Lefora Free Forum
login join
Loading
239 views

City/County Joint Committee (June 19)

Categories > General Discussion
Page 1
(items) 1–14 of 14
art-kaldas
fanatic - member
4027 posts
1 permalink

On June 19, 12:00 PM, the City/County Joint Committee met at City Council Chamber. The main topic of discussion was dual water rates by the City of Anderson. Mr. John Moore, the City Manager, offered the following rationale for the practice:

• Helps offset the additional cost of local government caused by outside residents’ use of City Infrastructure.
• Helps equalize inequities of local government funding system.
• Currently, the water rates are competitive.
• Reflects the true cost of extending new water services of areas outside of the City.
• Offers financial diversity for funding local government.
• City taxpayers at risk for default of over $41,000,000 in bonds.

As expected the presentation was followed by intense, but civil debate. Among the views expressed were the following:

• Ms Gracie Floyd suggested that the sale agreement of the water system by Duke Power to the City should be renegotiated, and any saving should be used to lower water rates.
• Mayor Terrence Roberts suggested that the committee should move on to more attainable goals, as a joint recreation master plan and economic development.
• Mr. Steve Kirven was hopeful that an agreement can be worked out to equalize water rates in return for partial reduction of Sheriff’s charge to City residents.

The next City/County Joint Committee meeting will be held on August 14, 12:00 PM, at the County Historical Courthouse. The topic of discussion will be the Sheriff Office financing.

reply
quote
30 June 2008 01:50 AM
g-papadopolis
superstar - member
224 posts
0 permalink

I suggest that the County Council immediately cease all spending within the city limits and move all city government outside the city limits.
The "Linkage" between County Taxes paid by all residents and the City Water Scam is an irrational justification for the City to behave badly.

__________________
Serving the upstate since last Thursday.
reply
quote
30 June 2008 03:02 PM
art-kaldas
fanatic - member
4027 posts
0 permalink

g- papadopolis,

The City is a large part of Anderson County. County District 1 and 2 are mostly in the City. We need to find a way to stop penalizing residents and businesses for living and operating within the City limits, so imposing dual water rates would not be necessary.

reply
quote
30 June 2008 05:06 PM
jdtippett
fanatic - admin
6536 posts
0 permalink

Nobody's "penalizing" people who live in the city, Art. There are advantages to living in a municipality (better services, public transportation, etc.) and disadvantages (it costs more.)

Residents of the cities have full access to all county services (yes, even services from the Sheriff's Office if needed), PLUS they have enhanced services in areas like police, fire protection, trash pickup, water & sewer and social activitie. Those "enhanced services" come at a cost (additional taxes through the city), while those who live outside the city limits SHOULD PAY (and do pay) a premium for those services.

The problem with this entire debate is it seems many of those who live IN the city want all of those enhanced services at no additional cost, while some who list just outside the city want to have municipal services at the same cost as those who live in the city, minus the extra tax liability.

Both side of the argument can generate some great 30-second soundbites, but both extremes of the argument are wrong. The cities have powers under the S.C. Constitution of 1895 that the counties don't have. The counties have authority under Home Rule that the cities don't have. That is no accident, nor is it an outrage.

I would just hope that this joint committee of city and county doesn't overreact to a non-issue and, in effect, undermine the respective authority of each other..

__________________
"Would you like to play a game?" - Department of Defense computer in "WarGames"
reply
quote
30 June 2008 05:16 PM
pappy
fanatic - member
3352 posts
0 permalink
Art,

Your comment seems to infer that outside businesses pay dual rates. According to John Moore in the IM 6/10 issue,"...these days the city negotiatesindustrial contracts with discounted rates for big businesses."
__________________
If a tree don't fall on me, I'm gonna live till I die. . .Tex Ritter

reply
quote
30 June 2008 05:45 PM
pappy
fanatic - member
3352 posts
0 permalink
JD,

Outsiders do not"... want to have municipal services at the same cost as those who live in the city..."

I think there is a clear distinction between 'municipal' services' and 'utility' operations.
Municipal services are funded by resident taxes and if needed for supplimental funding, by general obligation bond issues which are paid with tax revenues. There is usually a debt limitation with regards such borrowings.

The utility operations are funded by revenue bonds which are paid from revenues received from the sale of water to customers. If revenues fall short, rates must be raised to cover. Such bonds are outside of any borrowing limitations placed upon a municipality.

City taxpayers do not fund the utility, water customers do. And, I believe, contrary to John Moore, that it is illrgal for utility revenues to be used for general fund expenditures or to keep from raising city property taxes.

  Kiss ( do you still favor Monroe scarlet ? )
__________________
If a tree don't fall on me, I'm gonna live till I die. . .Tex Ritter

reply
quote
30 June 2008 06:01 PM
jdtippett
fanatic - admin
6536 posts
0 permalink

PAPPY, I'm simply stating the principles that cities have a right to charge a premium for services delivered to customers who live outside the city and that the counties must tax all residents at the same millage rate unless they're dealing with a special-purpose district.

It's clear to me that in this specific case, there are obviously problems with the way the City of Anderson has used (abused?) that right.

I also totally agree with you that is is improper (and probably illegal) for a city to use revenues from one of its public utilities to subsidize its general fund operating expenses in order to avoid raising taxes. Most cities segregate those into two separate budgets every year.

This issue shouldn't be allowed to lead either Anderson County or the City of Anderson to allow their respective authority under the S.C Constitution to be dimished one way or another. That authority for each of them is usually quite clear in the overall context of local government (the big picture), but when you get wrapped up in a specific issue like this and the issue of so-called double taxation, you start tempting the "law of unintended consequences." That's never a good idea, because in most cases EVERYBODY loses.

__________________
"Would you like to play a game?" - Department of Defense computer in "WarGames"
reply
quote
30 June 2008 06:08 PM
g-papadopolis
superstar - member
224 posts
0 permalink

Hypothetically speaking...
If an Electric City Utility Worker (City Employee) was in a neighborhood in the County, let's say, turning off service to a County Customer and the Customer took offense, maybe resorting to violence, Who is the City Worker going to call for support?
I don't believe the City Police have jurisdiction.
And, the city doesn't want to pay for the Sheriff's department...
Maybe the FBI?

__________________
Serving the upstate since last Thursday.
reply
quote
01 July 2008 01:52 AM
the-queen
fanatic - member
1215 posts
0 permalink
Nonsense...If a crime takes place outside the city limits and within the area of Anderson County, of course the Sheriff's Dept would respond.  The city would not need to pay - this would simply be a response to a crime in the County.  A utility worker deserves the same protection as any other citizen threatened by violence in the county.  and I have no doubt that the Sheriff's Department would respond. 
__________________
"Nature gives you your face at twenty. Life shapes your face at thirty. But the face you have at fifty is the face you have earned." - Coco Chanel
reply
quote
01 July 2008 10:32 AM
pappy
fanatic - member
3352 posts
0 permalink
Unfortunately, your Mightyness, the hypothetical is not that simply answered.

Take the reverse, one of the city’s justifications for dual water rates is that outsiders come into the city  to go to church, eat in restaurants, shop in city stores, go to the hospital, etc. and pay nothing for police and fire protection.
No, not my vivid imagination, this was publicly stated by City Councilman Kirven.

Thus, if we outsiders pay for city protection, why isn’t it fair to expect the same from city residents outside city   limits ?    Wink
__________________
If a tree don't fall on me, I'm gonna live till I die. . .Tex Ritter

reply
quote
01 July 2008 12:47 PM
jdtippett
fanatic - admin
6536 posts
0 permalink

City residents do pay for county protection outside the city - and for the availability of county services inside the city if needed. They pay exactly the same COUNTY taxes that you pay, PAPPY. They just pay extra for the enhanced services that come from living inside the city limits.

__________________
"Would you like to play a game?" - Department of Defense computer in "WarGames"
reply
quote
01 July 2008 03:05 PM
g-papadopolis
superstar - member
224 posts
0 permalink

Since the city has to use made up issues like "Tax Linkage" as bargaining chips....lets see if our County Representatives will represent us.
Here are a few issues I'd like to see on the table:

A) Void each of the Restrictive Covenants (signing away your voting rights to the City Attorney) attached to each title for the "right" to purchase water.

B) Cease requiring citizens sign Restrictive Covenant agreements to annex in exchange for the "privilege" of buying double priced water.

C) Full Refund of doubled rates (plus interest) paid by County Dwellers to the city. Probably more than three million at this point. Since we are paying City Taxes for City services we don't get, we should get our money back.

__________________
Serving the upstate since last Thursday.
reply
quote
01 July 2008 05:12 PM
pappy
fanatic - member
3352 posts
0 permalink
Aye, therein lies the rub.

 The city residents can express their displeasure at the voting booth because they have representation on the county council.

Outsiders ( an apt term ) have no vote on the city council to express their displeasure..Cry
__________________
If a tree don't fall on me, I'm gonna live till I die. . .Tex Ritter

reply
quote
01 July 2008 06:59 PM
pappy
fanatic - member
3352 posts
0 permalink

Now that I have returned to this wonderful ‘Land of Dixie’ I have had an opportunity to review some postings, I want to reply to the initial comment in this one re the City Manager’s rationale for dual rates.

First I note that he has omitted what was the principal rationale noted in his op-ed piece of March 21st this year. That is, to cover the cost of the expensive ( $20,000,000 ) and avoidable ( it was acknowledged in City Minutes before signing ) error the city made when purchasing the utility from Duke. He wrote, “Therefore, the City Council made the decision to pass on higher rates to the outside customers to defray these costs…”

As for these newer rationales ( I guess if one fails, try another ). Let’s examine just two for want of space:

‘Offsets the cost of local government when outsiders use city infrastructure.’
It was reported that Mr. Moore admitted to transfers from the Utility receipts to the General Fund.
It is my understanding that such transfers are ILLEGAL.

‘City taxpayers at risk for utility bond defaults.’
Not likely. The utility funding is with Revenue Bonds which require payment by utility receipts. If insufficient, rates must be raised to cover principal and interest costs. City taxpayers are not at risk, only city water customers and even then, their risk is only half that of non-city resident customers paying double rates..
Regular City budget costs are funded with General Obligation Bonds which are paid with tax receipts.
__________________
If a tree don't fall on me, I'm gonna live till I die. . .Tex Ritter

reply
quote
12 August 2008 09:24 PM
Categories > General Discussion
Page 1
(items) 1–14 of 14

Locked Topic


You must be a member to post in this forum

Join Now!