City leaders dispute taxes to fund shared services
As city and county leaders work to find a bottom line that keeps taxes down without affecting services, all in a tight budget year. Enlarge video
Hear Dan Partridge, director of the Lawrence-Douglas County Health Department, discuss funding issues.
Hear Dan Partridge, director of the Lawrence-Douglas County Health Department, discuss funding issues.
City Manager David Corliss is all for health, particularly the Lawrence-Douglas County Health Department. But he's not sure he likes paying twice for it.
But that's how Corliss and other city leaders are now viewing a longtime cost-sharing arrangement between the city and the county on how the Health Department is funded.
Historically, the county funds 60 percent of the Health Department's $1.6 million budget, while the city funds 40 percent.
Here's the catch, though, Corliss says: City residents get both a city and county property tax bill, while everyone else only pays for the Health Department through their county bills.
That's nothing new, of course, but what is new is that Corliss - completing his first full year as city manager - is making a point to remind county leaders that the vast majority of the county's tax base comes from Lawrence property owners.
Service reduction?
At the Health Department, Dan Partridge, the department's director, said he's concerned a change in funding could cause a reduction in services. He said that's because he's not sure the county can afford, or is willing, to pick up the entire amount of funding the city now provides.
"I think this all goes back to whether the city of Lawrence feels like public health is a part of its mission," Partridge said. "Is that what the citizens want? If the answer is yes, then I think we should remain a city-county funded organization."
That type of talk has caused some city leaders to cringe. Mayor Sue Hack said it is obvious that Lawrence cares about public health. She pointed to millions of dollars spent on hiking/biking trails, exercise facilities, pedestrian-safety improvements and other efforts designed to promote health and safety.
"I really applaud Dave Corliss' initiative on this issue," Hack said. "Sometimes I think we just do things because that's the way we've always done them. But I can tell you, it is inaccurate to say the city is not concerned about the health of its citizens."
City and county commissioners have agreed to leave the funding arrangements - which also include agreements to jointly fund the dispatch center for police and fire calls, and the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Department - unchanged for the 2008 budget. But the two commissions have vowed to have a serious discussion about changing the cost-sharing arrangements for all of the departments as soon as the 2008 budget process is wrapped up, likely in August.
Disagreement already
Whether the discussion will be a healthy one is yet to be seen. Douglas County Administrator Craig Weinaug said he's open to renegotiating the cost-sharing arrangements, as long as elected leaders agree on a sound policy reason to do so. Absent that, Weinaug said the results of the discussions are predictable.
"All we're going to do is have a fight, and it is not going to result in anything positive," Weinaug said.
Thus far, the prenegotiations already have produced some sharp disagreement between the city and county's top executives. Corliss has argued that county governments in many of the state's urbanized counties pay the full costs for health department and emergency dispatch services. Weinaug said Corliss has been too selective in his comparisons, and also thinks the city manager is missing a bigger point.
"Yes, Lawrence residents are paying twice," Weinaug said. "But look at the things we've accomplished that we would not have been able to accomplish otherwise. The question that really needs to be asked is: 'Would the city be better off if those agreements never would have been reached?' I don't think so."
Weinaug points to the emergency dispatch center as an example. He said without the joint funding agreement, it is unlikely that the dispatch center would have as much computer-aided dispatch equipment. He also said that it would cost the city and the county significantly more - millions of dollars more for the city, Weinaug said - to operate separate dispatch centers.
Mostly Lawrence residents
That, though, is not what the city is seeking. Instead, Corliss thinks it is fair that the county take over sole funding responsibilities for some countywide services.
"Does that mean that residents outside of Lawrence may have to pay more to address what may be inequity in funding?" Corliss asked. "That's possible. But why should the residents of Eudora, for example, pay less for 911 service or Health Department service than the citizens of Lawrence do?"
Weinaug, though, said the political reality may be that it would be difficult for county residents who don't live in Lawrence to increase their financial funding for departments where the vast majority of service is provided to city residents. About 85 percent of the Health Department's clients are Lawrence residents, and about 90 percent of the calls handled at the dispatch center come from inside Lawrence city limits.
Weinaug also said he can point to cases where it could be argued that the city isn't paying its fair share of costs to the county. The Douglas County Jail is an example. The city pays less than half the actual costs to house inmates arrested on Municipal Court charges.
"You can only take Dave's argument so far," Weinaug said, "or else you might as well eliminate the city of Lawrence and have all its functions move into the County Courthouse."
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
merrill (anonymous) says…
New commissioners are raising a ruckus. I would rather focus on the two different growth plans that perhaps increase our taxes. Housing does not pay for itself so it is my feeling that additional housing/neighborhoods should be left to the county municipalities. Otherwise city residents are paying for new county infrastructure the greater majority of city residents may never use...so why should city residents be taxed?......if that is the case?
oldgoof (anonymous) says…
Now that suggestion is really crazy Merrill. An examination of cities and annexation issues around the state or in other states, (we can start in Topeka) shows that city residents would continue to be called upon to pay for infrastructure. Roads at least, and commonly water and sewerage costs too. And since these costs are then shouldered and paid for by non-municipal entitiies (i.e. special districts) the municipality is even less able to "plan." Again I refer you to the Shawnee County and Sedgwick County situations.
Corliss's base question is a good one. And Craig W's responses are so Polyanna-MPA here that I predict we can tune our dial for a good cat-fight.
cowboy (anonymous) says…
Until Corliss displays that he has any command of a financial plan for the city he should keep his mouth tightly closed.
average (anonymous) says…
"County residents" are one thing. Subsidizing lower taxes for the growth of Eudora and Baldwin is another. If some Lawrence city taxes go to the Health Dept, so should some of theirs.
sharron5rs (anonymous) says…
Lets see now City ends up not being charged a county tax. Thats fine, now they can work on getting the school taxes off of us that dont have kids in school!
and while their at it. take a poll and have the taxes reduced for those of us that dont want the roundabouts, or those that dont want the parks every few feet so people dont have to walk or go to far from their holmes.
Hey, give me a break!!!
inatux (anonymous) says…
I'd be more than willing to pay property taxes - too bad it's cheaper to rent in Lawrence than to own. If someone could figure out how to get home prices down and homeownership up, wouldn't that generate more revenue?
average (anonymous) says…
Stop perpetuating that myth. Renters pay property tax (via their landlord). It's a large component of your rent. Renters have every right to talk about how property taxes are spent.
Warren6032 (anonymous) says…
The Health Dept is extremely important for people on limited and low income. Doctors charge a fortune for health shots and other services that the Health Dept. does for a low fee. I live in Lawrence, but agree that Lawrence should pay the lion share of the Health Dept bill since we use it the most (getting taxed twice). Please do not let politics (or Corliss trying to make himself look good) keep or hinder the Health dept from serving the people that needs it the most.
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
~~Mayor Sue Hack said it is obvious that Lawrence cares about public health. She pointed to millions of dollars spent on hiking/biking trails, exercise facilities, pedestrian-safety improvements and other efforts designed to promote health and safety.~~
Yeah. We see that. So as long as we have crosswalks, roundabouts and bike trails, our children don't need vaccinations or antibiotics.
Am I the only one that is beginning to think that a recall election should be considered by this point?
average (anonymous) says…
The county is not subsidizing the city here, Bowhunter.
Lawrence is 80% of the county, by population and by property tax base (ag land is assessed at very little).
Lawrence taxpayers pay 80% of the 60% the county pays. That's 48% of the total.
Lawrence pays 100% of the 40% the city pays.
Sum, that's 88% of the total. Doesn't seem that far off the usage.
Eudora, though, keeps its taxes lower than ours by not really offering much in the way of public health services, saying "go to Lawrence for anything".
average (anonymous) says…
max1 -
I'm saying that landlords pay the tax, but that it is reflected in and entirely covered by the cost of rent. Both landlords and tenants are affected by tax rates and expenditures. I'm just tired of people claiming that renters aren't paying anything toward the city budget or schools, and so shouldn't be involved in the discussion. I'm also frustrated by people like inatux who feel like they aren't affected by the city's budget decisions because they are renting.
merrill (anonymous) says…
"Am I the only one that is beginning to think that a recall election should be considered by this point?"
Who are you thinking about?
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
Our City Manager mainly. But I think at least half the Commission, if not all, should be recalled with a "No confidence" vote. During the latest administration, Lawrence has ran into tons of problems because people apparently get their common sense removed when they go into office.
inatux (anonymous) says…
average says:
"Stop perpetuating that myth. Renters pay property tax (via their landlord). It's a large component of your rent. Renters have every right to talk about how property taxes are spent."
I'll make it easier for you. I know at least 10 people who work in Lawrence but live outside the city - from just outside the city limits to at far as 45 minutes away. Why? It's cheaper to for them to live outside of Lawrence, even though their jobs are here.
If it was cheaper to live here, they would do it. That's revenue lost no matter how you cut it. And when I'm ready to purchase a home, I'll be doing the same thing for the same reason.
Yabut (anonymous) says…
Either the county should pay 100%, or ALL the cities (not just Lawrence like it is now) should pay based on population. Lawrence would pay 79%, Eudora would pay 5%, Baldwin would pay 3.7%, etc. It's not fair to Lawrence residents that they are being taxed twice.