Buying Time

Published 6:45 am Friday, November 11, 2016

VALDOSTA, Ga. — After butting heads with Lowndes County for months over service agreements, Valdosta is looking to gain more time for negotiations after the county and its five cities failed to reach an updated agreement by the state-mandated Oct. 31 deadline.

Valdosta’s city council voted at its Nov. 10 meeting to temporarily extend its current Service Delivery Strategy (SDS) Agreement with Lowndes County until June 30, 2017.

However, the resolution passed by Valdosta’s council still has to be approved by the county and at least two of its cities to be considered valid.

On Nov. 1, Lowndes County and its five cities — Valdosta, Hahira, Lake Park, Dasher and Remerton — received a letter from the Georgia Department of Community Affairs saying they had lost eligibility for state administered “financial assistance, grants, loans or permits” because of their inability to approve a new or revised SDS by the deadline.

While all current state funding is still in place, no new funding will be approved until an agreement on the SDS is reached. The proposed extension would allow local governments more time to reach a compromise while still receiving state funding.

Every 10 years, the state requires each county and its cities to update the SDS. The agreement details how much of each local government’s money and resources will be devoted to services that benefit residents in both the county and one or more of its cities.

The county has been deliberating with its cities for months on a new SDS. The conflict, and subsequently the delay, originates from Lowndes County and Valdosta disagreeing on several points in the SDS. 

When negotiations began in the spring, Valdosta presented 14 requests to the county for consideration concerning the SDS. They discussed, among other things, how water and sewer services should be allocated throughout the city and county, as well as how much money each government should give for the operation and maintenance of the Rainwater Conference Center, Valdosta Crime Lab, and roads and streets throughout the city and county.

After failing to reach an agreement, the county and cities entered into legal mediation, but even that hasn’t been enough to render an SDS approved by all parties. Mediation will continue until Nov. 21, and because of confidentiality agreements, officials from each government cannot discuss the specific details of the conflict.

However, Valdosta Mayor John Gayle did say that because of Valdosta’s growth over the past 10 years, he thinks a new SDS is needed. He indicated that of the 14 requests the city originally made, it has given up all of them except for the debate over how water and sewer services are provided throughout the city and county.

“Just because they came to an agreement in 2008 doesn’t mean it’s still good today,” Gayle said. “We’re the economic engine; we can’t allow ourselves not to continue to grow. Some of these things that we’re discussing right now puts us in a bind as far as future growth. We came out with 14 points, and they didn’t accept any of them, and we have gone back and gone back and gone back and changed our stance. We’ve let them out of all the other things, and really what it boiled down to was water and sewer [services].

“I cannot in good faith agree to their proposals because I don’t feel like it’s fair to the city. That’s where we stand.”

Bill Slaughter, chairman for the Lowndes County Board of Commissioners, said he believes the SDS that was approved in 2008 is still sufficient for the county and its cities.

“Have we had some growth since 2008? Yes we have,” Slaughter said. “Have we had some issues due to growth that has had to be addressed? I would say yes we have. Is there anything outside of the Service Delivery Strategy that has been an obstacle to handle that growth? Absolutely none at all.

“The Service Delivery Strategy is a good document. A lot of money and a lot of time was put into the 2008 strategy, and that strategy still applies and still works very, very well for Lowndes County and for the City of Valdosta and for the other cities as well. Rather than spend all the money and the time again, we have a good document, [so] let’s stay with it.”

The county added in a statement that “On May 4, 2016, Lowndes County proposed a solution that would have saved months of time and money. The cities chose to insist on changes that are contrary to law and/or shift significant funding and financial liability to unincorporated Lowndes County.”

Gayle said the city will make one final offer to the county first thing next week, but if an agreement isn’t reached, the governments will go to court to settle their differences.

“Hopefully we can come to a decision at that point and avoid all these other things,” Gayle said.

Valdosta councilman Tim Carroll said it’s possible the fight may drag on for quite some time, which is why the service extension is needed.

“If it were something that we anticipated settling in the next 30 days, then this [extension] probably would not be necessary, but in light of the fact that we may end up going into litigation, and it may be months before we have a final agreement between the cities and the county, this does become very, very important to all of us, not just the city of Valdosta,” he said. 

Gayle said while the other cities plan to pass the extension, he thinks the county has no plans to approve it at this time.

“What the county’s doing by not agreeing to that extension is they’re punishing our citizens,” Gayle said.

The city said in its council agenda that the extension would harm no local government, but that failing to approve the extension “could result in harm to citizens by being unable to receive grants, loans, and permits.”

Slaughter said the county is not interested in the extension at this time because he feels an agreement between the city and county will be reached as soon as next week.

“We are very, very, very close to resolving this issue, and so at this present time, we’re not ready to ask for an extension, and the money to continue to be spent, and the time to continue to be spent on talking about the remaining issues that we have with SDS,” Slaughter said. “I am confident that it can be resolved within the next week. My hopes are that we do not have to extend it because extending it just continues staff time, continues legal fees, it continues the expense that has been incurred up to this point to get to where we’re at.”

Valdosta Councilman Robert Yost blamed the county for the current situation and said the county commissioners were not doing enough to resolve the conflict. 

“It’s past time for each of the county commissioners elected by the citizens of every city in this county to start representing the citizens of the county,” Yost said. “They come in to these meetings, … [and] it’s the same song and dance. They come to us and say ‘but you agreed the last time.’ No, we didnt. We were blackmailed into agreeing to sign on because we didn’t have a choice because they hold the cards.

“They are not doing what they should do. They continue to blatantly thumb their fingers at us. It is time they stand up and be the men and women that we elected to serve this county and every constituent in it. Until they do that, they are sorry individuals representing us. They better get on board and start working with everybody. It’s not just Valdosta; every city in this county feels the same about how they operate and what they do to the citizens. It is the citizens that are suffering.”

The loss of state funding for the county and its cities will remain in place until the first day of the month following state verification of an updated or extended SDS.