With the passage of HB725 and SB301 South Fulton residents are poised to cast their ballot for or against incorporating a new city and opening up Fulton Industrial Blvd. Unfortunately the vote will not take place until this fall. Thanks to the governor. Several scenarios could play out.
1) If the city and Fulton Industrial district are approved there's going to be a race for mayoral and council. At that point old and new leadership may emerge to carry forth the birthing of the new city. The learning curve will be steep.
2) If the city vote fails FIB is supposedly off the table.
3) If the city vote fails will annexations eat up what remains of unincorporated South Fulton County.
It's close to decision time in South Fulton County. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
The ever-shrinking proposed City of South Fulton suffered another setback with passage of Bill 725
SF City supporter: "This is a huge problem. It's taken a substantial portion of the new city away."
More than 15,000 acres that would have been part of the planned city have been taken by competing cities
Bill sanctions all annexations of land and tax base planned for the new city up until April 2, 2007.
Much of the commercial tax base is gone, the tax burden will fall on homeowner's property taxes.
Bill reflects the substantially smaller boundaries of the smaller city.
State to decides to fund study to see if South Fulton would even be viable after the massive annexations.
Supporters have yet to demonstrate new city can stand on mostly residential tax income after annexations.
Questions about the new city:
· The budget included $75,000 for a business plan. Is that a feasibility study to see if the city is still financially viable? Would it start before the election?
· Is there any evidence at all current service levels can be maintained without raising taxes?
· Are home and auto insurance premiums expected to rise for this new municipality?
· How are the NF cities faring? How are the transitions going? How’s the cash flow?
· Would a city of SF be able to borrow and raise capital like Fulton County?
· Will there be a new zip code for South Fulton, GA?
If the South Fulton city referendum fails, FIB can't be annexed by Atlanta because a referendum on FIB won't take place. It's in the legislation (section 2).
-S White
Also, not all of unincorporated South Fulton will be annexed if cityhood fails. Palmetto, for instance, rejected annexation of the remaining portion of Chat. Hill Country. And not all of what's in a potentional city of South Fulton is necessarily wanted by existing cities. What's remaining won't be able to sustain itself if the rest of South Fulton is annexed (if incorporation fails).
-SW
Is anyone else having problems logging in?
-SW
Logging in is always a problem with Google Blog Spot.
I've added a new blog at http://southfulton.blogspot.com
Pinocchio Roger Bruce actually said Monday night at the Delta Sigma Theta Townhall in front of his pastor that he was not publically advocating for a new city of South Fulton - that his public posture was neutral like Kasim Reeds.
As soon as I've finished editing Part III & IV you'll be able to judge all three positions for yourself.
Has anyone tried the property tax calculator on Sandtown Community Association's website? The numbers look skewed. My property taxes for Fulton County for 2006 were $2,000, but the calculator is showing $2,111, which puts the difference between the city of Atlanta and Fulton County closer than it should be.
Try putting in your numbers for 2006 and see what happens. Kinda makes you wonder...
And the taxes for Fulton County Schools and Atlanta Public Schools are too close on the calculator. APS's millage rate for schools is higher than Fulton County's, so the numbers shouldn't be that close.
Try adding in the cost for stormwater and garbage. Those are two additional taxes. Depending the size of your lot your stormwater fee could be huge.
The actual experience of taxes of the hundreds of folks who have annexed into Atlanta is that the difference in taxes is a few hundred a year at best. The comparison is based on current case - not next year when there won't be a general fund surplus to raid again.
If you don't think there is going to be a massive tax increase with a new City think again. Take a look at the issues that Sandy Springs and other new cities are having with their outsourced government and you'll realize that the couple of hundred spent on taxes on a stable flourishing city is a good investment.
Someone tell me with little commercial development left in a city of South Fulton after the massive annexations, who do they think will pay increased taxes or face further service cuts?
Residential property owners!!! While you get caught up with rounding calculations and suggest sinister motives, the reality is a new city is a disaster waiting to happen.
Much if not all of the commercial revenue now has gone to Union City. That’s why cityhood folks are panicking and hoping to include Fulton Industrial in the tax base.
Unfortunately when you vote on a new city in June, you won't even know if you can count on revenue from Fulton Industrial because that vote is not until November!!
Save this BLOG so if we foolishly vote for a new city that benefits the power hungry at the expense of the masses - you'll remember you were warned not to follow the pied pipers of politics and those lusting for more power over the masses.
Sadly we as a people have a propensity to believe everything our black elected officials say. We believe their charming and persuasive words without questioning them at our own peril.
No choice is perfect, but ask yourself has anyone demonstrated a compelling economic case that starting a new city is a good idea. Where is the calculator comparing a new city to remaining unincorporated?
As folks rigorously question the annexation choice that thousand have made, do you see the same scrutiny or standard to build your own from scratch? Where are the numbers? You don't even have any to criticize!!
Knowledge is power. Do your own research. If you doubt the tax calculator check with residents that have real world experience. The lifestyle you save may be your own!
To annoymous who questions the accuracy of property tax calculator on the Sandtown Community Association's website:
The figures in the property tax calculator are taken directly from the ad valorem tax ordinances passed by the two jurisdictions, so I don't know why the difference, provided one takes into account the assumptions.
A property tax owner could have additional exemptions for being an veteran, elderly or low income.
The property tax calculator is for the "general case," it does not work for special cases. However, it should work for most homeowners.
Fees for storm water utilities and garbage are considered to be fees and not taxes.
To those who are paying the fees there may not be a difference, but neither is covered in the annual ad valorem tax ordinance.
I just checked mine too, and it was also off. I'm not elderly, low-income, veteran, etc., so are you saying it should be accurate?
As far as garbage being a "fee" and not a tax, if you don't pay it, they foreclose on your house, just like with taxes. I think the previous poster was just saying it's an extra EXPENSE (fee, tax, WHATEVER) that should be calculated.
What's the stormwater fee? Is that a separate bill, or is it included in some other cost?
S White -
Your bill is off from what and by how much? I presume you comparing the 2006 actuals to the calculated actuals. What is the Delta?
The forclosure comment sounds like alot of crap. What evidence do you have that there are forclosures over garbage fees?
I'd like to hear your assessment of the finacial viability case they are making for a new city.
As far as my bill being off, I went to the SCA website, put in my numbers for 2006 from my Fulton County tax bill, and the 2006 unincorporated Fulton County tax for my property was higher on the SCA calculator than what Fulton County actually charged me. It's that simple. I'm not elderly, I'm not a veteran, etc., so I don't have any other reductions in my taxes that would explain any discrepancy. Also, if my Fulton County portion was calculated higher than what it actually was, how do I know the Atlanta portion wasn't off as well?
Have you actually put your information in for 2006 to see what it calculates? Because if you do and it's off as well, then there's really no point in going further with this back-and-forth.
As far as my assessment of the financial viability of a new city is concerned, I would rather see a study with a new city at a higher millage rate so that we could compare "apples to apples" as so many on this site seem to want. All I hear is talk of a city of South Fulton at 5.731 vs. East Point, Union City, Atlanta, etc. at 9+ (and with Atlanta, a higher sales tax and garbage rate). What would a city look like with a comparable millage rate, one that could be rolled back once the reserves and one-time purchases are taken care of? They're so concerned with saying "we won't raise taxes" when the reality is that if we choose any of our other options, our taxes are going to increase REGARDLESS. So let's see what a new city would look like with comparable taxes. And what about impact fees? With all of this explosive growth, why aren't impact fees being included in the financial viability calculation with a new city? Obviously we can't remain unincorporated and charge impact fees, because we have commissioners who have other agendas (i.e. casinos (Robb Pitts), or in the case of other commissioners, cutting services and raising our millage rate to 5.731 and raiding reserves. Why not start charging impact fees and see how much money we can bring in before the next fiscal year budget needs to be created?)
As far as the foreclosures are concerned, I've actually seen it. I was looking at houses with someone who wanted to purchase a rental property in the city limits, and there was a notice on one of the homes re: the foreclosure.
And if you look at my earlier posts, you would see that I've been bringing up impact fees and a new city with a millage rate comparable to existing cities since some time in '06. So my "assessment of the financial viability" of a new city is the same as it was last year - there's revenue that's not being included in the study.
S. White, you still didn't say how much the tax calculator was off a thousand fifty cents or what?
SW,
There are expense not in the study too.
As the host of this blog. I would like to see people put their names on their posts. It's easy to hide behind assumptions when they can't be attributed to anyone.
To show you how unrealistic the Eger study is in projecting expenses, according to Benny Crane they budgeted only $7.6 million for roads.
Even after the annexations of 15,000+ acres of the proposed city of South Fulton by others it is still considerably larger that Johns Creek. Johns Creek estimates they will spend almost $15 million on roads.
That's almost double what Eger budgeted for a much smaller city geographically. Here's the link to the AJC article: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/northfulton/stories/2007/04/27/0428metjcreek.html
Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.
Harvey Davis
What if Clark Howard runs and win the mayoral race in 2009. What next? Infighting with the city council. Howard would work to streamline the government and the council would fight him every step of the way. You think congress and Bush are battling it out you haven't seen nothing.
Kinda quiet on this site... Anyone want to discuss the school issue and how many students will be transferred to Fickett, Bunche and Therrell if we're annexed into Atlanta? People got real indignant when I said this was going to happen, and yet SCA is now acknowledging Atlanta will NOT take Randolph, Sandtown and Westlake if the area is annexed. Which means what happens to the students at those three schools? Fulton County Schools can't operate the schools if they're in the city of Atlanta, and Atlanta won't purchase them, so over 4,000 students will be displaced if the annexations were to occur...
S. White,
I thought you were overdue with another non-productive inane comment to further more division in our community.
It’s really hypocritical for folks who do nothing about Fulton School's problems to blame individuals seeking alternatives. Now there’s virtually no one at Fulton school board meetings taking them to task.
We have a virtually useless school board member Linda Bryant AWOL as South Fulton parents and students continue to get shorted their just due as she finds time to travel on the SF Cityhood advocacy road show.
Instead of criticizing others your efforts would be better spent hammering the Fulton School Board over the North South Fulton achievement gap, how the new SF High School will be delayed a years because the board won't pay $1.2 million to open it on time as they spend $10 million out of SPLOST III already for another Sandy Springs school.
Its easier to take potshots at community advocates than do something yourself or let people know who is really at fault.
The reason that the master prevails in keeping us down is because he designates house Negroes to misdirect our anger to one another instead of Fulton Schools.
"Further more division in our community"? So Sandtown trying to annex the schools and get rid of the Fulton County Schools students and dump them into the remaining S. Fulton schools, further overcrowding them and creating more trailers is okay, but my questioning this tactic is furthering division? It was said by Dan Young at the South Fulton town hall meeting that there are only about 200 students from Westlake High that would be annexed into Atlanta. But with over 1,700 students at the school, that means approximately 1,500 high school students alone would be dumped into the other South Fulton schools, further overcrowding them. And that's not to mention middle and elementary school. And yet I'm the one creating division?
And how is displacing over 4,000 students an "alternative"?
And since you have NO idea what I question the Fulton County School system on, through emails, phone calls, etc., I'll just have to consider that last comment ignorant at best. You know absolutely NOTHING about what I do about Fulton Schools problems. And since you are, and probably will always remain anonymous, we'll have no idea what you do either.
It's real easy to attack someone who disagrees with you rather than responding directly to their questions or comments. No one from Sandtown has even addressed the displacement of the Fulton County Schools students in the event of an annexation.
Is there anyone (anonymous or otherwise) who would actually want to address these issues, or is it just about advancing the few at the expense of the many?
They say a stuck pig squeals...
City of South Fulton heats up
Fri, 05/18/2007 - 12:22pmBy: Ben Nelms
If appearances hold true it looks as if the vote to create the City of South Fulton will be postponed. But in the middle of the mix came a vote Thursday night by the pro-city South Fulton Concerned Citizens, Inc. (SFCC), asking Gov. Sonny Perdue to veto House Bill (HB) 725 on which the new city limits is currently based.
Further west in unincorporated south Fulton County, the vote to create the City of Chattahoochee Hills is set for June 19.
Fulton County Registration Chief John Sullivan said Wednesday the June 19 vote will likely be delayed in the absence of a signature by Gov. Perdue on House Bill 725 and a pre-clearance of the newly released map of the proposed City of South Fulton by U.S. Dept. of Justice.
Sullivan said there would be several mountains to climb in the effort leading to the June 19 vote, adding that the four week period remaining until poll time would make the vote on the City of South Fulton unlikely. The delay is based on additional factors such as a legally required time frame for advertising the election and having ballots produced.
“As far as I know the vote is delayed until September or a later date,” Sullivan explained. “Anything happening in less than 30 days is a miracle.”
A development Thursday night at a SFCC meeting puts a new wrinkle in the trek toward city-hood. The board approved a motion to ask Gov. Perdue to veto HB 725. If vetoed, the boundaries of the new city would revert back to those established by Senate Bill 552, the original bill by Sen. Kasim Reed during the 2006 session of the General Assembly that first called for the creation of the City of South Fulton, according to SFCC Chairman Sandra Hardy.
“We are hereby officially stating that the organization wishes to continue with the City of South Fulton’s formation under SB 552 which was signed by the Governor last year and whose map was approved by the Department of Justice in a letter dated November 9, 2006,” Hardy said in a Friday statement, adding that, “We certainly hope the governor will assist the citizens to achieve their desire to form a new city by vetoing HB 725.”
Another issue with HB 725 was surfaced by SFCC board member George Nicholson, a resident of the Fife community in the southernmost area of the proposed City of South Fulton. That area, along with the Oakley and Old National areas, were cut off from the remainder of the proposed city after annexations last year by Union City extended to the College Park city limits.
Referred to as an exclave rather than an island, the heavily populated areas of that portion of the proposed city are now surrounded by Fairbun, Union City and Fayette County.
Nicholson said the current lack of a signature by Gov. Perdue on HB 725 might pave the way for the controversy over the current proposed city limits outlined in HB 725 to be resolved by reverting to Senate Bill (SB) 552.
The bill was adopted and signed into law during the 2006 session of the General Assembly. SB 552 gave existing cities until Oct. 30, 2006 to complete annexations, Nicholson said. Such a move should address the creation of an exclave and prevent a substantial part of the proposed city from being cut off by the annexations.
“We can now go back to SB 552 and work with it. That’s what is best for the public,” Nicholson said. “That way there is no issue with things like islands, exclaves and service delivery.”
The vote for the creation of the City of Chattahoochee Hills, also scheduled for June 19, will go forward as planned, Sullivan said.
http://www.thecitizen.com/node/17015
Way to raise questions Ms. White. From what I know Fulton County can not operate schools within a city with an independent school district like Atlanta.
I'm sticking to my guns on remaining unincorporated. I fine the way I am. As for the schools. The annexations will create havoc at the expense of placing roughly 200 children in Atlanta schools, more taxes - yes more taxes. Folks don't talk about the additional expenses related to living in Atlanta which are taxes. The rainwater run off fee that my mother-in-law pays is no joke. The additional expenses for sanitation (in SF it's an option, you can take to the land fill for $2). Of course, they'll tell you about the senior exemptions but, we are not all seniors.
Keep up questioning things Ms. White.
Another point - I'm hearing there are rumbles in the in the SFCC group. Haven't been able to confirm anything but when I do I'll let you know.
This is the oldest trick in the book, used against Black People every since we fought and won the right to vote. Bait and switch to confuse the people as to when the vote will come to order. VOTE NO FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH FULTON , GA. No matter when the date is...and yes this is a racial issue, a few WASP land barons against the Black African American Community. You see if only 100 voters show up on the day, and 51 yes and 49 vote no...you are stuck in the new city and will never, never be able to get out...unless you move out
When you look at how well Chattahoochee Hills has planned their new city
http://www.chatthills.org/faqs.htm#city, you realize that “South Fulton Concerned Citizens” (SFCC) has not planned little if anything except talking points and voting signs for a City of South Fulton…
http://www.southfultonconcernedcitizens.org
A simple question like where would City Hall be caught SFCC President Benny Crane totally off guard and tap dancing in a Town Hall Meeting last month.
Placing “Vote Yes” signs like multiplying roaches is one thing, but executing a well coordinated plan to build a viable city from scratch is another. Sure they can copy and paste these answers to CHCC FAQ’s, but there’s obviously a great deal of forethought and planning behind them.
Are you prepared to reap the long-term consequences of haphazard planning by power hungry zealots? Closely follow the news to see when the new date vote for a City of South Fulton will be. As it stands now the earliest it will be is in September.
The silent majority does not want to form a new city. But if you stay home and do not vote against it, you will be in one!!!
The outcome of the election for a new city of Chattahoochee Hills is practically a done deal as they form a Caucasian oasis in the middle of the proposed City of South Fulton. No one ever explained the behind the scenes deals “our” democratic black legislators made to allow Chattahoochee Hills to carve out their own city, instead of joining a city of South Fulton that would be 80% Black.
Can anyone tell us why our black legislators went along with this de facto segregation creating a predominantly black and a predominantly white pair of south Fulton cities?
Word is now some of the founding white republican leaders behind South Fulton Concerned Citizens who registered the organization have lost their enthusiasm for the South Fulton Cityhood venture:
http://corp.sos.state.ga.us/corp/soskb/Corp.asp?416777.
I guess they realize that the game for a viable city is over now that they’ve lost in their efforts both in court and now the legislature to overturn the 15,000 acres of the city that annexed by petition into other cities. They know that unlike the new North Fulton Cities that have plenty of commercial tax revenue the previously marginal case for a financially viable city of South Fulton is dead.
How else can you explain that after months of saying that the Eger Study says the city is still viable after the annexations, we still do not see the proof. Without the tax revenue of annexed prime commercial land and high-end homes in West Cascade a City of South Fulton, GA simply cannot survive without massive unacceptable tax increases.
This is why democratic pro-city legislators focused their efforts more on overturning the annexations than fixing the fatal flaw in the boundaries introduced at the last minute. Those republicans behind the scenes pulling the strings of “our” democratic legislators and the South Fulton Concerned Citizen’s black president are ultimately more intersected supporting North Fulton republicans efforts in dismantling Fulton County than they are in forming a new City of South Fulton.
Those republicans that live close to Chattahoochee Hills are likely resigned to seeking to be annexed by Chattahoochee Hills if they can. The others will likely settle for annexation by Fairburn or Union City or sellout and move to North Fulton with their co-conspirators like Mark Burkhalter and Jan Jones.
Remember folks, this really all is about forming Milton County and creating their own Milton Schools System now that they have the vast majority of schools from SPLOST I and II. They are already working on North Fulton Schools from SPLOST III after they throw South Fulton a bone for a few schools.
Remember even with a new City of South Fulton we still have to settle for the second class Fulton Schools in South Fulton. Folks can be in denial all they want about Fulton schools, but when you compare North and South Fulton School test scores and academic performance, you will see it is a tale of two cities.
Drinking the “Our City” Our Control” Kool-aide just means we will not see the big picture issue of the Fulton splitting in half and South Fulton continuing to get the shaft. If we continue skipping down the yellow brick road to cityhood, it will be too late by the time we realize we were bamboozled along with some of our elected officials when the county splits in half and Milton County and Milton School System is formed.
Naysayers may say this will never happen, but many of these same naysayers and some of our elected leaders said that they’ll never form a city of Sandy Springs either. If you don’t turn out to "VOTE NO" against this looming train wreck whenever the vote is, you have no one to blame but yourself.
It seems the pro-city of South Fulton group South Fulton Concerned Citizens is imploding.
If the "A" team planning for a city can't get along now or find enough folks that want a city to fund their effort, perhaps it is time to bail on the ill conceived idea.
I guess we won't see the long awaited study that supposedly proves the city is viable, unless they can come up with 24 grand to pay that bill.
We wondered why their ranks were diminishing at meetings and now we know. They're are jumping ship because they do not want to pay their bills. Would you let these fiscally responsible folks persuade you that the new city will fly and be able to pay its bills?
As Paul Harvey says here's the rest of the story:
South Fulton new city drive 'seems to be coming apart'
By D.L. BENNETT
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 06/06/07
The group formed to push for a new city of South Fulton seems to be unraveling amid financial, political and racial pressures.
Robert Eger, the Georgia State professor who helped draw up the city's revenues and cost projections, is threatening to sue because he hasn't been paid.
Legal fees and other debts are mounting, and new money isn't coming in.
Some original organizers of the South Fulton Concerned Citizens have left the group after being questioned about why so many "white Republicans" were helping to form a city in an area that's overwhelmingly black.
The incorporation vote, once set for June 19, has been pushed back until September as the proposed city struggles to adjust to rampant annexation that has seen more than 15,000 acres gobbled up by competing cities.
The SFCC once hoped to block those annexations. But Gov. Sonny Perdue dashed those hopes when he signed House Bill 725, certifying the boundaries as they exist now. The annexations of mostly commercial land have cost the proposed city future revenue-generating properties.
"The SFCC is getting hammered politically and seems to be coming apart," said Eger, who is owed $24,000. "The question is, can they hold it together long enough to see this thing through. I wish I could tell you."
Eger said there have been so many recent changes that "the group that I knew is no longer in existence."
Additionally, south Fulton Commissioner Bill Edwards, who originally supported incorporation, has shifted gears and is fighting the new city tooth and nail. Today, Edwards is the only commissioner from the area. A new city would elect an entire council and mayor from inside south Fulton.
He's hoping the SFCC will disband and agree to work with him to bolster the unincorporated area.
"Their leadership has caused their problems," said Edwards. "You can put a fork in them. They are done. It's time for us to come together and govern what we've got left."
Edwards' efforts against the proposed city last week made him the target of an ethics complaint by pro-city south Fulton blogger Andre Walker, who alleged the commissioner used the trappings of his office to fight incorporation. Edwards denied the allegations on Monday.
Walker's blog has provided a forum for the debate, taking on such issues as race, annexation and financial viability of the proposed city.
Walker said he supports the new city because it will improve local control.
One SFCC member who resigned, George Nicholson, said he was disappointed a group that started out "under the big umbrella" has divided along racial and political lines.
He said regardless of who left the organization, he feared he and others faced personal liability for a lawsuit the SFCC filed last year, which failed to stop annexations by neighboring cities. The other jurisdictions are seeking repayment of legal fees.
Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2007/06/05/0606metimplode.html
I can't believe that S. White doesn't have any opinion on the South Fulton Concerned Citizen's woes!
I can't believe that S. White doesn't have any opinion on the South Fulton Concerned Citizen's woes!
"If the city can't raise enough money, they raise taxes and I pay twice."
Nearly a third of Johns Creek businesses not on tax roll
By DOUG NURSE
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 06/17/07
Maybe they forgot, or maybe they didn't know. Or maybe they're gaming the system.
Whatever the reason, a random sampling of businesses in Johns Creek found that at least a third aren't on the city tax rolls. And that's about a $1 million problem for Johns Creek.
So, when the company hired to provide services for the city offered to beat the bushes to round up non-compliant businesses, city officials were intrigued.
"We don't have that much commercial property, so we are overly dependent on residential property owners for tax revenue," said Mayor Mike Bodker. "We need to make sure businesses are paying their share."
City Council member Liz Hausmann agreed. "I think it's important that we're consistent and charge every [business] a business license fee." she said.
Ketki Desai, owner of Bead Boutique, said she had a Fulton County business license but hadn't even thought about applying for one from Johns Creek.
"If they require something, they should send out a mailer," Desai said. "I like to think I go by the book. It's my ignorance more than anything else."
She's not alone.
CH2M Hill-OMI, which was hired by the city to provide day-to-day services, randomly polled 60 businesses and found only 21 had current business licenses with the city. CH2M Hill Program Director Don Howell told the City Council there are probably about 1,000 businesses with no city license. If they all pay the fee — averaging $830 — it would generate up to $1 million in revenue, he said.
Johns Creek, now six months old, is struggling financially. It has not yet received its property tax revenue for its short-term needs, and has no bond rating yet, so it can't borrow for its long-term needs.
Fees, which make up a third of its $42 million budget for next year, are therefore vital.
Barry Schnur, owner of a dry cleaning shop, paid for his business license and thinks it's only fair that others do, too.
"We should all be treated the same way," Schnur said. "If the city can't raise enough money, they raise taxes and I pay twice."
CH2M Hill envisions a five-member team going door-to-door checking for licenses with the city's estimated 2,500 businesses. If sanctioned by the City Council, the team could start this month.
Having an accurate and complete database also helps public safety and code enforcement, Bodker said.
"It's good to know what's where," he said. "You don't want your police and fire going to the wrong address."
The Johns Creek program is patterned after a similar effort in Sandy Springs that has netted the city $1.5 million.
"I thought it worked well for us," said Steve Rapson, Sandy Springs assistant city manager and director of finance. "We now have a huge database, a complete list of businesses operating in Sandy Springs, and we'll garner that revenue forever."
Part of the problem in Sandy Springs was that the business records it inherited from Fulton County were a mess, officials said.
The records indicated that Sandy Springs had nearly 15,000 businesses, but when CH2M Hill started knocking on doors, it found only 8,500 listed accurately. The rest had closed, changed names or moved. But the survey turned up another 2,000 that hadn't registered at all.
Early indications suggest similar problems in Johns Creek, said Howell of CH2M Hill.
"For whatever reason, they haven't purged their database for years," he said of Fulton County.
Johns Creek Chamber of Commerce President Geoffrey Berlin said he supported the proposed sweep, although he worried about CH2M Hill being overly zealous because the company would get a 38 percent cut of any new revenue generated.
"We don't need to be heavy-handed," Berlin said.
Rapson said CH2M Hill is professional in its dealings with Sandy Springs businesses.
"There are lots of companies that do this," he said. "They'll fly in, hit the city as fast as they can, grab their 30, 40 percent, and walk away. We found that CH2M Hill didn't use that approach. They were very sensitive to the business community."
Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/northfulton/stories/2007/06/17/0618money.html
At last count 677 folks voted in the Chattahoochee Hills election. Wow!!!
Looks like Chattahoochee Hills will be an option for annexation now when the new city fails
There's already the folks on 7,000 acres in the boundaries of the proposed city of South Fulton who want to be part of the Chattahoochee Hills. The folks that want out of the city of South Fulton before it is even created represent nearly 1/2 of the land mass that folks chose to annex into existing SF cities.
Don't forget about those seeking annexation into Atlanta (there is a petition for a key subdivision-Loch Lomond Estates to get in) that are waiting for the outcome of the election. College Park has started doing informational meetings and East Point has also expressed interest in doing more annexations.
Wow, I'm amazed by how many folks are running for the hills on this.
If the city fails Old National and Flat Shoals area is in real trouble. Apparently the Schaffer's amendment will require that are to take care of itself because it has been separated from the rest of South Fulton. Good Luck Old National! Cityhood is the only thing that can save them now.
I am not sure what Andre Walker posted about Old National being its own SSD is true. I am seeking an opinion from the county attorney....SFG
As I suspected according to the Fulton Couny Attorney OV Brantley, "despite the seperation of unincorporated areas, Fulton County will not be required to create two SSDs or otherwise spend tax revenue only in the unincorporated area in which they are collected" If anyone want the actual letter send me an email to southfultonguy@gmail.com SFG
If we are voting on Sept. 18, can someone tell me where is the new study for the City of South Fulton. All I am hearing from various people is how can they still get into existing cities such as College Park and Atlanta
There is no study yet because group South Fulton Concerned Citizens who requested the study owes Dr. Eger the creator of the study $24,000 for it. He is contemplating suing them and will not release the results until he gets paid.
Yes that’s right they can’t manage their own money, but they want a new city so they can run it and manage your tax dollars!
Most wise people do not run out and incur debt or if they do they have a plan and means to pay it off without stiffing their creditors. Doesn't that instill your confidence in these would-be leaders of the city of South Fulton based on their financial track record? Would you take financial advice from someone on the verge of bankruptcy?
Of course you still believe them when they say the city will have the money after all of those annexations without raising your taxes massively. Creating “our Own” sounds good until you understand how difficult and expensive it will be.
Look at the pain the new north Fulton cities are going through and they have a commercial tax base unlike South Fulton. Chattahoochee Hills is rural and has much lower expectations than we do for police and fire. They are accustomed to waiting 30-45 minutes for the police to arrive, so it won’t cost them as much to incorporate as us.
But wait – help is on the way! Word is South Fulton Concerned Citizens are having a yard or bake sale this weekend to raise funds. I guess they'll have to make a bunch of pies and cakes, since no one is interested in donating money for the ill conceived City of South Fulton.
Don’t listen to that Pied Piper say we need a new city and we have no choice. They plan to run this city off of fool’s gold...don’t let it be yours!
Some will try and scare you into thinking that we have no choice but to incorporate because of the pending changes with Fulton County.
It is true that South Fulton County has no power or leverage in the General Assembly. Neither would a new city of South Fulton with no reputation, no borrowing power to weather the start-up storm or commercial development to keep property taxes down.
The blame for our Rodney Dangerfield status lies with our state legislator’s unfettered support for cityhood by any means necessary. Representatives Virgil Fludd and Roger Bruce continued to push for HB725, while their ally South Fulton Concerned Citizens lobbied with the legislature to defeat it and then they asked the Governor to veto it.
Our leaders demonstrated that they are out of touch with the will of the people and now have lost any remaining credibility with Republican leadership in the Governor's office and the legislature.
Because of the disconnect I am sure they will continue to be emboldened that they can do whatever in the face of disunity all because of this cityhood folly.
The steam roller was moving toward South Fulton County long before you guys got all excited over the prospect of a new city.
Regarding a defense against the impending changes for Fulton County creating a new city would just mean it would roll over our feet versus our head first.
Even many proponents of the city before all of the massive annexations quietly acknowledge that annexations by the surrounding cities are now the only reasonable options on the table now.
When you're out of town and someone asks where you are from do you say “Atlanta” or are you getting excited about saying I am from South Fulton. :-)
Let’s hope they don't get us mixed up with South Fulton Tennessee: www.cityofsouthfulton.org
Regards SFG
Andre Walker of the GA Politics Unfiltered BLOG has committed the unforgivable sin for a BLOG owner. After 15+ dissenting comments on The SF Study that contested his viewpoint, he deleted them and turned off the ability to add comments.
http://georgiaunfiltered.blogspot.com/2007/08/city-of-south-fulton-is-financially.html#comment-7375443688775446730I guess the next step is he will start moderating comments again.
Undoubtedly he got heat from South Fulton Concerned Citizen’s HQ that he is affiliated with. Since he has not disclosed this it seems that Andre Walker has created a PAC called "Citizens for the City of South Fulton" described in one of Ben Nelms (TheCitizen.com) articles as an arm of South Fulton Concerned Citizens (SFCC).
I find this curious because when Walker was asked if he was a member of SFCC, he denied it saying he had just attended a few of the meetings. Analysts have already uncovered a number or errors in the new SF feasibility study that looks like there will be a deficit instead of a surplus.
In the attached link to the state ethics website Andre Walker is listed as chairperson of this SFCC affiliated group:
http://www.ethics.ga.gov/Reports/Campaign/Campaign_RegInfo.aspx?FilerID=NC2007000545
Here is the quote from the article:
“Contributions are being accepted through the efforts of SFCC's campaign arm, Citizens for the City of South Fulton, Crane said.”
http://www.thecitizen.com/node/19077
This press release makes it clear that he lied about being a part of SFCC:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 9, 2007
Contact: Andre Walker
(678) 887-9018
amdwalker30349@gmail.com
New Study Shows City of South Fulton "Financially Viable"
(South Fulton , Georgia) – Citizens for the City of South Fulton, a pro-city group, today lauded a new report from the Fiscal Research Center of the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies that determined that the new City of South Fulton is "financially viable."
"I've always believed that the City of South Fulton would be fiscally solvent," said city hood supporter Benny Crane. "This new report just confirms my long-held belief with hard facts and figures."
The twenty-two page report entitled "Report on the City of South Fulton Potential Revenues and Expenditures" gives a detailed analysis of the expected revenues and expenditures for the City of South Fulton and concludes that even with the annexations by the surrounding cities, the City of South Fulton will run a substantial surplus in its first year in existence.
-30-
--
Citizens for the City of South Fulton is an organization of South Fulton residents dedicated towards creating the City of South Fulton
It’s really reassuring that the Keystone Kops of South Fulton Concerned Citizens are planning the city of South Fulton on our behalf.
Who anointed them as our city planners? Did I miss a vote?
What are they planning besides their campaigns to run for elected office in the new city?
When are they planning to share their plans and assumptions their flawed study was based on?
Chattahoochee Hills planned everything out front and in the open. You can find it all on their website. There was unity of vision and purpose and no lack of leadership. Anyone looking would be confident that they will succeed.
By contrast South Fulton Concerned Citizens plans without any dissenters invited. They see those that do not want to participate in this municipal experiment as the opposition.
They stopped publishing their meeting minutes on their website in March of this year to hide the disruption, division and disorganization that took place in their meetings and the fact that there were typically fewer than a dozen attendees.
They plant unsolicited signs on private property or deserted lots in the public right of way in the dark of night because that’s how they operate. The public slogan masters just repeat the same silly arguments, devoid of any substance or depth.
They wave a marginal financial study at you quickly saying here’s the proof as though even if true that finances are the only challenge and now it’s a slam dunk we’ll succeed. But they cannot manage their own money.
They spent money they did not have on failed lawsuits to overturn the legal constitutional choices that 60+ percent of the property owners and voters made to join existing cities instead of starting one from scratch. Then they have yard or bake sales to try and pay the lawyers.
Then they commissioned a study and could not pay for it. Yes these are the people we want to manage our tax dollars and lead us.
Oh yeah I am really persuaded that SFCC is planning something - the question is what and for whom.
If you want to turn the quality of life that you chose in an unincorporated area over to this bunch of deceivers beware. The nightmare of high taxes and sorry services has not yet begun!!!
SFG
Residents of South Fulton who fail to VOTE NO Tuesday could contribute to huge tax increases and reduced essential services.
Don't turn your hard end tax dollars over to a new bunch of politicians to spend as their own.
Unfortunately some residents are still confused about what they are voting on regarding this momentous decision.
Though the legalese words you’ll see aren’t real clear, the question it is asking is do you want to form a new city called South Fulton, GA - Yes or NO?
If you want to remain unincorporated as you are now, and don’t want to create a new city make sure you come out and simply VOTE NO.
There will be lots of winners and losers with a new City of South Fulton, GA:
WINNERS
- Supporters of a new city so they can run for office to get a job and another opportunity to spend your tax dollars, and find jobs for their relatives;
- Businessmen supporting creating a new city so their companies can secure contracts - they weren’t good enough to secure business with Fulton County;
- Banks and other financial institutions who will loan the new city money to resolve its cash flow problems; until taxes are raised to cover the deficits;
- Members of the South Fulton “Concerned Citizens” organizing committee and other pundits and Bloggers advocating cityhood so they can become your elected city officials;
- Management firms who will make millions to operate the city when services must be outsourced because there was no planning to take over the massive task;
- Former Fulton County employees who have sub-contracts, jobs or consulting arrangements with the management firm;
- Elected officials and their relatives with jobs or contracts with the new city directly;
- Former Fulton County employees who will work for the City of South Fulton;
- Dr. Eger of Georgia State who conducted the financial feasibility study for South Fulton Concerned Citizens;
- Lawyers, Lobbyists, and South Fulton Real Estate brokers renting space to the new city for City Hall, et cetera
LOSERS
- Homeowners who will pay higher property taxes because of sparse commercial taxpayers;
- Taxpayers who will pay Fulton County to buy or lease buildings and equipment that they already own as unincorporated residents of the county;
- Residents who will pay higher auto, rental and homeowners insurance rates as a new city must achieve its own police and fire ranking and accreditation;
- Residents who experience further cuts in road improvements, and parks services;
- Residents experiencing cutbacks in county-wide services; including libraries, health and human services and criminal justice;
- Laid-Off Fulton County Employees;
- Reduced “City Service” levels no longer provided by the county: (Emergency Management Services, Environment and Community Development, Fire, Parks, Police and Public Works);
- Shortages of essential police and fire personnel because we now must compete with all of the other metro cities for these scare resources;
- Developers and builders experiencing disruption and delays in permitting and inspections as services transition to new start up departments in the new city;
- Residents and Businesses with less of a regional or national identity with the mailing address South Fulton, GA instead of Atlanta, GA
- Businesses and homeowners who must change stationary and update their addresses for all their accounts from Atlanta, GA 30331 to South Fulton, GA 303??
Did you find yourself in the "winning" category anywhere? The burden of proof of success lies with those that want to change status quo and form this new city to go through the same or likely worse struggles than the affluent new cities in north Fulton County.
And you say the reason you wanted to form a new city was what?
VOTE NO to a City of South Fulton on September 18, 2007
Post a Comment