Ekkehard roepert it wasn't just the district chamber's carmen stumpf who had stones falling from her heart on monday. Because the legal dispute that the city had initiated against the district of forchheim because of the district levy had burdened the district chamber since 2017 with a series of seemingly endless budgetary questions. With the settlement, which the county council approved by a vote of 44 to 3, peace now seems to have returned.
Before this could happen, district administrator hermann ulm (CSU) spoke out more forcefully than ever before: legal history had been written, there was no winner. Ulm made no bones about his dismissal after this years-long dispute: "that we have written legal history with this unfortunate and, in the end, pointless procedure, was clear at the latest since the ruling of the administrative court of bayreuth in 2017", said ulm. "The message from bayreuth shocked bavarian municipalities and associations like an earthquake." the municipal apportionment system as a whole had been called into question.
Reminder: the city of forchheim's appeal against the 14.2-million-euro apportionment notice issued in 2014 was ultimately heard by the bavarian administrative court.
City in danger of going away empty-handed
The result from the point of view of the district council: the bureaucracy of the "budget preparation process had again been reduced to a minimum; the possibility of retroactive remission had been confirmed. That lets the county breathe a sigh of relief – and the city? From hermann ulm"s point of view, she "won very little as well", because: "the settlement sum of 350,000 euro, which it receives, finances it to one third over the circle apportionment with, and the remainder is eaten up by the procedure costs, which are to be financed likewise over the circle apportionment with."
The majority of the city council in forchheim has already signaled that it too will approve the settlement. If the court were to rule again, district administrator ulm warned, the city would run the risk of "going completely empty-handed after a new statute is enacted.
Nevertheless, parts of the JB faction resisted the comparison. Jurgen schleicher, torsten gunselmann and stefan lang argued as follows: although the county also lost the appeal because it had demonstrably made mistakes in 2014.
But, according to schleicher, the county was also proven right in crucial points in appeal proceedings; for example, with regard to the formation of reserves and depreciation. Winning in court on these points would also show that chamber manager carmen stumpf "knows her stuff and does a good job", schleicher pointed out. The three young burghers also criticized the lack of support from the county council for this fundamental decision.
But the overwhelming majority of the county council was relieved about the settlement: both for "cost-technical reasons" and for the fact that it was not possible to implement the settlement it makes sense, said edwin dippacher (CSU). But also because the relationship between the district and the city should not be strained any further.
The fact that it had come to this point at all aroused the displeasure of karl waldmann (grune) one last time: "we really have better things to do than to cover ourselves in complaints."
Although the official lawyer, reinhold goller, admitted that the further course of action would take up many problems that he, too, would be very interested in clarifying, he did not see any reason for the visit. But to refuse the judicial settlement, that brought a "high risk for the county" with itself.
Heinrich kattenbeck (WLF) was therefore also among the supporters of the settlement. Reinhold goller was able to reassure him: the procedural requirements had changed with regard to the 2019 county levy. A "case like 2014 could not be repeated.