ONE-ON-ONE -
September 1999
by Ed G. Lane"Kentucky is Much
Too Poor of a State to Support 120 County Governments"
Lexington’s first mayor of a merged city/county
government reflects upon his public service career
H. Foster Pettit
 When the City of Lexington and Fayette County
were merged into the Lexington/Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG) in 1974, Lexington
native H. Foster Pettit was the new entities’ mayor. Currently, Mr. Pettit is a
partner with the law firm of Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, where he specializes in general
civil practice. He received his B.A from the University of Virginia in 1956 and his LL.B.
from the Charlottesville university in 1958. Mr. Pettit served as a Kentucky State
Representative for three terms, representing Fayette County from 1964-1970. He was mayor
of the City of Lexington from 1972-73 and mayor of the LFUCG from 1974-1978. He is the
recipient of numerous awards for his dedication to public service, including Outstanding
State Representative of 1968, as voted by the Capitol Press Corps and the Citizen of the
Year in 1975, as awarded by the Lexington Chamber of Commerce.
It’s been 25 years since the City of Lexington
and Fayette County were merged into the Lexington/Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG).
As the first mayor of the merged government, what insight and recommendations can you
provide to other cities and counties throughout Kentucky who may be considering
consolidation of government services?
I would tell them that the merger of Lexington and Fayette
County has been a great success. The merger was difficult to do, but the consolidation of
decision-making and services really has been good for the community.
Has the efficiency of Lexington’s government
improved since the merger?
At the time the city and county governments came together,
there was the equivalent of 2,107 full-time employees working for the brand new merged
government. The population of Lexington/Fayette County was 180,000 -- about one employee
for every 85 citizens. In 1997, which is the last time I checked this, LFUCG had one
employee for every 100 citizens. To me that is a major improvement, particularly when you
recognize that in that same 23 years, the quality and the scope of the services rendered
by the urban government have been improved substantially.
With the improved operating efficiencies due to the
merged government, should Lexington have a lower tax rate or do you think that the merged
government is taxing at higher rate because it is providing a higher standard of service?
Let me answer it this way: The current tax is 2 1/4 percent
for the local government and that is only 1/4 percent higher than it was in 1974 at the
time of merger. At the same time, property tax rates have gone down, although Lexington
did add a sewer service charge fee.
Lexington has seen enormous improvement in the quality of
the services provided. Upon merger, our fire insurance rates dropped in cost because of
the increased number of stations, the firefighters, the equipment, the training. So just
in fire services, the merged government substantially increased the quality. That equates
to millions of dollars saved on homeowner’s policies. It also equates to saving your
life and your property. That is just one small example. Police services, response time,
training, and all the rest have been greatly improved.
How was the merger planned and implemented?
Everyone knew the governments were going to be merged in
1974 because of the voter referendum in November of 1972. After the 1972 vote, Bob
Stevens, the county judge executive, and I gathered our top staff and retreated to Shaker
Village. We sat down and said, ‘How are we going to make it work?’ We were able
to consolidate fire, police and park services by agreement before January 1974.
The main problem we faced in the very early years was
getting city and county employees to work together. Some of the city employees --
particularly in the police department -- were concerned that their county counterparts
weren’t as well trained. These problems were resolved pretty fast. The next problem
was installing sanitary sewers in county areas that didn’t have these services. They
had septic tanks and so forth. That was terribly important because providing sanitary
sewers was one of the reasons that a lot of the urbanized county dwellers voted for
consolidating the governments.
What problems remain today with the
Lexington/Fayette County Urban Government?
I don’t see any overriding problems with the structure
of the urban county government. Basically, what Lexington has now are just the problems
that go with a growing city. Frankly, there is nothing of any significance that I would
change. Sometimes people blame the merger for the decisions made by the council, the
mayor, the planning commission, or some other part of the government, when those decisions
have nothing to do with the structure of government. There will always be disagreements
with the decisions of Lexington’s officials. That is not the fault of the form of
government.
As the new mayor of the LFUCG, did you have to lay
off any employees?
Not only did we not lay off anybody, but we promised not to
lay off anybody because of merged government. The merged government re-trained a lot of
people and put them in other positions. Certainly, we were overstaffed in the police and
fire departments. We didn’t need two chiefs. County employees generally were paid
less than city employees, so the county fire chief was just delighted to get more money
and not be the chief. We had too many assistant chiefs at first, but they tended to retire
in three or four years and then we just didn’t fill those positions.
That was the painless way to make sure the employees
didn’t lose their jobs. In almost any governmental organization you will have a 10 to
15 percent normal attrition. In the early stages, we understood that and let it occur.
Louisville and Jefferson County have had ongoing
discussions about consolidating services. Is this a good idea?
In years past, I have worked with the county judge and the
mayor in Louisville. I was involved directly in lobbying for the adoption of a state law
to permit Louisville and Jefferson County to merge. The local governments got the right to
merge, but on two occasions the merger failed by a fairly small amount of votes. Merging
governments as we did in Lexington is the best way, but it is certainly not the only way.
If you can consolidate services then you’ve done pretty well. Louisville and
Jefferson County have a lot of circumstances different from Lexington’s. Our
situation was more ideal for merger. But clearly, if Louisville can consolidate services
and facilities, then they should try and do it.
If a judge executive or mayor wanted some advice on
merging government, what recommendation would you make?
If there is a sufficient problem in the community that
really gains the attention of the people, then you have a good shot at a merger. You
can’t merge government just because you say, ‘hey, it will be better’ and
‘it’s academically the thing to do.’
Kentucky has a lot of counties and many of them are
small and poor. Would the merger of counties be a good idea?
It is universally agreed that Kentucky has too many
counties. We have 120 and Georgia and Texas are the only states that have more. Kentucky
is much too poor of a state to support 120 county governments. In some counties, Robertson
being one, there are fewer than 2,500 people to support the traditional county officials.
In my Walter Mitty moments, when I think I am the governor,
I would attempt to convince the leaders of certain counties that it would be to their
great benefit to consolidate. People still have pride in being from a specific county and
so merging would be tough to do politically.
Should there be state legislation that grants
counties of a certain size or less, if they would consolidate, some sort of incentives
from state government?
Merging counties would take the personal intervention of
the governor and he would have to come up with economic benefits.
When you were mayor, did you have a chief
administrative officer (CAO)?
Yes, it was written into the LFUCG charter. Those who wrote
the charter believed that the merged government should have the benefits of a
professionally trained administrator of municipal government, a person that essentially is
the city manager, but the mayor is still the chief executive in the government.
The CAO is a valuable position and for most mayors it is
worthwhile. The only difficulty with the charter was that the CAO was responsive to the
mayor administratively, but selected and fired only by the council. That problem was
ultimately resolved.
Is the compensation for mayors, judge executives,
councilmen, commissioners, etc. adequate for the time they expend?
I don’t think candidates are running because of the
money. A low salary might prevent some candidates from running, but you don’t have to
compete with top executives in business in order to get quality people to run. There are
many more reasons not to run than the fact that you’re not going to make $200,000 a
year.
Do you remember what the compensation for mayor was
25 years ago?
When I ran the first time, it was for the City of
Lexington, and I was paid $7,200 per year and all the coffee I could drink. I had to
furnish my own automobile. Then we merged government, and my salary was increased to
$25,000 a year and I had that salary for four years. It is pretty clear that I didn’t
run for the money.
How did you decide to run for mayor?
During the early ‘70s, I was on a committee to find
somebody to run for mayor. Lexington had leadership that wasn’t serving the community
well. We would take assignments and go out and talk to two or three people before the next
meeting. Will you run for mayor?
I had developed an outstanding speech about giving back to
your community and making a commitment to public service. It was a wonderful speech, but
every person I talked to said ‘I can’t do that, my employer won’t let me,
my wife won’t let me’ or some other reason. We were down to the wire trying to
find a candidate. I drew the short straw and decided to run.
How did you make ends meet on the mayor’s
salary? Did you still practice law?
In theory, I was a part-time mayor, because Lexington was a
city of the second class. In fact, being mayor was a full-time job and I did quit
practicing law. I just had to operate on other financial resources, and I subsidized my
service.
Was being an ex-mayor helpful to you in getting
clients when you went out of office?
No, it was a liability. It took me five years to convince
people that I was back to practicing law.
Is outsourcing of government services a good idea?
It is my general policy to involve private enterprise
whenever that is possible. That doesn’t mean that outsourcing can always be done, but
today there are more companies out there who can provide the quality services that
citizens want.
What recommendations would you give regarding the
proposed waterline from Louisville to Lexington?
When I ran for mayor the second time in 1973, there was a
proposal for Lexington and other cities to take water from the Kentucky River. At that
point, the hot issue was the Red River Dam. I was opposed to the dam for a lot of reasons,
but at least it was discussed as an additional source of water for Lexington.
That was 25 years ago. I thought the Red River Gorge was
much too valuable to impound. The dam would have created a fairly small lake and siltation
would have filled it up over time. The cost was $30 million for the dam, plus you ruin a
lovely gorge. My general thought is that Central Kentucky needs to be looking down the
road not just five years or 10 years, but 25 or 50 years in terms of a water supply.
I’m generally familiar with what has been discussed --
the pipeline from the Louisville area, crestgates on some of the Kentucky River dams --
provided they can hold them -- and perhaps some other kind of water impoundment. There are
those who are against the pipeline because they are fearful that it will create
unnecessary growth or urbanization along the route of the pipeline. If you were to build
crestgates to impound water, you still have a shortage of water treatment capabilities in
Lexington. The crestgates would be cheaper, but you would have to add the cost for an
expanded water treatment facility.
In addition, the Ohio River is so large that the water
source appears to be very stable.
Controlling growth should be done in each county by using
zoning and the availability of sewage treatment systems.
The cost of the pipeline is about the same as the cost of
the crestgates with additional treatment capacity. We all need to study the water supply
issue further and to make a decision, however difficult it is.
Which of the two proposals -- pipeline or
crestgates -- has the least environmental impact?
The construction of the pipeline would have the least
environmental impact. Once the project is completed, it is underground. The pipeline would
run along I-64 almost the entire way. The pipeline might not be the cheapest, but if you
impound the Kentucky River you will flood large land areas. I am not sure how much
environmental cost that would be.
If Central Kentucky fails to provide an adequate
water supply and the region gets into a serious drought, a shortage could cause disruption
in manufacturing and business operations. Will some kind of calamity have to happen before
government will take some action?
Typically it takes some sort of catastrophe -- like the
1932 flood of downtown Lexington -- to move people to make a decision. It would be a
terrible mistake if our private and public leaders failed to make a decision and move
ahead with an alternative water supply. The sooner you solve the problem, the less
expensive it will be.
Should Lexington purchase local utility companies?
When I was mayor, I was delighted that the urban county
government didn’t own any of the utilities in Lexington. I had enough to look after.
Having the utilities managed by private enterprise and regulated by the Public Service
Commission was fine with me. I’m inclined to think the same way. There are many
complications that grow out of running a utility. One of the risks that I see when
municipalities own something like the water company is that every time rates increase, the
public thinks the government is raising taxes.
It goes back to my old theory that government should not be
engaging in business that can be properly done by private enterprise. Lexington has a good
company providing its water and it is not a good idea to contemplate buying the system.
Are Central Kentucky and Lexington perceived as
being anti-growth?
Not really. There is something healthy about having a lot
of discussion on economic development. The best decisions come out of heated debates. The
very sophisticated growth planning effort over the last five or six years gave our
community knowledge about how we use our land and how we ought to use our land. Lexington
is going to continue to do well.
Amazingly enough, people keep coming here and there is a
shortage of houses and unemployment is low. People like to come to a community that is
very careful about how it develops.
Ed G. Lane is chief executive of Lane Consultants, Inc.
and publisher of The Lane Report.
Back to One-on-One Index
Back to September Issue
|
