Funding Inequity Unacceptable
07/20/09 9:32 pm
by Jeff Rader
One of my goals for this year is to call attention to the status quo of DeKalb County's government. Namely, that government operating in the same "business as usual" manner is counterproductive if the county is going to solve its future challenges.
The current economic slump should be a wakeup call to consider government's funding mechanisms and priorities. It seems safe to assume the county's needs will always exceed its budget. Therefore, the allocation of county dollars must be handled in the most objective way possible to ensure efficiency and results.
However, there will always be a human element in these funding decisions, which are decided by the county Chief Executive Officer or Board of Commissioners. So it is incumbent upon us to be mindful that the pendulum does not swing too far towards subjectivity in funding allocation.
Past allocations have created long-term consequences for District Two, particularly in its green space and infrastructure. To put it bluntly, our district has not received its fair share of funding, especially in proportion to the district's population.
In the 2001 parks bond fund, each district got an equal slice of pie, so to speak. But there was also a large slice of pie set aside as countywide funds to be used at the discretion of the CEO or commissioners. In the end, one district received $21 million on the high end while District Two received zero dollars.
In the 2006 parks bond fund, no specific district breakdown was included in the official referendum. It was left to the county to decide how to divide the funds. As a result, of the money set aside for parks development and acquisition, the other districts received between $10 to $21 million each while District Two received $2 million.
The same inequity appears in the allocation of HOST (Homestead Option Sales Tax) dollars. While most of HOST is used for residential property tax relief, a portion is set aside in a countywide fund for infrastructure. Of the latter portion in 2008, the other districts received between $2 to $5 million each while District Two received $500,000.
That was not a one-year aberration. From the HOST infrastructure dollars in the last six years combined, the other districts, respectively, received $32 million (District 5), $16 million (District 3), $11 million (District 1), and $9 million (District 4). District Two received a total of $6 million.
That infrastructure money is often used as matching dollars to obtain federal grants for transportation projects through the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). In such matching programs, $1 of county money typically brings up to $4 of federal money. So in those six years combined, District 5 could have secured roughly $120 million in federal dollars compared to $24 million for District Two.
I've asked the ARC to submit applications for federal matching grants only for those DeKalb County projects that have the official endorsement of the county Board of Commissioners. District Two has as much a need for county services as other districts. The 2000 U.S. Census reported there were more people living in District Two than any other district in DeKalb County.
Objective measures also indicate that District Two is deserving of more funding for green space. The county's strategic plan for parks and recreation, dated July 2000, reported that District Two had the least amount of park acreage.
While my fellow commissioners can be excused for seeking the most for their districts, the CEO must be accountable to the entire county. While he can not undo the decisions of his predecessor, there is an opportunity to mitigate some of the damage.
The 2006 parks bond funds had about $24 million set aside as a reserve or "uncommitted" pot of money. The CEO can use his authority to direct money to District Two to compensate for the previous shortfall. He can do the same for the HOST infrastructure dollars this year and in subsequent years.
The CEO and county commissioners have a responsibility to distribute county funds in an equitable manner consistent with the county's needs and population. The first step is to recognize that inequities exist in the current way of conducting business. The second step is to establish written policy that spells out objective guidelines for evaluating the county's needs. The third step is tracking the short-term and long-term distribution of dollars for each district. The last step is to always be accountable to the taxpayers of DeKalb County.
One of my goals for this year is to call attention to the status quo of DeKalb County's government. Namely, that government operating in the same "business as usual" manner is counterproductive if the county is going to solve its future challenges.
The current economic slump should be a wakeup call to consider government's funding mechanisms and priorities. It seems safe to assume the county's needs will always exceed its budget. Therefore, the allocation of county dollars must be handled in the most objective way possible to ensure efficiency and results.
However, there will always be a human element in these funding decisions, which are decided by the county Chief Executive Officer or Board of Commissioners. So it is incumbent upon us to be mindful that the pendulum does not swing too far towards subjectivity in funding allocation.
Past allocations have created long-term consequences for District Two, particularly in its green space and infrastructure. To put it bluntly, our district has not received its fair share of funding, especially in proportion to the district's population.
In the 2001 parks bond fund, each district got an equal slice of pie, so to speak. But there was also a large slice of pie set aside as countywide funds to be used at the discretion of the CEO or commissioners. In the end, one district received $21 million on the high end while District Two received zero dollars.
In the 2006 parks bond fund, no specific district breakdown was included in the official referendum. It was left to the county to decide how to divide the funds. As a result, of the money set aside for parks development and acquisition, the other districts received between $10 to $21 million each while District Two received $2 million.
The same inequity appears in the allocation of HOST (Homestead Option Sales Tax) dollars. While most of HOST is used for residential property tax relief, a portion is set aside in a countywide fund for infrastructure. Of the latter portion in 2008, the other districts received between $2 to $5 million each while District Two received $500,000.
That was not a one-year aberration. From the HOST infrastructure dollars in the last six years combined, the other districts, respectively, received $32 million (District 5), $16 million (District 3), $11 million (District 1), and $9 million (District 4). District Two received a total of $6 million.
That infrastructure money is often used as matching dollars to obtain federal grants for transportation projects through the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). In such matching programs, $1 of county money typically brings up to $4 of federal money. So in those six years combined, District 5 could have secured roughly $120 million in federal dollars compared to $24 million for District Two.
I've asked the ARC to submit applications for federal matching grants only for those DeKalb County projects that have the official endorsement of the county Board of Commissioners. District Two has as much a need for county services as other districts. The 2000 U.S. Census reported there were more people living in District Two than any other district in DeKalb County.
Objective measures also indicate that District Two is deserving of more funding for green space. The county's strategic plan for parks and recreation, dated July 2000, reported that District Two had the least amount of park acreage.
While my fellow commissioners can be excused for seeking the most for their districts, the CEO must be accountable to the entire county. While he can not undo the decisions of his predecessor, there is an opportunity to mitigate some of the damage.
The 2006 parks bond funds had about $24 million set aside as a reserve or "uncommitted" pot of money. The CEO can use his authority to direct money to District Two to compensate for the previous shortfall. He can do the same for the HOST infrastructure dollars this year and in subsequent years.
The CEO and county commissioners have a responsibility to distribute county funds in an equitable manner consistent with the county's needs and population. The first step is to recognize that inequities exist in the current way of conducting business. The second step is to establish written policy that spells out objective guidelines for evaluating the county's needs. The third step is tracking the short-term and long-term distribution of dollars for each district. The last step is to always be accountable to the taxpayers of DeKalb County.
(Commissioner Jeff Rader represents District Two on DeKalb County's Board of Commissioners. He was elected to the position in 2006 for a four-year term.)
Please encourage your neighbors to sign up for my e-mail updates. Go to my web site, www.commissionerrader.com, and click on the "news signup" link at the bottom.
Please encourage your neighbors to sign up for my e-mail updates. Go to my web site, www.commissionerrader.com, and click on the "news signup" link at the bottom.