District 113 Campaign Web Sites

Here are the campaign web sites for each of the candidates for Georgia House of Representatives District 113:

Alan Alexander (R)

Sarah Bell (R)

Dan Matthews (D)

Chuck Williams (R)

Sphere: Related Content

District 113 Special Election

As I point out in my upcoming column for the Banner-Herald, which I think will run on Sunday, 12 June, the partisan voting patterns revealed in the four elections held in Georgia House of Representatives District 113 as it is currently configured do not bode well for any Democrat.  Yes, the special election is “non-partisan," but that means that it will not be preceded by party primaries – not that candidates’ party affiliations will not appear on the ballot.

 

That being the case, Dan Matthews may have already started hedging his bets.  I see that his blog, formerly known as “Oconee Democrat,” as the URL still plainly indicates, has been recast as “Oconee County, GA Politics.”  I don’t know when that transformation took place – but I find it of note, nonetheless.  Also, I heard an early round of Matthews’ campaign spots on WGAU in which he was noted to be a former “Oconee County Committee Chair.”  Pointedly absent from the terminology, however, was the operative word “Democratic.”

On 09 May, before announcing his own candidacy, Matthews wrote on his blog (and what functions as his pseudo campaign web site), “I would be happy to support her [Bell] in the seemingly inevitable run off but only if she announces as soon as possible.” 

I find Matthews' candidacy interesting, as Bell did just that as noted in this article in the following day's edition of the Banner-Herald.    Also, according to the Secretary of State’s web site, Bell qualified for the election the day before Matthews did: Alan Alexander and Chuck Williams qualified on Monday, 16 May, and Sarah Bell followed on Tuesday, 17 May.  Matthews was the last to qualify on Wednesday, 18 May.

As noted above, Matthews appears to be using his blog as a pseudo campaign site.  Alan Alexander has a dedicated campaign web site.  To the best of my knowledge, neither Bell nor Williams have campaign web sites, but the former distributed this handout at a recent meeting of the Clarke County Republican Party.  Speaking of which, all four candidates are expected to be at the next meeting of the CCRC, scheduled for Monday, 13 June.

I’m not picking on Matthews, it is just that I know little about the other candidates.  Alexander appears to have the political connections, but has some issues; Bell has lots of community service experience; Williams is an unknown to me, other than what I’ve read in the newspaper about the bank failure.

Addendum - Here is the campaign web site for cCuck Williams (thanks to Shawn): http://www.votechuckwilliams.com/.  Also, sorry for the weird formatting of this post; I used a word processing progam other that WORD and it appears that Blogger doesn;t like it very much.

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday Sales & SPLOST 4 Referenda

Here is an excerpt from a Banner-Herald story about Athens-Clarke County’s anticipated Sunday sales referendum from about ten days ago:

Commissioners had considered placing Sunday sales on the ballot in November but opted not to because of a conflict with a November vote on continuing a 1 percent sales tax for local schools.

"We don't want to clutter up the ELOST vote," Commissioner Alice Kinman said. "I don't think it's good to have those two hitched together."

Commissioners say they are concerned that Sunday sales could draw opponents to the polls who also would vote against the Education Local Option Sales Tax, which will fund school construction.

County elections are on an even-year schedule, and Athens-Clarke County would have to pick up the $54,000 tab for a special election this year, an expense the Clarke County School District budgeted for but Athens-Clarke County did not.

"I just don't see how you could justify the cost," Commissioner Doug Lowry said.

A couple of thoughts come to mind.

The first is that the scheduling of referenda, either directly on SPLOST questions or other matters, by the Unified Government and/or Clarke County School District so as to rig the turnout to get a preferred outcome is yet another reason that Georgia's SPLOST law needs to be rewritten.  The idea of splitting the Unified Government’s Sunday sales referenda from the CCSD’s SPLOST 4 referenda so that our betters can prevent the wrong people from voting on both issues simultaneously is inappropriate and condescending.

The second is that City Hall’s preference for a March vote out of monetary concerns rings hollow.  Both November 2011 and March 2012 fall within the Unified Government’s FY 2012 budget, which has already passed.  If funds for a vote in November were not in the budget, were funds for a vote in March?  If so, why?  And if so, could not the funds be used just as easily in November?  If not, the supposed preference for the latter date due to fiscal concerns is specious.

Besides which, if the Commission wanted the vote in November, it would find the money for it, just money has been "found" over the years for all manner of expenditures.  As Kinman makes quite clear, the concern of our betters in government is political, not fiscal.

In the event, I will vote for Sunday sales and against the CCSD's SPLOST 4.  The fact that it will take two trips to the poll separated by months will have no effect whatsoever on my positions.

As an aside, Georgia’s presidential preference primary is scheduled as part of Super Tuesday in February 2012, but that is not one of the opportunities for ballot questions specified by state law.

Sphere: Related Content

Property Tax Primer Followup

I posted what appears below on AthenTalks as a follow up to my most recent column about how property tax is determined.

A chart detailing the various millage rates charged in each of Athens-Clarke County’s five tax districts used to be posted on the Tax Commissioner’s web site; I could not find the chart on City Hall’s new and improved (and expensive) web site. Upon speaking with the staff at the Tax Commissioner’s office so as to verify my information, I was told that they will try to get that chart reposted. In the interim, see page 7 of this from the Georgia Department of Revenue for the current breakdown of millage rates here in Athens-Clarke County (does not have the rates for Bogart and Winterville).

For listings of exemptions, see these from the State of Georgia and these from Athens-Clarke County.

For discussions of assessments, see these from the State of Georgia and these from Athens-Clarke County.

While they do not apply to most cases, there are a couple of “preferential” assessment categories (rehabilitated historic property or landmark historic property) and several “special” assessment categories (preferential agricultural property, conservation use property, environmentally sensitive property, farm land property, brownfield property, residential transitional property), a category for timberland (standing), and one for equipment, machinery, and fixtures.

For the provisions of SB 346 that mandate annual assessment and estimated tax notices, see O.C.G.A. §48-5-306.

Then there is this from a blog posting over at TOA from June 2008:

Back in 2007, the Clarke County School District’s SPLOST 3 bond resolution included a provision that, should the limited duration sales tax be insufficient to repay said bonds, any shortfall would be added to the CCSD’s portion of the local property tax millage rate. Longtime readers may remember that I had two specific concerns with regard to any such transfer of bonded indebtedness to property taxes.

My first concern dealt with the 20 mills limit imposed by the state Constitution. The CCSD’s portion of the local property tax millage rate has been at the 20 mills limit for years; to exceed that limit would normally require the voters’ approval to do so via a referendum. So how could that line be administratively traversed so as to make up a SPLOST revenue shortfall without a referendum?

After a (very) long and circuitous journey through a variety of local and state government bureaucracies, the Attorney General’s office provided me with the relevant Georgia Supreme Court case law, Seaboard Air-Line Railway Company v. Wright, comptroller-general, et al., from way back in 1927, that exempted bond debt service from any constitutional limit. I do not agree with the reasoning embodied in that decision, as it would seem to render the rationale for the 20 mills limit moot, but the case law is what it is.

Satisfying my second concern has proven somewhat more vexing. The CCSD’s bond resolution cited a provision contained in the Constitution as expressly permitting the transfer of bonded indebtedness from SPLOST sales taxes to property taxes. That resolution read in part (see the second paragraph on page 5 of the PDF):

WHEREAS, Article IX, Section V, Paragraph VI of the Constitution of the State of Georgia requires that prior to the issuance of general obligation bonds, a tax must be levied in amounts sufficient to pay the principal of and the interest on the Bonds as the same become due and payable, to the extent that the revenues from the Sales Tax are not sufficient thereof;

The resolution was littered throughout with similar language. Being a nerdy type reasonably familiar with the verbiage in the Constitution, this immediately struck me as odd. Sure enough, when I went to the document itself, no such provision was anywhere to be found. The actual text of Article IX, Section V, Paragraph VI of the Constitution reads (see page 81):

"Levy of taxes to pay bonds; sinking fund required. Any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state shall at or before the time of incurring bonded indebtedness provide for the assessment and collection of an annual tax sufficient in amount to pay the principal and interest of said debt within 30 years from the incurring of such bonded indebtedness. The proceeds of this tax, together with any other moneys collected for this purpose, shall be placed in a sinking fund to be used exclusively for paying the principal and interest on such bonded debt. Such moneys shall be held and kept separate and apart from all other revenues collected and may be invested and reinvested as provided by law."

There is no mention whatsoever of transferring bonded indebtedness from a sales tax to property tax, just a general provision that a sinking fund to repay bonds be in place before such bonds are issued. Explicitly contrary to my reading of the CCSD’s resolution, the Constitution is mute on the subject of transferring any shortfall in sales tax collections to property tax “to the extent that revenues from the Sales Tax are not sufficient therefore.”

After an even longer and more circuitous journey through a variety of local and state government bureaucracies – the Attorney General’s office clammed up on me this time – I eventually discovered, after speaking with a bond attorney over in Atlanta, that the answer can be found in O.C.G.A. §48-1-121(c):

"No general obligation debt shall be issued in conjunction with the imposition of the tax unless the governing authority of the county or qualified municipalities within special district issuing the debt determines that, and if the debt is to be validated it is demonstrated in the validation proceedings that, during each year in which any payment of principal or interest on the debt comes due the county or qualified municipalities within special district issuing such debt will receive from the tax authorized by this part net proceeds sufficient to fully satisfy such liability. General obligation debt issued under this part shall be payable first from the separate account in which are placed the proceeds received by the county or qualified municipalities within the special district issuing such debt from the tax authorized by this part. Such debt, however, shall constitute a pledge of the full faith, credit, and taxing power of the county or qualified municipalities within the special district issuing such debt; and any liability on said debt which is not satisfied from the proceeds of the tax authorized by this part shall be satisfied from the general funds of the county or qualified municipalities within the special district issuing such debt."

Okay, that answers the question as to on what legal basis a shortfall in SPLOST sales taxes may be transferred to property taxes, though it is not explicitly stated in that manner.

But the question remains: why did not the CCSD’s bond resolution cite this section of state law? Why make language up out of whole cloth and claim that it is in the Constitution, when a few seconds on the Internet reveals that claim to be patently false?

Finally, consider the games that can be played with millage rates when they are considered irrespective of the “rollback rate“. This from another TOA post from May of 2009:

The 0.3 mills reduction in 2004 was due solely to the work of members of the Clarke County Republican Party, who analyzed the budget and presented a list of potential reductions to the folks down at City Hall. To their credit, the Mayor and Commission did adopt many of our recommendations, thereby “freeing up” funds for a millage rate reduction. It should never be forgotten, though, that the original plan was simply to spend the new revenue generated by growth in the tax digest (this last part always seems to get left out of the discussion).

The 0.6 mills reduction in 2005 was a sham, pure and simple. The millage rate reduction was offset by the institution of the stormwater utility fee (even the Unified Government’s budget documents acknowledged this) which, by design, also hit those property owners such as churches and schools who are exempt from property tax. Now, we will have the situation where the millage rate is back to within 0.2 mills of where it was prior to the imposition of the fee – a fee that will be with us forever regardless of future millage rate hikes. Because of increases in assessments the “rollback” rate in any given year may well be lower that the millage rate - so property taxes can actually go up if the millage rate stays constant or, in some cases, even goes down.

For what it is worth, my assessment and estimated tax notice arrived in the mail on Friday; after increasing in 2008 and remaining the same in 2009 and 2010, this years fair market value dropped (finally) by 11.61% - as well it should have.

Sphere: Related Content

Local FY 2012 Budget Hearings

Here is the FY 2012 budget adoption schedule for the Clarke County School District:

Tuesday, 17 May:  Public hearing at Gaines Elementary School (900 Gaines School Road)

Tuesday, 24 May:  Public hearing at Alps Road Elementary School (205 Alps Road)

Thursday, 26 May:  Public hearing at CCSD administrative offices (240 Mitchell Bridge Road)

Thursday, 02 June:  Board of Education agenda-setting meeting at CCSD administrative offices (240 Mitchell Bridge Road)

Thursday, 09 June:  Board of Education regular monthly meeting and final adoption at CCSD administrative offices (240 Mitchell Bridge Road)

All three public hearings are scheduled for 6:00 p.m.; both Board of Education meetings are scheduled for 6:30 p.m.  You can review the CCSD’s “budget overview” (2 pages), “tentative budget” (3 pages), and “tentative budget presentation” (16 slides) – but not the budget in its entirety.

Here is the same information for the Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County:

Thursday, 05 May: Budget review at Bob M. Snipes Water Resource Center (780 Barber Street)

Monday, 09 May:  Budget review and public hearing at the Government Building auditorium (120 Dougherty Street)

Wednesday, 11 May:  Budget review at Bob M. Snipes Water Resource Center (780 Barber Street) – noted to be “if needed”

Tuesday, 07 June:  Regular monthly meeting and final adoption at City Hall Commission Chamber (301 College Avenue)

All three budget review sessions are scheduled for 5:30 p.m.; the Commission’s regular monthly meeting is scheduled for 7:00 p.m.  Note that public comment will not be taken at all of these meetings (I assume that since the proposed budget does not include a millage rate increase and that the value of the property tax digest is expected to be down the “rollback rate” for FY 2012 is lower than for FY 2011 thereby obviating TBOR requirements).  You can review the mayor's recommended budget in its entirety (355 pages).

Sphere: Related Content

You Can Check Out Anytime You Like . . .

. . . but you can never leave.* Such was the thought that came to me late last Saturday afternoon. After Mrs. TOA and I spend a pleasant couple of hours at the State Botanical Garden it came time to leave, as the temperature started to drop (and high school prom folks started to arrive). But we could not leave. A rather large tree had fallen across the road leading to the lower parking lot, the one in front of the visitors center, thereby keeping us confined.

We were in about the fourth car in line to get out, and quite a few more stacked up behind us. After a while a couple of female employees appeared with a chain saw. I must confess that I did not have much faith in the woman wielding the implement (it was my understanding that liability considerations prevented any of us mere civilians from operating it) - but, in fact, she did just fine with the thing. We onlookers hauled and pushed limbs and logs off of the road and had the obstacle removed in about 10 to 15 minutes.

All in all, in was not a bad experience. A group of strangers teamed together to achieve a needed, common goal - and then went their separate ways.

*Apologies to Don Felder, Don Henley, and Glen Frey.

Sphere: Related Content

CCSD Finally Posts FY 2011 Budget (no, not the proposed one for FY 2012)

The Clarke County School District has modified its “Our Budget” web page in response to my latest opinion column in the Banner-Herald. This was entirely predictable and, quite frankly, has become old hat.

The web page still provides links to the various, though cursory, materials pertaining to the “tentative” budget proposed for FY 2012. Gone is the older, outdated material. Added this week (finally) is the FY 2011 Budget, meaning the one for the current fiscal year that is almost over.

Note though, that the CCSD’s $118,481,353 FY 2011 budget only comes to 64 pages. By contrast, the Unified Government’s $106,793,709 FY 2011 budget runs some 338 pages.

That being the case, it seems entirely reasonable to assume that City Hall’s budget is far more specific than that of the CCSD - and it has been posted on its web site since last spring when it was unveiled.

Sphere: Related Content

Impertinent Observations (fiscal edition)

I cannot help but think that last week’s federal “budget” negotiations were a complete sham (actually the horse trading concerned yet another continuing resolution – the budget should have been passed last year but was not).  I fear that in the long run, as Macbeth may have noted, they were “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” substantive insofar as actually cutting spending in a meaningful way.  The upcoming talks on the next fiscal year’s budget and increasing the federal debt ceiling will, in all likelihood, simply constitute more of the same.

The Clarke County School District is out with its budget for FY 2012.  Despite the claim that it is an “austerity" budget, the folks over on Mitchell Bridge Road actually intend to increase spending over the current fiscal year.  For some commentary, see my column in next Sunday’s Banner-Herald.

The folks down at City Hall have been talking about their FY 2012 budget in work sessions, but have yet to release it or the proposed millage rate.

Finally, while I agreed in principle with the Special Council’s quest to broaden the tax base for the State of Georgia while simultaneously reducing rates, there was quite a lot not to like about the specific proposals, especially those that would have injected the government into “casual” transactions.  Oh well, perhaps the exercise may lead to something productive in the next session of the General Assembly.

Sphere: Related Content

Disingenuous Sophistry

This article concerning population growth in the Athens area turned up in yesterday’s Banner-Herald.  According to the Census Bureau, the estimated 2010 population of Clarke County was 116,842.  This constitutes an increase of 15,353 (15.13%) from the tally of 101,489 back in 2000.

If I remember correctly from past population counts, those figures include UGA students who live here.  Predictably, local officials are more than happy to have such folks claim local residence – the more your population the more state and federal goodies to which you can lay claim.

But, insofar as I could get any specificity out of them, the supporters of the SPLOST 2011 ballot resolution counted those same residents as “visitors” to our fair burgh, because doing so allowed them to make the claim that half of the revenue generated by such taxes will be paid by folks who do not live here.

And so it goes.

Sphere: Related Content

Impertinent Observations

I expected my column on the Clarke County School District’s proposed SPLOST 4 to be in last Sunday’s Banner-Herald.  Alas, it was not; perhaps it will appear this coming Sunday.

This Project Blue Heron concept strikes me as a horrible idea for a variety of reasons (and I do have several years of economic development experience, so my concerns are not merely me carping about something by virtue of my prejudices, which I freely admit by the way).  The concept strikes me as precisely what we do not need, specifically that of having even more property under the expensive and regulatory thumb of City Hall.  And anyone who believes the exceptionally rosy projections as to tax revenue and employment that will be generated by the development is a damned fool.

So now the push is on for yet another type of special purpose local option sales tax, on top of LOST, the Unified Government’s SPLOST, and the Clarke County School District’s SPLOST.  This time it is TSPLOST, ostensibly dedicated to regional transportation projects.  I hope that this gets voted down, but expect county governments to run out the full court press by predicting all manner of tragedy and mayhem should the ballot resolution fail.

The incessant lamentations about potential HOPE scholarship cutbacks are getting really tiresome.  Imagine the horrors of having to pay for some of your own education.  The HOPE issue presents a microcosm of government: start out with a reasonable idea that is limited in scope and expense (a scholarship program for high achieving students of limited means); then others exert pressure to get included in the gravy train (prompting politicians to expand the program to cover vastly more students, thereby buying votes from students and parents); unintended, though entirely predictable, consequences ensue (rampant grade inflation prompting an explosion of remedial classes in colleges and universities); the economy goes south so the bloated budget of the program must take a hit (much political posturing ensues); students and parents man the barricades so as to protect what its owed to them (needed reforms are substantially watered down).  That which started out as a scholarship program morphs into an entitlement program.  Like I said – a microcosm of government.

Perceptive readers will have noticed a theme, namely that of governments’ use of my money, running through all of the matters noted.

Sphere: Related Content