NO to Target as City Hall - Choose Fiscal Conservatism

Below is correspondence I sent to City Council members regarding the proposed purchase of the Target store site. If you feel similarly (or even if you want them to spend your money for this purpose) you should communicate your feelings to the whole City Council and Mayor. Go to http://www.sandyspringsadvocate.com/ for an easy way to let them know how you think they should vote on this matter.

"Looking forward . . . YOU now have the chance to stand up for fiscal conservatism, smaller government, lower taxes, and demonstrate that you support responsible local business development. You have the chance to lead others on the City Council to better decision making.

Regardless of your previous position on the issue, I encourage you to vote NO to buying the Target store and converting it to the Police Station, Jail, and City Hall.

If you feel City Government can't stay in rented facilities at Morgan Falls or work harder to find a way to share the Fulton County Annex property, then propose something new . . . maybe a private/public partnership that can develop the Target property into taxpaying retail, office, and/or residential space with a small portion of the space being reserved for a small City Government. Sandy Springs needs you to vote NO to the current purchase plan for the Target property. Sandy Springs needs you to lead the way to better and smaller government.

Can you be counted on to lead the way to better and innovative local government for Sandy Springs or to lead us down the well trodden path to higher taxes, frivolous spending, and disrespect for property owners' desires to maintain their neighborhoods?

Responsible participation in this new City of Sandy Springs' government is important. You are attempting to serve as an elected official. I am attempting to serve by engaging you in civic conversation and encouraging you to follow a course of better decision making and better leadership."

Jim Buckler
jim.buckler@sandyspringsadvocate.com
404-408-9723

How the City Raises Your Taxes . . . Simplified!

I recently received the following comment from a concerned Sandy Springs' Advocate, "I have a question. How and when did the City Council increase our taxes?" Below is my explanation as to the "How." The "When" answer is this year - 2008!

After receiving my response (below) the same person wrote back, "Thanks Jim. I can understand that. You should post this to your blog -- I'm sure most people (like me) have no clue that this is going on. I will share this with my neighbors whose email addresses I have, but how can we get the word out to the rest of the city?"

Sooooo . . . here's my attempt at describing the Increase Tax Scenario for Sandy Springs (as simply as I can) . . .

Year one . . .
1) City sets a budget
2) City establishes a millage rate that is applied against the assessed value of property in the City plus an expected collection rate of taxes billed at that millage rate (4.731 mills (a percentage applied to the assessed property values) per the postcard you included in your previous email). The millage rate has a maximum that cannot be raised without a referendum, but the expected "collection rate" is set low (like 8% lower than the tax collector's historical collection rates).
3) City confirms the budget
4) Arthur Ferdinand (Tax Collector) exceeds the City's budgeted collection rate.
5) The collection of taxes over the budgeted amount goes into a "general fund."
6) The City now has a surplus (even over the amount budgeted as a surplus). Our City Council members decided their constituents wanted them to spend this "extra" money (many millions of dollars) on non-budgeted items.
7) Here's a formula that may be helpful: [A] Assessed Property Value x Millage Rate x Expected Collection Rate = Budget; [B]Assessed Property Value x Millage Rate x ACTUAL Collection Rate = Tax Money Collected; [B]-[A]= Overcollection of budgeted expenditures (aka "Slush Fund").

Year two . . .
1) County Tax Assessor's office reassesses the property in the City (Sandy Springs' property tax digest went up significantly year over year). Home assessments went up moderately from year to year, but the business assessments went up dramatically year to year . . . big problem for business - a potential windfall in taxes for the City Council.
2) City sets a new budget with the same millage rate and collection percentages that produced the overcollection in Year One, but now applied to the higher property tax digest amount. If either (not both) the property valuations or millage rate increases then State lawmakers require the City to disclose this as a Tax Increase because it IS a tax increase. However the City Council only refers to their decision to keep the millage rate the same as though they didn't increase taxes. What should have been done was for the Council to reduce the millage rate to a level that, when applied to the new tax digest, covers the budgeted amount, not the budgeted amount PLUS the overcollection. This would reduce and keep taxes low.
3) Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, from Year One and Items 1 and 2 from Year Two are repeated.

Years three, four, five, etc . . .
Taxes keep going up, up, up. Unless the constituency requires the City Council to adhere to strict fiscal policies of spending for necessary services only, refunding amounts collected over the budget, lowering the millage rate for the next year to offset any increased property valuations plus proper/better budgeting which definitely includes setting the expected collections at the Tax Collector's historical rates, not some arbitrarily low number. I'm okay with being conservative on collection rates if they refund any over collection and don't act like a bunch of kids and find something to spend it on.

Okay . . . sorry about my continued rant. If this didn't make sense to you I'll be happy to explain it further. Because this process is complicated to explain and understand is exactly the reason the City Council can easily trap the taxpayers into a cycle of never ending tax increases.

Hope this helps.