Unified Government Study Full Report by Hardin United

Hardin County Unified Government Study July 1, 2011

Submitted To:

The Honorable Harry L. Berry Chairperson Hardin County United P.O. Box 568 Elizabethtown, Kentucky 42702 The Honorable Ken Howard Chairperson Hardin County United Governance Subcommittee c/o Hardin County Justice Center 120 East Dixie Avenue Elizabethtown, Kentucky 42701

This study was prepared under contract with the Lincoln Trail Area Development District, Kentucky, with financial support from the Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. The content reflects the views of the Lincoln Trail Area Development District and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment.

Submitted By:

Luke B. Schmidt President L.B. Schmidt & Associates, LLC 6316 Innisbrook Drive Prospect, Kentucky 40059

Page | 2

Table of Contents Cover Letter …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..7 Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….9 Introduction/Project Methodology/Acknowledgements ……………………………………………..19 Hardin County Vision Project ……………………………………………………………………………25 Mayflower Concept ………………………………………………………………………………………….30 Project Goals/Objectives ………………………………………………………………………………….32 Hardin County’s Existing Government Structure ………………………………………………………….35 Existing Jurisdictions, Departments and Boards/Commissions …………………………35 Hardin County Government ……………………………………………………………………………..38 City of Elizabethtown ……………………………………………………………………………………….44 City of Radcliff ………………………………………………………………………………………………….52 City of Sonora …………………………………………………………………………………………………..56 City of Upton ……..…………………………………………………………………………………………….58 City of Vine Grove …………………………………………………………………………………………....58 City of West Point …………………………………………………………………………………………….62 Consolidated Statistics …………………………………………………………………………………….65 Hardin County United Governance Subcommittee Analysis of Key Issues …………………..69 Federal Legislative Issues ………………………………………………………………………………..69 Fire Protection ………………………………………………………………………………………………..71 Fort Knox ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..74 Law Enforcement ……………………………………………………………………………………………77 State Legislative Issues …………………………………………………………………………………..83 Hardin County United Governance Subcommittee Review of General Issues Related to Unified Government in Hardin County ………………………….85 Unified Government Concepts …………………………………………………………………………………89 Kentucky’s City Classification System ……………………………………………………………89 Page | 3

Unified Government Structures …………………………………………………………………..90 Consolidated City/County ………………………………………………………………..91 Coextensive ……………………………………………………………………………………..92 Consolidated City/County with Non-Participating Entities ……………….93 U.S. Unified Government Proposals …………………………………………………………….94 Kentucky’s Legal Requirements for Unified Government ………………………..…101 Unified Government Case Studies …………………………………………………………………………107 Athens/Clarke County, Georgia …………………………………………………………………107 Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia …………………………………………………………126 Columbus-Muscogee County, Georgia ……………………………………………………..137 Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, Kentucky …………………………149 Louisville Metro, Kentucky ………………………………………………………………………..166 Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………………………..177 Appendix (Articles) ………………………………………………………………………………………………..191 Athens – Clarke County, Georgia Does City-County Consolidation Save Money? The Unification of Athens-Clarke County Suggests it Might; Policy Notes, Carl Vinson Institute of Government, The University of Georgia Unification and Hyphenation of Athens-Clarke County, Athens World Summary of background information on the Athens-Clarke County Economic Development Foundation, Athens-Clarke County, Georgia Web site http://www.athensclarkecounty.com/index.aspx?nid=140 Garland: Athens-Clarke charter is a broken promise, OnlineAthens

Augusta – Richmond County, Georgia Augusta leaders react to Mayor’s call for review of city charter; WDRW-TV 12 Web site Consolidation bill up for debate; The Augusta Chronicle web site Augusta Commissioners Elect New Mayor Pro Tem and Approve Committee Assignments; Ben Hasan, Augusta, GA Community Concerns Web site

Page | 4

Who’s Right and What’s Left?; Metro Spirit Web site

Columbus Consolidated Government Consolidation Briefing – Hardin County, Kentucky (PowerPoint)

Lexington – Fayette Urban County Government, Kentucky Merger brought order, lower tax rates over years in Lexington, KY; Evansville Courier & Press Editorial: Lexington’s merge; Evansville Courier & Press Kentucky is much too poor of a state to support 120 county governments; The Lane Report

Louisville Metro, Kentucky Louisville becomes lean, less mean after city/county merger, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Louisville Metro has shown other regions how mergers can change balance of power, City Mayors Dayton looks for ways to change, It’s Great ‘n Dayton Web site Why consolidating city and county governments isn’t a silver bullet for waste, Las Vegas Sun

Page | 5

Page | 6

Page | 7

Page | 8

Executive Summary Hardin County, Kentucky finds itself in a very unique position today. The County is growing rapidly due to the recent base realignment (BRAC) at Fort Knox. With base realignment, Fort Knox is adding approximately 7,500 new jobs to the local economy and the post is transforming from its single focus on training to more of a white collar headquarters mission. The impact that this is having on the County is enormous. The Elizabethtown Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of which Hardin County is the principal county is expected to grow to 131,000 people by 2015. There is new construction everywhere: homes, businesses, roads. BRAC’s realignment has propelled the MSA into various national rankings, including:    

First fully contained MSA in Kentucky to move from recession to recovery The MSA led all Kentucky MSAs in job growth from February 2010 – February 2011 The MSA ranked fourth out of all U.S. metros in personal income growth (2008 – 2009) Out of 398 metros, the MSA ranked 16th in the 2011 Best Cities for Job Growth report

Although Fort Knox is the local economy’s driver, the community has a diversified economy with significant manufacturing and agricultural operations. The largest single industrial tract in Kentucky – the Glendale megasite – is in Hardin County. Beginning in 2009 and concluding in 2010, as part of its efforts to capitalize on the community’s growth, Hardin County Government commissioned a visioning project with the goal being to build upon the community’s strengths and current growth opportunities by identifying weaknesses, maximize efficiencies and establish strategic goals. The vision project included a community strategic assessment, key stakeholder survey (which resulted in a 72% response rate) and a benchmark analysis of five peer counties in Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee. Three overarching themes emerged from the visioning process: 

A desire to unify the community in order to leverage its size to improve the efficiency of the delivery of services



A desire to speak with one community voice in order to improve the community’s standing and stature in Frankfort and Washington



A desire to eliminate duplication when and where possible by combining groups and organizations in order to improve efficiency and more efficiently market and promote the community

Page | 9

Two of the questions asked in the key stakeholder survey addressed the multiple layers of government in Hardin County: At present, local government in Hardin County (not including Fort Knox) consists of both city and county governments which comprise the following jurisdictions and agencies: 14 fire departments six municipal governments, four municipal police departments, three municipal planning and zoning organizations, three water districts, three school districts, two industrial foundations, two visitor bureaus, one county government, one county sheriffâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s department and one county planning and zoning organization. All of this to serve a community of 100,000 people. How effective is the current system?

Current Jurisdiction/Agency System 74

80 70 60

The present system works just fine

50 Percentage 40

30 20

The present system has entirely too much duplication of services

10 0 How effective is the current system?

When asked if the community is best served with the current configuration, and as illustrated in the chart which follows, fully 90% of the participants favor studying communities which have unified government/services, or actually implementing unified government.

Page | 10

Government Service/System Delivery 48

Percentage

50 40 30 20 10 0

Yes, the present system works just fine

Do you feel that the community is best served as it is currently configured when it comes to economic development, land use planning, the delivery of government services, etc., or should some form of consolidation be considered?

No, some form of consolidation should be considered to improve cost efficiency

Communities that have consolidated some or all of their services should be examined to see what works and what doesn't

Following the conclusion of the Vision Project, a new group, Hardin County United (HCU), was established. HCU is tasked to examine each of the 24 strategic goals which were developed during the visioning process. Focusing on the significant desire to unify the community, HCU commissioned a study of unified government options for Hardin County. In setting the tone for the project, HCU Governance Subcommittee Chairperson Ken Howard asked the committee and its consultant to approach the project by invoking the Mayflower Concept. In other words, much like the early settlers arriving on the shores of Massachusetts Bay, imagine today that 100,000 people are arriving on the banks of the Nolin or Ohio Rivers where Hardin County now lies. Instead of having a county government and six municipal governments, and assuming that the community could start over, how should the community govern itself? 

Would it again install a county government along with six municipal governments?



Or, might it consider some form of unified government?

With this in mind, the unified government study set the following goals and objectives: 

Examine Hardin County’s existing government structure



Conduct an analysis of key local issues

Page | 11



Examine unified government structures and conduct case studies of communities with unified government systems

Hardin County’s Existing Government Structure 

At present, Hardin County is home to 60 government jurisdictions, county departments, utilities, and municipal departments, and, in addition, the County is also home to 34 official boards and commissions, for a total of 94 government entities to govern a community of 105,000 people



Significant duplication exists between the County government and the six municipal governments in terms of workers and budgets



On a combined, general fund basis, the community supports a budget1 of $62,617,292 and a workforce of 774 full time employees (this works out to an average of 7.3 workers per 1,000 citizens)



Differences exist between the six municipalities in terms of size, revenue, the number of workers and services provided



In spite of the fragmented manner in which the community has developed, a significant urban core has emerged in Hardin County between the three principal cities – Elizabethtown, Radcliff and Vine Grove – and the rapidly developing unincorporated areas of Cecilia, Glendale and Rineyville



If this area had no immediate boundaries, its population would total 85,000 people and it would easily be Kentucky’s third largest city (as shown on the map on the following page)

Hardin County United Governance Subcommittee Analysis of Key Issues HCU’s Governance Subcommittee held several meetings and invited local experts in the following areas to meet with the Subcommittee to provide information on how certain services are provided in the community and to discuss the issue of unified government: federal legislative issues, fire protection, Fort Knox, law enforcement and state legislative issues. Following is a brief summary of some of the comments:

Fiscal Year 2010 – 2011

Page | 12

85,000 people who live in this emerging urban core outside the gate on the civilian side make this Kentuckyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s third largest community Page | 13



Congressional staff members prefer to build consensus when dealing with local governments on a multi-jurisdictional issue



While it’s important to build consensus, one major problem is that in many cases there is little coordination between cities and counties



If a community (such as Hardin County) is not united in its efforts to procure grants in many cases that community will not be successful



Competition for support of issues, budget requests, etc., exists in counties with more than one local government jurisdiction – would this process be better served with one request from a unified government?



Unified government would serve to benefit business development, which in turn will create new jobs



There are 14 fire departments in the community which range from career (full time professional) to volunteer



Elizabethtown and Radcliff fire departments are funded through tax structures while volunteer departments rely on voluntary property owner subscriptions



Areas served by career departments have shorter response times with correspondingly lower insurance premiums for homeowners; volunteer departments are hampered with longer response times and not always knowing how many fire fighters will be available for a call



Several existing volunteer fire stations are too close together



Unification of all county fire departments makes sense from a cost and efficiency standpoint and should be considered but should be done in a manner that would maintain the general location of existing stations



Fort Knox has worked with the state to establish a mass transit system, but more needs to be done



The post acknowledges that there are benefits associated with interfacing with one central government



Fort Benning is surrounded by a unified government and that post has found working with surrounding government on a one-stop basis to be very effective; anecdotally, Fort

Page | 14

Benning leaders also believe that unified government has contributed to an increase in the region’s quality of life 

The most pressing need for law enforcement in Hardin County is more personnel



If unification occurs, one consolidated police department could operate with a central office and new districts with substations; efficiencies could improve with unification



Citizens will want to know if they will have the same level of police/fire protection as they had before unification is adopted



Unified government will eliminate some competing interests and issues (which to some degree are personality driven); one government can work through issues more efficiently



The importance of speaking with one voice was stressed; competition for support of issues, budget requests, etc., exists in Hardin County (would this be better served with one request and one unified government?)

Hardin County United Governance Subcommittee Review of General Issues Related to Unified Government in Hardin County Following is a brief summary of comments received from HCU Governance Subcommittee members on the issue of unified government during past meetings: 

Separate executive and legislative bodies are needed to govern Hardin County in the future



A strong executive leader is also needed



Concern was expressed about giving up representation through the existing six municipal city councils in favor of a unified government structure



Yet, given the growth in Hardin County, perhaps the time has come to leverage the size of the community and to begin thinking in terms of “we,” using the success of One Knox as the example



A larger legislative body is needed (compared to the existing Fiscal Court) for a unified government structure

Page | 15



In addition to district representation, at-large members of a new unified structure are also needed; such at-large members should live in certain, specified areas in order to avoid “stacking”



Another approach would be to merge certain, existing departments (the existing countywide 911 dispatch service, along with the Greater Hardin County Drug Task Force were given as examples)



The issue becomes one of going from the existing “cooperative” government to one of unified government



The Commonwealth of Kentucky prefers an approach which will best serve the entire population of the entity in question



Efficient and effective government ultimately means unifying government



[Our community] cannot afford the expense of hiring a full time engineer to address the community’s water needs; the community might be better served, from an efficiency point of view, with unified government



County residents take pride in the history of their community



County residents need to ask what will be best for the community 50 years from now



Everyone needs to be willing to think outside of the box

Unified Government Structures Under existing Kentucky law, there are three types of unified government structures which can be explored for Hardin County:   

Urban County Government (Lexington model) Consolidated Local Government (Louisville model) Unified Local Government

Page | 16



Unification is the best decision ever made in the community Since consolidation, government has been more efficient and responsive Unification won’t necessarily save money; however, it will help to mitigate future cost increases

Unified Government Case Studies Significant detail can be found on each of the five communities which were examined later in this Study. In each case, the unified jurisdiction created two types of service districts:  Urban Services District (which usually correspond to the old city and provide a higher level of services)  General Services District (covers the entire county and provides all basic services)



Unification has improved the community’s standing and stature in Atlanta and Washington

While each community has had positive experiences with unification, the comments at left from Athens – Clarke County provides a typical summary of each community.



Unification caused the community to look at all previously existing codes and ordinances and not only reconcile the laws, but improve them

In each of the five case study communities, as part of the campaign to win approval, local leaders agreed not to lay off any public workers following merger. While work roles did decline later, it was due to attrition and overall work force levels have been maintained without significant growth.

Bob Snipes Deputy Manager Athens-Clarke County Government

All in all, unified government has provided positive benefits to each of the five communities. Recommendations

Recognizing the significant benefits which will accrue to the community, the author recommends that the community pursue a unified government between Hardin County Government and each of the six municipal governments, utilizing the Unified Local Government concept, as allowed by Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) KRS 67.900 – KRS 67.940.

Page | 17

Page | 18

Introduction/Project Methodology/Acknowledgements Introduction Hardin County, Kentucky2 is located in North Central Kentucky. Hardin County is the fourth largest county in terms of its geographic size (630 square miles) and sixth in population3 (105,543). Hardin County is growing rapidly due to the recent base realignment at Fort Knox. When the base realignment process has been completed (September, 2011), the Post will realize a net gain in employment of nearly 7,500 jobs4. The impact that this is having on Hardin County is enormous. The Elizabethtown Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which includes Hardin and Larue counties has a population of 119,736 people and is expected to grow to 131,064 people 5 by 2015. Hardin County includes Hardin County Government and six municipal governments – Elizabethtown, Radcliff, Sonora, Upton, Vine Grove, and West Point. Elizabethtown, the county seat, has a population of 28,000; Radcliff has a population of 22,000; Vine Grove’s population is 4,500; Sonora, Upton and West Point each have less than 1,000 residents.

Hardin County has a diversified economy which is built upon the military, manufacturing and agriculture. Elizabethtown has a regional industrial park with approximately 55 manufacturing plants which employ approximately 7,500 workers. Radcliff is developing its Millpond Business Center and also has a thriving major call center – Cardinal Health6.

2 3

Map graphic source: Google Image www.google.com Source: 2010 U.S. Census

Includes all of the personnel with the incoming Commands, supporting contractors and additional expansions announced during the realignment process 5 Source: U.S. Census Bureau conducted special survey to provide Elizabethtown MSA projection for 2015 6

Photo source: Hardin County United Web site www.hardincountyunited.com

Page | 19

Much of the local manufacturing base revolves around the automotive industry and keys in on the County’s central location in the South’s “Auto Alley.” Five major auto assembly plants are located within a 140 mile radius of Hardin County. The largest single industrial tract in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the Glendale megasite is located in Hardin County.

7 Glendale Megasite

The Glendale megasite lies five miles south of Elizabethtown and is targeted towards a single large manufacturing facility, such as an auto assembly plant. The site is bracketed by Interstate 65 and the mainline of the CSX Railroad. The base realignment at Fort Knox has already started paying significant dividends to the community, as illustrated by several key indicators. Employee compensation8 in Hardin County is growing rapidly, as illustrated in the following chart:

7 8

Photo source: Elizabethtown Industrial Foundation Web site www.eifky.org Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Page | 20

Change in Employee Compensation - Hardin County (Billions $)

2.954 3

2.429

2.5 2

2005

1.5

2009

1 0.5 0 Total Employee Compensation Total employee compensation grew by $525 million (21.6%) during the period

According to Moody’s Analytics9, the Elizabethtown MSA was the first fully contained MSA in Kentucky to move from recession to recovery in August 2009. Job growth numbers are up substantially too: the Elizabethtown MSA led all Kentucky metros in job growth during the past year, as shown in the chart10 which follows:

9 10

Source: Moody’s Analytics http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33312701/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/ Source: Moody’s Analytics http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29976394/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/

Page | 21

Change in Employment (February 2010 - February 2011) Elizabethtown MSA leads all Kentucky metros in job growth 5.47

6 4

Percent Change in Employment

0.97

1.56

1.47

1.3

0.43

0.63 1.02

-0.35

-2

Kentucky Metro Areas

Bowling Green

Cincinnati/N. Kentucky

Clarksville/Hopkinsville

Elizabethtown

Evansville/Henderson

Huntington/Ashland

Lexington

Louisville

Owensboro

In 2010, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (U.S. Commerce Department) published personal income data for 366 metros, showing the change from 2008 through 2009. The Elizabethtown MSA ranked fourth in the U.S. in per capita income growth during this period. In fact, seven of the top 10 metros in income growth are markets with military bases which reaffirms the importance of base realignment (as shown in the chart11 which follows):

Change in Personal Income - Top 10 Metros (2008 - 2009) Elizabethtown MSA ranks fourth in the U.S.

5.7 5.2 5.1 4.6 4.6 4.3 4.1 3.9

Metro Area

14.4

6.6

Jacksonville, NC Fayetteville, NC Manhattan, KS Elizabethtown, KY Lawton, OK Clarksville, TN Kennewick, WA

Personal Income Growth (Percent Change)

Cumberland, MD El Centro, CA

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Web Site: www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/mpi/2010/pdf/mpi0810.pdf

Page | 22

On May 6, 2011, New Geography, a respected online journal of information related to urban issues posted its annual ranking of the Best Cities for New Jobs12. This study, which is conducted on behalf of Forbes, analyzes “the robustness of a region’s growth both recently and over time.” The rankings include all 398 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) from which the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports monthly employment data. The rankings were based on an analysis of the following criteria: 1. Recent growth trend: the current and prior year’s employment growth rates, with the current year emphasized (two points) 2. Mid-term growth: the average annual 2005 – 2010 growth rate (two points) 3. Long-term trend and momentum: the sum of the 2005 – 2010 and 1999 – 2004 employment growth rates multiplied by the ratio of the 1999 – 2004 growth rate over the 2005 – 2010 growth rate (two points) 4. Current year growth (one point) The rankings confirm the explosive growth which is underway. Out of 398 metros, the Elizabethtown MSA ranked 16th in the U.S. (and first in Kentucky) by New Geography in its 2011 Best Cities for Job Growth report. The Elizabethtown MSA moved up 87 positions from the previous report. The following chart lists the Top 20 MSAs for Best Cities for Job Growth:

Source: www.newgeography.com/content/002208-2011-how-we-pick-best-cities-for-job-growth

Page | 23

2011 Best Cities for Job Growth Elizabethtown MSA ranks higher than Dallas and San Antonio in the area of job growth and the potential for future job growth

Killeen, TX

Bismarck, ND

El Paso, TX

College Station, TX

Midland, TX

5 6

Austin, TX 7

New Orleans, LA 8

Dubuque, IA 9

Manhattan, KS 10

2011 Overall Ranking

Pascagoula, MS

Odessa, TX

Corpus Christi, TX

Logan, UT

Houston, TX

Fairbanks, AK

16 17

Elizabethtown, KY

San Antonio, TX

19 20

Dallas, TX Jacksonville, NC Lawton, OK

Hardin County has become the center for growth in Kentucky. As base realignment started at Fort Knox, the local community, realizing that in addition to the $1 billion in infrastructure needs inside the gate that there would be similar needs outside the gate as well, including such things as new roads, schools, utilities expansion, etc. For the first time in the community’s history, local governments joined together through a new organization – One Knox – for the purpose of organizing, promoting and securing Page | 24

appropriations from state government to support the outside the gate infrastructure projects. Over two legislative sessions, the Kentucky General Assembly appropriated a total of $251 million to provide for these needs – a tremendous success by any measure. Hardin County Vision Project In order to capitalize on the once in a lifetime opportunity brought about by base realignment, Hardin County Government commissioned a visioning project for the purpose of building upon the positive momentum created at Fort Knox. The project was designed to build upon Hardin County’s strengths and current growth opportunities, identify weaknesses, maximize efficiencies and establish strategic community goals. Louisville-based consulting firm L.B. Schmidt & Associates, LLC was retained to conduct the project on behalf of Hardin County Government and in partnership with the Lincoln Trail Area Development District and the United States Department of Defense’s Office of Economic Adjustment. The project’s methodology included a community strategic assessment (which included analysis of previously conducted studies and interviews with key groups and organizations). Also included in the community assessment was a 30 page confidential key stakeholder survey which was sent to 100 community leaders representing the agriculture, business, education, government, health care, industrial, military and tourism sectors, and, two community leadership forums. The project also analyzed benchmark (or peer) counties that align with Hardin County demographically in order to determine how these counties approach various issues, such as community and economic development. The benchmark counties included:     

Daviess County, Kentucky (Owensboro area) Lee County, Mississippi (Tupelo area) Lowndes County, Mississippi (Columbus area) Montgomery County, Tennessee (Clarksville area) Warren County, Kentucky (Bowling Green area)

The key stakeholder surveys generated a 70% response rate which provided an accurate snapshot of attitudes and opinions on various key issues. The survey covered the following areas:

Page | 25

            

Media Education Arts/Cultural Issues Quality of Life/Quality of Place Downtown Elizabethtown Economic Development Community Competitiveness with Other Communities Fort Knox Conference/Convention Facilities Health Care Transportation Community Position (Standing/Stature in Frankfort and Washington, D.C.) Government/The Big Picture

Community leaders participating in the vision process and through the key stakeholder surveys in Hardin County easily reached consensus on a number of broad areas, including:



Strong support for education at all levels



A desire to unify the community in order to leverage its size to improve the efficiency of the delivery of services



A desire to speak with one community voice in order to improve the community’s standing and stature in Frankfort and Washington, D.C., as has been successfully done with One Knox



A desire to eliminate duplication when and where possible by combining groups and organizations in order to improve efficiency and more efficiently market and promote the community



A desire to improve the existing quality of place/quality of life by improving the visual appearance in urban areas, develop new retail opportunities, and change existing alcoholic beverage laws in order to foster the development of new restaurants, pubs and other new dining experiences



A desire to re-develop Downtown Elizabethtown to include new retail, entertainment and residential opportunities which will be unique to the County and will serve as a magnet for young professionals

Page | 26

“Three vision goals call for unification” “Consolidation and unification serve as a recurring theme in ideas posed by a vision research project designed to focus Hardin County’s growth. “The analysis released last week recommends a community dialogue and consideration of merged school districts, a single countywide government, and creation of an umbrella organization to direct industrial recruitment, retail growth, tourism and all related development issues…”

Following the presentation of the findings from the vision project, the concept of unification quickly rose to the top. As reported in The News-Enterprise on April 2, 2010, under the headline, “Three vision goals call for unification,” As part of the survey of community leaders, several questions were asked about the current (and somewhat fragmented) system of government jurisdictions, agencies, school districts, etc. It quickly became clear that the vast majority of the citizens wanted to explore opportunities to consolidate, unify and streamline the delivery of services, and, as a community, speak with one voice. The following two survey questions illustrate this sentiment:

At present, local government in Hardin County (not including Fort Knox) consists of both city and county governments which comprise the following jurisdictions and agencies: 14 fire departments six municipal governments, four municipal police departments, three - The News-Enterprise municipal planning and zoning organizations, three April 2, 2010 water districts, three school districts, two industrial foundations, two visitor bureaus, one county government, one county sheriff’s department and one county planning and zoning organization. All of this to serve a community of 100,000 people. How effective is the current system?

Page | 27

Current Jurisdiction/Agency System 74

80 70 60

The present system works just fine

50 Percentage 40

The present system has entirely too much duplication of services

30 20 10 0 How effective is the current system?

When asked if the community is best served with the current configuration, and as illustrated in the chart below, fully 90% of the participants favor studying communities which have unified government/services, or actually implementing unified government.

Government Service/System Delivery 48

Percentage

50 40 30 20 10 0

Page | 28

Yes, the present system works just fine

No, some form of consolidation should be considered to improve cost efficiency

Communities that have consolidated some or all of their services should be examined to see what works and what doesn't

Hardin County United Shortly after the conclusion of the Vision Project, a new group – Hardin County United – was established. Hardin County United (HCU) is tasked to examine each of the 24 strategic goals which were developed during the visioning process. HCU is to prioritize the goals and to develop an implementation strategy for those goals that HCU believes the community should pursue. HCU is governed by a Steering Committee, which is chaired by Hardin County Judge/Executive Harry L. Berry and includes approximately 65 community leaders. HCU is further governed by three subcommittees: Community Development (chaired by Hardin County Chamber of Commerce President/CEO Brad Richardson), Education (chaired by North Central Education Foundation President/CEO Al Rider), and Governance (chaired by Hardin County Circuit Court Judge Ken Howard). Each subcommittee is responsible for specific goals as shown below: Proposed Hardin County Strategic Goals Community Development

Education

Create new “powerhouse” entity which will promote all facets of the community (business and retail development, business and retail advocacy, industrial development, education, work force training, and, tourism) for the combined purposes of representing businesses, promoting the community and creating new jobs

Develop “leading edge” educational platform in the community, beginning with Kindergarten and extending through post-secondary education

Facilitate study of merged government structures in other communities and develop recommendations for Hardin County

Facilitate study of similar entities in other communities which have adopted this approach and develop recommendations for Hardin County

Facilitate the development and implementation of the “leading edge” platform plan by North Central Education Foundation

Merge local governments

Page | 29

Government

Community Development Through this new entity, substantially increase funding to promote Greater Hardin County and create new jobs

Education Develop Area Technology Center

Government Adopt strict sign ordinances in the community’s urban areas to eliminate eyesores and improve streetscapes

Develop First Class hotel/conference center

Merge Elizabethtown Independent Schools, West Point Independent Schools and Hardin County Schools into a single, unified district

Develop public landscaping plan in the community’s urban areas to improve streetscapes

Change existing alcoholic beverage laws to achieve full “wet” status for the community’s urban areas

Develop full four year university

Identify new funding mechanisms, such as TIF districts, to assist in the redevelopment of Downtown Elizabethtown

Examine partnership opportunities between the Historic State Theater Complex and the Hardin County Performing Arts Center to aggressively market both facilities and enhance the offerings of both facilities to include a variety of programs of interest to the entire community

Streamline the permitting process by identifying codes which need revision in order to encourage downtown redevelopment

Develop new retail opportunities to mirror those commonly found in larger urban areas Develop community YMCA Develop community symphony orchestra Create new retail, entertainment and residential complex in Downtown Elizabethtown Obtain Trauma Center certification at Hardin Memorial Hospital

Mayflower Concept Following the formation of Hardin County United (HCU), it was agreed that HCU should commission a study of unified government options for Hardin County, as follow-up to the Vision Project. L.B. Schmidt & Associates, LLC was retained to conduct the study. Speaking on behalf

Page | 30

“The results of the Vision Project clearly indicate a preference for exploring opportunities to consolidate various facets of the community for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the delivery of government services. The success of One Knox in securing state funds to facilitate the expansion of the community’s infrastructure to accommodate the growth at Fort Knox shows how important it is for the Hardin County community to speak with one voice. This study will illustrate how this concept might be formalized to the benefit of the entire community.” -

of HCU, Chairperson Harry L. Berry recognized the recent success of One Knox and also the importance of the community to speak with one voice.

The unified government study was conducted under the auspices of HCU’s Governance Subcommittee. In setting the tone for the project, HCU Governance Subcommittee Chairperson Ken Howard invoked what has become known as the Mayflower Concept. Specifically, Judge Howard asked the Subcommittee’s members and the project’s consultant to view the project and the concept of local government much like the early settlers of Massachusetts did when they arrived at Plymouth Rock on the Mayflower.

Harry L. Berry HCU Press Release November 10, 2010

In other words, imagine 100,000 people today arriving on the banks of the Nolin or Ohio rivers where Hardin County now lies. Instead of already having a county government and six municipal governments, and assuming that the community could start over, how should the community govern itself? Would it again install a county government, along with six municipal governments? Or, might it consider some form of unified government?

Source: Google Image www.google.com

Page | 31

With this in mind, the project was launched. Project Goals/Objectives Simply put, the project includes the following goals and objectives: 

Examine Hardin County’s existing government structure



Conduct an analysis of key local issues



Examine unified government structures and conduct case studies of communities with unified government systems

Project Methodology This project was conducted by Luke B. Schmidt, President of L.B. Schmidt & Associates, LLC. The project included an examination of existing Hardin County government jurisdictions, the facilitation of “themed” discussions during monthly meetings of HCU’s Governance Subcommittee, and, an examination of unified government structures widely used in the U.S. Two special meetings of HCU’s Steering Committee and HCU’s Governance Subcommittee were held for the purpose of hearing presentations on unified government by the former mayors of Lexington and Louisville. Significant research was also conducted on the Web. In addition, site visits were conducted to several communities which have unified government, including:     

Athens/Clarke County, Georgia Augusta – Richmond County, Georgia Columbus – Muscogee County, Georgia Lexington – Fayette Urban County Government, Kentucky Louisville Metro, Kentucky

The site visits included numerous meetings/interviews with key community leaders.

Page | 32

Acknowledgements The author recognizes the contributions made to this project by the following people:                                     

Jerry Abramson, former Mayor, City of Louisville & Louisville Metro William Ash, Mayor, City of West Point Harry Berry, Hardin County Judge/Executive Mike Biagi, Field Representative, Office of Senator Mitch McConnell Jeffrey Cross, Chief, Radcliff Police Department John Curry, Fort Gordon Deputy Garrison Commander Vernon “Butch” Curl, Chief, West Point Police Department Jane Driskell, Finance Commissioner, Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government J.J. Duvall, Mayor, City of Radcliff Doc Eldridge, President, Athens Area Chamber of Commerce James Folker, Local News Director, Augusta Chronicle Chance Fox, Radcliff Chief Financial Officer James Garland, community activist, Athens Ruben Gardner, Chief, Elizabethtown Police Department Mike Gaymon, President, Greater Columbus Chamber of Commerce Kim Gillum, Executive Assistant, Greater Columbus Chamber of Commerce John Gogick, Director of Content Development/Digital, Augusta Chronicle Jamie Henderson, Chief, Radcliff Fire Department Emmet Holley, Fort Knox Deputy Garrison Commander Ken Howard, Hardin County Circuit Court Judge Isaiah Hugley, City Manager, Columbus Consolidated Government Mike Hulsey, Chief, Elizabethtown Fire Department Gary Jones, Executive Vice President, Greater Columbus Chamber of Commerce Wendell Lawrence, Executive Director, Lincoln Trail Area Development District Jimmie Lee, Kentucky State Representative Kevin Mattingly, Captain, Radcliff Police Department Susan McCord, Staff Writer, Augusta Chronicle Don Nelson, Associate, Editor, Athens Banner-Herald Steve New, Chief, Vine Grove Fire Department Steve Park, Elizabethtown Finance Director Sue Parr, President, Augusta Metro Chamber of Commerce Dennis Parrett, Kentucky State Senator Foster Pettit, former mayor, City of Lexington & Lexington-Fayette Urban County Govt. Blake Proffitt, mayor, City of Vine Grove Bob Quick, President, Commerce Lexington Erin Ricket, Elizabethtown Community & Technical College student Debra Riggs, Mayor, City of Upton

Page | 33

       

Fred Russell, Administrator, City of Augusta Deborah D. Shaw, Elizabethtown City Attorney Brian Smith, Director of Economic Development, Office of Congressman Brett Guthrie Bob Snipes, Deputy Manager, Athens-Clarke County Government Terri Stewart, Elizabethtown Community & Technical College professor Tim Walker, Mayor, City of Elizabethtown John Ward, Elizabethtown Post Commander, Kentucky State Police Charles Williams, Hardin County Sheriff

The author also drew significant information on the issue of unified or, consolidated government from two books, including: 

Case Studies of City-County Consolidation – Reshaping the Local Government Landscape, edited by Suzanne M. Leland and Kurt Thurmaier: M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, New York



The Politics of City-County Merger – The Lexington-Fayette County Experience, by W.E. Lyons: The University Press of Kentucky

Personal Note Hardin County is governed by a number of talented and dedicated individuals. In many instances, individuals who have been elected to city councils, city commissions, etc., are truly serving as “citizen legislators.” They are clearly not in it “for the money,” but rather from a true desire to serve their communities. The conclusions which are drawn by the author in this study, which may include recommendations for changes to existing government structures, in no way reflect on any one individual or group of individuals who are currently serving in office, but instead focus on opportunities available to the Greater Hardin County community.

Page | 34

Hardin County’s Existing Government Structure

Like its varied terrain, Hardin County has grown over the years to include many layers of government jurisdictions and related departments, agencies and groups. At present, Hardin County is home to the following 60 government jurisdictions, county departments, utilities and municipal departments:              

One county administrative department Six municipal government administrative departments One county animal control department One county code enforcement department One county fiscal court One county emergency management department One county EMS department One county engineering department Six city councils/city commissions Two municipal engineering departments One county finance department Two municipal finance departments 14 fire departments One municipal natural gas department

Page | 35

           

One county planning and zoning department Two municipal planning and zoning departments Four municipal police departments One county public library Three municipal public works departments One county road department One county sheriff’s department One county solid waste department One municipal storm water department Three municipal water/waste water departments One water and gas department Two county water departments

Government Jurisdictions County Departments/Municipal Departments (Hardin County)

Department 1415 Admin. Animal Contl. City Council Code Enforc. Emer. Mgt. EMS 16 Engineering Finance 1718 Fire Fiscal Court Natural Gas Parks/Rec. Planning 19 Police Public Library Public Works Road Solid Waste Storm water Water/ Wastewater Water & Gas Water Dist 1 Water Dist 2

Elizabethtown X

Hardin County X X

X X X

X X X X X

Radcliff X

Sonora X

Upton X

Vine Grove X

West Point X

X X X

X X X X X

X X X

X X X X X X

X X

At present, Hardin County is home to 34 official Boards and Commissions, to which members are appointed by either the Hardin County Judge/Executive or the Mayor of a particular municipality. All of the Boards and Commissions are shown in the chart which follows. On a combined basis, Hardin County, a community of 105,000 people, is governed by 94 government jurisdictions, county departments, municipal departments, official boards and commissions.

14 15 16

Community is considered to have an “administrative department” if it has an elected mayor and a city clerk/treasurer Neither Sonora nor Upton have any full time employees Radcliff Engineering Department also oversees storm water issues

Elizabethtown Fire Department is a full-time professional department; Radcliff Fire Department is a combination full-time professional/volunteer department; all other departments are volunteer departments 18 Additional volunteer fire departments include: Central Hardin, Glendale, Kentucky 86, Rineyville, Stephensburg, Valley Creek, West 84, White Mills 19 Hardin County Sheriff’s Department serves as the County’s police department

Page | 36

County Boards & Commissions Municipal Boards & Commissions (Hardin County) Boards & Commissions Airport Board Zoning Adjustment Cemetery Civil Service Code Appeals Code Enfor. Ethics 20 Board Extens. Board Fire Service Advisory Board Forestry Health Board Housing Authority Library Board Lin. Trail Aging Adv. Council Lin. Trail Telecomm. Commission Plan/Zoning River Days Festival Sol. Waste Appeals Board Tax Board of Appeals Tourism Water Dist. 1 Water Dist. 2

Elizabethtown X X

Hardin County

Radcliff

Sonora

Upton

Vine Grove

West Point

X X X X

X X

X X X X X

X X

X X X

Following is a detailed look at each of the government jurisdictions.

Ethics Board operates as a joint board with appointments from Hardin County Government and the cities of Elizabethtown, Radcliff, Vine Grove and West Point; the Lincoln Trail Telecommunications Commission and the Tax Board of Appeals operate as joint boards with appointments from Hardin County Government and the City of Elizabethtown

Page | 37

Hardin County Government Hardin County Government is responsible for government services covering the entire geographic area of Hardin County, and, in some cases, provides services (such as the landfill) that the municipalities don’t provide. The County is governed by the Hardin County Fiscal Court, which is divided into eight (8) magisterial districts. The Executive branch includes the Judge/Executive (Harry L. Berry) who functions as the community’s Chief Executive Officer (administrative) and who is elected to a four year term (with the option to be re-elected). In addition, the County is governed by eight Magistrates (legislative branch) who are elected to four-year terms by district, with the option to stand for re-election. Current magistrates and additional elected officials include:    

District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4

Roy Easter Doug Goodman Lisa Williams Fred Clem, Jr.

   

District 5 District 6 District 7 District 8

   

Attorney Clerk Jailer Sheriff

Jenny Pitts Kenny L. Tabb Danny Allen Charlie Williams

  

Coroner William Lee Circ. Co. Clerk Loretta Crady PVA Adm. Danny Hutcherson

Bill Wiseman E.G. Thompson Dwight Morgan Garry King

Each of the above offices21 (with the exception of the Circuit Court Clerk and the PVA Administrator) are offices which have been established by the Kentucky State Constitution. Each of the above offices generates various fees in connection with their prescribed area of responsibility; however, County government also provides funding to support each of these offices. Combined employment for these offices totals approximately 100 employees. 21

Photo source: Hardin County United Web site www.hardincountyunited.com

Page | 38

County government also exercises direct control over a number of departments and semicontrol over several agencies. Those departments which fall under direct control of County government include: animal control, code enforcement, emergency management, emergency medical services (EMS), engineering, finance, jail, road and solid waste/landfill. These departments are fully funded by County government and their combined 349 employees report through various department heads to the County Judge/Executive. A list of positions follows on the next page. The members of Hardin County Fiscal Court also serve as the Board of Trustees of County-owned Hardin Memorial Hospital (which operates as a free standing entity). County government exercises semi-control over agencies such as the Library, Planning & Development Office, the two water districts and the Health Department by making appointments to the Boards of Directors, the issuance of grants and the right to audit each agency. Hardin County Government operates with an Annual Budget22 of $77,637,015 (Fiscal Year 2010 – 2011). While there are nearly 70 line items in the summary of Estimated Receipts, the primary items include: Revenue Category Real Estate – (Property Tax) Excess Fees – Sheriff/County Court Clerk State Grants (BRAC Infrastructure/School Renovation State Fees to Cover Cost of Housing Inmates at the Hardin County Jail Garbage Collection Landfill User Fees Ambulance Service Dispatch Services/911 Surcharge (Fees on Landlines/Wireless Phones) Other (Miscellaneous Taxes/Fees) Total

Source: Hardin County Government

Page | 39

Amount $5,150,000 1,097,500 49,997,650 2,700,000 2,400,000 2,273,200 3,750,000 1,100,000 9,168,665 $77,637,015

On the Appropriations side of the ledger, there are a total of nine Fund areas which cover all aspects of County spending and include the following categories shown in the chart on the following page. Hardin County Government

EMPLOYEE COUNT BY DEPARTMENT ELECTED ADOLESCENT/GRANT EMERGENCY MEDICAL SVC ANIMAL CONTROL BLDGS & GROUNDS CODE ENFORCEMENT MAGISTRATES CORONER E-911 COUNTY ENGINEER EMERGENCY MGNT IT SPECIALIST JAIL JUDGE/EXEC ROAD DEPARTMENT SOLID WASTE TREASURER SUBTOTAL F/C PAYROLL

COUNTY CLERK COUNTY ATTORNEY COUNTY SHERIFF COUNTY PLANNING COM

GRAND TOTAL

FULL TIME 1 41 6 5 1

8 1

1 1

1 16 3 2 1 72 3 26 3 5

SEASONAL/CONTRACT

TOTAL:

10 2

186

229

1 1 1

34 24 40

2 4 5

37 29 46

291

349

M:Payroll/Payroll Reports/Employee Count per Dept

Page | 40

PART TIME

Expenditure Category General Fund (General Government, Public Safety, Social Services) Road Fund (Road Construction/Maintenance) Jail Fund (Staff Salaries, Bonds, General Services) L.G.E.A Fund (Roads) State Grants Fund (BRAC Infrastructure/School Renovation) Federal Grants Fund (Recreation/Culture) E.S.F. Fund Solid Waste Fund (Landfill Operating Costs) UPL â&#x20AC;&#x201C; IGT Fund Total

Amount $11,989,218 2,632,767 7,760,630 208,200 49,495,000 278,200 0 5,273,000 0 77,637,015

In recent years, County government has been able to hold the line in terms of tax increases or increases in significant spending and the Budget has always been balanced. A summary of the Budget now follows:

Page | 41

Page | 42

Page | 43

City of Elizabethtown The City of Elizabethtown is the county seat of Hardin County and has a population of 28,531 (making it Kentucky’s 11th largest city). The City is responsible for providing various services throughout its 25 square mile area. Elizabethtown23 has a mayor-council form of government. Tim Walker serves as Mayor. Six city council members are elected on an at-large basis. Current council members include:

     

Larry Ashlock Edna Berger Tony Bishop Marty Fulkerson Kenny Lewis Ron Thomas

The City’s primary departments include:           

Administrative Engineering Finance Fire Department Natural Gas Parks – Recreation Planning & Development Police Department Public Works Stormwater Water – Wastewater

The City currently has approximately 265 employees, as shown in the organizational chart which follows:

Photo source: Google Image www.google.com

Page | 44

Page | 45

The City has its own water and natural gas departments and sells these utility services directly to its customers. The City also provides waste water treatment services. Several of these services are fee-generating. The City also has an extensive parks system, with 12 parks and recreation facilities. The City recently broke ground on a major facility – the Elizabethtown Sports Park24 – which when completed will feature 12 soccer fields, three quads for baseball and softball, two championship fields, three pavilions, one synthetic field, etc. The facility will be completed in Summer 2012. The City of Elizabethtown operates with an Annual Budget of $57,778,520 25 (2010 – 2011 Fiscal Year). Revenues total $51,601,091, while appropriations total $57,778,520. Revenue sources include: Revenue Category General Fund Special Revenue Fund Fiduciary Fund Internal Service Fund Water & Sewer Natural Gas 26 Elizabethtown Tourism & Convention Bureau Total

Amount $22,133,791 3,762,600 40,000 2,245,000 6,493,000 14,096,700 2,830,000 $51,601,091

General Fund primary revenue sources include: Vehicle and property taxes Occupational taxes Utility franchise fees Motel taxes Restaurant taxes

24 25 26

$2,996,000 12,320,000 852,000 510,000 2,100,000

Graphic source: Elizabethtown Tourism & Convention Bureau Web site http://www.touretown.com/Elizabethtown-Sports-Park.aspx Source: City of Elizabethtown Restaurant/motel tax proceeds

Page | 46

Special Revenue Funds include $3,110,000 from the fire protection fund. Revenue from the Water & Sewer and Natural Gas departments comes from the sale of water and natural gas to City homeowners, along with sewer fees. Appropriations include: Expenditure Category General Fund Special Revenue Fund Fiduciary Fund Internal Service Fund Water & Sewer Natural Gas 27 Elizabethtown Tourism & Convention Bureau Total

Amount $25,427,209 3,776,600 40,000 2,245,000 7,982,099 14,547,612 3,760,000 $57,778,520

Primary General Fund expenditures include: General Government (administrative) Public Safety (police/fire) Public Works (engineering, streets, stormwater utilities) Recreation (parks, community center, sports park)

$7,138,236 7,081,635 5,461,742 5,745,596

The Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s recent practice has been to balance the Budget by borrowing from the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s extensive reserve fund. A summary of the entire Budget now follows:

Includes debt service payment on the Elizabethtown Sports Park Bond

Page | 47

Page | 48

Page | 49

Page | 50

Page | 51

City of Radcliff The City of Radcliff lies in the northern portion of Hardin County adjacent to the Fort Knox Military Reservation. Radcliff has a population of 21,688 people and covers an area of 12 square miles.

Radcliff has a mayor-council form of government. J.J. Duvall serves as the Mayor. Six city council members are elected on an at-large basis. The current council members include:      

Barbara Baker Jack Holland Stan Holmes Edward L. Palmer, Sr. Don Shaw Don Yates

The City’s primary departments include the following:      

Administration Fire Department Planning & Development Police Department Public Works Storm Water

The City28 has approximately 126 employees, as shown in the organization chart which follows:

Photo source: Hardin County United Web site www.hardincountyunited.com

Page | 52

Radcliff Organization Chart29 Mayor Administration

Fire

Planning

Police

Public Works

Department

Planner

Chief

Admin/

Chief/

Plan. Dir.

Emer. Mgr.

CFO

Asst.

Lt. FF

Adm.

Capt.

Asst.

Sgt. FF

Mte. Mgr.

Lt.

Mte. Supv.

Technician

Sr. Bldg.

Sgt.

Clerk Tax Clerk

FF/Insp.

Official

2 Firef. 15

Admin . Clerk

Bldg. Insp. 2 Code Enf. Officer

Detect. 4

Adm. Asst.

Asst.

2 Rec. Tech.

Occ. Lic. Clerk

FF P/T

Mte. Opr./Crew 8

Ld. Mech./Mech. 2 Parks Supv./Worker 3

Rec. Mgr. Dispatchers

Adm. Asst.

Rec. Workers 2

Const.

Maint. Operator

Officers

Adm. ProFF

GIS/GPS

Supv.

3 Accounting

City

Tech.

Cert. Perm. 3 IT Technician

Department

Engineer

Chief City Clerk

Director

Storm Water

Not shown on chart: Police Terminal Agency Control/Technology Coordinator; Evidence Custodian; Custodian (total of three positions)

Radcliff30 occupies a unique position in Hardin County, given its proximity to Fort Knox. Many military personnel stationed at Fort Knox choose to live in Radcliff. The City has seen recent improvements to its transportation system with the widening of Wilson Road and the soon to be built Elizabethtown to Radcliff Connector (E2RC), which will extend from the north side of Elizabethtown to KY Route 313 (Joe Prather Highway) around the west side of Radcliff and to Bullion Blvd. and the Main Gate to Fort Knox. The City of Radcliff operates with an Annual Budget31 of $11,774,490 (2010 – 2011 Fiscal Year; Original Budget). Revenues total $11,396,240, while appropriations total $11,774,490. A summary of Radcliff’s proposed FY 2011 – 2012 Budget includes: Revenue Category Ad Valorem Taxes Franchise Fees Insurance Premium Taxes Occupational Fees License & Permit Fees Intergovernmental Revenues Other Total

$10,505,790

Appropriations Police Department Administration Department Fire Department Public Works Department Other Total

A summary of the entire Radcliff Budget now follows: 30 31

Photo source: Hardin County United Web site www.hardincountyunited.com Source: City of Radcliff

Amount $1,715,200 785,000 1,995,000 2,965,000 1,071,100 1,349,790 624,700

Amount $3,997,240 1,215,350 2,178,950 1,356,550 1,757,700 $10,505,790

Page | 55

City of Sonora Sonora is a small community located in the southern end of Hardin County, alongside I-65. The City’s population in 2010 was 513, an increase of 47% over 2000. Sonora32 has a mayor-commission form of government. Larry Copelin serves as Mayor. Four commission members are elected on an at-large basis. Current commission members include:    

Earl Hodges Duane Manakee James Routt Claudia Thurman

Sonora operates with an Annual Budget of $72,400. Revenues are derived primarily through the collection of property taxes and the electric utility franchise fee collected from Kentucky Utilities. The City has no full time employees. The full Sonora budget follows:

Photo source: Google Image Web site http://www.aaroads.com/southeast/kentucky065/i-065_nb_exit_081_04.jpg

Page | 56

Page | 57

City of Upton The City of Upton is located at the southernmost tip of Hardin County alongside I-65. The community serves farmers that live in the southern and southwestern end of Hardin County. Upton also lies within two counties: Hardin and Larue, with the majority of the population of 683 people residing in Hardin County. The community covers 1.5 square miles. Upton has a mayor-commission form of government. Debra Riggs serves as Mayor. Four city commission members are elected on an at-large basis. Current commission members include:    

Kim Ash Cris Hines Heather Jones Louis White

The City of Upton operates with an Annual Budget of approximately $100,000. Revenues are derived primarily through the collection of property taxes, franchise fees and fire department subscription fees. Appropriations support the fire department, the city’s cemetery, community center and road fund. The City recently built a new City Hall/Fire Department, which was financed through a grant and a 10-year loan. The City has no full time employees. City of Vine Grove The City of Vine Grove is located in northern Hardin County, to the west of Radcliff and has a population of 4,520 people and covers six square miles. Vine Grove sits on the Hardin County/Meade County border and the community is growing due to the influx of new people moving to Fort Knox. Vine Grove33 has a mayor-council form of government. Blake Proffitt serves as Mayor. Six city council members are elected on an at-large basis. Current council members include:   33

Photo source: Google Image www.google.com

Page | 58

Donna Betson Kristopher King

   

Garry McCoy Kathy Sisco Donna Spagenberger Keena Straney

The City’s primary departments include:      

Administration Fire Department Police Department Public Works Recreation Wastewater

The City currently has 26 full time employees, as shown in the organizational chart which follows:

Page | 59

Vine Grove Organizational Chart

City Council

Mayor

Administration

City Clerk/Treas.

Fire

Police

Department

Chief

Asst. City Clerk

Captain

Admin. Clerk

Sergeant

Public Works

Director

Dist.

Operator (3)

Wastewater

Plant Chief Oper.

Operator

2 PT P/R - A/P

Officers

Clerk

5 FT/3 PT

Events Coord. Utilities Clerk The City has its own water and sewer department. The City of Vine Grove operates with an Annual Budget of $2,793,48034 (2010 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2011 Fiscal Year). Revenues total $2,853,090, while appropriations total $2,793,480. A summary of the Budget follows:

Source: City of Vine Grove

Page | 60

Page | 61

City of West Point The City of West Point is located at the northernmost tip of Hardin County, where the Salt River flows into the Ohio River, across from Jefferson County and the State of Indiana. West Point has a population of 797 people. The city covers an area of nearly three square miles. West Point35 is the only Hardin County community located on the Ohio River. The city has a long history, including having hosted a visit from explorers Lewis and Clark as they trekked west to the Pacific Ocean. The community was also the site of Civil War skirmishes. West Point has a mayor-council form of government. William (Billy) C. Ash serves as Mayor. Six city council members are elected on an at-large basis. Current council members include:      

Dwayne Culver Lavinda Curl Carl Hall Pat Smith Fred Staley D.P. Wise

The City’s primary departments include: Administrative Fire Department Police Department Water/Sewer The City currently has approximately eight employees. The City’s organizational chart follows:

Photo source: City of West Point Web site http://www.westpointky.org/history.shtml

Page | 62

West Point Organizational Chart

Mayor

Administrative

Fire

Police

Water/Sewer

Department

City Clerk

Chief

Asst. City Clerk

Officer

Public Works Director

Technicians 2

The City of West Point operates with an Annual Budget of $748,926 (Fiscal Year 2010 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2011). Revenues total $748,926, while appropriations also total $748,926. A summary of West Pointâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Budget follows:

Page | 63

Page | 64

Consolidated Statistics The manner in which Hardin County Government and the six municipalities raise revenue varies across the board. Municipalities are restricted as to how they can raise revenue based upon their classification (a detailed explanation of Kentucky’s municipal classification system is presented in the Unified Government section of this report. Likewise, county governments are allowed certain areas in which they may raise revenue. Because of these differences, it is impossible to do a complete “apples to apples” comparison regarding revenue sources. In other words, the City of Elizabethtown, which is a Fourth Class city, is allowed to raise revenue through a restaurant sales tax. The City of Radcliff, which is a Second Class city, is not. Also, the myriad of revenue sources makes it difficult to do a level comparison. For example, Hardin County’s revenue chart of accounts includes 70 line items. The City of Elizabethtown’s Annual Budget includes certain revenue line items that the other communities do not have (such as the sale of natural gas to city homeowners and businesses). Each community raises revenue with different types of taxes and fees. And, most communities (and the County) also receive various types of federal and state grants. Most jurisdictions do have the same broad-based chart of accounts (some line items may be known by a different name). In order to do a comparison of the revenue sources for the various jurisdictions, the author has elected to compare “general fund” revenues for each jurisdiction, as shown in the chart below. In most every instance, “general” funds are used to support every day government services, such as administrative functions, public safety, public works and recreation. General funds do not, as a rule, include expenditures for capital projects, water/sewer systems (if applicable), etc. General funds do however allow for an “apples to apples” comparison between the jurisdictions, not only in total but also on a per-person basis. General funds are raised primarily through property taxes, taxes on personal property (such as vehicles, boats, etc.), franchise fees (e.g., utilities), insurance premium taxes, business license fees, and occupational taxes. While the sources may be similar, in many instances, the actual rates that are charged may vary between jurisdictions.

Page | 65

Consolidated Statistics Hardin County Government/ Hardin County Municipalities

Elizabethtown 28,531

Hardin 36 County 105,543

Radcliff 21,688

Sonora 513

Upton 683

Vine 37 Grove 4,520

West Point 797

$22,133,791

$27,639,365

$10,593,040

$72,400

$100,000

$1,329,770

$748,926

Tax Burden Per 39 Citizen

$776

$262

$488

$141

$146

$294

$940

Number of F/T Public Workers

265

349

126

Full Time Public Workers Per 1,000 40 Citizens

9.2

3.3

5.8

5.7

10.0

Category Population General 38 Fund

Hardin County taxes are levied on all residents of the County, including those who live in any of the six municipal jurisdictions. So, the true tax burden for people living in each of the municipalities is their local tax burden, plus the county tax burden. Differences in the amounts, tax burden per citizen and the number of citizens per public worker can be explained in a variety of ways:

36 37 38 39 40



Differences in assessed tax rates on property between communities



Differences in population between communities



Differences in demands for local government services between communities

Includes all revenue from taxes and fees, with the exception of the state grant of $49 million Includes all revenue from taxes and fees, with the exception of revenue from the sale of water and related sewer fees Revenue Tax burden per resident is derived by dividing the General Fund revenue by the jurisdiction’s population Full time workers per 1,000 citizens is derived by dividing the number of workers by the population

Page | 66



The cities of Elizabethtown, Vine Grove and West Point operate their own municipal water systems; the City of Elizabethtown also operates its own natural gas system, which results in the need for additional employees as compared to other jurisdictions

Yet in spite of the differences, one thing remains the same: duplication of effort in a community of 105,000 people: 

60 government jurisdictions, county departments, municipal departments



34 official government boards and commissions



94 total government entities

Also important is the fact that a real urban core has emerged in Hardin County. The three principal cities – Elizabethtown, Radcliff and Vine Grove – have essentially grown to a contiguous point. To a driver from outside the region, it is now difficult to tell when you have driven out of one community and into another one. How does this combined linear urban core compare to other Kentucky cities?

Community Bowling Green Owensboro Elizabethtown/Radcliff/Vine Grove Covington Hopkinsville Richmond Florence Georgetown Henderson

Population 58,067 57,265 54,739 40,640 31,577 31,364 29,951 29,908 28,757

Kentucky Population Rank

Square Miles 38 21 43 14 31 15 10 14 18

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

When you add the rapidly developing unincorporated area – Rineyville, Cecilia and Glendale – you now have a new, emerging urban city. According to the Lincoln Trail Area Development District, 91,000 people (including the Hardin County portion of the cantonment area at Fort Knox) now live in this urban core which stretches along US 31W, easily making this Kentucky’s third largest community:

2010 Census

Page | 67

85,000 people who live in this emerging urban core outside the gate on the civilian side make this Kentuckyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s third largest community Page | 68

Hardin County United Governance Subcommittee Analysis of Key Issues Throughout the period of the study of unified government in Hardin County, the Hardin County United (HCU) Governance Subcommittee has held a number of meetings to analyze key issues related to government in Hardin County (County government, municipal government and Fort Knox). Each of the meetings revolved around a central theme, including:     

Federal Legislative Issues Fire Protection Fort Knox Law Enforcement State Legislative Issues

During each of these meetings, experts in each field were invited to meet with the Subcommittee and provide background information on each subject area, particularly as each relates to Hardin County today. The subject of unified government was also discussed with each of the experts. While none of the experts was asked for their personal view (and potential support or non-support) of unified government, the experts were asked about how unified government might work in Hardin County on a general basis. And, in certain instances, the experts were asked about the effectiveness of the community speaking with “one voice.” Following is a summary of the discussion from each of the meetings. Federal Legislative Issues Hardin County is represented by two United States Senators – Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Louisville) and Senator Rand Paul (Bowling Green), and one United States Representative – Congressman Brett Guthrie (Bowling Green). When it comes to federal legislative issues, each of the above Members of Congress has staff members who deal with local government representatives on a wide variety of issues. These issues include such things as grants for capital projects (infrastructure such as water plants, sewer projects, etc.). Also included are Page | 69

issues related to homeland security, agricultural matters, roads, military issues related to Fort Knox, etc. During the discussions, the federal legislative experts stated that they had enjoyed positive working relationships with representatives of Hardin County’s various government jurisdictions. Congressional staff members serve as liaisons between the Member’s Office staff and the local communities as well as Fort Knox. Congressional staff members also provide support to smaller communities which do not have their own economic development staff or experts in particular fields. Congressional staff members prefer to build consensus when dealing with local governments on a multi-jurisdictional issue. It is important to build consensus; one major problem is that in many cases there is little coordination between cities and counties (as an example, a county might receive a federal grant for a new fire truck and actually take delivery of the vehicle, only to find out that the city which is to receive the vehicle doesn’t have an adequate place to house it); simply stated, in many instances, local governments do not work well together Following are some of the key comments which were made during discussions concerning federal legislative issues and how Congressional staffers deal with local governments in general:



In many cases, cooperation between jurisdictions is “personality” dependent



If a community (such as Hardin County) is not united in its efforts to procure grants 42 in many cases it will not be successful



Congressional staff will often complete a “checklist” when a grant request is received to make sure that key groups are on board with the request; if there is a split in many cases it results in a “blame game” and the community (or communities) may miss out on the grant; typically, Congressional staff members like to see the following types of groups united when it comes to a grant request:

Photo source: Elizabethtown Valley Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Google Image Web site www.google.com

Page | 70

o o o o

City government(s) County government Chamber of Commerce Industrial Foundation



Unified government would serve to benefit business development, which in turn will create new jobs



With unification, there could be “pain” on the front end as the following questions are addressed: o Will the community’s bar be raised? o Can the community go from “good to great?” o Will unification assist in the development and implementation of the community’s vision?

Fire Protection There are three types of fire departments in Hardin County: career (which consists of full time, professional fire fighters), career/volunteer (which consists of a combination of full time, professional fire fighters and volunteer fire fighters), and, volunteer (which consists of all volunteer fire fighters).

Hardin County is served by 14 fire departments. The County has one career department (Elizabethtown), two career/volunteer departments (Radcliff and Vine Grove) and 11 volunteer departments. A complete listing of departments follows:

Page | 71

      

Central Hardin Fire Department Elizabethtown Fire Department Glendale Fire Department Kentucky 86 Fire Department Radcliff Fire Department Rineyville Fire Department Stephensburg Fire Department

Sonora Fire Department Upton Fire Department Valley Creek Fire Department Vine Grove Fire Department West 84 Fire Department West Point Fire Department White Mills Fire Department

A fire department’s ISO (insurance) rating is the most important measurement when it comes to providing fire protection. The rating is based upon such things as water supply, equipment, the number of available personnel, response time, etc. Four Hardin County fire departments were reviewed and serve as the baseline for understanding how fire protection is provided. Fire Department

ISO Rating

Elizabethtown

Radcliff West Point

IV IV

Vine Grove

# Personnel 53 full time fire fighters; 3 full time fire inspectors 26 full time fire fighters 12 volunteer fire fighters 17 volunteer fire fighters 1 full time fire fighter 29 volunteer fire fighters

Annual Budget $3,100,000 2 ,000,000 35,000 130,000

The Elizabethtown and Radcliff43 departments are funded through their respective city tax structures (primarily the insurance services tax). Volunteer fire departments are funded through voluntary subscriptions of property owners in the respective fire protection districts. Vine Grove has a 92% participation rate with its annual subscription drive. The City of Vine Grove oversees the department’s budget, while most volunteer fire department budgets are overseen by a department board of directors. In addition to the budgets listed above, each department is also eligible for an annual state training bonus of $8,100 per department. In Elizabethtown, an average fire run (including false alarms) costs $5,300/run (this is the total cost to operate the department divided by the number of annual runs). Approximately 85% of the EFD’s annual budget is allocated for personnel. 43

Photo source: Central Construction Company Web site http://www.centralconst.com/RFD.htm

While it is widely understood that communities that have career fire departments (funded through taxes) have shorter response times (with correspondingly lower insurance premiums for property owners), the idea of new taxes to support fire departments in rural areas is not popular. A few years ago, the Central Hardin Fire Department placed a fire protection tax on the ballot, which was defeated by a margin of 70 points. Another issue concerning volunteer fire departments is that of dispatching. A volunteer department is just that: volunteer. When a call comes in to a volunteer department, all of the department’s volunteers (who may be at home, at work, or even out of town) are notified through the tone system. It then becomes necessary for any and all available volunteers to report to the fire station to don their fire fighting uniforms/equipment and to pick up the fire fighting vehicle. This approach results in additional response time and the fire chief never knows exactly how many personnel he/she will have available to fight the fire (or perform a rescue) until those that are available actually show up (which could be a full complement, a relative handful or none at all). Many of the volunteer fire departments were created in 1979 when the City of Elizabethtown informed the county that its fire department would no longer make runs in the outlying rural areas. As a result, approximately 12 volunteer fire departments were created. There was no “plan” as to where the departments should be located and it is agreed today that many of the stations are too close together. With regard to the potential unification of local governments and services, the following observations were made: 

What happens to existing ISO ratings (which are awarded on the basis of fire protection districts; e.g., the EFD ISO rating pertains to its fire protection district – the city limits of Elizabethtown)?



If the various fire departments are unified, what would happen to the training bonus?



Preserving high ISO ratings is important if relatively low/competitive property insurance premiums are to be maintained



Unification of all county fire departments makes sense from a cost and efficiency standpoint and should be considered

Page | 73



If unification were to occur, it should be done in a manner which would preserve the viability of all of the departments; this could include the following: o Unifying the 14 existing fire departments into one department o Maintain the general locations of existing stations (would not necessarily have to be the current building)



Create a countywide taxing district for fire protection to support the existing fire departments with one fire services coordinator

Fort Knox Fort Knox is the economic engine which drives Hardin County. It is by far the largest employer in the County (as well as one of the largest in the entire Commonwealth of Kentucky). The 2005 round of Base Realignment and Closure (commonly referred to as BRAC) has paid big dividends to Hardin County and helped the community weather the national economic recession much better than most communities around the country. While the U.S. Army Armor Center and School relocated to Fort Benning, as a result of BRAC, Fort Knox also received several commands in the last four years due to the realignment and Army force restructuring:         

Accessions Command44 Cadet Command Human Resources Command 3rd Sustainment Command (Expeditionary) 84th Training Command 11th Aviation Command 100th Division (USAR) Army Reserve Readiness Training Center 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division

It has since been announced that the Accessions Command will be inactivated by the end of Fiscal Year 2012 as part of the Army’s global restructuring process, with a directed savings of $50 million and 65 military, 130 civilian and 290 contract positions over a two year period ending in October 2012

Page | 74

The 3/1 IBCT arrived in October 2009 and is Fort Knox’s first deployable brigade since the 194 th Separate Armored Brigade was inactivated in 1995. These organizations join the Recruiting Command, the 19 th Engineer Battalion, the 233rd Transportation Company and several other organizations that have already been located on Post. The impact on Hardin County has been enormous: 

Net gain of approximately 7,500 jobs (includes all incoming personnel, supporting contractors and additional expansions announced during the transition period)



Post payroll in excess of $1 billion



On-Post construction of $1 billion in new facilities



Off-Post supporting infrastructure in the amount of $251 million



Population increase of between 12,000 and 15,000 people



Growth in area housing sales and values in an otherwise sluggish real estate market Fort Knox45 is located primarily in Hardin County (with parts of the post also located in Bullitt and Meade counties. The majority of the catonment area (the area which contains the housing, offices and training centers – the population base of the post) is also located in Hardin County.

Fort Knox is obviously impacted by what goes on outside its gates. Emmet Holley, Fort Knox Deputy Garrison Commander (and HCU Steering Committee member) met with the HCU Governance Subcommittee and provided his personal (not official) insight into matters facing Fort Knox and the civilian community: 

Historically, the Garrison Command serves as the “face” of Fort Knox to the surrounding civilian community. The garrison commander is typically a Colonel who is supported by both military and civilian personnel. Col. Eric Schwartz is the current garrison commander. The garrison commander also functions as the “mayor” of Fort Knox and is responsible for a wide variety of issues affecting the day to day operations of the post.

Fort Knox photo sources: Hardin County United Web site www.hardincountyunited.com

Page | 75



In the present structure, the garrison commander also interacts with the surrounding communities, while the commanding general has been addressing state and federal issues related to Fort Knox.



Fort Knox has grown substantially with the recent base realignment. Currently, the post has a daytime population of 42,000 people and a permanent population of 23,000 people.



With the recent realignment, Fort Knox was faced with the need to substantially upgrade infrastructure in order to accommodate the nearly 8,000 net new jobs. As such, the post quickly realized, as did the surrounding communities, the need to communicate to their respective stakeholders what had to be accomplished to make this realignment seamless and successful for Fort Knox and the region. As such, One Knox was formed which included representatives from Fort Knox, Hardin County, Elizabethtown, Radcliff and Meade County.



Through One Knox, the community was successful in raising $251 million in appropriations through state grants to support the construction of new roads, schools, and utilities upgrades.



Another key to the successful implementation of BRAC has been the understanding of the issues by Governor Steve Beshear. Governor Beshear visited the post during his first week in office. A significant partnership has developed between the post and the Governor’s Office as a result of this first of many visits (in fact, former Fort Knox Garrison Commander Mark Needham is now serving as a special assistant to the Governor, advising him on various military issues facing Kentucky).



Fort Knox manages its own water system on the post; however, it privatized gas, waste water and electric with providers such as Louisville Gas & Electric, Nolin Rural Electric, and Viola.



With the rapid growth on post, Fort Knox has worked with the state to develop a mass transit system, with bus routes operating between the post and Elizabethtown and Radcliff. It is recognized that this is not a “perfect” system and that the post would like to see the development of a more formal mass transit system.

Page | 76



While the post has established effective relationships with surrounding communities and Hardin County Government, the post also acknowledges benefits associated with interfacing with one central government in Hardin County.



Fort Benning is surrounded by a unified government (Columbus/Muscogee County, GA) and that post has found working with surrounding government on a one-stop basis to be very effective. Anecdotally, Fort Benning leaders believe that unified government in Columbus and Muscogee County has also contributed to an increase in the region’s quality of life.



Columbus/Muscogee County has a staff person who is dedicated to Homeland Security. And, the community has developed a unified, effective lobbying base and strengthened its relationships with state government in Atlanta and the federal government in Washington, D.C.

Going forward, Emmet Holley stated during his meeting with the HCU Governance Subcommittee that he, personally, would like to see the following matters addressed:    

Short-term – continue to maintain One Knox Mid-term – begin to focus on the next round of BRAC or other transformation and restructure of Defense Installations and Communities Mid-term – consideration to a unified government and fold One Knox into a full-time government function Transportation –have one point of contact on overall transportation issues

Law Enforcement Law enforcement is one of the most important services provided by local government. The HCU Governance Subcommittee met with several representatives of local law enforcement agencies to learn more about how law enforcement services are provided in Hardin County. Following is a summary of how law enforcement46 is handled in Hardin County:

Graphics source: City of Radcliff Web site http://cityof.radcliff.org/modules/DeptPolice/index.php

Page | 77

Hardin County Sheriff’s Office The Sheriff’s office is created by the Kentucky Constitution and in Hardin County, the Sheriff’s Office is responsible for the following key areas:    

Law enforcement Court service Tax collection

Elections

At present, 15 deputies are assigned to the Hardin County Justice Center to assist with court related duties. Approximately 25 deputies are assigned to law enforcement duties (essentially to patrol a 650 square mile area). Deputies provide transportation for prisoners including on average two per day from other Kentucky counties to the Hardin County Jail. Deputies also participate in an average of 80 extraditions from surrounding states each year (prisoners coming from states further out are transported by a service company). The Sheriff’s Office enforces tax collection in 28 different taxing districts in Hardin County. Additionally, deputies serve 17,000 court orders and summons per year. The Sheriff’s Office has an annual budget of $3 million. Revenue is derived from a mix of sources, including fees for state, court, personal and corporate business transactions as well as approximately $1 million in subsidy from the Hardin County Fiscal Court. The Sheriff’s Office also receives a commission derived from all taxes they collect for the taxing districts. West Point Police The West Point Police Department47 provides law enforcement services to the City of West Point. The Department patrols an area which encompasses 10 square miles. The Department operates with an annual budget of $250,000 and three full time officers (including the Chief). One additional officer is to be added to the department.

Photo source: City of West Point Web site http://www.westpointky.org/policedept.shtml

Page | 78

The department provides 24 hour coverage and averages two to three minutes response time from the moment a call is received from dispatch. One challenge that the department faces is the travel time between West Point and the county seat in Elizabethtown (and the county court system and jail). If an officer is in Elizabethtown the city could be left without immediate coverage. If this happens, backup is provided by the Hardin County Sheriffâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office and/or the Kentucky State Police. Elizabethtown Police EPD provides law enforcement services to an area which covers approximately 25 square miles with a permanent population of 28,531 and a daytime population which swells to 75,000 people. The department includes 60 total personnel with 43 sworn officers, five investigators (two of which serve with the Greater Hardin County Drug Task Force), three crossing guards and one resource officer assigned to Central Hardin High School.

EPD fields 30+ patrolmen with at least four on the street, plus a supervisor per shift. The hours of 4:00 PM to 11:00 PM are the peak hours for activity. EPD has a Special Response Team (SWAT team) which includes existing officers who are cross trained. The department also manages the public safety garage and is responsible for maintaining the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s police, fire and public safety vehicles. The department is organized around three primary divisions (each with a Deputy Chief): administrative (grants and records), investigations, and, patrol (public safety). EPD has seven sergeants, handles 25,000 calls each year and operates with an annual budget of $6 million.

Page | 79

Kentucky State Police KSP Post Four is based in Elizabethtown and is responsible for eight counties (including Jefferson). KSP operates on a 24 hour basis and maintains between 18 and 22 road units exclusively in Hardin County. KSP has eight detectives (two of which are assigned to the Greater Hardin County Drug Task Force). Two lieutenants oversee operations and investigations and are supported by five sergeants. The Post also has a civilian support staff. Post Four is managed by a Captain who serves as the Post Commander. Radcliff Police RPD is similar in many respects to EPD in terms of size. The department has 43 sworn officers and total personnel of 56 people. RPD operates its own dispatch center and operates 30 patrol units with an annual budget of $4.2 million. RPD responds to 26,000 calls each year. RPD also handles dispatching services for the Vine Grove Police Department. RPD does not have its own SWAT team. One of the challenges facing RPD is the need for patrolmen to be away for a court appearance which can result in under-coverage in the field. Greater Hardin County Drug Task Force The Task Force was created in 1995 and includes participation from the following jurisdictions: Elizabethtown, Radcliff, Kentucky State Police, Vine Grove Police, West Point Police, Hardin County Sheriff, Leitchfield Police, Nelson County Sheriff, Hart County Sheriff and the Bardstown Police Departments. Most of these jurisdictions have assigned personnel to the Task Force. The basis for the Task Force is to combine resources (manpower and funds) and combat drugs. Existing inter local agreements allow cross jurisdiction (in other words, an officer from Leitchfield operating in the field in Hardin County has arrest powers in Hardin County). The Task Force has been viewed as a success by local law enforcement officials. Additional Hardin County Law Enforcement Groups In addition to the groups mentioned above (and the Vine Grove Police Department), there are yet other law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction in Hardin County, including:

Page | 80

       

Hardin County Constable Hardin County Animal Control Officer Hardin County Detention Department Kentucky Department of Transportation (DOT – now part of KSP) Fort Knox – Military Police Fort Knox – U.S. Department of the Treasury Police (aka the “Mint” Police) Fort Knox – U.S. Department of Defense Police Fort Knox – Provost Marshall’s Office

Constables are Constitutionally Elected Officials - there is one constable per magisterial district in each county. Although their office is established by the state’s constitution, constables may also have some requirements placed upon them by county governments. For example in Hardin County, the county requires that each constable attain a minimal amount of training prior to being granted the use of some emergency equipment and bonding by the county. Hardin County Government does not provide funding for constables. Any revenue for Hardin County Constables comes directly from fees they may generate by serving summons and other legal documents. Hardin County Detention Officers have arrest powers but do not use them. Fort Knox law enforcement groups focus primarily on law enforcement issues inside the gate and it was agreed that a good relationship exists between groups on both sides of the gate. Military policemen, formerly the primary law enforcement group on Post is now unit-centered and deploy with various brigades and divisions. U.S. DOD Police provides primary law enforcement services on Post. Treasury Police are responsible for security issues related to the U.S. Bullion Depository. General Issues The representatives from each of the departments indicated that they work well together and cooperate extensively. Existing inter local agreements allow backup in the event of a serious issue (such as a public disturbance or natural disaster). When asked “what is the most pressing need in law enforcement in Hardin County?” the universal response was a need for more personnel. Other significant comments regarding general issues included:

Page | 81



For high risk areas, is it more efficient to send two officers per vehicle, or, two cars with one officer each?



When additional officers are forthcoming, additional equipment is needed to support the officers



Sustainable funding sources (vs. grants) are needed in order to maintain equipment replacement schedules



Grants frequently disappear; however, the maintenance costs remain (e.g., mobile equipment terminals, etc.)



Compatibility of equipment/radios between departments can be an issue (e.g., frequencies, digital service, etc.)



Homeland security grants are a cash cow



Vendors drive wholesale switches in technologies

With regard to unified government and its potential impact on law enforcement, the following comments were offered: 

If unification occurs, one consolidated police department cannot operate with just one central office; there is a need for local interface and facilities



Unification could occur with a central office and new districts with substations



Efficiencies could improve with unification



Citizens will want to know if they will have the same level of police/fire protection as they had before unification is adopted



Lexington and Louisville Metro use civilian workers to take reports, which results in less cost and frees up a patrolman for more important duties; however, citizens prefer responses to their calls to be handled by a uniformed officer

Page | 82

State Legislative Issues Hardin County is represented (primarily) by two State Representatives – Jimmie Lee (Elizabethtown) and Tim Moore (Elizabethtown), and one State Senator – Dennis Parrett (Elizabethtown). Jimmie Lee represents the 25th District, which comprises Elizabethtown and most of central and southern Hardin County while Tim Moore represents the 26th District which includes most all of northern Hardin County, including Radcliff and Vine Grove. Additionally, parts of Hardin County are represented by State Representatives Jeff Greer (Brandenburg), C.B. Embry (Morgantown), and Dwight Butler (Harned). Senator Parrett’s 10 th District includes all of Hardin County and a portion of Jefferson County. When it comes to state legislative issues, each of the above Members of the Kentucky General Assembly work directly with local government representatives on a wide variety of issues. These issues include such things as grants for capital projects (infrastructure such as water plants, sewer projects, etc.). Also included are issues related to agricultural matters, roads, military issues related to Fort Knox, etc. During discussions with representatives of state government related to the potential for unified government in Hardin County, the following comments were made: 

Will residents feel left out?



Will residents have “local” representation?

 Unified government will eliminate some competing interests and issues (to some extent, personalities drive competition and a lack thereof can change that) 

One government can work through issues more efficiently

Page | 83



The issue of flood runoff can illustrate how an issue can be dealt with either with one jurisdiction or multiple jurisdictions (flood runoff in Hardin County frequently runs from one jurisdiction to another; this is not always dealt with in the most efficient manner, either in responding to a flooding incident or planning for future flood control)



If the county adopts a unified government structure, will local utilities (such as the water districts) also merge? (the answer insofar as the water utilities are concerned is NO; the same would be true of the electric utilities and schools)



The issue of maintaining the integrity of Hardin County’s state representative and state senate districts was stressed; the average state representative district has 43,000 people; Hardin County is not yet large enough to qualify for three completely self contained districts



The importance of speaking with one voice was also stressed; the University of Louisville, during past budget cycles brought forth multiple requests to the Kentucky General Assembly on a department by department basis; now, all requests are coordinated through one request which has resulted in a more coordinated approach and better success



Competition for support of issues, budget requests, etc., exists in Hardin County (would this be better served with one request and one unified government?)



If Hardin County goes to unified government, how will local representation on the new “metro council” work?

Page | 84

Hardin County United Governance Subcommittee Review of General Issues Related to Unified Government in Hardin County During the research phase of this project, the HCU Governance Subcommittee met on eight occassions. During several of the meetings, Subcommittee members discussed unified government – ranging from what the Subcommittee planned to accomplish during the project in the beginnng, to various issues related directly to unified government. Following is a chronological summary of some of these comments: The Subcommittee initially focused on the question: “What do we (as the Greater Hardin County community) want to be?” This general question was asked of all Subcommittee members. In a broad sense, it was agreed that, 

The local legislative function is currently served by city councils and/or the county fiscal court



These bodies develop and approve ordinances



These bodies also review and approve budgets submitted by the chief elected administrative official (mayors and the county judge/executive)



The executive function of managing the day-to-day aspects of government falls to the chief elected administrative official

If there is to be a “hybrid” legislative body, it needs to have more than five members with staggered terms with members elected on both a district and at-large basis. With regard to the executive role, the following question was asked of the Subcommittee members: “Would Hardin County be best served with a strong mayor or a strong manager (assuming that unified government emerges from this process)?” The following points were made by Subcommittee members: 

Separate executive and legislative bodies are needed in order to govern Hardin County in the future

Page | 85



A strong executive leader is also needed



Concern was expressed about giving up representation through the existing six municipal city councils in favor of a unified government structure



Yet, given the growth in Hardin County, perhaps the time has come to leverage the size of the community and to begin thinking in terms of “we,” using the success of One Knox as the example



A larger legislative body is needed (compared to the existing Fiscal Court) for a unified government structure



In addition to district representation, at-large members of a new unified structure are also needed; such at-large members should live in certain, specified areas in order to avoid “stacking”



While the Lexington/Fayette County model might be the most efficient (where the result is one unit of government), realistically, in strictly political terms, the Louisville Metro model might be the best (where existing municipal governments have been grandfathered in with the ultimate option to dissolve and become part of Louisville Metro)



Another approach would be to merge certain, existing departments (the existing countywide 911 dispatch service, along with the Greater Hardin County Drug Task Force were given as examples)



The issue becomes one of going from the existing “cooperative” government to one of unified government



The Commonwealth of Kentucky prefers an approach which will best serve the entire population of the entity in question



Efficient and effective government ultimately means unifying government



Page | 86



Existing government structures should identify existing opportunities to cooperate in terms of delivering good and services

Additional comments from members of the Subcommittee and guests of the Subcommittee on the issue of unified government in Hardin County: 

County residents take pride in the history of their community



County residents need to ask what will be best for the community 50 years from now



Everyone needs to be willing to think outside of the box



Hardin County has become an economic engine, yet it is fragmented (one participant mentioned that he lives just outside of the City of Elizabethtown, and pays County property taxes, pays the City’s Occupational Tax, receives County Water, is served by a volunteer fire department and pays for City sewer services)



One Knox has shown how by speaking with one voice, the entire community wins



Major changes are needed when it comes to providing services in the future



Where will the money come from?



How can basic local needs be met?



Storm water management is critical and is often impacted by property issues across existing jurisdictional boundaries



Whether government unification occurs or not, there is a need for regular intergovernmental meetings



Local planning and zoning boards should be unified



The number of police on duty should be increased



In designing the “new” setup, there needs to be a match of needs and services



Hardin County would be best served with services under “one roof”

Page | 87



Expansion of existing sewer lines/systems is a huge issue – how do we proceed?



Dispatching of emergency services should be consolidated to include not only the existing fire and EMS but also the police



How do you get to one voice?



How do you resolve existing (and conflicting) tax structures?



The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government model resulted in pure consolidation with an urban services district with a higher level of government service and taxes, while the rural areas received (by choice) a lower level of service and taxes



The Louisville Metro model preserved the autonomy of existing suburban communities (with the right to opt in); consolidation resulted in a combination of the old City of Louisville and a large unincorporated area plus approximately 70 suburban cities which remained intact – true consolidation has not yet been realized

Page | 88

Unified Government Concepts This section of the Study deals with unified government concepts, and includes the following sections:    

Kentucky’s City Classification System Unified Government Structures U.S. Unified Government Proposals Kentucky’s Legal Requirements for Unified Government

Kentucky’s City Classification System Kentucky’s municipalities operate under a classification system as set forth under Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 81. Classifications are generally assigned by population as follows:      

First Class – 100,000 or more Second Class – 20,000 – 99,999 Third Class – 8,000 – 19,999 Fourth Class – 3,000 – 7,999 Fifth Class – 1,000 – 2,999 Sixth Class – 999 or less

Currently, Hardin County’ municipalities are classified as follows: Classification First Class Second Class Third Class Fourth Class Fifth Class Sixth Class

Hardin County Municipality None Radcliff None Elizabethtown, Vine Grove West Point Sonora, Upton

Technically, Elizabethtown should be classified as a Second Class city. However, “gray area” exists as to how the City should be classified, due in part as to which entity – the City or the General Assembly – should pursue re-classification. Due to changes to Kentucky’s Constitution approved by the voters in 1994, the General Assembly is the entity that must legally re-classify any municipality as to Class, based upon changes in population. The General Assembly typically changes the classficiation only when petitioned by the community. So far, the General Assembly has not taken any action on re-classifying Page | 89

Elizabethtown’s status. classification.

And, the City has not petitioned the General Assembly for re-

(Note: the issue of re-classification has become a controversial issue in Elizabethtown; however it is not the intent of this Study to debate the issue, but merely state for the record the current classification of Hardin County’s municipalities.) At present, Louisville is the only First Class city in Kentucky, which was the designation of the “old” City of Louisville prior to its merger with Jefferson County in 2003. At the time that Lexington merged with Fayette County in the 1970s, the city was designated a Second Class city (even though its population exceeded 100,000). The City had not petitioned the General Assembly for re-classification and the merged Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government still retains the Second Class designation today. Approximately 400 Kentucky laws apply to municipalities that are based upon classification. These laws focus on many issues, including revenue, alcoholic beverage sales, public safety, etc. If unification occurs in Hardin County, how the merger is structured will determine the “new” population. Unified Government Structures There are many different means by which to explore and implement unified government structures. Recently, Terri Stewart and Erin Ricket of Elizabethtown Community & Technical College conducted research on the types and definitions of unified government structures. The following section includes the findings from their research: Since the 1970’s, community leaders and public officials throughout the country, to include Kentucky, have strived to reduce fragmentation and unify local governments. This has required elevating “trust” in government to a level above the local governmental units. The goal of the unification efforts was to make local governments more responsive and accountable to the public, thus eliminating duplication of effort in providing goods and services to the public. In March, 2011, Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer, looking to Lexington to create a “super-region,” stated we need to stop “competing over companies, private investment and state money.” Pooling resources was seen as a way to improve not only efficiency but the prospect to attract more jobs and resources. The question for policy-makers and community leaders is how to effectively accomplish this goal and still maintain citizen’s trust in government. Page | 90

Communities from Sacramento, California to Jacksonville, Florida have established various forms of unified government. In all of the efforts to unify, communities have taken into consideration their own unique circumstances; therefore, there is no template for conformity in this process. However, although originality appears to be the norm, in examining the process of unification in communities throughout the country, common elements have emerged. Since 1970, according to the Municipal Technical Advisory Service, University of Tennessee: Institute for Public Service, less than 1% of city/county governments in the United States have been considered “unified.” However, all of the known successful occurrences of consolidation, whatever the structure, have been between cities and counties. Two categories have emerged within the broad definition of city/county unification discussed below: coextensive and consolidated city/county with non-participating entities. Consolidated City/County The term consolidated city-county is not specific, but rather a broader category under which all consolidations tend to fall. The specific type of consolidation is determined by factors that occur during the unification process. The Pennsylvania Economy League of Southwestern Pennsylvania Study, 2007, emphasized that in the process of unification the extent to which governmental structures and services are consolidated, and the extent of the services offered, varies greatly. Interestingly, simple things, such as the “naming” of a new unified structure can go a long way in establishing boundaries for consolidation. The following are examples of how the naming of the “concept” indicates levels of unification:   

Unigov, Indianapolis, Indiana Consolidated City of Jacksonville/Duval County, Florida The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee

Unigov “sounds” more unified than does the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. The reality might be very different but studies have demonstrated that the “naming” establishes the boundaries of the unifying concept on which structures are more or less able to build. City/county government unification projects tend to share some common characteristics, and in general terms, it is when a county and one or more of the cities within a county unify to form a single governmental entity and/or combine services. According to Susanne Leland, Associate Page | 91

Professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, “It is when boundary lines of the jurisdictions become coterminous.” Consolidated city-county is a term that tends to encompass all forms of city-county government consolidation, and includes not only cases in which governments combine, but also build service partnerships. This would include city and county departments unifying their jurisdictions into a single entity, but keeping the same administrative functions and offices. According to Edward J. Epson, Jr., Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, consolidated city-counties are regarded by supporters of the process of consolidation as “a valid form of regionalism.” Epson further states, “A citycounty consolidation offers the opportunity to centralize regulatory functions, broaden the spatial scale, and reduce inter-jurisdictional fragmentation.” In a general sense, consolidated city-counties will utilize the political, social, and physical structures of an urban or central city in order to serve as a hub for government institutions and services as well as business and economic establishments. This will require both urban and rural approaches to policy and decision-making. Hence, a principal or central city will generally serve as the centerpiece of the consolidation. Furthermore, according to Epson, “When a city and county become consolidated, it is only the institutional structure that has changed, not the underlying values that drive policies and planning. The same set of conflicts and competing interests continue to exist.” Consolidated city-counties, however, are not to be confused with the term “metro,” and such consolidation is not all inclusive. Epson concludes, “In no case among examples in the United States has an entire county come under the jurisdiction of one government. Rather, in all cases, existing jurisdictions continue to exist and retain many, if not most of the powers they had before consolidation.” Coextensive Coextensive is a subset of city/county consolidation. It is a form of regional governance that occurs when a county and all incorporated areas therein become a single municipality. The city and county lines become coterminous. Although the boundary is now coterminous, rural and urban areas may require different approaches to services. If this is the case, it is a decision of the new “coextensive” government to determine the day to day operations of the distribution of these governmental services. Page | 92

Most cases of co-extensive city-counties have formed where only one or otherwise very few incorporated areas existed. This meant there were very few areas to be consolidated. Therefore, within this framework, it is often the case that many of the structures and governmental entities retain the same functions as prior to consolidation. Examples:        

Columbus-Muscogee County, Georgia Juneau-Greater Juneau County, Alaska Lexington/Fayette Urban County, Kentucky Nantucket Town-Nantucket County, Massachusetts New Orleans-Orleans Parish, Louisiana Philadelphia-Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania San Francisco-San Francisco County, California Virginia Beach-Princess Anne County, Virginia

Consolidated City/Counties with Non-Participating Entities Consolidated cities and counties with non-participating entities is a second subset of the city/county unifying process. These new structures provide a form of regional governance that occurs when a county and one or more cities merge and combine various city and/or county governmental functions and services. Cities using this form of government tend to allow municipalities to “opt in” to the new governmental structure. However, since municipalities have the choice to “opt in” to the new structure, they also have the alternative to “opt out.” Therefore, one or more of the areas incorporated within the county may choose to remain separate and structurally outside of the unified government. The incorporated areas that chose to consolidate with the county will form a new city-county government with new offices, officers, and departments, but the incorporated areas that chose not to participate will retain the same municipal structure utilized prior to county consolidation. However, since the principal city and county boundary lines are now coterminous, regional intergovernmental cooperation develops. Incorporated areas that chose not to join the unified government might not be structurally within the consolidated government; however, they are geographically within its territory. Since the unified government provides the services of what was previously the county, the non-participating incorporated areas receive services from the consolidated city-county government while maintaining their own municipal substructure of Page | 93

offices and services that would have otherwise been abolished or negated had the municipality chosen to join in the unification effort. In such cases, provisions must be made so that the independent municipalities may consolidate with the city-county government if they choose to do so at a later date. Examples:        

Athens-Clarke County, Georgia Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia Butte-Silver Bow County, Montana Indianapolis-Marion County, Indiana (Unigov) Jacksonville-Duval County, Florida Kansas City-Wyandotte County, Kansas Louisville-Jefferson County Metro, Kentucky Metro Nashville-Davidson County, Tennessee

In conclusion, according to the Effects of City-County Consolidation: A Review of the Recent Academic Literature, Survey of Consolidation Research, Indiana Policy Review Foundation: “The success or failure of consolidation is not preordained by structure but depends largely on local context, including how well local governments match, the provisions of the charter that do or do not give decision-makers the flexibility to implement changes that would increase efficiency, effectiveness or fairness, who is elected to the new government, and the implementation of decisions of the policy makers.” Perhaps the success and/or failure of unified government rests with the concept of trust mentioned earlier. The more trust citizens tend to have in their decision-makers, the greater the possibility to change the status quo and to unify city-county governments. U.S. Unified Government Proposals Since 1805, according to the National Association of Counties (NACO), there have been a total of 169 voter referendums on unifying governments between two or more local government jurisdictions. The first referendum, which called for the unification of the City of New Orleans and Orleans Parish in 1805, was successful. Referendums have been held in cities/counties as large as New York (successful) and as small as Lynchburg/Moore County, Tennessee (succesful). According to the NACO data, unification referendums have been held in the following Kentucky

Page | 94

communities, with successful Louisville/Jefferson County:       

outcomes

only

Lexington/Fayette

County

Ashland/Cattlettsburg/Boyd County Bowling Green/Warren County Campbellsville/Taylor County Frankfort/Franklin County Georgetown/Scott County Lexington/Fayette County Owensboro/Daviess County

A complete list48 of every unification referendum in the U.S., going back to 1805, follows:

Source: National Association of Counties

Page | 95

and

Page | 96

Page | 97

Page | 98

Page | 99

Page | 100

Kentucky Legal Requirements As might be expected, any Kentucky community which is considering unification of its government with another entity will need to satisfy some legal requirements in order to proceed on an official basis. In order to better understand the process, attorney Dee D. Shaw was asked to research the issue and provide an outline as to what will be required of Hardin County communities, should the decision be made to pursue unification. Following is a guide as to the options which are available to Hardin County under current Kentucky law. This information, provided by Ms. Shaw, is submitted for informational purposes only and does not reflect an opinion of any kind. There are presently six (6) incorporated municipalities located within Hardin County, Kentucky. According to the 2010 Census each of these subdivisions contains the following populations: Hardin County .......................................................... 105,543 Elizabethtown ............................................................ 28,531 Radcliff ....................................................................... 21,688 Vine Grove.................................................................... 4,520 West Point....................................................................... 797 Sonora ............................................................................. 513 Upton .............................................................................. 683 For Hardin County there are three possible merger formats: Urban-County (KRS 67A.010 et.seq.), Consolidated Local Government (KRS 67C) and Unified Local Government (KRS 67.90067.940). I.

URBAN-COUNTY GOVERNMENT

The Urban-County form of government was authorized by statute (KRS 67A) in 1970. Since that time only the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG) has been created in 1974 under this legislation.

Page | 101

This form of merger is only available to counties in which there is no City of the first class. All units of city and county government are merged into an urban-county form of government. No particular organizational structure is specified by the statutes; however, the organizational plan must retain the county offices required by the Kentucky Constitution. The LFUCG has a mayor-council plan with 15 members elected in nonpartisan elections. Three (3) council members are elected at large. Twelve (12) council members are elected from single member districts. Some statutory particulars are as follows: A. B.

C. D. E. F.

Page | 102

KRS 67A.010 (attached) authorizes the Urban-County form of government KRS 67A.020 (attached) establishes the procedure for the vote to form an UrbanCounty Government a. A petition must be filed with the County Clerk and signed by at least 5% of the registered voters of the County who voted in the immediate past general election AND 5% of the voters of each municipal corporation, requesting a referendum be held on the question of adopting the Urban-County form of government. b. Upon the completion of said petition, the Fiscal Court and the Council of the largest city within the county shall appoint a representative commission composed of not less than 20 citizens. c. This commission shall devise a comprehensive plan of Urban-County Government, consistent with the provisions of the Constitution of Kentucky. d. This plan shall be advertised for at least 90 days before a general election at which the voters will be asked to approve or disapprove the adoption of the plan. e. The question of whether the plan shall be adopted shall be filed with the County Clerk not later than the second Tuesday in August proceeding the day of the next general election. KRS 67A.023 (attached) allows for the redistricting of Urban-County Government legislative districts based upon census data. KRS 67A.025 (attached) allows for the appointment of a Chief Administrative Officer. KRS 67A.028 (attached) permits correctional services division, duties of sheriff and jailer. KRS 67A.30 (attached) establishes the effective date of the Urban-County form of Government. The effective date of the newly formed government occurs immediately after the next regularly scheduled election at which county officers are elected as provided in section 99 of the Constitution. â&#x20AC;&#x153;All the debts, property, franchises and rights of the existing county government and of any municipality within the county shall be assumed by the urban-county government.â&#x20AC;?

KRS 67A.050 (attached) establishes for purposes of all state and federal licensing and regulatory laws, entitlements and funding, the urban-county government shall be deemed a county. KRS 67A.060 (attached) allows for the exercise of constitutional and statutory powers of counties and cities of highest class within urban-county KRS 67A.070 (attached) allows ordinance powers – Conflicts – Readings – Effective date – Publication requirements – adoption by reference to recognized codes

H. I.

II.

CONSOLIDATED LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Effective July 2000, the act for the creation of consolidated local government was adopted. In November 2000, the voters of Jefferson County approved this form of consolidation of Jefferson County with the City of Louisville. The Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government began operation in January 2003. This act only applied to counties which contain a city of the first class. Presently, only the Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government has approved this type of merger. At this time, there are no other cities of the first class in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Although Section 156 of the Kentucky Constitution has been repealed and Section 156a provides that the General Assembly shall create classifications of cities as it deems necessary based on population, tax base, form of government, geography, or any other reasonable basis, there has been no further legislation passed and any city of the first class designation would require a population of over 100,000. This form of merger would allow individual incorporated municipalities to retain their government and classification. However, no new cities could be incorporated after the merger. Some statutory particulars are as follows: A.

Page | 103

KRS 67C.101 provides for the election on the issue of this type of merger. It allows the consolidated local government to retain all the powers and privileges of a city of the first class but also provides that this is either a city or a county government. KRS 67C.103 sets up the organizational structure of the government. There are 26 council districts to be drawn up equally according to the last US Census. One council person is elected in a partisan election for each of the 26 districts. This 26 member council elects a president. However, a Mayor still leads this form of government (KRS 67C.105).

KRS 67C.107 employees of city and county become employees of the consolidated local government. Constitutional county offices remain in existence, however, the powers of these offices are assigned to the consolidated government (KRS 67C.121) KRS 67C.111 each city may choose to remain incorporated and exercise all powers allowed by law. However, no new cities may be incorporated and no annexations are allowed without approval of the merged governments.

III.

UNIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT

In 2006, the General Assembly authorized a form of government known as unified local government. This form of consolidation allows a county government and any number of incorporated cities within the county to form a merged unit of local government that possesses all of the powers of a county government and of the city of the highest class that participated in the formation of the unified local government. The organization of the government would be described in a unification plan. This plan would be created by a commission of 20 to 40 people based upon itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s prorate population. This plan would be presented to the citizens and then voted upon at a general election. The unified government must have a chief executive officer who possesses the powers of a County Judge Executive and of a Mayor. Cities that do not participate in the unification process would maintain their incorporated status. Currently, there are no cities or counties in Kentucky which operate under this plan. Some statutory particulars are as follows: A. B.

C. D. E. F. Page | 104

KRS 67.900 authorizes the formation of a unified local government. KRS 67.904 provides the procedure for the initiation of the unification process. The county government and each participating City would pass an ordinance allowing it participation in the formation of a commission which would study the question of unification and form a plan for unification if appropriate. KRS 67.906 provides for how the commission is to be formed. KRS 67.910 establishes the components of the plan to be created by the commission. KRS 67.912 allows for a Chief Executive Officer to be elected in accordance with the plan and for the appointment of a Chief Administrative officer. KRS 67.914 sets out the requirements for public hearing on the plan.

Page | 105

KRS 67.918 establish the election process regarding the plan for unification.

Page | 106

Unified Government Case Studies As part of the research for this project, the author studied five existing unified government structures, which included the following communities:     

Athens/Clarke County, Georgia Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia Columbus Consolidated Government (Columbus-Muscogee County, Georgia) Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, Kentucky Louisville Metro, Kentucky

The research included site visits and meetings with community leaders and extensive research on the Internet. Following is a summary of each community. Athens/Clarke County, Georgia Athens/Clarke County is located in Northeastern Georgia, approximately 90 minutes east of Atlanta. Athens is the home of the University of Georgia. Athens and Clarke County49 have a unified government. The community is no longer considered “just a city, or, just a county.” Clarke County is the smallest county in Georgia (118 square miles). Prior to unification, the county consisted of Athens, the county seat, and two very small communities (Winterville and Bogart). When unification occurred, the two small communities elected to remain independent of the new unified government. Each community has approximately 1,000 residents. The 2010 population totaled 115,452 people. Athens is the central community in the AthensClarke County Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which includes seven counties with a combined population of 189,000 people. Athens is the fifth largest city in Georgia.

Athens was founded in the 1700s; the University of Georgia was founded in 1785. The University is the economic engine for the region. The walkway, pictured at right, leads from Downtown Athens to the heart of the UGA campus. 49

Map graphic source: Wikipedia Web site www.wikipedia.com

Page | 107

Unification Efforts Efforts to consolidate local governments in Athens and Clarke County began back in 1966 when the Georgia legislature authorized the formation of a charter commission. Ultimately, four referendums were held: 

1969 – referendum defeated (passed in the city and failed in the county)



1972 – referendum defeated by only 538 votes



1982 – referendum defeated by only four votes



1990 – referendum passed with 59% of the vote

All through the years there have been two primary drivers towards unification: 

The Athens municipal water system provided water to county residents, but charged twice the rate for those living outside the city limits which resulted in a backlash among voters



City residents, when paying county property taxes, felt that they got little in return for their money

Due primarily to these two issues, interest in unification developed. Historically, unification was supported by “institutions” such as the Chamber of Commerce, believing that unification would bring about “good government.” Individuals tended to band together to oppose unification. As the various charter commissions worked through the issues, discussion focused on the division of power between the executive and legislative branches of the proposed new government and the equalization of water rates between city and county residents. Those supporting unification promoted the following concepts: 

Increased government efficiency



Eliminate duplication of government services

In all instances, the referendums required a majority vote in both the city and the county to pass. City voters supported unification in all four referendums. The Athens Banner-Herald also Page | 108

supported unification. The concept of unification, perceived to be progressive government was also supported by the University community.

Athens-Clarke County Government Center

Another issue also began to tip the balance in the county: more affluent homeowners began moving to the county and its new neighborhoods with larger homes and larger lots…many of these homeowners/voters/taxpayers supported a more progressive form of government. All of the proposed charters included the following: 

Created a general services district (encompassed all of Clarke County)



Created an urban services district (higher level of services and encompassed all of Athens)



All residents would pay the same for water



No reduction in the number of city or county workers or pay/benefit cuts (it was assumed that normal attrition would reduce the number of workers after unification)

By the time that 1990 rolled around another city/county dispute had emerged. This time, the city wanted to charge county residents higher fees to use the city’s parks and recreation facilities. This issue elevated to the point that the city threatened to cancel Little League programs if the higher fees weren’t paid. Parents from both the city and county finally had enough and threatened to remove all local officials if a compromise wasn’t reached (the issue was settled).

Page | 109

About the same time, the County government appointed a task force of citizens to work for the (SPLOST). The proceeds of the SPLOST tax would be used to build a convention center, new library, and renovate an old theater. The campaign passed with 70% of the vote.

After realizing what a successful, unified effort could bring to the community, many members of the original task force continued to meet to discuss the community’s future…the conclusion reached on the part of the Clarke County participants in the task force was that unified government would bring better planning and coordination to the community.

After realizing what a successful, unified effort could bring to the community, many of the original task force continued to meet to discuss the community’s future. This led to the development of the Quality Growth Task Force which addressed regional planning for growth in several surrounding counties (the initial intent was to avoid the pitfalls of out of control growth that was occurring in nearby Gwinnett County). The conclusion reached on the part of the Clarke County participants in the task force was that unified government would bring better planning and coordination to the community.

In 1989 a new Unification Charter Commission was created, with five appointees each coming from the City, County and the Quality Growth Task Force, for a total of 15 members. In a break from the past, no local government elected officials or staff were appointed to the Commission. The Commission held nine public hearings during which input was solicited from citizens as to what they would like to see in a new government. Following the hearings, the Commission met for two days straight and drafted the Charter. The Commission worked hard to achieve consensus on each Article. Highlights of the new proposal included: 

Capped spending for the new government in Year One at the combined rate of the previous City and County budgets (in other words, no increase in spending)



Guaranteed no loss of representation for the African-American community



Created a new Department of Human and Economic Development to address the needs of lower-income citizens and neighborhoods

Page | 110

Upon completion of the Charter, the issue was taken to the voters for approval. The campaign was supported by a large number of people. The campaign raised $50,000 from 422 donors (the opposition raised $1,400 from one donor) and hired Ketchum Public Relations in Atlanta to develop the campaign, which included the following key elements: 

Developed neighborhood precinct organization



Created volunteer phone banks



Placed yard signs



Hosted significant kickoff day event



Organized a get out the vote drive



Created speakers bureau (and made numerous presentations on the issue)



Created student task force



Created supporting collateral pieces (one-page flyers)



Developed strict talking points for supporters to use

The campaign focused on five key selling points: 1. A new unified police department means better public safety 2. Unified government will control costs better 3. A single government will be more effective in attracting new business 4. Eliminate duplication of services 5. Eliminate differences between city and county governments The referendum, which was supported by the Chamber, the local newspaper and local radio stations, passed with 59% of the vote. What did the community wind up receiving with its new unified government?

Page | 111

First, it received a much more streamlined government (17 major government departments, and 22 authorities, boards and commissions50). Second it received a government that has developed a competitive tax structure (when compared with other Georgia cities). Third, it has managed to hold the line on increases in public workers (adjusted for growth).



Unification is the best decision ever made in the community

A new Athens-Clarke County Commission was formed with a total of 10 districts. Commission members representing Districts 1 – 8 must reside in each specific district. Two at-large “super districts” were also created: District 9 and District 10. The Commissioner elected from District 9 must live in one of the following districts: District 1 – 4. The Commissioner elected from District 10 must live in one of the following districts: District 5 – 8.



Since consolidation, government has been more efficient and responsive



Unification won’t necessarily save money; however, it will help to mitigate future cost increases

This system basically provides for each resident of Athens-Clarke County to have three elected representatives on the Commission: the Mayor, their individual district Commissioner, and, one of the two atlarge Commissioners.



Unification has improved the community’s standing and stature in Atlanta and Washington

Athens-Clarke County operates with a streamlined government and an annual operating budget of $174 million.



Unification caused the community to look at all previously existing codes and ordinances and not only reconcile the laws, but improve them Bob Snipes Deputy Manager Athens-Clarke County Government

A map of the Commission districts follows this page, along with a summary of the community and the Athens-Clarke County Government, and copies of the government organizational charts and annual budget. The author met with several representatives of the Athens community in order to learn more about unified government and their perceptions about how it has worked. Following is a summary of some of the comments and observations from these representatives:

Authorities, boards and commissions referenced are appointed by the Athens-Clarke County Commission and pertain strictly to governed activities within Clarke County and do not include regional organizations

Page | 112

Page | 113

Page | 114

Page | 115

Page | 116

Page | 117

Page | 118

Page | 119

Page | 120

Page | 121

Page | 122

Page | 123



Prior to unification, the county developed transportation projects while the city developed the water and sewer systems – the two governments didn’t always work together



Prior to unification, there were two different land use plans



Prior to unification, there were some joint services agreements which led to functional consolidation



The last (and successful) charter commission was successful because it didn’t include any elected government officials or staff



Unification is the best decision ever made in the community o Better utilization of staff o Integration of building codes, land use plans and capital improvement projects o Larger (government) base attracts better, more qualified personnel (with better skills and experience) o In many instances, following natural attrition, two workers were replaced with one which meant that the one worker could be paid a little more which assisted in recruiting talented staff o Makes the community more proactive in planning

Consolidation has achieved its goals -

Bob Snipes Deputy Manager Athens-Clarke County Govt.



Since consolidation, government has been more efficient and responsive



Full time fire department now provides coverage throughout the community



One police department is divided into two precincts (East and West) with several substations



Unification won’t necessarily save money; however it will help to mitigate future cost increases

Page | 124



Not all homeowners (in the former unincorporated county) like the new land use regulations (which includes a Green Belt and somewhat stricter usage policies); some homeowners are forced to pay storm water fees but don’t live anywhere near a storm water system



Tax differentials existed during the first four years of unified government while services were harmonized



Unification has improved the community’s standing and stature in Atlanta and Washington



Unification caused the community to look at all previously existing codes and ordinances and not only reconcile the laws, but improve them



Government workers (overall) got a better benefits package (the City’s package)



Promised extension of city water system hasn’t happened in all areas



The community’s full time strong manager keeps politics out of day to day operations



Consolidation has achieved its goals

Page | 125

Augusta – Richmond County, Georgia Augusta – Richmond County is located in East Georgia, across the Savannah River from South Carolina and approximately 145 miles east of Atlanta. Augusta is home of the world-famous Masters Golf Tournament, which is played every April at the famed Augusta National Golf Club. Augusta is also home to Fort Gordon and has become an important medical center in the state. Augusta – Richmond County51 has a population of 195,844 people. Augusta is the principal city of the Augusta – Richmond County Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which has a population of 539,154 people and includes four counties in Georgia and two in South Carolina. Augusta is the second largest city in Georgia. In addition to consolidated Augusta – Richmond County, there are two small incorporated cities which did not consolidate in 1995 – Hephzibah (population of 3,800 people) and Blythe (population of 700 people).

The City of Augusta was established in 1736. City-county consolidation occurred in 1996 and covers an area of 307 square miles. The three largest employers include:   

Medical College of Georgia/University Hospital Fort Gordon (U.S. Army Signal Center) Savannah River Nuclear Site

The Medical College along with University Hospital (and related entities) employs 25,000 people in what is known as the Medical District of Augusta. Nearby Eisenhower Medical Center52 (pictured at left) is located at Fort Gordon and is one of the Army’s premier medical facilities. The Medical College of Georgia is the state’s only public health sciences graduate university. Due to the proximity of all three facilities, Augusta has developed into a significant regional medical center.

51 52

Graphic source: Wikipedia Web site www.wikipedia.com Photo source: Eisenhower Medical Center Web site http://www.ddeamc.amedd.army.mil/about.aspx

Page | 126

Unification Efforts As is the case with many unification efforts, the ultimate consolidation of Augusta and Richmond County occurred due to a crisis in the original City. However, interest in consolidation dates back to 1948 when a citizens study committee was put together to better understand the issue. No action was taken at that time. In the 1970s, three proposals were presented to voters (all three failed): 

1971 – a majority of both city voters and county voters voted NO



1974 – a majority of city voters voted YES, while county voters voted NO



1976 – again, a majority of city voters voted to approve consolidation while county voters continued to oppose the issue

In 1988, another consolidation proposal was submitted to the voters. This time, the measure was approved; however, the United States Department of Justice rejected the proposal due to the potential negative impact on the African-American community. This was the only time that the DOJ intervened in a consolidation referendum in the U.S. Finally, in 1995, the measure was again approved (and also approved by DOJ). Following is a brief look at the 1988 and 1995 referendums: In both campaigns, the historical relationship between local government and the African-American community came into play. Concern existed on the part of the black community that any consolidation of government between the city and the county would result in a denial of opportunities to elect blacks to local government. Since 1960, there had been many demographic changes in the community. The City of Augusta experienced a continuing decline in population. By 1980, the black community had become the majority in the city (with 40% black population in Richmond County). A relatively high concentration of poverty developed within the city, along with a dwindling tax base. Underlying all of this was a long-term distrust on the part of the black community of local government, which was typical in many Southern communities during this time. In 1952, the first black was elected to the local school board; shortly thereafter, the law was changed to require that all school board members be elected on an “at-large” basis (which led to renewed control of all school board seats by the white community). Page | 127

By the 1970s, the black community began to demand that its representation in local government mirror its percentage of the population. In 1978 a lawsuit was filed and violations of the Voting Rights Act were confirmed. Richmond County settled the lawsuit in 1978 and established a district representation system (the City held out for seven more years before settling). In 1983, the first black elected as mayor of Augusta was removed from office for misconduct. In 1985, the City proposed to reduce the number of council seats from 16 to eight (which was perceived by the black community as a means by which to dilute the community’s power). Once again, the DOJ stepped in and allowed the council to reduce the number of seats by three (instead of eight) and to reinstate the council districts. The DOJ’s ruling resulted in polarized voting, continued concern about past discrimination and held the potential for future scrutiny over the community’s head. Population changes in the community were telling: from 1960 through 2000, the city’s population declined from 70,626 to 41,783, while the county’s population soared by 47%. This was clearly a case of white flight. By 2000, the city’s population was 56% black, while the county’s population was 49% black. Perhaps most importantly, by 1990, the region’s Metropolitan Statistical Area designation was terminated due to the population loss in the core city. By 1989, 33% of the city had fallen below the poverty level.

It was agreed that consolidation was needed to rescue the city.

By this time, the black community was asking itself the following questions: 

Is it better to be a minority population in a jurisdiction with a financially sound government?



Or, is it better to be a majority population in a jurisdiction with an impoverished government?

It was agreed that consolidation was needed to rescue the city. In the meantime, the city began an aggressive annexation push to try and work out its issues. However, the annexation efforts failed. By 1995, the city was in serious financial shape. Approximately 20% of its workers were laid off and remaining workers were given a 20% pay cut. The city began issuing bad checks. Thus, the table was set for consolidation.

Page | 128

Augusta-Richmond County Government Center

Consolidation was passed in 1995. Only one Augusta city council member was elected to the new commission, while six Richmond County commissioners were elected to the new commission. The new charter called for a commission of 10 commissioners, with eight members to be elected on a district basis, and two at-large commissioners. Of the eight districts, four white majority and four black majority districts were created. The limited powers of the executive made merger more acceptable to the black community. While a key black leader supported consolidation, local black churches and the NAACP continued to oppose merger. In the end, 66% of county voters and 76% of city voters voted to approve consolidation. Since consolidation was passed, the community has continued to struggle with the result. The author was told on several occasions that the charter which was passed in 1995 was passed hurriedly and that it needs to be amended. Issues concerning such things as how much power to give to the mayor continue to be discussed. What did the community wind up receiving with its new unified government? All major services have been combined. The streamlined government today consists of 22 departments and 20 authorities, boards and commissions which are appointed either by the mayor and/or the commission. The community has a general fund budget of $76 million. The Augusta â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Richmond County Commission has eight geographic districts, plus two at-large districts for a total of 10 commissioners. 53

Photo source: Google Image web site www.google.com

Page | 129

The community has an urban services district (primarily the old city of Augusta) which provides all major services and has a higher tax rate; the community also has a suburban tax district which provides fewer services (primarily street lights and garbage pickup) with additional feebased services.



All major services have been combined; the streamlined government operates today with 22 major departments and 20 boards, commissions and authorities which are appointed by the mayor and/or commission

The charter was written by two politicians who at the time were more interested in retaining their power base; the charter is somewhat vague in its language.

The Augusta – Richmond County Commission has eight geographic districts and two at-large districts

A major focus of unification in Augusta – Richmond County has been to avoid future cost increases through improved efficiencies.

There have been no major changes in tax rates since unification A major focus of unification in Augusta – Richmond County has been to avoid future cost increases through improved efficiencies

Workforce merger was difficult; no employees were terminated; work rules are still changing, 16 years later. There have been no major changes in tax rates since unification.

A map of the commission districts, along with the unified government’s organizational chart and budget summary begin on the following page. Additional comments concerning unification in the community include:  The charter was poorly written – Hardin County needs to do its homework up front  The community would have been better served with a strong mayor provision in the charter

 Nearby Columbia County grew by 39% from 2000 to 2010, while Richmond County’s population declined from 212,000 to 200,000 during the same period (in some cases, local high-income earners are moving from Richmond County to Columbia County 

The community needs a more regional focus so that the entire area benefits



The charter needs to truly define “who’s in charge,” the mayor or the council

Page | 130

Page | 131

Page | 132

Page | 133

Page | 134

Page | 135

Page | 136

Columbus Consolidated Government, Georgia (Columbus â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Muscogee County) Columbus Consolidated Government54 (which represents the unification of Columbus and Muscogee County, Georgia) is located in Southwest Georgia, approximately 100 miles south of Atlanta and alongside the Chattahoochee River, across from Phenix City, Alabama. Columbus lies at the northern most end of the navigable portion of the Chattahoochee River, which flows into the Gulf of Mexico. The community got its start as a market center for surrounding plantations. Cotton grown in the area would be shipped down the river and ultimately to the cotton market in New Orleans.

Columbus is an old textile mill town, many of which have been converted into attractive office buildings and loft apartments in the downtown area. Columbus has a population of 189,885 people and is the principal city of the Columbus Metropolitan Statistical Area (population: 291,409 people). Columbus is the third largest city in Georgia and the fourth largest MSA. Columbus is perhaps best known as the home of Fort Benning55. The post, one of the largest in the country, is known as the U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence and is the home of both Infantry School and the Armor School (which relocated from Fort Knox as part of the BRAC process). Fort Benning covers 182,000 acres. Fort Benning is home to 17 major commands, organizations, units, etc. Fort Benning supports a daily population of 120,000 active duty military personnel, family members, reserve soldiers, retirees and civilian workers. Columbus has a very active chamber of commerce. The Chamber leads the communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic development efforts (under contract to the local government). As might be

54 55

Map graphic: Wikipedia Web site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus,_Georgia Photo source: Google Image Web site www.google.com

Page | 137

expected, the Chamber focuses much of its economic development effort on and around Fort Benning (such as contractors and equipment/materiel suppliers who need access to the post). The Chamber56 stays close to the leadership on post and conducts monthly planning sessions which include Chamber leadership, the garrison commander and the city manager.

The Chamber also supports The Valley Partnership. The Partnership is an economic development effort which includes three municipalities and seven counties in Georgia and Alabama. The Partnership focuses on five key sectors: aerospace, automotive, defense, headquarters and back office, and, manufacturing. Unification Efforts Columbus and Muscogee County unified their governments in 1971. The primary drivers leading to unification included: ď&#x201A;ˇ

Geography

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Economics

Columbus was hemmed in by the Chattahoochee River on its western border and by Fort Benning on the southeast side. The city could grow only by annexing unincorporated areas of Muscogee County. During the period of 1950 to 1970, through aggressive annexation moves, the city nearly doubled its population and expanded from 13 square miles to nearly 70 square miles in size.

Logo sources: Greater Columbus Georgia Chamber of Commerce Web site http://www.columbusgachamber.com

Page | 138

The result was a county which was dominated both in area and by population by the city. Yet, two full forms of government were still in place. As such, the community still spoke with two voices when it came time to forward requests to state government in  Columbus and Muscogee Atlanta. The two governments frequently disagreed County unified their local over issues. The net result was that state government governments in 1971 would in many cases simply ignore requests from both  Geography and economics the city and the county. were the primary drivers towards unification In spite of the ongoing differences, some facets of the community did unify early on. In 1940, the city and  Beginning in the 1950s, county health departments were merged. In 1950, the citizens began to question school districts were merged into one district. the need for two duplicate Throughout the 1950s, citizens began to question the sets of government need for duplicate government services. services…this came following the successful merger of the city/county boards of health and school districts 

During the drafting of the Charter, citizen input was promoted during four public hearings



With unification, local government was significantly streamlined, by reducing 44 previously existing city and county departments to a total of nine departments following merger



Columbus Consolidated Government features a mayor-council-city manager form of government

In 1961 a citizens committee was formed for the purpose of exploring unified government. The committee was immediately beset with problems – primarily bickering among the participants (the committee, while tasked to develop a unified government plan, was plagued with issues presented to it by local government commissioners who really didn’t want unification – issues such as what the committee intended to do about hazardous railroad crossings, etc.). Nonetheless, the committee agreed that the city and county commissions should be abolished and consolidated into one commission. The Georgia General Assembly passed the needed enabling legislation and the issue was presented to the voters in 1962. Opponents accused supporters of consolidation of trying to establish a communist government and called it a “metro-Castro” government. The issue failed in both the city and the county.

By 1966, interest again re-surfaced and three nonbinding amendments were submitted to the General Assembly, all of which passed and were ultimately approved by the voters (the amendments included a city/county consolidation commission, the merger of city/county tax boards, and, the merger of Page | 139

various city and county departments). Although approved by the voters, neither the city nor county governments acted on any of the amendments. In 1967, following up on the interest expressed by the voters in consolidation, the city commission established a consolidation study committee. The county, noting the recent successful consolidation campaigns in Jacksonville and Nashville also joined the effort. The net result was the recommendation that a Charter Commission be established for the purpose of developing a new unified government in Columbus and Muscogee County. This action required voter approval, which was given by a margin of 15,140 to 3,817. The action taken also required that the draft charter would be submitted directly to the voters and would not be subject to review/approval by either the city or county governments. The Charter Commission retained an Atlanta consultant to manage the process. Commission held four public hearings and solicited input from the public.

The

The Commission decided upon a council-mayor-city manager form of government, which now has eight geographic districts of equal population and two at-large districts (this structure assured that at least one African-American would be elected to the new council and won the approval of the U.S. Department of Justice). The Commission completed its work in 1970 and the issue was put to the voters. The Columbus Chamber of Commerce took the lead in supporting the referendum and raised $19,000 to support the campaign, along with a steering committee of 24 well known white and black community leaders. Public endorsements were sought (and obtained) from all but one of the county commissioners, all city commissioners, area state legislators and various community groups. Endorsements from key citizens were also secured. The effort was supported by a speakerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bureau. The local newspaper covered the issue extensively with frequent front page stories. The full text of the Charter was published by the Columbus Ledger-Inquirer.

Columbus Consolidated Government Center (Originally built as the City â&#x20AC;&#x201C; County Building prior to merger)

Page | 140

The Chamber established a phone bank of 40 telephones to support its get out the vote drive, and provided transportation to anyone who requested a ride to the polls. A simple flyer (see next page) promoted streamlined government effectively. Final vote totals included: Columbus Muscogee County

12,379 – YES 12,500 – YES

2,788 – NO 2,989 – NO

As is typically the case in consolidation referendums, city voters were allowed to vote twice, given their designation as voters/taxpayers in both jurisdictions. Yet the measure required a majority vote in both jurisdictions to pass. What did the community wind up receiving with its new unified government? Perhaps most importantly, local government was streamlined from 44 departments into nine. The county’s police department was first shifted to the state-constitutionally elected sheriff’s department. However, the sheriff ultimately recommended that the county police officers be combined into the new single police department (the sheriff’s office continues with its tax collecting duties and a criminal investigation unit). The unified government includes a mayor (chief elected officer) who is supported by a professional city manager who manages the unified government on a day to day basis with supporting staff. Citizens liked the fact that they only received one tax bill with unified government. Other keys to success of the referendum included: 

Relatively small county with only two municipalities



Favorable political climate with 20 years of dialogue on the issue



Successful previous mergers of health departments and schools



An entirely open process – all Charter Commission meetings were conducted in county commission’s meeting room and were open to the public and media



Citizen participation during the Charter Commission meetings



Four public hearings to support the Charter prior to the vote

A copy of the Columbus Consolidated Government’s organizational chart, council district map and budget now follow:

Page | 141

Page | 142

Page | 143

Page | 144

Page | 145

Columbus Consolidated Government Council Districts

Page | 146

Page | 147

Page | 148

Lexington â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Fayette Urban County Government, Kentucky Lexington/Fayette County57 is located in Central Kentucky, approximately 80 miles east of Louisville. Lexington is the home of Transylvania University and the University of Kentucky. Lexington and Fayette County have an Urban County Government (hereinafter referred to as Lexington), which was created by the Kentucky General Assembly. Lexingtonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population is 295,803 and the community is the anchor of the Lexington Metropolitan Statistical Area which includes five additional counties with a total population of 472,099 people. Lexington includes an area of 286 square miles. Lexington58 is the second largest city and MSA in Kentucky.

Lexington was founded in 1775 and grew quickly to become one of the largest cities west of the Allegheny Mountains. With two universities, the city as known as the Athens of the West. Today, it is known for its signature industry: horses and is the recognized Horse Capital of the World. Today, there are approximately 150 horse farms located throughout Fayette County. The farms produce thoroughbred horses which are produce millions of dollars in sales each year. The farms, which are an important economic driver in the community, also present a unique challenge to Lexington, which has been growing at a rapid pace over the past several decades. Lexington59 is one of the few American cities which must work to manage its rapidly growing population while balancing the needs of the surrounding horse farms. Simply put, the city 57 58 59

Map graphic source: Wikipedia Web site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexington,_Kentucky Photo source: Lexington Convention & Visitors Bureau Web site http://www.visitlex.com Logo source: Lexington Convention & Visitors Bureau Web site http://www.visitlex.com

Page | 149

must focus on infill, rather than allow development to grow haphazardly throughout the county. In 1958, Lexington enacted the Urban Growth Boundary. This first of its kind legislation in the U.S. in essence created an urban services district. Several initial issues drove the unification issue, including: 

Two existing (and duplicative) units of government



Rapid growth with the expansion of the University of Kentucky, IBM, and a growing healthcare industry



Influx of people



Erratic city limits (boundaries) and government service areas

Unification Efforts Lexington and Fayette County consolidated into a new urban county government in 1972. Lexington’s government is one of two unified governments in Kentucky. There were several issues which drove the unification issue, including: 

Two existing units of government

 Rapid growth with the expansion of the University of Kentucky, IBM and a growing health care industry 

Influx of people



Erratic city limits/government service areas

During the 1960s, the city started annexing areas in the unincorporated county. One such effort in 1968 was stopped by the courts. At the time, Lexington’s city government consisted of five commissioners, each of whom was elected on an at-large basis. Fayette County operated with its Fiscal Court. Following the 1970 census, Lexington was scheduled to become a First Class city (with its population now exceeding 100,000 people). Upon becoming a First Class city, the city’s government would have to change from the five person commission to a 12 member city council (elected by district). Prior to 1970, interest in unifying the local governments continued to grow. State Representatives Bart Peak and William McCann introduced enabling legislation which would allow for First and Second Class cities to merge with their respective counties. This legislation also allowed for the creation of a charter commission to develop a new unified government. Upon passage of this legislation by the Kentucky General Assembly, the local governments then had a green light to proceed with unification process. At the time, the city government led by Mayor Tom Underwood was opposed to unification (with the basis being that merger would disrupt the political “machine” that had been Page | 150

assembled by Underwood), while the county government was ready to support the charter commission. Frustrated by this impasse, a local committee, the Government Options (GO) Committee was formed. The GO Committee led a petition drive to allow voters to express their views on the creation of the charter commission. The GO Committee’s efforts were supported by the chamber of commerce, the Rotary Club, etc. The petition drive was successful and the charter commission was duly formed. The city and county each appointed 15 members and agreed to contribute $6,500 each to support the work of the charter commission. The city continued to block efforts by not paying its agreed upon contribution and with many of the city’s appointees failing to show up for meetings, which resulted in the lack of a quorum. The election of Foster Pettit as the new mayor of Lexington changed everything. The city appointed new representatives to the commission, paid its bills and provided office space. The commission created 10 standing committees, each designed to focus on a specific area of government. This concept didn’t work as it expected too much from lay citizens without any experience. The alternative was to hire a consultant, which the GO Committee could not afford. The GO Committee’s chair, W.E. Lyons (a UK professor), agreed to develop proposals for the charter and submit the proposals to the commission for review. The chairman functioned as an executive director. All meetings were open to the public. The GO Committee’s mandate: Develop a comprehensive plan for an urban county government The enabling legislation passed by the General Assembly called for the new urban county government to have all of the powers of the class of city of the largest city in the county prior to merger (Lexington was a Second Class city prior to merger). The legislation also called for all of the debts, property, franchise rights, ordinances, etc., to be assumed by the new urban county government. The legislation did: 

Not create a new city or county



Create a new urban county government



Allow for the creation of new rules for the Executive Branch, civil service reform, etc.

Although the charter commission encouraged public participation, few people turned out for the various meetings. As the charter was developed, the following key provisions were included: Page | 151



Citizen representation by an Urban County Council of 12 council members elected by district (with term limits of four terms of two years each) and three council members elected on an at-large basis (with term limits of two terms of four years each)



Council members would be elected on a non-partisan basis



Council districts would be created while keeping the following in mind: o o o o

Population equality Community/diversity of interests Relative rates of growth Patterns of social and economic issues



Strong mayor with a chief administrative officer (who would report to the mayor)



The chief administrative officer would supervise day to day operations of the executive department and would recommend to the mayor appointments for commissioner positions (department heads)



The chief administrative officer would recommend the budget along with capital improvements to the mayor



The chief administrative officer would be selected upon the recommendation of the mayor along with four council members (a committee to be appointed by the vice mayor)



Existing county judge’s office would be retained but stripped of powers, duties and salary (same for Fiscal Court members)

Various executive departments were also created within the charter document along with a Code of Ethics. With regard to public workers, all positions were retained and county workers would assume the city’s pay scale and benefits (it was assumed that within the first three years of merger, overall worker levels would decline through normal attrition, which turned out to be the case). The preservation of all positions prior to the merger vote eliminated a potential source of opposition. Prior to merger, the city provided the following services:    

Fire Garbage collection (city crews) Police Sewerage

Page | 152



Street lights

Prior to merger, the county provided the following services:    

Fire Garbage collection (under contract with waste haulers) Police Septic tanks

Issues prior to merger included: 

Some city residents were not receiving all city services



The county received 76% of its revenue from property taxes



The city received 34% of its revenue from property taxes and 57% of its revenue from the 2% occupational tax



Service boundaries were complicated and didn’t always correspond to the city limits



Duplication of service – in some instances a city fire station was almost next door to a county fire station

Kentucky law mandated that an existing occupational tax would be applied to any new entity created under the urban county government statute. Prior to merger, following were the effective tax rates: Fayette County

16.65 cents/$100 valuation of property

Lexington

61.7 cents (+ Fayette County 16.65 cents)/$100 valuation of property

In thinking through the issue of services and taxes, it was agreed by the charter commission that there was no need (or ability) to provide all services to all people after merger (and, in fact, not everyone wanted all of the services). In order to address this issue, it was agreed to create two tax/service districts: 

General Services District (GSD), to include all of Fayette County



Urban Services District (USD) to include all of the original city of Lexington

Page | 153

Services to be provided in each include: General Services District Airport Courts Fire (basic) Garbage collection Libraries Mass transit system Parks Police (basic) Streets/roads

Urban Services District

Fire (urban/high density service) Garbage collection

Police (urban/high density population patrols) Street cleaning Street lights

Welfare/social services The charter commission agreed that those living in the GSD would pay a property tax at the preexisting Fayette County rate, while those living in the USD would pay a property tax at the preexisting Lexington rate (plus the GSD rate). In essence, everyone would pay the GSD tax for basic services; those living in the USD would pay for basic and enhanced services. If USD services were to be extended beyond their existing boundaries, property owners would not be expected to pay the USD rate until those services were in place (this applied primarily to street lights and ultimately the extension of sewer lines). It should be noted that other metro governments in place at the time allowed for the imposition of USD taxes prior to the actual expansion of services on property owners. Any expansion of USD services would have to be approved by the Urban County Council and such service expansion would occur only on an as-needed basis. Following 15 months of deliberations, the charter commission completed its work, never losing site of its overall goal for the charter: the charter should provide a basic outline of how consolidated government ought to be organized and created. On June 20, 1972, the draft charter was published and the public was given a three week period to provide comments (no comments were received). On July 17 th, a resolution calling for the adoption of the charter was filed with the county court clerk, with a referendum scheduled for November 7th.

Page | 154

The charter should provide a basic outline of how consolidated government should be organized and created.

Prior to the filing of the resolution, no polling data existed regarding the public’s position on the issue of unification. However, a poll, commissioned by former Mayor Underwood was conducted (but never published) in March 1971 on the subject of merger, with the following results:  

68% supported unified government 32% opposed unified government

As the campaign unfolded, the charter commission itself was not used in the campaign (although individual members of the commission did promote the issue and participated in the campaign). The Committee to Insure Good Government (CIGG) was created and was supported by the Chamber, Lexington Rotary Club, League of Women Voters and the Jaycees. Three prominent civic leaders led CIGG (including a representative from the African-American community). CIGG’s budget totaled $50,000, which was raised through individual donations, civic group donations ($28,000 was raised during a rally at The Red Mile, which featured Nashville Mayor Beverly Briley). The campaign focused on 350 30 minute voter interviews to see if attitudes had changed since the Underwood poll (they hadn’t). Two target audiences were identified: 

Organized groups (very attentive public)



Mass voters (not engaged and unlikely to read the charter)

A speaker’s bureau with four speakers (Mayor Pettit, County Judge Bob Stephens, CIGG Chairperson Penrose Ecton and Charter Commission Chairperson W.E. Lyons) spoke to groups throughout the community. Key message points included:

Page | 155

Key message points included: 



The African-American community would receive better representation through the new district council members than the previous at-large city commissioners Eliminate the “crazy” boundaries between the city and the county The ability to provide better quality services more efficiently



More efficient locations for fire stations



Develop better economies of scale with centralized purchasing



Getting more out of each tax dollar spent



Without merger, city annexation would occur which would result in higher taxes without any guarantee of when city services would be provided

 The African-American community would receive better representation through the new district council members than the previous at-large city commission members  Eliminate the “crazy” boundaries between the city and the county  The ability to provide better quality services more efficiently  More efficient location for fire stations (eliminate some which were literally next door to each other)  Develop better centralized purchasing 

economies

scale

with

Getting more out of each tax dollar spent

 Without merger, city annexation would occur which would result in higher taxes without any guarantee of when city services would be provided Over 150 neighborhood association coffees were held (CIGG mailed invitations to neighbors in advance). CIGG participated in radio and television public service programs (and took calls from voters). CIGG also purchased 30 minutes of television time to promote the issue, along with newspaper ads. The newspaper ads featured a map of Fayette County, showing the boundaries and asking voters if “this makes any sense to you?” Additional ads asked voters if they were tired of paying taxes for services they could not receive. The Farm Bureau supported merger and no major opposition surfaced. In the end, 70% of the voters voted to approve merger, while 30% voted NO.

Implementation occurred on a smooth basis. In order to merge the work forces, Mayor Pettit secured the services of IBM’s local director of human resources (who took a six month leave with the support of IBM in order to develop policies and the overall organization charts). Page | 156

By most measurements, unified government in Lexington has been successful. Key comments from local community leaders include: 



The community has become less parochial Streamlined government of eight primary departments Unified government forces “big picture” analysis and outcomes



Economic development prospects “love” one government to deal with



“One-stop” shop in terms of one government, one council, one agency, etc., makes everything easier to work through



Consolidated government is one of the four cornerstones that help to sell Lexington as a place to do business

Page | 157

What did the community wind up receiving with its new unified government? By most measurements, unified government in Lexington has been successful. Key comments from local community leaders include: 

The community has become less parochial

 Streamlined government of eight primary departments  Unified government forces “big picture” analysis and outcomes  Economic development prospects “love” one government to deal with  “One-stop” shop in terms of one government, one council, one agency, etc. makes everything easier to work through  Consolidated government is one of the four cornerstones that help to sell Lexington as a place to do business Lexington’s current public workforce totals 2,780 workers. Additional information, including the Urban County Council district map, the city’s organizational chart and budget now follow:

Page | 158

Page | 159

Page | 160

Page | 161

Page | 162

Page | 163

Page | 164

Page | 165

Louisville – Jefferson County Metropolitan Government, Kentucky Louisville – Jefferson County Metropolitan Government (Louisville Metro) is Kentucky’s largest city and is located on the Ohio River across from Southern Indiana. Louisville60 is home to the worldfamous Kentucky Derby and Churchill Downs and is also home to several major employers, including UPS, General Electric, Ford and YUM! Brands. Louisville Metro has a consolidated population of 741,096 people, making it the 17th largest city in the U.S. When approximately 70 incorporated suburbs are removed from this total, Louisville Metro’s balance population is 597,337 people, making it the 27 th largest city in the country. The Louisville Metropolitan Statistical Area’s (MSA) population is 1,307,647 and includes 13 counties in Kentucky and Indiana. When added to the Elizabethtown Metropolitan Statistical Area (and the Scottsburg, IN Micropolitan area), the Louisville Combined Statistical Area has a total population of 1,451,564 people. Louisville is home to UPS’ Worldport air cargo hub. Hundreds of flights connect Louisville with points around the U.S. and the world. Each night, hundreds of thousands of packages are sorted at the UPS facility at Louisville International Airport. The city is also the home to two large Ford auto assembly plants – Louisville Assembly and Kentucky Truck (which is the largest auto assembly facility in North America). Louisville is home to YUM! Brands – the parent company of KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell. The city is also home to Hillerich & Bradsby, manufacturers of the Louisville Slugger baseball bats. The city’s economy, once almost entirely dependent upon manufacturing has become more diversified, with corporations such as Humana anchoring what has become an important health insurance/health industry sector. Early on, Louisville was one of the nation’s largest cities and it enjoyed steady growth in population through the 1960 census. However, beginning in the 1960s and continuing through 60

Map graphic/photo source: Wikipedia Web site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisville_kentucky

Page | 166

2000, the city lost population as factories closed down and more and more people moved to suburban Jefferson County. Over time, over 70 municipally incorporated suburbs sprung up around the county, including larger cities such as Jeffersontown and St. Matthews, along with smaller neighborhoods which became cities, such as Douglas Hills. Unification Efforts Unification efforts began in Louisville and Jefferson County in the early 1980s. Unification was ultimately approved by the voters in 2000, with implementation in 2003 to a consolidated government. Prior to merger, Louisville was governed by a mayor and a Board of Aldermen (with 12 members elected by district). Jefferson County was governed by a county judge and county commission (with three members elected on an at-large basis). There were three primary drivers towards unification: 

Population decline in the City of Louisville



Economic development



Potential of falling behind Lexington as the state’s largest city

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Louisville was suffering from significant population and urban decline. The local economy was in a state of flux as long time employers like General Electric substantially downsized and International Harvester closed all together. Thousands of jobs were lost. Between 1950 and 2000, the city’s population declined by 31%, while the county’s population increased by 279%. Local leaders, alarmed by the decline, pointed to consolidated cities such as Indianapolis, Jacksonville and Nashville as examples of where the population was increasing. The feeling was that cities with increasing population would be more attractive to investors for potential economic development. Local leaders promoted the unification of Louisville and Jefferson County and the issue was put to the voters in 1982 and 1983. Both measures failed. The primary opposition came from a coalition of African-Americans in Louisville’s West End and blue collar voters in the South End. Even though both ballot measures failed, community leaders realized that steps needed to be taken to “metropolitanize” the area. Clearly, there was a need for better cooperation between the two governments. And, concern continued about the competition between the two governments for economic development.

Page | 167

In 1986, the City/County Compact was adopted. The Compact established defined intergovernmental relationships between various departments. More importantly, the Compact adjusted the manner in which tax revenues were distributed between the city and county. The intent was to try and equalize the provision of services throughout the county. There were three primary drives towards unification: 



Population decline in the City of Louisville Economic development (especially when compared with the nearby consolidated governments of Indianapolis and Nashville) Potential of falling behind Lexington as the state’s largest city

In a sense, the Compact served to institutionalize the concept of unification, but only on a limited department by department basis (not 100%) rather than actually achieve complete government unification. The Compact was never intended to serve as a longterm solution. In fact, the County government quickly came to the realization that the City was benefiting unfairly from the Compact. And, county residents (which made up 40% of the population) lacked many urban services. County residents did not like the commission form of government, primarily due to the fact that many residents felt that with commissioners elected on an atlarge basis that they didn’t have any direct representation. Political infighting continued between the City and the County. Community leaders continued to look at gains made in nearby Indianapolis and Nashville while Louisville continued its population

decline. By 1999, community leaders were ready to try again with merger. This time, a very basic proposal was submitted to Mayor David Armstrong and County Judge/Executive Rebecca Jackson. The proposal essentially called for a strong executive (metro mayor) with a (relatively) weak metro council. It was decided that instead of appointing a charter commission and drafting an allencompassing charter that a bill would be presented to the Kentucky General Assembly which would serve in lieu of a charter but would establish the “basics” for the proposed merged community. The rationale was to keep it simple, free of “minute” details so that opponents couldn’t tie it down and defeat it. As this process was underway, a police shooting (with accusations of police brutality to follow) in the West End occupied many of its residents, perhaps distracting them from the ongoing merger discussions. As such, the African-American community did not become fully engaged in the process, nor did it reach out to its past coalition partner – the blue collar community to take a position on merger. Page | 168

House Bill 647, which contained the merger provisions, was passed by the General Assembly. This then enabled the community to put the issue to a vote. This time, community leaders, the Chamber, the Courier-Journal all got behind the issue and raised $1.7 million and conducted a very sophisticated campaign.

Changes since unification: 

New metro council with 26 districts – increased representation



New urban services district



70 suburban communities remained intact



15 volunteer fire departments remained intact



Community’s clout has increased substantially – Louisville Metro is considered to be a “Top 20” community



Unlike previous merger campaigns, this initiative allowed existing suburban cities to remain intact if they chose to do so (or, suburban communities were given the opportunity to opt into the new merged government). This made the issue easier to promote in the county. The issue enjoyed bipartisan support. Former Democratic Mayor Jerry Abramson (very visible and popular in the community) led the effort with Republican County Judge/Executive Rebecca Jackson also playing an important leadership role. The following question was put to the voters: “Are you in favor of combining the City of Louisville and Jefferson County into a single government with a mayor and legislative council, keeping all cities, fire protection districts and special districts in existence?” The measure passed with 55% of all voters in favor and 45% opposed. What did the community wind up receiving with its new unified government?

Duplication has been substantially eliminated

Unlike the Lexington – Fayette County Urban County Government, which was a true, 100% unified government; Louisville Metro can at best be described  The community’s image as a partially unified government. It is true that the old has been enhanced. City of Louisville and the old Jefferson County governments were merged into one new government. This in and of itself provided substantial streamlining of local government. A new metro council with 26 districts was created. Like other unified governments, an urban services area (which corresponds to the old City of Louisville boundaries) was created which provides enhanced services to residents, along with a general services district. Page | 169

Perhaps the biggest challenge to merger implementation in Louisville and Jefferson County came in the area of personnel. As former Louisville Metro Mayor Jerry Abramson likes to explain it: “when I was sworn into office, I was like Noah, I had two of everything!” This resulted in lots of workforce integration issues. Louisville Metro identified annual cost savings of $3.4 million through restructuring the Executive Branch from two governments to one by eliminating overlapping functions, moving Metro departments from leased office space into buildings previously owned by government, and outsourcing certain functions61. Another $100,000 per year was saved by changes in how the combined government’s fleet was managed. At the same time, the 70 suburban communities elected to remain intact (at least for now; all communities have the opportunity to dissolve and merge with Louisville Metro in the future if they choose to do so). The 15 volunteer fire departments which serve the county also remained in place and did not merge with the Louisville Fire Department. Duplication still exists in the area of fire protection and many county residents still rely on volunteer fire departments which today are struggling financially (several fire protection districts with multiple stations have elected to close some stations which has resulted in a loss of coverage on a more constant basis). Louisville Metro’s government today consists of 15 major departments and 13 primary agencies – a big improvement over the old, duplicative system. Add to that the 70 suburban communities and their multiple layers of municipal services. Louisville Metro employs approximately 5,649 full time workers (again, not counting the suburban communities’ workers). Today, as the result of unification, Louisville again ranks as Kentucky’s largest city, and depending on how you count it, the nation’s 17 th or 27th largest city (Louisville previously ranked as the nation’s 65th largest city). By achieving what most consider to be “Top 20” status, community leaders strongly believe that the goal of elevating Louisville’s population to be consistent with that of nearby Indianapolis and Nashville has and will continue to assist the community in attracting new economic development. In other words, the community’s clout has increased substantially as the result of unification. Second, duplication has been eliminated between the two largest units of government and streamlining has occurred. Third, the community’s image has been significantly enhanced. Louisville Metro has received an enormous amount of publicity since merger and close to 100 delegations of citizens and elected officials from cities and counties around the country have visited Louisville to learn 61

Source: Louisville Metro Web site www.louisvilleky.gov/YourGovernment/Merger.htm

Page | 170

more about the unification process (remember, Louisville Metro represents the first large city in the U.S. to unify in 30 years – so this is a “big deal”). Recently elected Metro Mayor Greg Fisher has empanelled a group of citizens to take a look at today’s unified government (11 years after passage by the voters) to see if any changes are needed to make Louisville Metro more efficient and responsive to the citizens’ needs. This work is ongoing, with recommendations expected in October 2011. Following is additional information on Louisville Metro, including a map of the metro council’s districts, the community’s organizational chart, list of employment positions, and a summary of the budget:

Page | 171

Page | 172

Page | 173

Page | 174

Page | 175

Page | 176

Recommendations Introduction Hardin County is facing a unique opportunity. Unlike most communities around the country, Hardin County has not only weathered the ongoing national recession, it has actually grown significantly in population and jobs. The metro area has achieved Top 20 and in some cases Top 5 national rankings in the areas of income and job growth. The community has grown rapidly into an urban core of 85,000 people, as shown on the map on the following page, which if combined would rank as Kentucky’s third largest city. The community’s unemployment rate has generally been below that of the national average. There have been layoffs in the community – and no one, including the author – wishes to convey that the community has skated through the recession. Yet, at the same time, compared to all 119 of Kentucky’s other counties, Hardin County stands ready to grow even more by creating new jobs and improving what is already a high quality of life. The question remains: how will the community approach this opportunity? It can continue on with all of the existing government jurisdictions, departments, boards and commissions (all 94 of them), or, it can begin to formally consider the benefits which will accrue to the community by unifying the existing government structures. As previously indicated, Hardin County has evolved into a very fragmented community which includes the following 60 government jurisdictions, county departments, utilities and municipal departments:               

Page | 177

          

Two municipal planning and zoning departments Four municipal police departments One county public library Three municipal public works departments One county road department One county sheriff’s department One county solid waste department One municipal storm water department Three municipal water/waste water departments One water and gas department Two county water districts

85,000 people who live in this emerging urban core outside the gate on the civilian side make this Kentuckyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s third largest community

Page | 178

At present, Hardin County is home to 34 official Boards and Commissions, to which members are appointed by either the Hardin County Judge/Executive or the Mayor of a particular municipality. On a combined basis, Hardin County, a community of 105,000 people, is governed by 94 government entities. Benefits of unification to Hardin County: Without question, there is duplication of effort between many of the jurisdictions. 

Streamline government



Use public resources more efficiently



Achieve high economies of scale



Community can become Kentucky’s third largest



Substantial clout that will assist with economic development



Speak with one voice and more efficiently target grants and appropriations which will benefit the entire community



Get more bang for the tax buck

With unification, the opportunity exists to streamline government, use public resources on a more cost efficient basis, achieve high economies of scale, and, deliver government services more efficiently. Perhaps more importantly, with unification, the community will move up in the rankings and become Kentucky’s third largest community. This will bring substantial clout to the community. It will result in the community being further recognized and considered for even more business and industrial development. With clout and by speaking with one voice (as One Knox has shown), the community will increase its standing and stature in Frankfort and Washington, D.C. This will enable the community to more efficiently target grants and appropriations from both the state and federal governments that will benefit the entire community. Bottom line: by unifying Hardin County’s existing government structure, all taxpayers will get more bang for their tax dollar, government will be significantly streamlined and made more efficient, and the community will move up in the rankings, gain substantial clout and will begin speaking with one voice in order to maximize efficiencies and results.

What might a unified government look like in Hardin County? Under existing Kentucky law, there are essentially two legal avenues open to the community, including:  

Urban County Government Unified Local Government

Page | 179

The Urban County Government approach is the “purest” form of unification – all existing governmental entities collapse into one – which results in the most efficient form of unified government. The Unified Local Government approach recognizes that in the case of unification, not all existing government jurisdictions may wish to unify. Therefore, unification can occur through the consolidation of the existing county government with one or more municipalities. Politically, Unified Local Government may be the easier approach; however, not all of the potential benefits of unification may be achieved if for example the community is left with two or more police departments, or two or more planning departments, etc. Nonetheless, significant economies of scale can be achieved in Hardin County by adopting this form of government. And, any effort to unify the community should be done in such a manner so as to encourage all jurisdictions to participate. Unified Government Statutory Language The language which sets forth the creation of a unified government in Kentucky is very straightforward. The legislation was passed during the 2006 General Assembly session and was enacted into law on July 12, 2006. The statutory language62 now follows: 67.900 Authorization to form unified local government. In order to promote efficient and economical management of the affairs of local government and prevent the duplication of services, the voters of any county, except a county containing a consolidated local government, an urban-county government, or a charter county government, may vote to unite the county government with one (1) or more cities within the county to form a unified local government. The creation and implementation of a unified local government shall take place only after compliance with the procedures set forth in KRS 67.900 to 67.940. 67.902 Definitions for KRS 67.900 to 67.940. As used in KRS 67.900 to 67.940: (1) "Citizen member" means a person who is neither an elected nor an appointed official or employee of the county or a participating city; (2) "Participating city" means a city that has filed an ordinance with the county clerk and has been named in the notification sent by the county clerk under KRS 67.904(3); and (3) "Population" means the number of residents residing within the territorial limits of a city or county based upon the most recent official decennial census by the United States Bureau of Census. 67.904 Procedure for initiation of unification process -- Appointment of unification review commission. The unification process shall be initiated in the following manner: 62

Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 67.900 – 67.940

Page | 180

(1) The legislative body of one (1) or more cities within the county and the county fiscal court may enact ordinances proposing that a commission be formed to study the question of unifying the county government with one (1) or more cities within the county to form a unified local government. The executive authority of each city enacting an ordinance shall cause a copy of the ordinance to be filed with the county clerk no later than ten (10) days after enactment. (2) The county clerk shall be responsible for determining whether the required ordinances have been filed to initiate the unification process. The unification process shall be initiated when the county clerk determines that: (a) An ordinance has been enacted by the county fiscal court under subsection (1) of this section; and (b) An ordinance has been enacted and filed by one (1) or more cities within the county. (3) If the county clerk makes the determination required by subsection (2) of this section, the clerk shall notify the county judge/executive, the mayor of each city within the county, and the chief executive officer of every special district within the county that the unification process has been initiated by the county and the city or cities named in the notification. (4) Within sixty (60) days of notification by the county clerk that the unification process has been officially initiated, a unification review commission shall be appointed. 67.906 Unification review commission -- Membership -- Chairperson -- Filling vacancies. (1) The county judge/executive and the mayor of the participating city with the greatest population shall jointly determine the size of the unification review commission which shall be composed of not less than twenty (20) nor more than forty (40) members. (2) The membership of the unification review commission shall be divided equally between the county and the participating cities. The mayor of each participating city shall, with the approval of the city legislative body, make a number of appointments based on the ratio that the percentage of the population residing in the mayor's city bears to the population of all participating cities. Each participating city shall have a minimum of one (1) representative on the unification review commission. The county judge/executive shall, with the approval of the fiscal court, appoint a number of members to the unification review commission equal to the number of city members. (3) The chairperson of the unification review commission shall be a citizen member elected by a majority vote of the membership of the unification review commission at its first meeting. (4) Any vacancy on the commission shall be filled in the same manner as original appointments are made. 67.908 Funding of unification review commission. Unless otherwise agreed upon by the county and the participating cities, the unification review commission shall be funded by the fiscal court and each participating city in proportion to their relative population. For purposes of this section, the population of the county shall be calculated excluding the population of any participating city.

Page | 181

67.910 Unification plan -- Components -- Deadline for completion -- Dissolution of commission. (1) The unification review commission shall study matters relating to the feasibility of forming a unified local government and, if unification is proposed, develop a unification plan consistent with the provisions of the Kentucky Constitution and KRS 67.900 to 67.940. A unification plan shall include: (a) The process for establishing the unified local government; (b) A description of the form, structure, functions, and powers of the proposed unified local government; (c) A description of the officers of the proposed unified local government and their powers and duties; (d) A procedure for the orderly and timely transition of specified services, functions, and responsibilities from each affected city and the county to the unified local government; (e) A procedure for the orderly transition to the unified local government of the services, functions, and responsibilities of any special district that will be eliminated; (f) A procedure for the orderly transition to the unified local government of the services, functions, and responsibilities of any board, commission, or authority that will be eliminated; (g) The procedures by which the unification plan may be amended; and (h) Such other provisions as the commission shall determine. (2) The unification review commission may propose a unification plan under which the county and one (1) or more participating cities unite to form a single unit of local government. (3) The unification plan shall be completed within two (2) years of the commission's appointment. If a majority of the commission members are unable to agree on a plan for unification within the two (2) year period, the unification review commission shall be dissolved by operation of law. 67.912 Legislative council -- Chief executive and administrative officers -- Powers, duties, and salary of CEO. (1) The legislative authority of a unified local government shall be vested in a legislative council elected in the manner provided by the unification plan. (2) The executive authority of a unified local government shall be vested in a chief executive officer elected in the manner provided by the unification plan. The chief executive officer shall have the powers and duties of a county judge/executive under KRS 67.710 and a mayor under KRS 83A.130. (3) A chief administrative officer may be employed to serve on the staff of the chief executive officer. A chief administrative officer shall be appointed by the chief executive officer, subject to confirmation by a vote of three-fifths (3/5) of the legislative council, and possess education or professional experience, or both, in the area of public administration. A chief administrative officer may be removed by executive order of the chief executive officer or by a vote of threefifths (3/5) of the entire legislative body. (4) The chief executive officer shall appoint all members of boards, commissions, authorities, or other entities formed by the unified local government after the effective date of the unification plan and shall fill all vacancies as they occur on boards, commissions, authorities, or other entities created by the county or a participating city prior to the effective date of the unification Page | 182

plan, which continue to exist after unification. All appointments by the chief executive officer shall be made subject to confirmation by a majority of the legislative council. (5) The salary of the chief executive officer of a unified local government shall be no less than the salary of a county judge/executive pursuant to KRS 64.535 based upon the population of the county in the year prior to election of the chief executive officer. 67.914 Public hearings on unification plan. The unification review commission shall hold at least one (1) public hearing prior to finalizing its plan to combine county government with one (1) or more cities within the county into a unified local government. The commission may hold additional public hearings as determined by the commission. Notice setting forth the time, date, location, and purpose of the public hearing shall be published as required by KRS Chapter 424. 67.916 Approval of unification plan by commission. Following its final public hearing, the unification review commission shall vote on the proposed unification plan as presented or as modified by the commission. A unification plan approved by a majority vote of the commission members shall be submitted to the registered voters in the county for a vote at the next regular election. 67.918 Question of unification to be submitted to voters -- Adoption of unification plan after approval -- Prohibition against placing rejected plan on ballot for five years. (1) The question whether the unification plan shall be adopted shall be filed with the county clerk not later than the second Tuesday in August preceding the day of the next regular election. The plan shall be advertised at least once not later than ninety (90) days before the regular election at which the voters will be asked to approve or disapprove the adoption of the unification plan. (2) The question to be submitted to the voters shall read as follows: "Are you in favor of unifying the city (or cities) of _____ and _____ County into a single government according to the unification plan adopted by the Unification Review Commission?" (3) The unification plan shall be adopted if a majority of those voting on the issue are in favor of forming a unified local government. (4) The votes shall be counted, returns made, and canvassed in accordance with the provisions of KRS Chapters 116 to 121 governing elections, and the results shall be certified by the county board of election commissioners to the county clerk. If a majority of those voting on the issue are in favor of forming a unified local government, the county board of election commissioners shall enter the fact of record and the unified local government shall be organized as provided in the unification plan. (5) An adopted unification plan shall take effect January 1 following the election of officers to fill elective offices created by the unification plan. Officers shall be elected in the regular election in the next even-numbered year following adoption of the unification plan. (6) If the question whether the unification plan shall be adopted is rejected by a majority of the electorate, the question is defeated and cannot be voted on again for five (5) years from the date of certification of the election results.

Page | 183

67.920 Redistricting of unified local government legislative districts. (1) If the unification plan of a unified local government provides for election of legislative council members by legislative district, the legislative council may defer redistricting of legislative districts, subsequent to each decennial census by the United States Bureau of Census, until after completion of the redistricting of General Assembly seats within the unified local government after that census. (2) The redistricting of unified local government legislative districts under this section shall be effective for the first regular unified local government primary election scheduled more than one hundred eighty (180) days after completion of the redistricting, but, in no event shall the redistricting become effective later than two (2) years after release of the census data upon which the redistricting is based. 67.922 Rights, powers, privileges, immunities, and responsibilities of unified local government -- Continuance of county and highest participating class of city laws -- Enactment and enforcement of ordinances. (1) A unified local government may exercise the constitutional and statutory rights, powers, privileges, immunities, and responsibilities of counties and of cities of the highest class within the unified local government: (a) In effect on the date the unified local government becomes effective; (b) Which may subsequently be authorized for or imposed upon counties and cities of that class; and (c) Which may be authorized for or imposed upon unified local governments. (2) A unified local government shall be accorded the same sovereign immunity granted counties, their agencies, officers, and employees. (3) All ordinances of a unified local government shall be enacted and enforced pursuant to KRS 83A.060 and 83A.065. 67.924 Retention of laws in force at time of unification -- Superceding existing laws -Resolution of conflicts between county and city ordinances. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in the unification plan that is approved by the unification commission and submitted to the voters, ordinances, orders, resolutions, and other effects of law in force within a county and participating city at the time of unification that do not conflict with the unification plan remain in effect until superseded by specific action of the new governing body of the unified local government. (1) If a participating city ordinance conflicts with a county ordinance, the county ordinance shall prevail and shall become effective countywide. (2) If a participating city ordinance addresses a subject not addressed by a county ordinance, the city ordinance shall remain effective only within the territory of the participating city until changed by the unified local government. (3) If a participating city ordinance addresses a subject not addressed by a county ordinance but conflicts with an ordinance of another participating city, the ordinances shall remain effective in each participating city until changed by the unified local government. (4) If a county ordinance addresses a subject matter not addressed by a participating city ordinance, the county ordinance shall become effective countywide. Page | 184

67.926 Contracts and obligations of counties and cities to be honored after unification. All contracts, bonds, franchises, and other obligations of a participating city and the county in existence on the effective date of a unified local government shall continue in force and effect as obligations of the unified local government, and the unified local government shall succeed to all rights and entitlements thereunder. All conflicts in the provisions of the contracts, bonds, franchises, or other obligations shall be resolved in a manner that does not impair the rights of any of the parties. 67.928 Powers and duties of Sections 99 and 144 constitutional offices within unified territory -- Funding responsibilities and oversight duties unaffected by unification. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all offices provided for in Sections 99 and 144 of the Constitution of Kentucky shall remain in existence upon the unification of a county and a participating city or cities pursuant to KRS 67.900 to 67.940. However, all existing powers and duties of the offices shall be assigned to the unified local government. (2) Nothing in KRS 67.900 to 67.940 shall alter or affect the election or term of any county court clerk, county attorney, coroner, jailer, sheriff, surveyor, or assessor. Nor shall any provision of KRS 67.900 to 67.940 be construed to alter or affect the powers, duties, or responsibilities of these officers as prescribed by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Any funding responsibilities or oversight of any constitutional officers or their employees previously exercised by the county, which shall include the approval of the annual budget of the sheriffâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and the county clerkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s offices, shall be transferred to the unified local government. 67.930 Employees of county and cities to become employees of unified local government -Rights, privileges, and protections of employees and their beneficiaries remain in effect. (1) Upon the effective date of an adopted unification plan, all regular employees of the county and participating city or cities shall become employees of the unified local government. (2) All rights, privileges, and protections attributed to a regular employee by a civil service system established by a county or participating city prior to the effective date of the unification plan shall continue in effect until changed by statute or ordinance. (3) Upon the establishment of a unified local government, all rights, privileges, and protections of beneficiaries of a retirement fund or pension fund established by a participating city or county shall continue in effect until all benefits due each beneficiary have been paid. 67.932 Division of unified local government's territory into service districts by legislative council -- Tax districts to correspond -- Partial-service districts. The territory of a unified local government may be divided into service districts. Each service district shall constitute a separate tax district within which the unified local government shall levy and collect taxes in accordance with the kind, type, level, and character of the services provided by the unified local government in each district. The legislative council of a unified local government may abolish or alter existing districts or create new districts and may establish partial-service districts into which one (1) or more services provided within a full-service district may be expanded or extended, and may establish service districts into which all of the services Page | 185

provided within a full-service district shall be expanded or extended, along with one (1) or more other services not provided within the full-service district. 67.934 Taxing, fire protection, sanitation, water, and special districts to continue unless eliminated in plan or later dissolved -- Rate of levy. Unless eliminated under the unification plan, all taxing districts, fire protection districts, sanitation districts, water districts, and any special taxing or service districts of any kind existing upon the successful passage of the question set out in KRS 67.918 shall continue in existence unless dissolved in the manner prescribed by law and shall continue to exercise all the powers and functions permitted by the Constitution and the general laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. If a special taxing district in existence upon the successful passage of the question is eliminated under the unification plan or is later dissolved, the unified government may include any rate levied by the special district as part of its levied rate in the area served by the special district without having to comply with the provisions of KRS 132.027. 67.936 Ordinances creating boards, commissions, authorities, and interlocal agreements deemed reenacted unless eliminated in plan -- Restructuring powers of council. (1) Unless eliminated under the unification plan, all ordinances of a county and participating city creating boards, commissions, and authorities and interlocal agreements shall survive and be deemed reenacted by the new legislative council. All members of boards, commissions, and authorities may serve the balance of the terms to which they were appointed and until their successors are appointed and duly qualified according to law. The legislative council shall have the power, by ordinance, to take such action as it deems necessary to abolish, restructure, consolidate, or otherwise alter any board, commission, or authority if the action is consistent with the Kentucky Revised Statutes. (2) All planning commissions established pursuant to KRS Chapter 100 in existence within a county upon the adoption of a unified local government shall continue to exercise all of the powers and functions permitted by the Constitution of Kentucky and the Kentucky Revised Statutes until dissolved in the same manner prescribed by law. 67.938 Continuation of tax structures and rates and service levels after unification -Imposition of different tax rates within territory -- Certificates of delinquency. (1) The tax structure, tax rates, and level of services in effect in the county and in each of the participating cities upon the adoption of a unified local government shall remain in effect after the adoption of the unified local government and shall remain the same until changed by the newly elected unified local government legislative council. (2) In order to maintain the tax structure, tax rates, or level of services in the areas of the unified local government formerly comprising incorporated cities, the unified local government council may provide, in a manner described in this section, for taxes and services within the formerly incorporated cities that are different from the taxes and services which are applicable in the remainder of the unified local government. If a unified local government is formed that contains a participating city with a restaurant tax imposed pursuant to KRS 91A.400, the restaurant tax may be retained by the unified local government in the area of the participating city. Page | 186

(3) Any difference in the ad valorem tax rate on the class of property which includes the surface of the land in the portion of the county formerly comprising the incorporated cities, and the surface of the land in the portion of the county other than that formerly comprising the incorporated cities, may be imposed directly by the unified local government legislative council. Any change in these ad valorem tax rates shall comply with KRS 68.245, 132.010, 132.017, and 132.027 and shall be used for services as provided by KRS 82.085. (4) All delinquent taxes of a participating city in a unified local government shall be filed with the county clerk and shall be known as certificates of delinquency or personal property certificates of delinquency and shall be governed by the procedures set out in KRS Chapter 134, except that certificates of delinquency and personal property certificates of delinquency on former city tax bills may be paid or purchased directly from the clerk under KRS 134.126 and 134.127. 67.940 Nonparticipating cities within territory to remain incorporated and exercise existing powers -- Incorporations after unification prohibited -- Council approval required for annexation. (1) Any nonparticipating city located within the territory of a unified local government following adoption of a unification plan shall remain incorporated unless dissolved in accordance with KRS 81.094 and shall continue to exercise all powers and perform all functions permitted by the Constitution of Kentucky and the Kentucky Revised Statutes applicable to cities of the class to which it has been assigned. (2) After the adoption of a unified local government, there shall be no further incorporation of cities within the county. (3) After the adoption of a unified local government, any proposed annexation by a city in the county shall first receive the approval of the legislative council of the unified local government prior to the city proceeding under the provisions of KRS Chapter 81A. The city shall request the approval of the unified local government by ordinance. The unified local government shall respond by ordinance within sixty (60) days of receipt of the request. If an ordinance has not been enacted by the unified local government legislative council within sixty (60) days, the request by a city to proceed with an annexation proposal shall be deemed to be approved by the unified local government. Unified Local Government offers attractive options to Hardin County. Adoption will result in a unified government structure which will deliver government services more efficiently and will bring clout to the entire community. With this in mind, the author recommends the following course of action for consideration by the members of Hardin County United: ď&#x201A;ˇ

Pursue the development of a Unified Local Government for Hardin County

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Taking the leadership role in educating and informing the community about the benefits of unified government

Page | 187

o o o o o

Community forum Media briefings Post Unified Government Study, Abramson/Pettit videos to HCU Web site Neighborhood forums Targeted speaking engagements



Solicit endorsements from key community groups



Request the appointment of a unification review commission of Hardin County Fiscal Court and the appropriate city council(s)



Using Lexington as the model, work towards the adoption of a unified government organizational structure63 that is similar to the organizational chart which appears on the following page – with nine or 10 primary departments and appropriate divisions

To include Hardin County and any of the six communities which decide to opt in

Page | 188

Page | 189

Additional Resources Additional information on the site visit communities can be found by visiting the following sites: Athens/Clarke County Athens/Clarke County Government

http://www.athensclarkecounty.com/

Athens Area Chamber of Commerce

http://www.athenschamber.net/

Augusta – Richmond County City of Augusta

http://www.augustaga.gov/

Augusta Metro Chamber of Commerce

http://augustachamber.net/

Columbus – Muscogee County Columbus Consolidated Government

http://www.columbusga.org/

Greater Columbus Chamber of Commerce http://www.columbusgachamber.com/ Lexington – Fayette County Lexington – Fayette Urban County Govt.

http://www.lexingtonky.gov/index.aspx

Commerce Lexington

http://www.commercelexington.com

Louisville – Jefferson County Louisville Metro

http://www.louisvilleky.gov

Greater Louisville, Inc. (GLI)

http://www.greaterlouisville.com/GLI/

Conclusion L.B. Schmidt & Associates, LLC appreciates the opportunity to provide this initial information on unified government. The company believes that significant benefits await the community with the potential implementation of unified government and stands ready to work with Hardin County United and all appropriate jurisdictions, groups and organizations in the community to move this issue to the next level. ###

Page | 190

Appendix

Page | 191

Page | 192