saved us money.  After 17 months we were close to break even.  By getting diabetics and hypertensive employees compliant with their conditions, we started seeing a trend in reducing our long-term health care costs…which is critical since we are self insured. 

BRINKLEY:  The current Parker County budget is a balanced budget due in great part to Judge Riley reducing proposed expenditures of the various departments by some $800,000 in order to maintain a low tax rate and still provide the level of services required by taxpayers. Commissioner Roth opposed this budget.

ROTH:   You are darn right I voted against this budget!  The only thing that balanced this years budget was digging into reserves to the tune of $742,697.  The adopted budget had total General Fund expenditures of $36,061,003.  Last years actual expenditures were $33,508,854.  Thats an increase of  $2,552,149. 

BRINKLEY:  Commissioner Roth also opposed increasing the employees share of their health insurance premiums, which would have left you, the taxpayer, to pick up this cost.

ROTH:   Over the past few years, our court underfunded our self insurance escrow fund.  In budget session I agreed that our employees eventually need to pick up a larger percentage of their health care costs, but not in a year with no increase in salaries…and especially not before exhausting all other opportunities to cut expenses.

BRINKLEY:  During budget hearings there was also discussion led by County Judge Mark Riley to eliminate cell phone allowances for elected officials. Commissioner Roth opposed this, saying the $25,000 in savings that would come from eliminating the cell phone allowances was not significant. While Judge Riley, Commissioner Jim Webster and I consider our salaries adequate and voluntarily gave up our cell phone allowances, Commissioner Roth continues to let you, the taxpayer, fund his cell phone.

ROTH:   This was political grandstanding at its best.  The budget meeting that this was discussed is a prime reason that our meetings need to be televised or webcast.  Cell phones for Commissioners are a ligitimate and necessary expense if you are going to maximize your time and resources.  My smart phone gives my constituents, employees, VFD’s, ESD’s, elected officials, and emergency managment immediate access to me thru emails, text messages and phone calls.  The internet service on my phone allows me to check real-time levels of the Brazos River during floods and immediate radar displays during severe weather.  The efficiency savings far outweighs the small monthly fee.

BRINKLEY:  Although the current County Budget cut spending and maintained a low tax rate, Commissioner Roth voted against the tax rate, apparently because he thought the County needed a higher tax rate and more money. This is conservative? I don’t think so.

ROTH:   Once again, this years budget is an increase of $2,552,149 over last years actual expenses.  I voted against the budget because of wasteful spending and the use of too much of our reserves to balance the budget.

BRINKLEY:  In a Sept. 9 Weatherford Telegram article regarding setting the tax rate, Commissioner Roth was quoted as saying, “Say the economy got really bad, like it’s going now. Say people don’t pay their property taxes. Then we have a shortfall. Where do we make up the difference? From our savings account – previous tax dollars collected and not expended.”

ROTH:  Exactly!  My point was we need to have sufficient reserves in case the economy worsens and tax delinquencies increase.  Using $742,697 of reserves to balance the budget drove our emergency reserve fund down to appoximately nine days of expenses.

BRINKLEY:  As your Precinct 2 Commissioner, I personally have more faith in our taxpayers than that. Some elected officials seem to take comfort in having more of your money. I take comfort in you having more of your money.

ROTH:  Please read all the motions I discuss in this blog.  This kind of comment is liberal spin.

BRINKLEY:  Precinct 3 and Precinct 2 have the two largest annual budgets of the four Precincts based on road miles and tax base. However, Precinct 3 has something over 40 percent of financed debt of the four precincts combined. Once again, is this conservative management of your tax dollars?

ROTH:  Instead of paying cash for all equipment, I have chosen to finance certain pieces of equipment for 3-5 years so that I could allocate more of the Precinct 3 budget to road materials.  This has made the operation of Precinct 3 much more effective in how we attack road repairs.

BRINKLEY:  Regarding the Senior Center, the Court moved on the transaction to facilitate the future services for seniors as well as space that will be needed by the County. The North Central Texas Council of Governments projects the population of Parker County will increase by 284 percent, to a population of 328,400, by the year 2030. Folks, that is long-range planning, which is what governments should do.

ROTH:  A $915,000 purchase of property without an identified county purpose.   For what?  No purpose was stated at the time of purchase and nothing has been mentioned in court since.  I believe that Commissioners Court should not be in the real estate speculation business!  The purchase money for this property was taken from jail expansion funds.  The result was fewer new beds and less long-term capacity in the jail.

BRINKLEY:  I do agree with Commissioner Roth on one position. We do need a County Judge who is a leader, committed to fiscal responsibility and focused on the future of Parker County. We already have that in County Judge Mark Riley. He has done an excellent job as Judge. He has managed the county’s growth while lowering your taxes. Judge Riley is a smart fiscal conservative and an effective and qualified leader who is passionate about his job as County Judge.

My vote is to keep Mark Riley as Parker County Judge in the interest of the future of this County.

Joe Brinkley

Precinct 2 Commissioner

Use of Interest & Sinking Fund “Fund Balance”

The following is an actual motion which was passed in the Parker County Commissioners Court.  Please read my remarks in the comment section.

Thanks,  John Roth

Special Budget Session

Commissioners Court Minutes

August 31, 2009

Motion was made by Judge Riley and second by Commissioner Webster to transfer the amount needed from Interest and Sinking (I&S) fund being Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($800,000) to lower debt rate by one cent ($0.01) for the Fiscal Year 2009-2010.

In Favor – Riley, Conley, Brinkley, Webster

Opposed – Roth

Establishing a Platting Office

The following is an actual motion which was passed in the Parker County Commissioners Court.  Please read my remarks in the comment section.

Thanks,  John Roth

October 6, 2008

Commissioners Court Minutes

Item # 2.  ESTABLISH A PLATTING OFFICE

Motion was made by Commissioner Brinkley and second by Commissioner Choate to establish a platting office to be staffed initially with a Plat Coordinator position with office space to be determined.

In Favor – Riley, Brinkley, Choate, Webster

Opposed – Roth

Travel Reimbursement for Commissioner, Precinct One

The following is an actual motion which was passed in the Parker County Commissioners Court.  Please read my remarks in the comment section.

Thanks,  John Roth

August 11, 2008

Commissioners Court Minutes

Item #4. a.  TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMISSIONER PRECINCT ONE

Motion was made by Commissioner Brinkley and second by Commissioner Webster to approve travel and reimbursement expenses for Precinct One (1) Commissioner to attend an Erosion Control Seminar on August 11-13, 2008 and a TAC Conference on August 27-29, 2008 for the purpose of continued education credits required by law.

In Favor – Riley, Brinkley, Webster

Opposed – Roth

Absent – Choate (attending conference)

Health Benefit Coverage for Injectables

The following is an actual motion which was passed in the Parker County Commissioners Court.  Please read my remarks in the comment section.

Thanks,  John Roth

June 26, 2006

Commissioners Court Minutes

Item #1.  HEALTH BENEFIT COVERAGE

Motion made by Commissioner Webster and second by Commissioner Choate to provide health benefit coverage for injectables in lieu of surgery as recommended by a physician.

In Favor – Choate, Webster, Riley

Opposed – Roth

Absent – Brinkley

Gastric Bypass Surgery

The following is an actual motion which was passed in the Parker County Commissioners Court.  Please read my remarks in the comment section.

Thanks,  John Roth

December 12, 2005

Commissioners Court Minutes

Item #4.  APPROVE SURGERY FOR INSURANCE PURPOSES

Motion was made by Commissioner Brinkley and second by Judge Riley to provide gastric bypass surgery in the Parker County Health Insurance Plan, and to request the treasurer to determine the payment options, in the plan, and to include the input from the county auditor on this issue.

In Favor – Riley, Brinkley, Webster

Opposed – Roth

Absent – Choate

_____________________________________________

January 10, 2006

Commissioners Court Minutes

Item #17.  GASTRIC BYPASS SURGERY

Motion made by Judge riley and second by Commissioner Roth to rescind the previous motion on December 12, 2005, authorizing gastric bypass surgery.

In Favor – Roth, Riley, Webster

Opposed – Brinkley, Choate

______________________________________________________________________

January 10, 2006

Commissioners Court Minutes

Item #18.  FUNDING FOR GASTRIC BYPASS SURGERY

Motion made by Judge Riley and second by Commissioner Choate to set a cap of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) to be funded inside the plan and allowable benefit as to be paid for an employee who prior to January 11, 2006 has submitted the proper paperwork for pre-certification to Boon Chapman.

In Favor – Riley, Brinkley, Choate

Opposed – Roth, Webster

Ask the Commish

Have a question for John Roth…this is the place to ask it.  If you don’t want to ask your question in a public forum, you can send John an email to john.roth@parkercountytx.com

Plant Study on the County Farm

The following is an actual motion which was passed in the Parker County Commissioners Court.  Please read my remarks in the comment section.

Thanks,  John Roth

September 7, 2006

Commissioners Court Minutes

Motion was made by Commissioner Brinkley and second by Commissioner Webster to include in the 2006-2007 Budget the amount of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for the County Farm for the purpose of a plant study when authorized by the Court.

For – Choate, Brinkley, Webster and Riley

Against – Roth

Use of Fund Balance to balance the Budget

The following is an actual motion which was passed in the Parker County Commissioners Court.  Please read my remarks in the comment section.

Thanks,  John Roth

Commissioners Court Minutes

Special Budget Session

August 31, 2009

Motion was made by Commissioner Brinkley and second by Judge Riley that Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) from Fund 50 (Road and Bridge Fund) be transferred to Fund 10 (General Fund) as reimbursement for services rendered.

For – Conley, Brinkley, Webster and Riley

Against – Roth

———————————————————————————

Motion was made by Judge Riley and second by Commissioner Brinkley to move Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000.00) from General Fund Balance to offset insurance cost for Fiscal Year 2009-2010.

For – Conley, Brinkley, Webster and Riley

Against – Roth

Commissioner Roth endorses McKay for County Judge

As County Commissioner, I am asked frequently who I recommend in local elections.

I am honored when people ask. I don’t take their confidence in my opinion lightly. Until now, I have not publically endorsed any candidate running for local office. What I have experienced in my five years on Commissioners Court has convinced me to no longer sit quietly on the sidelines during this primary election for County Judge.

Many citizens in our county don’t hear much about the decisions of our court. You may not know that our court recently approved a budget (which I opposed) that reduced our general fund balance to a level of only nine days in reserve. The GFOA (Government Finance Officers Association) recommends a minimum of 60 days in reserve to mitigate current and future risks, to ensure stable tax rates and to maintain creditworthiness. Considering the current economic climate, I believe adequate reserves are imperative to the financial stability of our county.

During the Aug. 31 budget session, in a comment to the commissioners, Judge Riley said, “…as you guys know, sometimes, when there’s lots of money it’s easy, and we had some years where revenues were up and we didn’t spend hardly anytime fooling with the budget…”

In all fairness, I checked the recording of our meeting and that is what he said. I believe that, as stewards of taxpayer dollars, we have an obligation to give full consideration to the budget every year.

Making a significant real estate purchase ($915,000) without identifying a use for the property, a poor jail design ($13,316,033) that limited future expansion, and hiring a consultant to do a plant study ($2,000) on the county farm are a few more of the court’s decisions which I opposed. I do not question the court’s authority to make those decisions…I just do not think those are wise expenditures of taxpayer dollars. For more information, refer to my blog www.commish3.wordpress.com

Even though I occasionally disagree with the judge and members of the court, in no way do I question their commitment and dedication to our community. I truly believe, based on our personal and political convictions, each of us is doing what we think is right. My comments, then, are specifically directed at differences in opinion when it comes to conducting the business of Parker County, not as a personal attack on any one person. Personal attacks, in my opinion, have no place in politics.

Parker County is changing in front of our eyes. The challenges we face today are not the same as those the court faced 20 years ago. The recent transportation bond is a nice start to addressing Parker County’s traffic problems. It is not, however, part of a long range plan that should have already been in place. Planning for transportation and growth is critical to protecting the quality of life we enjoy and cherish.

Over the last year, Cary McKay and I have had extensive conversations about how Commissioner’s Court conducts its business as well as discussions about the future of our county. Inevitably, we may not agree on everything, but the openness to share ideas that lead to solutions will be beneficial to everyone. Protecting Parker County as a great place to live, work, and raise a family is a vision that we both share.

I believe that Cary McKay has what it takes to make an excellent County Judge. His dynamic team-building skills, his commitment to fiscal responsibility and his focus on planning for our future make him the type of leader who will serve Parker County well. Please join me in voting for Cary McKay.

The future you envision for Parker County is in your hands.

John Roth

Pecinct 3 Commissioner