Posted by Blue_Dog (anonymous) on September 1, 2009 at 11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"take the burden off the county commission" Hah, It just gives the new board the right to tax up to 5 mils without oversight by any elected official.

Posted by Paccifier (anonymous) on September 1, 2009 at 11:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where did you get the 5 mil figure- that was never said at the meeting, and all 8 members of the board must be elected- 4 from Lyon, 4 from Chase, just like School Board members are elected, Initially, the 8 will be appointed by their respective county commissions, but over the first 2 year span all will stand for election, and anyone in the county eligible for any other office can run. You don't think somebody on the board won't be watching what they spend- do you not realize that the board members will be unpaid and also taxpayers? If I were on a board like that, I'd be watching what was spent, because in the long run, I'd be paying the taxes too.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 2, 2009 at 5:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In one of the blurbs we were told that there is a 2.5 mil cap imposed by law. The proponents of this measure said they had done some "research" in the past couple of weeks and found that there is no legal cap at all. That doesn't mean that this board, if instituted, would go beyond that limt. But theoretically they can. Once instituted they would have the power to levy taxes.

In terms of cost we were told it would cost only 1/4 mil more than we are currently spending through the county commission allocation process. In order for that to be realized the county commission would have to pledge to give the allocated portion they'd been making in the form of a levy decrease. It also hinges on the proponents' match, which looked quite fuzzy. It didn't include the cost of a facility, which they are assuming would be "gifted" to them by the county. If that doesn't happen we are talking either brick and mortar or facility lease costs, etc. That would increase the levy to be imposed.

In financial terms this appears to be a far better deal for Chase than it is for Lyon county. Their levy would decrease significantly, because of lower valuations plugged in and lower population density.

I'm sure the extension offices are quite useful. That's not the question. For me, what efficiencies are we gaining for the cost and additional taxing instruments? We're not talking economies of scale here where head county can be eliminated or re-allocated. The only thing this can facilitate is either the status quo or future growth in head count, etc.

The commissioners are almost certain to approve this. The only way this can be countervened is through the petition proces, which would be open for 60 days after the measure were passed. It would take five percent of a county in signed petition to bring it to a vote.

Posted by Paccifier (anonymous) on September 2, 2009 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think that the county will gift the present facility to the district. It sounds as though, from what they all said, the county will retain ownership. Then a rent or lease agreement will be worked out. I doubt that all answers have been finalized- why would they bother to work all the small things out when they really don't know if the idea will come about. Negotiations will be needed on things like the responsibility for major repairs to the building- Just look at similar issues with the Flint Hills Health Center facility- If the county keeps the building and repairs, then there is still a county budget issue for that building. If the district gets the building, then they would take on the repair issue. That needs to be seen.

Posted by Blue_Dog (anonymous) on September 2, 2009 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A regular election or Extension council election (as is currently held at the extension office and by their rules) to fill about a dozen positions? The 5 mils is pre 1999 it could be that the levy limits don't apply anymore. Most legislative people are of the opinion that when the tax lid was removed so were the limits. So you would just have to trust them.

Posted by Flint_Hills_Sage (anonymous) on September 2, 2009 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

. . . what's the odds that Chase County will lose another hometown employer? Most of the prior consolidations (SRS and USDA) resulted in gains for Lyon County. We have got to quit sanctioning the destruction of rural areas by transferring their resources.

Posted by SFIns (anonymous) on September 2, 2009 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am tired of groups wanting a blank check to spend my tax dollars as they see fit. There is nothing wrong with the current way that the extension office is ran and no reason to change things.

Posted by dale011 (anonymous) on September 2, 2009 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just say no to new taxes. Our pockets are not bottomless, and we need smaller government not larger. Once you open the floodgates on this one it will only be a matter of time before the spending begins and the headcount climbs. Just say NO!

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 2, 2009 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sure the extension offices provide a valuable service, but I'm sure that every department represented as a line item in the county budget provides a valuable service. I'm sure each department could make a convincing argument that without them the western world would collapse.

The county commissioners seem to have been saying that the sweet spot for them in this proposal is eliminating a "burden." It's hard for me to imagine what the burden of one line item on a budget might be. As things are now the county does have to consider the value of extensions services vis a vis other services and also consider the impact of each on the total mil levy. When (I'd like to say if, but it appears it will happen unless there is a petition and public vote) the commissioners approve the new taxing unit it will not have to consider its services vis a vis others. They will have the ability to think only of theirs as absolutely essential and fund as they deem appropriate.

Right now they're saying that the cost will be negligible. It might seem so with facility costs stripped out of the assumptions, etc, but I have my doubts.

The extension folks are pusing the "efficiences" to be gained. Again, it's hard for me to imagine what these might be. Consolidations can work effectively to save $ in larger scale operations and developing cost effective economies of scale, etc. The two extension offices, with current manpower at four (3 in Lyon, 1 in Chase) will be increased at least to six (4 in Lyon, 2 in Chase). What economies of scale and efficiencies are we going to be able to derive from that small scale operation?

The other selling feature is the minimal cost being touted. Dan Slater said it would be pennies. He sounded a lot to me like a door to door salesman selling something un-needed (magazines, for example) on the basis of its costing only a dime a day. I think we all know how those deals wind up in the end

Do I think the commissioners will approve this? Yes. Do I think it will pass public muster? Probably. It almost makes it all a moot point. We will in all likelihood get another taxing entity with its hands in our pockets.

Posted by seriouslyfolks (anonymous) on September 2, 2009 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

YY4U
I heard that they are supposed to drive around in government trucks until they find a place to drink coffee.

Seriously R. Folks

Posted by Paccifier (anonymous) on September 2, 2009 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Blue_Dog- Each county gets 4 seats on the Board. All initially will be appointed by their respective County Commissions, then over a 2 year period 2 each county will stand for county wide election on a regular ballot, just like School Board members. But, how do you break tie votes?

Flint_Hills_Sage- I think that State Statute requires an office in every county- so the Chase County Office will not go away.

The board will be required to hold a public hearing on their budget for each year, just as County & City Commissions, School Boards and the like. They will not be in a dark room. If you want, maybe you should ask for appointment to the Board as a watchdog-

Posted by Paccifier (anonymous) on September 2, 2009 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Flint Hills Sage- The last Paragraph of my above comment was not specifically directed at you, sorry for not being clear about that. But, while everyone is looking at this, remember that you can run for these positions, so if you think you have better ideas, you may be right, and ought to run.

Posted by logical (anonymous) on September 2, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Our local extension agents put a lot of time and effort into doing a great job. They have the communities best interest at heart. How many of us would want to work as many nights and weekends as they do? The local board is not going to raise taxes and go crazy, after all they're tax payers too!!

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 2, 2009 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am convinced that the extension agents are the nicest people. If I were to generalize I would say they all have 2.7 children, own modest homes, work heard every day, go to church on Sunday, eat ice cream at Braum's on Sunday evening, have wonderfully domesticated dogs, cats, parakeets. Their kids are no doubt on the national honor society. They are also taxpayers like the rest of us.

I'm sure that I could look at any corridor of government and find the same thing. But, that hasn't stopped government from taking more and more from us. I'm sure that their every intent is completely noble. It's the reality of the output that makes me a doubter.

I see no bang in the buck for this proposal. Proponents are convinced that the expansion of this service and the creation of another taxing entity is absolutely essential to the well being of every citizen of Emporia and Lyon county.

I disagree. I'm sure I'm in the minority here

Posted by Kujiin (anonymous) on September 2, 2009 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

netloafer -
"Dan Slater said it would be pennies. He sounded a lot to me like a door to door salesman selling something un-needed (magazines, for example) on the basis of its costing only a dime a day. I think we all know how those deals wind up in the end"

I'm certain you may have confused Dan Slater with someone from the extension office. They're the ones with un-needed magazines.

Posted by Kujiin (anonymous) on September 2, 2009 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

netloafer -

"I see no bang in the buck for this proposal. Proponents are convinced that the expansion of this service and the creation of another taxing entity is absolutely essential to the well being of every citizen of Emporia and Lyon county.

I disagree. I'm sure I'm in the minority here"

No I don' think you are. Its sad that when asked for public comments at the meeting. No one stood up, that's how we get railroaded people. Even the papers own online poll on this subject the No's were at 79% from what I read.

Posted by Paccifier (anonymous) on September 2, 2009 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

netloafer didn't stand up, but he did have great questions to ask, and did so. I think if you look into the extension program, and see what they do in an ag area like ours, and even inside town, you will find a valuable service. I cannot think of any state that probably does not have some form of extension service. Maybe a little web search time might be wise to understand what the service is about, rather than just trying to get someone else to answer what you could find with a little effort. The agent in Chase County is a range specialist, the Lyon County agent is a crop specialist, and Lyon County has a horticulturalist and a family living agent. I think they also support the Kansas Master Gardner program.

Posted by Kujiin (anonymous) on September 2, 2009 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the extension office does not provide a good service to the community. What I'm concerned with is who is going to pay for the majority of the extension services. Hint, its not going to be Chase County.

Posted by Paccifier (anonymous) on September 2, 2009 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Kujiin, You are right, there is that feeling that Lyon County is carrying the load. Chase County has only about 10% the population in this matter. There is little doubt that Chase County gets the main benefit in a reduction of the county budget. We can only hope that the Lyon County Commission will look at this carefully, and when the time comes, I am sure that they will remember that their vote must be in the best interest of Lyon County, and not the Extension District, or Chase County.

Posted by Kujiin (anonymous) on September 2, 2009 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sure that the Lyon County Commissioners would love to hear everyone's opinion and so send them an e-mail. They even have times for public comment during they're weekly meetings.

Posted by marko (anonymous) on September 2, 2009 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

when it comes to real estate taxes, why would it matter that Chase County has less people? What matters is property valuation, but, I an fairly certain Lyon County has bigger numbers there too.

Posted by Paccifier (anonymous) on September 2, 2009 at 11:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

YY4U try this http://www.ksre.k-state.edu/DesktopDefau... and read a little on what extension is. There may be better sites than this, but this is the State site.

Posted by Kujiin (anonymous) on September 2, 2009 at 11:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for sharing your tvland experience. lol

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on September 7, 2009 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The formation of a district would allow Lyon and Chase Counties to pool resources and allow for more agent specialization between Lyon and Chase Counties along with giving the newly-formed district taxing authority in the respective counties, taking the burden off of county commissioners. Taxing authority would shore up finances for the district and shift the burden away from county commissions to fund the extension program."

ie- When the county attempts to meet their budget with cuts to non-vital services, they won't cut into our budget and we would be ensured additional funding.

We need less Government not more.

Posted by admireed (anonymous) on September 7, 2009 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This all sounds good but what is the problem with people voting on the issue up front? Answer please. I must be missing something and would like to know what.

Posted by Paccifier (anonymous) on September 7, 2009 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

admireed- This action will be much like the smoking ordinance was in Emporia. For there to be a vote, first the proposal must be accepted by both county commissions, then there is a set amount of time in which a protest petition must be carried, gaining, I think, 5% of registered voters in the County. Chase County Commission can accept the idea, Lyon County Commission can accept the idea, If the voters in one county, lets say Lyon, get the 5% in time, there would then be a vote in that county, but only after the county commission adopts the action. In other words, we get to vote on a challenge once the proposal have been adopted. So, if both commissions accept the proposal, but one county electorate votes the thing down, it's gone.

Posted by admireed (anonymous) on September 7, 2009 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I understand this, but it is wrong. What is the process for getting rid of the district if it does not work. Vote of the County Commission or petition for public vote?