Tug of War Between City and County

Looks like those county citizens paying higher water rates to Electric City Utilities are caught in the middle of a pi**ing contest between the city and the county.

The city's arguments just don't hold water.

Comments made by city council candidates in the AIM article that appeared in Thursday's paper: “We pay county taxes, but we get no service as far as the sheriff’s office and EMS.” and “It is also hard to disagree with the proposition that it is unfair for city residents to support services — regardless of how important a function they may happen to serve — that they only rarely, if ever, use,”

Let's see-- by that reasoning, if I am a city resident and no longer paying for these services, I should not receive service from the sheriff's office or EMS if I leave the city limits, or if I have an accident within the city limits I should not need EMS. Also, if my accident happens to involve a city police officer, the sheriff's dept. does not need to handle the accident.

Great-- by that same reasoning I could cancel my homeowner's policy because I have never needed to file a claim.

- Adamsrib

Adamsrib,

You are absolutely correct.

The attempt of the city to equate the 100% levy on the water rates with the cost of the county services they argue are duplicated is fallacious and foolish..

Consider this :
Add up 12 months of any city resident’s water bills and then add the costs from that resident’s county tax bill for those alleged duplicated services. Now compare the dollar amounts.
Comparability ? Bah, humbug. . .

Now let me correct misstatements made by Councilman Dunaway.
Using the water rate schedule in the City’s web site, you will find that the monthly cost for the average non-city resident bill for 800 cubic feet is $38.88, not $34.35 as Mr. Dunaway says. ( 800 cubic feet is the equivalent of 6,000 gallons according to Jeff Caldwell, Anderson’s utility director. ).
The Councilman failed to mentioned that the average sewer monthly bill for non-city residents is an additional $48.02.

Furthermore, Mr. Dunaway says ‘other cities’ rates average $34.35 a month.
I did a survey of some utility rates within Anderson County in March 2006 and found the following:

Starr-Iva--$22.90 West Anderson-- $21.00 Big Creek--$22.90 Hammond--$16.50 Sandy Springs--$21.80 ELECTRIC CITY UTILITIES--$38.88

Perhaps there were major increases throughout Anderson in the last two years.

It could all be settled if those pushing this issue would just petition to be annexed. On average, they'd save about 20 bucks a months on water which works out to about $240 a year. At the same time they'd get a city real property tax bill of about $400 dollars. Since the $400 is a ad valorem tax, it could be deducted from income taxes. Let's assume you're in the 20 percent tax bracket for argument's sake. That means you're really paying a net of $320 in city property taxes. My Georgia Tech math tells me that the average whiney mouth non-city water customer would effectively only pay an extra $80 per year ($7 a month) to be in the city and enjoy garbage pickup, as well as enhanced police and fire protection. Bottom line, non-city residents don't deserve a break in water rates and city residents don't deserve a break in vital countywide services like EMS squads and Sheriff. The whiners have access to the solution, annex or shut the heck up. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

PAPPY,

I've told you repeatedly that I wasn't going to get involved directly in your issue with the City of Anderson, and I've also made a point of staying out of the "double taxation" issue as it relates to those who live in the city limits. (I've engaged in that debate in real life, in other forums, you know.)

I can now point out the reason: GeorgePBurdell, with whom I don't often agree, just posted my exact opinions on both issues, minus an ounce or two of diplomacy and a dash of minced words. (In other words, I don't really think you're a "whiner" PAPPY.)

Cities have an absolute right to charge a premium to non-city dwellers who tap benefits usually reserved for those in the city limits. (There are other specific issues, like promises made, the AMOUNT of that premium, and the prohibition against private homeowners drilling wells if they want to, where I think the City has its head up its colon, but the overriding principle is solid.)

Those in the city have a responsibility to support the county's services (to which, by the way, they DO have access) through their county tax dollars, just as those of us who don't have children in the public school system nevertheless support that system with our tax dollars.

See there, PAPPY? That's a couple of stances that upset both the people in the unincorporated areas of the county AND those in the cities. That doesn't leave many people who'd welcome ol' JD in Anderson County, and I'd hate to have to drive through your lovely county with my doors locked.

It could all be settled if those pushing this issue would just petition to be annexed. On average, they'd save about 20 bucks a months on water which works out to about $240 a year. At the same time they'd get a city real property tax bill of about $400 dollars. Since the $400 is a ad valorem tax, it could be deducted from income taxes. Let's assume you're in the 20 percent tax bracket for argument's sake. That means you're really paying a net of $320 in city property taxes. My Georgia Tech math tells me that the average whiney mouth non-city water customer would effectively only pay an extra $80 per year ($7 a month) to be in the city and enjoy garbage pickup, as well as enhanced police and fire protection. Bottom line, non-city residents don't deserve a break in water rates and city residents don't deserve a break in vital countywide services like EMS squads and Sheriff. The whiners have access to the solution, annex or shut the heck up. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

- GeorgePBurdell

Georgie boy, you missed the dock on this one by enough to fall in the water.

I am one whiner, or weener if you will, who would love to be annexed.
I've posted this explanation before, but perhaps you missed it.
THE CITY WON'T ANNEX MY SUB-DIVISION because my unworthy abode is not worth an appraised value of $300-325,00. It would cost more in services than they would take in on property taxes plus the loss of their extorted water tax.
My authority for that statement, former Mayor Shirley.
The city is only interested in it's annexation progress up Clemson Blvd and Route 81, for obvious reasons.

PAPPY,



Cities have an absolute right to charge a premium to non-city dwellers who tap benefits usually reserved for those in the city limits. (There are other specific issues, like promises made, the AMOUNT of that premium, and the prohibition against private homeowners drilling wells if they want to, where I think the City has its head up its colon, but the overriding principle is solid.)


I'd hate to have to drive through your lovely county with my doors locked.

- JDTippett

JD, your lovely bride and your handsome son are welcome at my door anytime. Now you, on the other hand. . .

First read my response to Georgie boy.

Then relative to your first statement above, please tell me what benefits I tap that are reserved to city dwellers.

I chose to live in a water district that was serviced by Duke. They could not legally charge more than one residential rate. I had no choice but to be part of the original customer base bought by the city and promised by the city to be charged a single rate. It doesn't cost the city one cent more to put water in my home thatn to put water into a city home.
Remember the city holds a monopoly on my water. I can't buy it anywhere else and since it is essential to life I pay the extortion.

Yeah, my friend, I could move.
But does that seem fair to you ?

PAPPY, I've told you repeatedly here that I think you have a case against the City on a number of grounds, but their charging higher rates to those OUTSIDE the city limits than to those INSIDE the city limits isn't among the causes of acton.

As Moore noted in his letter to the editor today, the S.C. Supreme Court has already affirmed the city's right to do that.

I do hope to be welcome in the PAPPY flock again at some time in the near future. As Rodney King (or maybe it was Lorena Bobbitt) once said, "Can't we all just get along?"

PAPPY, I've told you repeatedly here that I think you have a case against the City on a number of grounds, but their charging higher rates to those OUTSIDE the city limits than to those INSIDE the city limits isn't among the causes of acton.

As Moore noted in his letter to the editor today, the S.C. Supreme Court has already affirmed the city's right to do that.

I do hope to be welcome in the PAPPY flock again at some time in the near future. As Rodney King (or maybe it was Lorena Bobbitt) once said, "Can't we all just get along?"

- JDTippett

JD, you are more than welcome, anytime--just be sure you have that Marine by your side.

Actually, I wish I could find our back and forth about the Supremes decision. I reviewed it then and recall finding that it really had no applicability to the situation in Anderson. If you remember what forum that was in, let me know.
Anyway, Moore was doing an historical recap in the papagraph you refer to, and surprisingly, wasn't claiming that as justification for Anderson's dual rates.

I'm pleased that you read his op-ed. Hope you read the remarks by city council candidates. Check out the inaccuracy of Dunaway's remarks in my other posting above.

Do me a favor. Obviously I intend to write a rebuttal to Moore's piece. Hopefully they will print it in the same spot. Please read it with an impartial eye. Oh, and an impartial mind, too.

Keep us updated on this issue please Pappy!

It could all be settled if those pushing this issue would just petition to be annexed. On average, they'd save about 20 bucks a months on water which works out to about $240 a year. At the same time they'd get a city real property tax bill of about $400 dollars. Since the $400 is a ad valorem tax, it could be deducted from income taxes. Let's assume you're in the 20 percent tax bracket for argument's sake. That means you're really paying a net of $320 in city property taxes. My Georgia Tech math tells me that the average whiney mouth non-city water customer would effectively only pay an extra $80 per year ($7 a month) to be in the city and enjoy garbage pickup, as well as enhanced police and fire protection. Bottom line, non-city residents don't deserve a break in water rates and city residents don't deserve a break in vital countywide services like EMS squads and Sheriff. The whiners have access to the solution, annex or shut the heck up. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

- GeorgePBurdell

Why the **** would someone voluntary let themselves be placed under yet another layer of incompetent government? I've lived within city limits before, the services aren't worth the taxes and the "benefits" just end up being just another hassle.

Keep us updated on this issue please Pappy!

- Porter Osborne

Porter,

It is my intention to post the full text of the City Manager's op-ed piece, followed by my response as soon as AIM either prints my reply or denies my request for equal time and space.

I think that even city residents will be upset at how poorly the city's investment in water turned out.

Water is the lifeblood of our bodies, our economy, our nation and our well-being." Stephen Johnson, EPA Administrator, upon dedicating the new desalination plant at El Paso, TX, 2007

Pappy,

With the City Elections being so heated this year, have you heard any of the Candidates discussing the water issue and the tension it is creating in the County?

Pappy,

With the City Elections being so heated this year, have you heard any of the Candidates discussing the water issue and the tension it is creating in the County?

- Constituent

So far, the AIM asked each of the city candidates about the water issue.
Most were sympathetic but all wanted relief from dual taxed elements in their county property tax bill.
Which is understandable since they want to represent city citizens.

This possible tradeoff is the immediate issue that the joint committee is working on. The problem there is getting everyone to meet.

Pappy,

You need to read the City Council forum. City Councilman Kirven very quickly and politely answered my questions and provided all with the change of date and meeting place of the next City/County meeting. That meeting will take place at the old courthouse in a room near where the County Council meets on April 22 at noon.

Any bloggers that really care about what goes on in this City or County should attend and see the elected officials at work. It won't take you long to determine who is doing a good job and who needs to be replaced.

I must say I was particularly impressed by Councilman Kirvin and Mayor Terence Roberts.

BTW lunch for you and Mrs Pappy is on me.

Bump!

This needs to be seen by as many people as possible to give them an opportunity to observe this committee and to see for themselves that those issues important to us all are being discussed.

BTW lunch for you and Mrs Pappy is on me.

- Petunia

Thiis is a bump so folks can see the lovely flower of the Democrat Party offering to buy lunch for someone using her own money. So unlike Democrats!

My dearest friend Ed,

I, unlike Republicans, pay my debts. Pappy so graciously paid my lunch bill after the last City/County meeting.

You got a free luch from Pappy? I knew I felt the earth shudder. Darn near stopped turning on it's axis! Did that old Democrat have access to some government money? Must have had.

Pappy,

You need to read the City Council forum. City Councilman Kirven very quickly and politely answered my questions and provided all with the change of date and meeting place of the next City/County meeting. That meeting will take place at the old courthouse in a room near where the County Council meets on April 22 at noon.

Any bloggers that really care about what goes on in this City or County should attend and see the elected officials at work. It won't take you long to determine who is doing a good job and who needs to be replaced.

I must say I was particularly impressed by Councilman Kirvin and Mayor Terence Roberts.

BTW lunch for you and Mrs Pappy is on me.

- Petunia

Petunia,

Thanks for the info. Look forward to being there.

As for lunch, we will fight over it then.