The city and county governments have been trying to eliminate redundant programs and consolidate departments -- like planning -- that have a lot of obvious overlap.
This week, it boiled down to the question of the best way to fund the city-county planning department.
Should costs be split 50-50? Or is it time to go Dutch treat?
It will cost about $3 million to run the planning department for 2010-2011. Builders and property owners will pay about $700,000 directly in permit fees. The city and county are each expected to pay half of the remaining costs -- about $1.2 million each.
Here's the rub: About 79 percent of Durham County's tax base is within city limits, and the majority of permit applications and zoning requests deal with properties within the city boundary. (It seems important to remember in this conversation that properties within the city limits are also within the county limits -- and they pay both city and county taxes.)
On Monday, the commissioners decided that they want to revamp the funding deal.
"I think the fairness of it needs to be benchmarked against how much is related to the county, how much is related to the city, and whether there is equal benefit," County Manager Mike Ruffin said.
This isn't the first conversation on the subject, but City Manager Tom Bonfield was surprised to see it come up again.
"I kind of feel like, with the city having about 85 percent of the population, in a sense city residents are paying 100 percent of the city costs and 85 percent of the county costs, anyway," Bonfield said. "It's not as if the residents in the county are paying the entire cost for the county."
Both Ruffin and Bonfield said that they want to have more discussions, and consult more data, before they get into serious negotiations, but the county leadership seemed adamant that halvsies is no longer an option.
Commissioner Joe Bowser even aired the notion that the county should break off its own planning department.
"To be honest, I would love to have a planning department that answers to the county," Bowser said. "I really would. Now we have to go through the city. But it's a very important department."
What a terrible idea.
If the county begins to dismantle its interlocal agreements with the city over the planning department -- which provides critical, if unglamorous, services -- then other cost-saving deals, like sharing the inspections department, may also fall into question, and there's no hope for areas of major cost savings, including law enforcement and emergency services.
The governments have until Dec. 31 to part ways or restructure the agreement. They've already managed a similar negotiation once this year, when they reconfigured the way warrants are tracked and served.
There will be a lot of bluff and countershot between now and then; the city will point out that it carries the freight for inspections, the county will note that only 15 or 20 percent of the department's work deals with unincorporated Durham.
The important thing is that they work it out so taxpayers get the maximum benefit at the minimum cost.
