The County sees things differently...

Guess what?  Gwinnett County still has not reached an agreement with the Cities on delivery of services.  But an article I wrote last month brought a lengthy response from the County who felt that the original story was full of errors.  You know what?  I am quickly losing interest in this thing.  But we have to continue to pay attention because it looks like until this is settled the Cities, the County and taxpayers of Gwinnett continue to be the losers.  Remember – even by the County’s estimates the government is collecting over $2 Million per year in additional taxes that will vanish once the agreement is settled.

Like most government matters there is not a black and white and both sides probably have faults in their logic.  But the most frustrating point is that we, the residents, will probably never know the true story.  I don’t care who is to blame, I just want it settled.  Anyway, in the interest of fairness, here is the two page document that the County put together in response to my previous article.
 

Service Delivery Strategy

1. Mediation – The County filed a petition asking for ADR (alternative dispute resolution) or mandatory mediation. This is a provision found in 36-70-25.1 and being in ADR is necessary to ask a judge to forestall sanctions.

2. Agreement on Services – The cities refuse to meet with the County on services and instead want simply to tell the County what services the County will provide for the cities and what price should be charged. The County contends on the other hand there are in fact discussions that need to go forward between each of the cities and the County relating to service levels. Gwinnett’s 15 cities all have different service needs. The question of services has in fact not been settled.

3. City Residents – All property owners in a county are responsible for funding the courts, sheriff, county road network, and other county government services. Merely living in a city does not exempt one from the responsibilities of county residency. If some cities choose to invest in city streets, a city hall or a city park, that is not something the County controls and is not something that gives those residents a “credit” against their county tax obligation. Unlike some areas of Georgia, residents inside Gwinnett cities make up slightly less than 20% of the total county population. The tail should not wag the dog.

4. “City” residents do not use or benefit from county services and should not pay for them – Gwinnett County is arguably the largest provider of municipal services in the state (total scope of services multiplied by total number of customers). Whether their residence happens to be in or outside of a city boundary, most Gwinnett residents spend considerable time in unincorporated areas of Gwinnett or consuming county-funded services (parks, roads, police, libraries, etc).

5. State law requires tax reductions – There is no provision in state law that requires a county to reduce its tax rate merely because a city provides a similar or even identical service. Take the time to read the law at 36-70-20 through 28.

6. County delay – Gwinnett County began the service delivery strategy process in 2006. Cities suspended discussions in 2007 while they hired a consultant. The County consulted with the University of Georgia in 2007 and 2008 and additionally devoted many hundreds of staff hours and considerable expense during 2008 developing a services district plan. The County has asked for meetings with cities to discuss. These meetings have been refused. In the summer of 2008, city representatives suggested they would oppose the upcoming SPLOST referendum if the county did not agree with city numbers. The County declined to be forced into disproven numbers, and insisted on separating SPLOST from service negotiations, but did not refuse to discuss service delivery. Cities want to argue only about the county millage rate. They refuse to talk about what services the County will provide.

7. Sanctions – The County has requested the Court enter an order lifting the sanctions. This is authorized by statute. Gwinnett Municipal Association has not agreed to the order presented by the county. The real truth is that cities are the reason that sanctions are in place.

8. State law changes – The suggested change in state law would provide a clearly legislated path into mediation and would hold sanctions in abeyance. This is about not allowing a few elected officials representing less than 20% of the residents to hold the larger community hostage.

9. Efficiency – Why not take a look at the average per capita expenditure by a city government in Gwinnett compared to the county, especially given that the county delivers more services than city governments.

10. Press coverage – Certain officials have decided to play this out in the media. The County believes it better to meet and discuss but this has been refused. Cities cite unidentified “fundamental issues” but only want to argue about the county’s millage rate.

11. State Constitution – Counties and cities are granted certain powers. The state constitution requires that no county may exercise its powers inside the boundaries of any city except by contract with the city. The County wants to insure that contracts are in place with all cities to clearly define services and costs. We cannot do business in 2009 the same informal way we may have done it 25 years ago.

In summary, cities persist in an argument over millage rates. The County wishes to talk about efficiency, service options, costs/prices, and practical working agreements. The County has invested heavily in preparation for SERVICE DELIVERY STRATEGY planning and believes that it has made a substantially greater effort than GwMA to address the issues required in state law. Gwinnett County has been ready for several months to enter into discussions to finalize these matters.

More on This Topic:

• Gwinnett County, Just Do the Math
• County`s Logic Fails the `Angry Taxpayer` Test
• County, Cities at Impasse Over Cost of Services