Kent County Has Been Measuring Success the Wrong Way

An extremely important perspective has been absent from Kent County government for too long.

Over time, one governing philosophy has become so dominant that we have almost begun to mistake it for the definition of good government itself: spend as little as possible. With this philosophy, success is measured by cutting costs, trimming projects, avoiding risks, and protecting the fund balance.

Now, there is certainly value in fiscal discipline. Taxpayer dollars should be managed carefully. Government should never spend recklessly simply because money is available.

But Kent County has allowed fiscal restraint to become not merely a consideration in governing, but the principal measure of whether government is succeeding.

I believe that is a mistake. A healthy balance sheet is not the same thing as a healthy community. We need another measure of success, and to me that is impact.

You see, the prevailing philosophy here in Kent County too often begins with the question, "How do we minimize the cost?"

Mine begins somewhere different: "What outcome are we trying to achieve?"

In practice, my governing philosophy–and what I’ll bring to the county commissioners if elected–revolves around asking questions like this: How many people did we help? How many lives did we improve? What problem did we solve? What did the public actually receive in return for the resources entrusted to its government? This is the lens through which I evaluate policy and how I propose we start measuring success here in Kent County.

With a more holistic process in place to measure success, fiscal discipline then becomes part of determining the most responsible way to achieve that outcome—not the reason we avoid pursuing it in the first place.

And that distinction matters across nearly every major issue facing Kent County—from the new middle school we are trying to build to the affordability challenges families are confronting every day.

The dominant governing philosophy here asks, “How little can government spend?”

I, instead, choose to ask, “What can government responsibly do to make people's lives better?”

Look at the Middle School

We can see the consequences of this difference in the ongoing debate over our new middle school.

The debate over the middle school has now shifted again. Despite the school already acquiescing to prior reductions—such as cuts to special education classrooms, STEM spaces, and a dedicated chorus classroom—attention has now turned to the gymnasium as another place to reduce costs. The latest push is to shrink the gym to the point that it may no longer be large enough to accommodate bleachers and spectators, sacrificing another element of the building in the name of lowering the price tag.

Viewed strictly through a financial lens, the argument is simple: A smaller building costs less. A smaller gym costs less. Fewer dedicated spaces cost less.

And if cost reduction is our primary measure of success, then every square foot removed from that building can be counted as a victory. But what if we measure success differently?

A gym with bleachers is not simply additional square footage–it is a place where parents sit in the stands and watch their child play basketball. It is where students compete in front of their classmates and families. It is where the school gathers. It is where memories are created, and school pride develops. I still remember the events I participated in as a middle school student at Chestertown Middle School. Those memories helped shape who I am today.

A STEM classroom isn't just square footage. Neither is a chorus room or a space specifically designed to serve students with special needs. Those spaces produce something–they have impact. And that value disappears from the calculation when the only question we ask is how much money can be trimmed from the project.

This is why I keep coming back to how we define fiscal responsibility. A government that spends $0 solving a problem and therefore accomplishes nothing has certainly minimized spending. But has it actually managed the public's resources responsibly? The same question should be asked when Kent County carries an unassigned fund balance of roughly 17%. Maintaining healthy reserves is prudent. But when substantial resources remain available while major community needs go unmet, we should also be asking what responsible investments could produce a return for the people those dollars belong to. Those are very different definitions of fiscal responsibility.

And this debate goes far beyond the middle school. The larger consequence of measuring ideas primarily by what they cost is that we can kill solutions before we ever seriously consider what they might accomplish. That matters especially when it comes to affordability. Groceries, electricity, insurance, housing, and transportation all cost more. For families already operating on tight budgets—and particularly for seniors and others living on fixed incomes—there is less and less room to absorb another increase.

If Kent County continues judging ideas primarily by their upfront expense, many of the ideas I want to pursue to address affordability will never make it beyond the Commissioners' hearing room. They will simply appear first and foremost as expenses. I want us to start looking at their potential return.

Transportation

Transportation has been a persistent challenge in rural Kent County. Our current response relies heavily on funding a regional transit provider—an important service, but one whose fixed routes and limited schedules cannot meet every resident's transportation needs across a rural county. If transportation remains one of our most persistent barriers to employment and opportunity, maintaining the system we already have cannot be the end of our thinking. But technology has also given us new tools.

Consider e-bikes. What if Kent County established a modest mobility program through which low-income residents with demonstrated transportation barriers could apply for an e-bike? That isn't going to solve our transportation problem. But for some residents, it could mean the difference between having reliable transportation to work and having none at all. I see that as measurably moving the needle.

Under our current governing philosophy, the analysis might stop here: Why is the County spending taxpayer money buying someone an e-bike?

Under mine, that's only the beginning of the analysis. Did that e-bike help someone get to work reliably? Did it help someone keep a job? Did that person become more financially secure? And did the County ultimately benefit from having another resident earning wages and paying income taxes?

Suddenly, what first appeared on a spreadsheet solely as an expense begins to look different. It looks like an investment.

Energy

The same thinking can apply to energy. We have spent enormous amounts of time debating solar development in Kent County. Meanwhile, private companies continue to build solar projects, generate electricity, and earn revenue from the power they produce. Why couldn't Kent County explore doing something similar for the benefit of its own residents (outside the growth area of our towns and villages, of course)?

This isn't theoretical either. Howard County recently became the first jurisdiction in Maryland to move forward as its own community solar developer. The County is advancing county-owned solar projects, and under its plan, half of the electricity generated at a project would be provided free to qualifying low-income households, while electricity from other projects would be offered to low- and moderate-income subscribers at a discount. And guess what? Chestertown is leading the way in the state at the municipal level by advancing a similar project at its wastewater treatment plant, where one is unlikely to ever see the panels—just the way it should be.

I'm not suggesting Kent County simply copy Howard County. We are a very different community, with a very different scale and very different resources. I'm suggesting that we think of the possibilities first.

Could Kent County develop its own model? Could we generate electricity from public assets, leverage grants and favorable financing, and use the resulting value to reduce electricity costs for Kent County families?

If our first question is simply, "How much will this cost?" And then “That’s not our job”, the idea will die immediately.

If our first questions are, "Can we responsibly structure this in a way that lowers utility bills for our residents and doesn’t raise taxes?", an entirely different conversation begins.

Food Security

And then there is food. The recent changes to SNAP at the federal level provide a particularly stark illustration of why I believe spending reductions cannot be our only measure of success.

The 2025 federal reconciliation law changed SNAP eligibility, benefits, and work requirements. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the expanded work requirements and related provisions will reduce SNAP participation by roughly 2.4 million people in an average month over the coming decade. On a federal balance sheet, reducing spending can be recorded as savings. But that can't be the end of the analysis. We also have to ask what happens to the people on the other side of that spreadsheet–especially children.

My philosophy applied locally asks a very different question: How many people can we feed?

Kent County cannot replace SNAP. Nor should anyone pretend that county government can solve national food insecurity. But we are one of the most agricultural counties in Maryland. We are surrounded by some of the most productive farmland in the country. Why shouldn't we develop a serious local strategy for using more of that agricultural capacity to feed Kent County residents?

I want the County working alongside farmers, food pantries, nonprofits, schools, and other partners to dramatically expand the amount of locally grown fruits and vegetables reaching food-insecure families. That could mean finding ways to put more acreage into production specifically for local food assistance. It could mean supporting the organizations already doing this work. It could mean creating incentives and partnerships that allow farmers and small-scale growers who want to participate to do so.

The exact mechanisms should be developed carefully. But the goal is easy to understand: Feed more people. And then measure whether we succeeded.

Impact Creates Returns

This is the part of the conversation that gets lost when we evaluate government solely by what it spends (or doesn’t). Impact creates returns.

Help someone overcome a transportation barrier, and that person has a better chance of maintaining employment. Employment means wages. Wages create financial stability—and income-tax revenue for the County.

Help a family lower its electricity bill, and those dollars can instead go toward groceries, rent, medicine or other household needs–spending that supports the local economy.

Help to ensure children aren't arriving at school hungry, and you give them a better opportunity to concentrate, learn and perform. If we want better academic outcomes and stronger test scores, making sure our children have their basic nutritional needs met is part of the work. And stronger schools create another return. Families want to live in communities where their children can receive a great education. Stronger schools can increase demand to live here, support property values, and strengthen the tax base.

That is what return on public investment can look like. It doesn't always appear in the same budget year, and it doesn't always fit neatly into a spreadsheet–but it is real.

And none of this means every program deserves funding or every new idea is a good one. After all, impact is not a blank check. If we create a transportation program, it’s critical that we establish clear goals and measure whether it actually improves mobility. If we pursue community solar, we must make sure the numbers work and demonstrate that residents are actually saving money. If we invest in food security, we must create the mechanisms to track how many people are being served and whether food insecurity is declining.

We must still spend carefully and demand results, which may look like abandoning ideas that don't work but also improving the ones that do. That is fiscal responsibility too.

Kent County Has A Choice

For years, we have been defining good government too narrowly. Yes, Kent County has maintained a healthy financial position–that deserves recognition. But we also have to look beyond the balance sheet.

During this same period, Kent County has confronted population decline, declining school enrollment, an aging population, fewer business establishments, and a workforce that has shrunk by roughly 20 percent since 2002. These things matter too. We should not look at a healthy government balance sheet alongside an unhealthy set of community trends and conclude that the work our local government is doing is justified. Where are the new ideas that will turn these declining trends around? How many people are we serving when 17% of our budget isn’t allocated to solving problems? Where is the ROI on our taxpayer dollars?

Residents therefore have a choice about the philosophy they want guiding their county government. We can continue allowing the overriding question to be: How little can we spend?

Or we can ask: How much good can we responsibly accomplish with the resources we have?

What I bring to this race isn't simply a different collection of policy positions–it is fundamentally a different operating system for governing. I want Kent County government to focus relentlessly on outcomes and redefine what success looks like. The “How much can we cut” approach must be balanced–not eliminated–by more holistic questions. How many people did we help? How many jobs did we help people keep? How many households did we make more affordable? How many children did we feed? How many students did we give greater opportunity?

Throughout American history, we haven't judged our most important public initiatives solely by what they cost. We have judged them by what they accomplished.

Consider Social Security–a particularly relevant example for the second-oldest county by median age in Maryland. When the Social Security Act was created in 1935, the country made a deliberate decision to establish greater economic security for older Americans. It required public resources then, and Social Security requires enormous public resources today. But its purpose was never to demonstrate how little government could spend. Its purpose was to provide economic security and reduce dependency and destitution among older Americans. And it worked–and it is beloved. That is the lesson.

Government should manage every dollar carefully. But those dollars exist to serve a purpose. I conclude by saying again, a healthy balance sheet is not the same thing as a healthy community. It's time for Kent County to measure both.

– Sam Shoge, Candidate for Kent County Commissioner