City, county debate shared services

CLOVIS — City officials say a joint powers agreement with Curry County expired in 2016. And they won’t be making any more monthly payments to the county until a new agreement is reached.

County officials said they did not receive the city’s monthly payment of $10,833.33 in February, and city officials said no more payments will be forthcoming unless a new agreement is reached. That agreement may even mean the county pays the city.

“The agreement between the city and the county has expired and therefore the city is not legally obligated to continue with the payments,” Howalt said last week.

“The city did continue with the payments in good faith from 2016 through January 2018 anticipating that a new agreement would be forthcoming. Until a new agreement can be negotiated the city will no longer continue to make payments to the county.”

The city-county joint powers agreement was first reached in 2000, records show.

It called for the city to pay the county $60,000 a year to offset the cost of services the county provides for city residents, largely the cost of the detention center.

Both city and county commissions approved amendments to the agreement in 2008 and in 2016, which increased the amount paid to the county each month ultimately up to $130,000 a year.

But the state’s Department of Finance and Administration did not approve the 2016 agreement because the original agreement had expired, Howalt said.

County officials agree the JPA has expired.

“The state told us it went on too long and there was some issue about renewing it over and over and over again and we had to start from scratch and do a new one,” Curry County Commissioner Chet Spear said.

Since October, Spear and fellow Curry County Commissioner Robert Thornton have been negotiating with Clovis City Commissioners Ladona Clayton and Sandra Taylor-Sawyer to put a new agreement in place.

The values of services the city and county share is largely responsible for the hold up on a new deal.

“I think that’s really the big thing, is just seeing where the county sees value on some services and where we see value on other services ... It probably just may come out to a total wash for all of it, but (we) don’t know that yet,” Taylor-Sawyer said.

On the county side, Spear pointed to the county’s detention center and events center as examples that provide a benefit to the city at the expense of the county.

“The big issue is the jail,” Spear said. “There is a difference of opinion as to what a municipal prisoner is, how long he’s a municipal prisoner and when he becomes a county prisoner and who’s to bear the cost of that municipal prisoner up until the time he becomes a county prisoner.”

As for the county events center, Spear said the county loses about $400,000 a year from putting on events. But he said the city receives an economic benefit via the lodgers’ taxes and gross receipts taxes collected from those visiting Clovis to attend events.

Taylor-Sawyer and Howalt counter that gross receipts taxes and property taxes collected by the county should be taken into consideration.

“The city offers many services to the citizens of Curry County that live outside the city limits. The expenses for these service should be factored into the JPA with the county,” Howalt said.

“Conversely, Clovis citizens receive county services; however, they are taxed by the county for those services through both property and gross receipts taxes. Simply put, if a (county resident’s) taxes cover the jail, then a city resident’s taxes also cover their share of the jail. City residents should not bear an extra cost simply because they live in the city of Clovis.”

Spear said city leaders are claiming the county should be paying the city for shared services.

“And that’s when we said, ‘Hey wait a minute. We’ve got an $8 million detention facility, we’ve got this events center, we’ve got other things that we do for the city. We need to talk about this and weigh both sides and come to an agreement where we can both be happy.’”

Clayton said she’s not yet sure which entity, if either, owes the other.

“We’re both looking at what services are being provided by both parties and that’s where we’re still trying to process the agreement,” she said.

Clayton said she supports the decision to stop making payments to the county “in hopes that by doing so we can move forward and get final resolution for both sides that are agreeable for both sides.”

Both sides said last week they are optimistic a new agreement will be in place soon.

“I think we’re a whole lot closer to an agreement now than we were two months ago,” Spear said. “We’re going to get something done here, it shouldn’t be too much longer in the future that we get it done.”

“Within the next 30 days we should have something in place to take to both commissions,” Clayton said.