As we have written in this space previously, the proposed consolidation of city and county governments carries with it the promise of better local government — broad ideas of more focused leadership, less duplication, a singular approach to economic development, and fairness in representation and responsibility.
Indeed, one consolidated countywide government would give all a vote in who is elected to run the government and a voice in the decisions they make.
Rarely does a city election go by that we don't get a telephone call from a county resident living outside the city who asks where they are to vote. Of course, they can't vote in the city election even though they help pay for the sewers and parks that are managed by city departments and overseen by officials elected by city residents only.
Last Sunday we commented here about how taxation is unfair to city residents who pay not only solely for the city police department, but share the costs with county residents outside the city for county police officers who are primarily responsible for law enforcement outside the city. It is fair that all pay for the sheriff's operation of the jail, but not that they all pay for law enforcement outside the city. It remains to be seen whether consolidation would eventually correct this inequity. As it now stands, should consolidation be approved by a voter referendum, taxpayers would continue to support two, separate police departments.
On the other hand, county residents living outside the city gain an element of fairness from city-county consolidation with an equalization of sewer rates.
Currently there are thousands of county residents living outside the city who receive sewer services from the city. To their displeasure, those county residents pay 35 percent higher sewer rates than those living inside the city limits. The higher rates were approved in 2002 by the City Council on the grounds that county-only sewage had to be pumped further than sewage originating inside the city.
As we said, the county residents paying those higher rates had no vote in the selection of the City Council members who raised their rates.
Consolidation planners recognized this inequity last year and as a result, put language in the original plan approved by the citizens reorganization committee to equalize sewer rates among all sewer users in the consolidated county.
It's still a work in progress. The consolidation proposal now in the hands of the City Council and County Commissioners says that the equalization would occur over a three-year period, but according to Courier & Press staff writer Richard Gootee, those boards have yet to determine exactly how it would work.
For example, would rates be raised for inside-city residents and lowered for rate payers living outside the current city?
Regardless, the intention of those working on the consolidation plan is to equalize sewer rates to the benefit of the residents who would be brought into the city under a merge.
The finalized consolidation proposal could go to a countywide voter referendum as early as 2012.
Before then, we hope those county residents who believe there is nothing positive for them in the consolidation proposal will give some thought to the sewer rate equalization, as well as to other provisions of the plan.