As a follow-up to my initial installment from earlier in the month (see the letter to the editor and the corresponding blog post), here is the second in the series of broadsides against the Unified Government.
Those who live in what is euphemistically called the “general services” district, meaning the formerly unincorporated area of Clarke County, have had the screws put to them in a variety of ways since city-county consolidation. It is high time that they started getting compensated for being treated as second-class citizens for two decades.
Sphere: Related Content
16 comments:
Serious question: What services are you referring to? Water and sewer is paid for by a user fee. Leaf and limb is throughout the whole county (sorry if it doesn't go to your house). Trash pick up is a user fee too.
Yes, I know all about enterprise funds. The point is not how services are paid for, but rather the availability of services at all. The point is how the peripheral areas of the county have been systematically devalued (by zoning and land use ordinances) and neglected (by a continuing lack of services) since city-county consolidation.
How have they been neglected by a lack of services, as the previous anon (not me) asked? You can get trash pick up both in the old city and in the old county and you pay extra for both -- city folks don't get it as a freebie from the county govt but have to pay extra. I don't see what your complaint is, unless you want to have ACC trash trucks coming into your neighborhood, which I would have thought you'd be against given your usual railings against govt.
btw, my word verification is "permban." Good advice for anyone!
My complaint (covered by a myriad of blog posts, letters to the editor, and campaign platform planks for years now that I have neither the time nor the interest in reiterating in full here) is quite simple.
When it comes time to get money out of me, meaning by extension all of the residents of the general services district, in the forms of increased assessments, increased millage rates, the stormwater utility fee, etc., I am as much a part of Athens-Clarke County as the folks who live in Five Points or Cobbham.
When it is time to provide me with basic services however, again without regard to the particulars of payment but with an emphasis on availability, a completely different standard applies.
Again, I don't understand your complaint though. You are not getting any fewer services for what you pay in taxes than someone living in 5 points. They pay extra to have the city pick up their trash, for instance. It's not a service that they get for free. Also, as I understand it at the time of consolidation there was discussion of having the county trash guys come out into the old county but that would have been a much more expensive option than having private guys (who already had the trucks) do it. I would have thought you would have preferred the current situation otherwise your taxes would be higher, paying for the county to buy new trucks, hire new guys etc to cover the larger area, plus then having the pension and healthcare etc costs that go along with this. What services do citizens in the old city get that are paid for out of the General Fund that you do not?
Also, you do know that the stormwater utility is a federal mandate, right, so that ACC can provide you clean drinking water via securing their NPDES permit?
Stormwater utility fees are Federally mandated. Sorry Jimbo, but that wasn't an ACC decision.
First anonymous here -
I don't have a problem with a lower rate for general services district if you are receiving less services. You are going to need identify at least one service you are not receiving though.
"Stormwater utility fees are Federally mandated. Sorry Jimbo, but that wasn't an ACC decision."
yes, and no. It is a federal mandate to have a stormwater utility to get the NPDES permit. It's not a mandate to have a fee. It could have been funded by property taxes. But then you have a whole bunch of folks contributing to the problem who never pay property taxes. So, I think that having a fee, which says that the more you contribute to the problem the more you pay to clean it up, was the fairer way to go. That decision was made locally though, as you say, the requirement to have such a program comes from the feds.
Beaten to the punch on my own blog. Shameful.
As noted above, the stormwater utility is not federally mandated. While NPDES certification does mandate that local governments put in place methods to pay for its requirements, the manner in which those governments do so is up to them (though I believe they have to establish a separate, dedicated fund for it). Many localities, such as Athens-Clarke County, have opted to institute stormwater utility fees as their funding choice. Many others have not.
After a bit of searching trying to find a simple explanation of the particulars of stormwater utility fees, I came across this from Redmond, Washington (see http://www.redmond.gov/insidecityhall/publicworks/stormwater/faqs2.asp):
“A stormwater utility fee is the result of unfunded USEPA and Washington State Department of Ecology mandates on stormwater discharge. This fee is used to finance annual compliance with the NPDES permitting standards. This fee is similar to a water or sewer fee. In essence, customers pay a fee to convey stormwater from their properties.”
And therein lies the rub; no stormwater is conveyed from my property to anywhere. The purpose of the federal law (and hence the fee) is to process stormwater that flows into local stormwater sewer systems before it is put back into local streams, rivers, etc. There are no storwmater drains within miles of my house (nor will there ever be). My house is not connected to the county sewer system (nor will it ever be). Even though my property does not directly (or indirectly for that matter) contribute to the expense of complying with NPDES, I pay for it just the same. The rationale used by the Unified Government is that particulars do not matter and that I have a general obligation to pay because we’re all in this together. And note that fees are ostensibly charged for specific services rendered, not generalized government expenses.
Thus, my objection has to do with how the Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County instituted its stormwater utility fee. Instead of charging those who derive a direct “benefit” by virtue of their properties being connected to the sewer system or living on streets that have storm drains, City Hall simply makes everyone pay regardless – simply because it can. In my case, and by extension all of the other folks in the general services district, the “fee” is indeed a rain tax because we do not contribute to the need for NPDES expenses.
Folks keep telling me that I should quit bitching about not having access to water and sewer services because they are not funded by property taxes but by fees (which, of course, I know full well), but that I should also quit bitching about the stormwater utility, which is also a fee, even though I get nothing in return. So, which is it? You can’t have it both ways.
This continues to be the gist of my argument; when the Unified Government wants revenue I’m a full citizen of Athens-Clarke County - but when it comes to providing me something for that revenue like it does to others in the county, I am not.
Unless you have absolutely no impermeable surfaces on your property (I assume your house has a roof and you have driveway etc, but perhaps not) then you are contributing to run off and an interuption of the natural flow of water (which changes the runoff curve after a storm by changing the natural velocity of water and so has all sorts of wider implications, like changing erosional processes etc). Unless absolutely zero water ever leaves your property in any shape or form, even through infiltration into the ground, you are causing part of the problem, since the water running off your roof/ driveway etc will contain oils, antifreeze, dirt and grime from your car (pieces of rubber from deteriorating tires etc) and other things that need to be cleaned up. I would have thought a conservative like you would argue that those who cause the problem should pay to clean it up (you know, market solutions and all that), but perhaps not.
Look, I realize that I probably am not going to change anyone’s mind on this, nor is anyone likely to change mine.
My argument, about which I will comment more in depth at a later date, has to do with considerably more than just fees (water, sewer, stormwater, whatever) versus property taxes. Perhaps I am my making my argument poorly, because most folks do not seem to see beyond this point.
Besides which, doesn’t the comment directly above validate my argument (inadvertently, no doubt). When it come to being "contributing" and by that I mean being on the paying end, the Unified Government holds me responsible in all circumstances. So why shouldn’t I hold it responsible for living up to the explicit provisions of the Charter?
With all due respect, you haven't shown us one instance of where the UGACC hasn't lived up to the Charter. You are not correct on the two things on which you constantly harp: 1) stormwater utility (unless you have no impermeable surfaces and unless absolutely no water leaves your property, you are contributing to the problem and so should pay something towards it); 2) sewer lines. You keep saying that the Charter says that sewer will be run throughout the County. Except that it doesn't. It says that the COunty will come up with a Service Delivery Plan, which it has. Now, you might argue that that implies that sewer will be put throughout the county, but that's not what it actually says -- darn those blasted original intent literalist readers of constitutions!!
We are going to have to agree to disagree, because at this point we are just going around in circles. Even so:
“With all due respect, you haven't shown us one instance of where the UGACC hasn't lived up to the Charter.”
With just as much respect, I disagree. The problem is not the method of payment for services such as water and sewer, but the availability of such services at all. The position of the Unified Government on providing such services throughout the county has varied depending on when the discussion took place and to whom those services would be extended. Prior to the vote on city-county consolidation, the explicit promise was to extend “city” services out into the county. After the vote, City Hall lost interest in following through with its promises regarding water and sewer lines and of late has actively fought any such extensions so as to purposely hamper development in the peripheral area of the county (unless, of course, your name happened to be People of Hope, in which case an entirely different set of standards apply).
And:
“You keep saying that the Charter says that sewer will be run throughout the County. Except that it doesn't. It says that the county will come up with a Service Delivery Plan, which it has. Now, you might argue that that implies that sewer will be put throughout the county, but that's not what it actually says.”
Again, I just as respectively disagree.
Section 8-115 states that "(w)hen determining services to be provided, the unified government shall always attempt ... (t)o promote equity for all citizens in the delivery of governmental services throughout Athens-Clarke County."
That statement is unambiguous. How does not extending water and sewer line demonstrate equality in the delivery of governmental services throughout Athens-Clarke County? Obviously, it does not.
Section 9-103 specifies that "(w)ithin four (4) years of the effective date of this Charter the unified government shall adopt a service delivery plan that includes ... (a) capital improvements plan to provide water and sewer services to all residents of the county."
The argument that merely developing (not to mention subsequently and dramatically paring down) a meaningless Service Delivery Plan that requires the Unified Government to do nothing somehow fulfills the provisions of the Charter strikes me as sophistry. The obvious purpose of such a plan was (is) to accomplish the goal set out in 8-115.
In that same vein, a few years ago I did some research as to why the Commission had to approve whatever millage rate was requested by the Board of Education. To make a very long story short, the answer is a state court decision from way back when that says that when government leads the public to believe that something is going to be done, it incurs a legally binding expectation on the part of the public that government will do what it said it would do (whether the case was appellate or supreme I do not recall, but my recollection is that the case involved Ware County – though I do not have the exact citation handy). So even if the Charter does not explicitly say that the Service Delivery Plan should be implemented as originally conceived, which of course was its obvious intent, the public still has a legal expectation that it should be implemented by virtue of its very existence.
Like I said, though, we are not going to change one another’s minds on this one.
James,
I agree with you completely. I haven't had to call the police or the fire department this year and I have no kids in school. Will you help get me a lower millage rate too?
Most counties in this state do not charge a "storm water fee," and they meet the mandates through property taxes; furthermore, though the law is of recent origin, counties, generally, have always dealt with storm water.
County leaders chose the "fee," earlier, and, I believe, none of these leaders were in office when it went into effect; present leaders can say, truthfully, they had nothing to do with it.
It's a game. It's dishonest.
They call it a 'fee' to penetrate the tax exempt veil of charitable properties; plain and simple, they lie.
If the gubmint wishes to remove the exemptions on properties like a church, fine we will talk.
As for the revenues from the fee, it's given ACC the typical "gold-plated" solution. No one should pay this fee. Oh, and what will they do? Stop the "service" even when you don't receive it?
"yes, and no. It is a federal mandate to have a stormwater utility to get the NPDES permit. It's not a mandate to have a fee. It could have been funded by property taxes. But then you have a whole bunch of folks contributing to the problem who never pay property taxes. So, I think that having a fee, which says that the more you contribute to the problem the more you pay to clean it up, was the fairer way to go. That decision was made locally though, as you say, the requirement to have such a program comes from the feds."
Disagree with your assertion about funding the storm water mandate with a fee.
The fact is ... while it may have been 'fairer' to pay for it this way, the only way this could be done was for local government to call a tax a fee.
Federal and state laws establish tax exemptions and I am sure we could argue about them. When you have a local government, though, making it 'fairer' by essentially telling a lie to penetrate a federal tax exemption ... then this is NEVER a good thing!
A stronger argument against the ACC scheme would be to point-out that most governments in GA do NOT impose the sw fee but find other ways to meet the rule.
Let's do reform our laws on property (and other) tax exemptions; but in the interim, lets arrest, and prosecute those lone elected wolves who decide the time has come to tax someone or something that is tax exempt under federal law.
Post a Comment