2) Allow the formation of a Sharon Springs Feasibility Committee appointed by the seven members of the Forsyth State ...
TODD JONES 18 CAPITOL SQUARE, SW ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30334 CELL: 770-203-9230 EMAIL:
[email protected]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COVERDELL LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING ROOM 607-E ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30334 (404) 656-0287(O) (404) 651-8086 (F)
STANDING COMMITTEES BUDGET AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OVERSIGHT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM INDUSTRY AND LABOR
Dear Citizens of Forsyth County: I am consistently asked the same question – why did you sponsor the Sharon Springs bill? The answer is relatively straight-forward: 1) “Rip the Band Aid Off” once and for all. In other words, we move forward with a second city or not. The community needs a rallying point. 2) Allow the formation of a Sharon Springs Feasibility Committee appointed by the seven members of the Forsyth State delegation and the five members of the Board of Commissioners. This provided for a twelve-member Committee, three from within the proposed city limits and nine from outside of the proposed city, but all from within the county. 3) Preserve the right of the community to vote on the city referendum in May of 2018 if the Committee chose to proceed and the Bill was signed by the Governor during the 2018 legislative session. This report encompasses the work done by the Committee between May and October of 2017. The Committee, over that time frame, met with a myriad of experts, professionals and citizens. Some had a procity bent, others opposed the creation of the city and there were neutral parties also. Personally, I learned a lot from each speaker. What I can assure you is this, this is not a simple issue. There were solid arguments articulated by both sides of the debate. At the end of this process, I truly hope everyone realizes that all sides have viable issues and need to be addressed as we proceed. This is not political rhetoric, but rather a true call to the entire community. This movement could be a force of good but if mishandled, could potentially rip us apart. I want to thank the members of the Committee, the Forsyth State delegation and the County Board of Commissioners. The Committee demonstrated objectivity throughout the process. I know this was difficult as many walked into the first meeting at West Forsyth HS with a pre-disposition of go, no-go as it relates to a second city in Forsyth County. Finally, this report is a chance for the Committee to provide you with its thoughts and concerns about city creation. Frankly, I believe it should be required reading before making any decision on the city. The Carl Vinson and Georgia Tech Reports were challenged by the Committee. Neither was taken as sacrosanct, but as guard rails around feasibility and financing.
TODD JONES 18 CAPITOL SQUARE, SW ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30334 CELL: 770-203-9230 EMAIL:
[email protected]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COVERDELL LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING ROOM 607-E ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30334 (404) 656-0287(O) (404) 651-8086 (F)
STANDING COMMITTEES BUDGET AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OVERSIGHT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM INDUSTRY AND LABOR
As the Committee was completing the final draft of this report, we learned that the county voted to commission a second third party report by Georgia State. In addition, the Sharon Springs Alliance may consider commissioning the drafting of another report, in addition to the Carl Vinson conclusions. I hope that both parties seriously consider requiring their new report writers to work with the twelve Committee members. It is folly to believe that any third party can provide numbers in a vacuum. The Committee members can go beyond the numbers and speak to the variety of positions that the citizens have relating to Sharon Springs. Thank you for taking the time to read this report. We know you are busy, so we have structured it in FAQ style. We hope that this makes it easier to gather information and the pros and cons of each issue. Best regards,
Todd Jones State Representative, District 25
TABLE OF CONTENTS Committee Mission ............................................................................................................... 4 Committee Construction ........................................................................................................ 4 Committee Meetings ............................................................................................................. 4 Committee’s Recommendation .............................................................................................. 6 HB 626 Process ...................................................................................................................... 7 Why 57.5% ............................................................................................................................ 7 Sharon Springs is Part of Forsyth County ................................................................................ 8 How Will My Tax Bill Change? ................................................................................................ 8 How Will the City be Financed? .............................................................................................. 8 What is the Hybrid Approach to Electing Officials? ................................................................. 9 Community Questions Proffered by the Community at the Fifth Meeting (Public Participation) ............................................................................................................................................. 9
Committee Mission To provide the Citizens of Forsyth County with an objective viewpoint of whether the question of a second city in Forsyth County should go to referendum.
Committee Construction The twelve members of the Committee were appointed by: State Senator Steve Gooch State Senator Michael Williams State Representative Wes Cantrell State Representative Geoff Duncan State Representative Sheri Gilligan State Representative Todd Jones State Representative Kevin Tanner County Commissioner Pete Amos County Commissioner Todd Levent County Commissioner Cindy Jones-Mills County Commissioner Laura Semanson County Commissioner Rick Swope
JB Bader Tommy Walke Chris Clark Greg Hammond Chris Pike SreeRam Royyala David McBrayer Eric Bennett Ted Richardson John Carroll Craig Holmes Alfred John
The Committee was chaired by State Representative Todd Jones, as a non-voting member.
Committee Meetings The Committee conducted the following meetings (in chronological order): 1) Initial Public Meeting – Conducted at West Forsyth HS. The four primary goals were: a. Introduce the Committee members to each other. b. Review House Bill 626 (Sharon Springs Charter Bill). c. Determine what additional documents the Committee would need for their review. Documents requested included: i. February 2015 University of Georgia – Carl Vinson Report (Sharon Springs Feasibility Study funded by the Sharon Springs Alliance) ii. December 2015 Georgia Tech (Sharon Springs Feasibility Study funded by the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners) iii. South Forsyth County Overlay (current and pending zoning within the proposed city limits) iv. South Forsyth Aerial Photos v. Breakdown of all Georgia Counties (population and number of cities within each Georgia county)
d. Identify speakers for the rest of the summer. 2) Second Public Meeting – Conducted at South Forsyth HS. The three speakers were: a. Attorney – Municipal Creation Specialist1 (from outside of Forsyth County). Discussions included the city creation legislative process, challenges faced by other similar type Committees researching the creation of a city and the pros and cons of municipal development. b. Municipal Bond Financing Expert (from outside of Forsyth County). Discussions included SPLOST, LOST, bond ratings and municipal finance requirements. c. The Sharon Springs Alliance (represented by two gentlemen from Forsyth County). The SSA representatives’ opening comments focused on the key drivers for the creation of the SSA and Sharon Springs. The Committee queried the SSA representatives on a variety of topics including, potential tax burden placed on Forsyth citizens inside and outside the proposed city boundaries, how the proposed city could address growth, traffic and school overcrowding and how the proposed city could foster a greater sense of community. 3) Third Public Meeting – Conducted at North Forsyth HS. The two speakers were: a. Concerned Forsyth Citizen Against the Creation of Sharon Springs (from Forsyth County). The gentleman shared a myriad of opinions on topics including duplicative services and functions, too many elected officials (proposed city calls for 1 mayor and 6 city council members), tax increase for residents of the city and lack of a comprehensive plan. b. Forsyth County Board of Commissioners Chairman Todd Levent (from Forsyth County). The Chairman’s comments focused on opposition to the proposed City of Sharon Springs and potential alternatives to address the growth, traffic and overcrowded schools’ issues. The Chairman’s primary issue with the creation of the proposed city is that it creates another layer of government. Further, the Chairman suggested ways to address South Forsyth’s issues by considering a Forsyth – Cumming combination, like Macon-Bibb and Athens-Clark. The Chairman also discussed additional topics like water access for the county, different county planning options and measures the county was taking to work with the citizens from within the Sharon Springs proposed city boundaries. 4) Fourth Public Meeting – Conducted at Lambert HS. The two speakers were: a. Johns Creek City Manager (from outside of Forsyth County) and Brookhaven City Planning Committee Member (from outside of Forsyth County). The opening remarks included their perspectives on the referendum process, city creation, key city drivers and challenges. The Committee queried the Manager and Planning Member on a range of issues including key learnings, changes each would make if given the opportunity, financial implications including taxation, factors that affect the success of cityhood and how the city impacted, if at all, the county. 1
Every individual that came before the Committee was from the State of Georgia. The parentheticals are intended to strictly let you know if the speaker was from Forsyth County or outside of the county.
5) Fifth Public Meeting2 – Conducted at the Old Atlanta Recreation Center. This was a public forum where the community was invited to provide its viewpoints regarding the proposed city. Approximately 100 people attended and about 20 citizens expressed their opinions, both pro and con regarding the formation of Sharon Springs. 6) Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Meetings – these meetings were attended by all twelve Committee members plus Chairman Todd Jones. The primary objective of the meetings was to determine if the Committee would recommend moving forward with the HB 626 in the House. The Committee, through a majority vote, determined that moving the bill forward in the legislative process was appropriate. The Committee recommended several changes to the Bill, including changing from a Mayor-strong to City Manager managed municipality and calling for the mayor and council members elections to be partisan. And given a consistent argument for the creation of the city was the lack of “at large” representation at the county level, the bill was changed to include both district and at-large representation. The result of this last change was that each citizen would be voting for five of the seven council members including the mayor.
Committee’s Recommendation The Committee, by a majority vote, recommended that the bill, HB 626, continue in the legislative process; feeling that citizens in our country should have the right to selfdetermination. That is, the voters in the proposed City of Sharon Springs should be allowed to determine their own destiny. Further, the Committee made changes to the bill that will be submitted by Representative Jones to the House. The changes can be reviewed in Exhibit B of this report along with the aerial map of the proposed city lines. In addition, the Committee shared several concerns regarding the creation of Sharon Springs that cannot be addressed via the bill’s language. These include – a) are the initial three services, planning and zoning, enforcement of building, housing, plumbing, electrical codes and other similar codes, and solid waste management, the appropriate ones to initially offer, b) will the city, if incorporated, expand services and how will these be funded, c) is it appropriate for the city to divert between $3.5M and $6.5M from the county due to the re-allocation of franchise, permit and license fees and d) will the millage rate cap of .5 impact the city’s ability to gain a bond rating? At the end of the day, the Committee felt that citizens in our country should have the right to self-determination. That is, the voters in the proposed City of Sharon Springs should be allowed to determine their own destiny. While it chafed a few members of the Committee that the 2
The Chair and Committee were invited to Chattahoochee River Club to speak with the community about their inclusion into the proposed city lines. The meeting was well attended, approximately 100 people generally in favor of the city’s creation, and the Chair and four Committee members attended. We did not include it in the list of meetings above since it was not announced as a public meeting to the citizens of Forsyth County.
voters outside the city lines would not have a vote, they understood that this is the current legal environment in which we live. Finally, the Committee, between the beginning of November and May 2018, assuming the bill makes its way through the House, Senate and Governor, will work diligently to educate the community in a non-biased manner. There is a concern, that many community members are not fully aware of what Sharon Springs’ incorporation would accomplish, and what it would likely not accomplish. This Committee recognizes that there are advocacy groups on both sides of the issue. They each have their collective agenda – this Committee respects their right to advocate as they see fit. However, the Committee hopes that it can be a resource that leans neither go or no-go, but rather, provides fact-based information to the community, free from advocacy groups’ spin.
HB 626 Process For the community to be given the right to vote on the city’s creation, the following must occur: 1) Pass the Georgia State House with 91 or more votes. 2) Pass the Georgia State Senate with 29 or more votes. 3) Receive the Governor’s signature. Assuming #’s 1 through 3 are achieved, voters of the community, living in the proposed city lines, will be given the right to vote yes or no in May of 2018. For the referendum to pass, the yes vote must gain at least 57.5% of the vote.
Why 57.5% Representative Jones had three key reasons for dropping the bill. The first was to rip the “Band-Aid” off once and for all as it relates to the creation of a second city in Forsyth County. The Chair and Committee felt that a mere majority, 50% plus 1, would not be a clear mandate. 51% - 49%, in our opinion, would only lead to Monday morning quarterback questions of voter turnout, community education, etc., and thus would encourage more discussion on a repeat attempt. As stated before, the intent here is to resolve this issue for our collective lifetimes. Hence, a discussion commenced examining 52.5%, 55%, 60% and 66%. 52.5% was widely dismissed because a 53% - 47% does not provide a mandate. 66% was proffered and discussed. The basis of 66% was based on the legislative requirement for 2/3s of the State House and State Senate to approve a Constitutional amendment before going to the public for a vote. Ultimately, 66% was deemed too high of a bar, and thus did not garner strong support.
The Chair and Committee then reviewed states where votes of greater than 50% were required for constitutional amendment passage, constitutional amendments being used as a proxy for city creation in Forsyth County. The results included one state that required 55%, three that required 60% and one that required 66%. The Committee voted six to six between 55% and 60%. A compromise was made that was nearly unanimously accepted – 57.5%. The belief is a 58% - 42% vote will clearly be a mandate. This will allow both sides of the issue to rally around the will of the people.
Sharon Springs is Part of Forsyth County Sharon Springs, if incorporated, would remain part of Forsyth County and its citizens would continue to receive the vast majority of governmental services from the county. Citizens within a city do not give up their citizenship, vote or representation at the county level. Citizens within a new Sharon Springs would still receive most services from the county, including fire, parks, and sheriff services. Only the three services noted above would be provided by the new city.
How Will My Tax Bill Change? Citizens, within Sharon Springs, will still receive a Forsyth County property tax bill. In addition, if the city elected leaders choose, there will be a charge of up to .5 millage points for the city. How much is .5 mills? Essentially $50 for every $100,000 of assessed value. The average home in Forsyth County has an assessed value of about $97,252 ($243,131 average home value in Forsyth County). Hence the city property tax would be between $0 and $50 annually. Finally, your sales tax of 7% would not change if the city is incorporated.
How Will the City be Financed? In addition to a potential property tax assessment of up to .5 mills, the city will receive the franchise, permit and license fees currently paid by the community living within the proposed city limits and collected by Forsyth County. In other words, these fees are the charges you see on the cable, mobile phone, electric, life insurance and other bills, and will be directed to the city coffers rather than the Forsyth County treasury. The permit fees are for new and existing businesses primarily. The amount of these fees range from $3.5M, per the UGA Carl Vinson Report and $6.5M, per the Georgia Tech Report. This begs the question; how will the county recover these fees for its budget? First, the county should experience lower costs since it does not have to provide planning and zoning, enforcement of building, housing, plumbing, electrical codes and other similar codes, and solid waste management to the new city. However, it should be noted, that the Committee believes that the cost reduction will not equal the full loss of revenue. Therefore, the reduction in
revenues flowing to the new city not recovered through reduced costs for no longer providing certain services would be offset through other cost reductions, increases in revenues such as taxes and user fees, and new revenue increases realized through organic growth in the county.
What is the Hybrid Approach to Electing Officials? The mayor and three city council members will be elected by city-wide voting. The remaining three council members will represent a geographic area. Proponents of the city have long argued that their area is underrepresented (see question 2 below), and that they can only vote on one county Commissioner, even though all of them can vote in a way that impacts them. While the Committee doesn’t completely buy this argument (see, for example, how the State of Georgia’s representatives are elected), the Committee hears the argument. So, this arrangement provides for the city voter to be able to vote on five of the seven council members who represent him/her. The mayor, the council member in his/her geographic area, and three at-large members.
Community Questions Proffered by the Community at the Fifth Meeting (Public Participation) 1) Does Sharon Springs create another layer of government? It depends on one’s perspective, some Committee members and speakers, made this exact point. Some feel it does create a new layer of government that would inevitably add a tax burden on the citizenry. Others contended there was no proof of any new Georgia city creating a higher tax burden on its citizens since it wasn’t a new layer but rather shaving off part of the county services and having those same services now provided by a new entity. For example, you would still need a building permit with or without the city. With the city, you would go to City Hall. Without the city, you would go to the County Seat. 2) Is South Forsyth under represented? Again, it depends on viewpoints. The city proponents see district voting, how County Commissioners are elected, as a primary driver of voter disenfranchisement. No citizen in the proposed city boundary can vote for more than one commissioner. City opponents counter that when combined, citizens in the proposed city limits vote for three of the five Commissioners (District 2 and 5 being a vast majority of Sharon Springs and District 3 having a small piece of Ronald Reagan Blvd.). 3) What are the arguments against Sharon Springs? In no particular order, it doesn’t address growth, school overcrowding and traffic, it is duplicative (headcount and elected officials), too many elected officials (1 mayor and 6 council members), it will create another layer of government, it will raise the property taxes of Forsyth citizens residing outside of the city limits and adversely impacts Forsyth County’s brand with a new competing brand.
4) What are the arguments for Sharon Springs? In no particular order, to manage the growth of the remaining undeveloped areas in the proposed city limits, which will allow the schools and infrastructure to catch up with the city population and by having seven representatives it will bring government closer to the people. 5) How would the city affect homes built 30 to 40 years from today? The City of Sharon Springs would be responsible for the planning, permits and code enforcement of new construction and rehabilitation of older structures. 6) How does cityhood affect the school system? Students residing in the city limits are part of Forsyth County School system and continue to attend Forsyth County Schools. Further, the city proponents expect that lower density building, in the remaining 15% of land available in the city limits, will decrease the student / acre (or subdivision) ratio. 7) Show geographical area of the city. Please see Exhibit B. 8) Show Sharon Springs (square miles, population and taxes). Please see Exhibit B. 9) What is the difference between City Lite and a Full-Service City? The original Sharon Springs Bill, introduced in 2015, contemplated the creation of Sharon Springs as City Lite. This essentially meant that the city was intended to commence with three services and remain “lite”; that is not take on all the attributes of a full-service city (e.g. Johns Creek). Legislative Counsel provided an opinion in 2015 that the formation of a municipality under City Lite may be unconstitutional. Based on this opinion, the original bill was pulled. The new Sharon Springs Bill, HB 626, calls for Sharon Springs to commence as a limited services city – three services (planning and zoning, enforcement of building, housing, plumbing, electrical codes and other similar codes, and solid waste management). The city charter does not limit the city to these three services and Sharon Springs could potentially expand to other services (e.g. transportation). A fullservice city, as the name connotes, is like Sandy Springs, Johns Creek and Milton. These cities, from incorporation intended to provide more services to its citizens. 10) Does the creation of Sharon Springs address the traffic problem? Similar to previous answers, it depends on who you ask. The city opponents point toward over 85% of Sharon Springs already built out or in the process of being developed. The remaining land does not represent a high enough percentage to lower density enough to decrease traffic. The proponents of the city counter that less density will lead to a decrease in traffic congestion. Also, that controlled growth will allow the schools and infrastructure to catch up with the population size. 11) Can Sharon Springs be benchmarked against other municipalities in Georgia? The Committee had similar thoughts and reviewed / examined Peachtree Corners, Brookhaven, Johns Creek and Milton. After careful review, though Sharon Springs has unique circumstances, there are few similarities with many of those other cities. 12) Is the UGA Carl Vinson and Georgia Tech Reports still valid? The Committee had differing views on both reports. One viewpoint was that the reports are valid, to an extent, but should be updated since the area has grown in the past couple of years. Others on the Committee believed that updating the Reports was a waste of money believing the citizens will believe the narrative as they deem it appropriate. Ultimately, the Chair and Committee felt strongly that any additional reports, whether updates or new reports, should include substantive participation by the Committee. The 12
members have done a lot of hard work over the past five months and it should be incorporated within any new efforts. 13) How does cityhood affect people living outside of the proposed city limits? The primary concern is the potential that the property taxes may increase. The Committee estimates that initially the increase could range between $0 and $50 annually. Opponents claim that they are being subject to additional taxation without representation, a bedrock of our democracy. Proponents claim that property values will increase in the city, and Forsyth County will reap the benefits of those property value increases through additional property tax revenues. 14) What are the long-term projections for the city? The Committee concluded that any long-range estimates would be at best educated guesses. If incorporated, the mayor and city council will develop the long-term plan and how it will be executed. The Committee encourages the citizens within the proposed city to vet all candidates and hold them accountable. The Chair wants to remind readers that the city charter calls for term limits for the mayor and council members (i.e. two four-year terms). 15) Why are people moving to Forsyth County and from where are they moving? This was not part of the Committee’s initial charter and is outside the scope of this report. We had hoped to gather this information, but we do not have it to provide in this report. 16) Are there other areas in Forsyth County thinking of cityhood? This was not part of the Committee’s initial charter and is outside the scope of this report. We had hoped to gather this information, but we do not have it to provide in this report. 17) What is the LOST / SPLOST split between Forsyth County and Cumming? What would it be if Sharon Springs is incorporated? The LOST revenue is currently split 85 / 15 with 85 percent going to Forsyth County and 15 percent to the City of Cumming. In January of 2018 the split will change to 87 / 13 respectively. One-hundred percent of the SPLOST revenue goes to the County per an inter-governmental agreement with the City. It is impossible to know what the LOST / SPLOST split would be if the City of Sharon Springs was incorporated. However, it should be noted that at the incorporation date of of the city, Sharon Springs would not be entitled to full LOST or SPLOST revenues due to the limited number of services it provides. Further, LOST and SPLOST are both negotiated amounts that vary not only county to county but even historically within Forsyth County. Like the City of Cumming, Sharon Springs would negotiate on both taxes each time they are due to be updated. Finally, some Committee members felt the incorporation of Sharon Springs would give the county a better negotiation position all else held equal, but others believed the City of Sharon Springs would have a neutral or negative impact on the county. 18) Explain the process to increase the millage cap? The millage cap cannot be increased without a vote by the citizens of Sharon Springs. In other words, the mayor and city council cannot raise taxes unilaterally. The charter calls for the following referendum language - "Do you approve increasing taxes on residential and nonresidential property for City of Sharon Springs property owners by raising from [current millage rate] to [proposed millage rate] the operating budget millage rate, which was capped in the original charter for the city?"
19) How were the city lines drawn? The current lines are similar to the Sharon Springs Bill in 2015, except the current lines include McFarland Parkway north to GA 400. Please see Exhibit B for additional information. During the committee meetings, serious discussion took place on the appropriateness of the boundaries; particularly in the northeast and southwest sections of the proposed city and the inclusion of Chattahoochee River Club. As all discussions and feasibility reports used the proposed boundaries, the committee ultimately voted not to adjust the proposed boundaries stated in the bill. 20) What is the ratio of commercial/residential tax contributions for Sharon Springs versus the rest of the county? This was not part of the Committee’s initial charter and is outside the scope of this report. We had hoped to gather this information, but we do not have it to provide in this report. 21) Board of Commissioner voting – can anything be done to go back to county-wide voting? This was not part of the Committee’s initial charter and is outside the scope of this report. We had hoped to gather this information, but we do not have it to provide in this report. 22) If a neighborhood isn’t included in the original city, is there a mechanism for that neighborhood to be annexed by the city? Yes, the City of Sharon Springs would be able to annex that neighborhood in a relatively straight-forward process that practically speaking requires only that the neighborhood abut the city boundaries and both parties, city and neighborhood, wish to incorporate the neighborhood into the city. 23) Why were there no women included on this study committee? The Chair asked each member of the Forsyth State delegation and Board of Commissioners to appoint a Committee member. By design, he did not put any parameters or requirements on the appointment process. While it’s true that no women were appointed, the Committee was racially and ethnically diverse. And true diversity is not only about race, gender, religion, etc. – it’s about diversity of thought. There isn’t a person on this Committee that would say we were short of a diversity of thought. Please note the Chair gave each Committee member the chance to attach a Personal Position Paper to this Report. Four members chose to draft a Position Paper and they are attached within Exhibit A of this Report.
EXHIBIT A These are Personal Position Papers drafted by individual members. Unlike the Report, which was a collaborative effort by all 12 members, these Papers are the sole position of the author.
Committee Member Report Craig Holmes Last Spring I received a call from a mutual acquaintance who told me that District 5 County Commissioner Laura Semanson wanted to talk with me. Oh boy, I thought, what have I done? I am the President of the Windermere Homeowners’ Association, but I didn’t think she lived in Windermere. I was told an exploratory committee was being formed, where a broad coalition of people from both inside and outside the affected area might make a joint recommendation on whether a referendum should be held on the formation of a new city in southern Forsyth County. When I spoke with Laura, she explained the mission of the Committee, and told me that she was appointing me without regard to whether I was for it or against it. She wanted me to have an open mind, to learn, share my thoughts, and vote my conscience. Before I give my concurring opinion, let me speak to my background. I have spent my entire professional career in the private sector, and am currently an attorney in the Legal Department of a very large transportation company that has a lot of brown trucks. My legal fields of expertise are primarily Labor Relations, OSHA, and employment-related class action litigation. But I don’t think that’s why I was asked to be on this Committee. More likely, because I’m the President of what I believe to be the largest neighborhood in Forsyth County. Windermere is a 1,300 home community which is squarely within the proposed city boundaries. Aside from a 2 year break, I have been the President since 2010. So while I do not pretend to be an expert on government, or how cities are formed and run, I feel like I am in touch with the prevailing opinions of the folks in my area. Trust me, I hear from them frequently, whether I want to or not. Their two primary areas of concern are traffic and school congestion. Anyone who has been out of their house in the last ten years has seen how the traffic situation has gone from bad to worse. Since I work outside the County, I have plenty of personal experience as to how commuting times have risen over the years. And the perpetual school redistricting has our citizens constantly agitated. I don’t think there’s any question that these are challenges primarily faced in the southern part of the county. And while it’s most acute in the geographical boundaries of the proposed city, the southwestern quadrant is also feeling the pinch. People are yearning for a solution. A return to county-wide voting for each Board of Commissioner seat has been one rallying cry. And cityhood for the area most adversely affected by traffic and school congestion has been the other. Since the former is outside the scope of our committee’s charge, I’ll let that one lie. Before I get to the reasons I personally support cityhood, I’d first like to address the reason I think the citizens within the defined area should be allowed to participate in a referendum to decide their own fate. To a person, each member of the committee said that they didn’t think it was fair that people’s voices shouldn’t be heard. Put another way, they thought it was important for people to be able to decide their own destinies. The discussion got complicated when committee members had to face the stark reality that voters might end up voting in a manner that was inconsistent with committee members’ own self-interests. The argument balances on a razor’s edge – I want you to be able to vote, but I really want you to vote in a way that doesn’t hurt me. At the
end of the day, it was hard for anyone to reasonably articulate a reason people shouldn’t be allowed to vote. So should the analysis end there? We just turn it over to them, let them vote, and then see what happens? Well, not so fast, in my opinion. There are some pretty key facts that need to be fleshed out in the process. There’s lots of fake news out there these days, or at least lots of spin. I’d like to give my take on why I think the city is on balance a good idea. As most people know, there were two studies conducted on the issue of cityhood. One commissioned by the Board of Commissioners, which was largely negative on the issue, and one commissioned by the Sharon Springs Alliance, which was largely positive. I heard many fellow committee members call one or the other study “flawed.” I’m not sure either one was flawed, I just think they were constructed to measure different things, and like lots of studies, they tend to support the position of the entity paying for it. The University of Georgia study measured whether the city was viable, meaning whether the city could support itself based on expected revenues. The finding was that it could easily do so, collecting nearly double its needs. The Georgia Tech study found that the County would lose tax revenue as a result of the city starting to collect a share. Neither of these findings is surprising. But I do think the GT study ignored a critical element – it didn’t give any credence to the argument that a rising tide will lift all boats. That is, in the most recent examples, property values in newly incorporated cities have risen. Higher property values means higher tax revenues. For both the city and the county. It’s important to note here that the city would only provide three services – planning & zoning, code enforcement, and waste management. The county will still collect property taxes to pay for the myriad other services it already provides, like schools, fire, law enforcement, parks, etc. So, again, higher property values in the city means higher tax revenues, which Forsyth County will add to its coffers. I have heard opponents say that having control of planning & zoning really won’t affect traffic and school congestion. While I agree that there is not a direct effect, better planning and zoning will have strong indirect control of the density of housing being built in our area. Controlling the future growth will allow our roads and school construction to catch up with the population (including the many high density apartment complexes that our Board of Commissioners has approved over the last several years that are still being built). And while they will respond that only 15% of the land is still to be developed, and it largely is too late, I disagree. 15% is still a lot of acreage – filling it with more high density housing would be disastrous. Plus, there’s still significant acreage that can be re-zoned to something denser. Much has been said about additional layers of government, and mission creep. Let me address the layers issue first. While the city would be adding head count, the county won’t need as much head count. Will there be some slight inefficiencies? Perhaps. But more important, in my opinion, is that there’d also be more accountability. For example, my HOA has been trying to get a stinkin’ pool shed permitted since March. I strongly suspect that wouldn’t be the case if the city employees were closer and more accountable to the taxpayers that fund their department. Some opponents say watch out, this is just the beginning. This government is going to start growing, grabbing the parks, the police, the schools, etc. Poppycock. This is a talking point, nothing more. It simply isn’t possible for the city leaders to take on additional responsibilities
without the consent of the governed. Meaning, the millage rate is set at such a level as to only be able to provide the three services listed above. It simply can’t afford to take anything else on without an additional referendum of the people. I’m sure everyone remembers being told in 2009 that if you like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor. Well, here, it’s true that if you like the schools, the sheriff’s office, etc., you get to keep them. The only way to pull out of having those services provided is for the city voters to vote themselves a tax increase. I said earlier I was going to let lie the issue of countywide voting. Well, not exactly. In a tip of the hat to that concern, our committee came up with a voting system for the city that ensures each voter of the city, no matter where they live, will be able to have a vote for five of the seven elected representatives (the mayor, three at-large council members, and one from your district). This should appease those that complain about the lack of a voice in governance. There are two areas in particular that I do not leave this process feeling good about. Likely two great examples of how sausage is made, and how you don’t always get consensus, and you just have to grit your teeth and accept the compromise. (frankly, our leaders in Washington could re-learn how to do this) There will likely be a lot of gnashing of teeth about the Bill’s requirement that the referendum must receive at least 57.5% Yes votes. The report lays out how it happened. While I think that 55% is a fairer percentage to demonstrate a mandate, it is what it is. We needed to push this thing over the finish line. Perhaps the most frustrating deficiency in the Bill for me are the boundaries. I get it, boundaries are always hard to draw. Currently, there is significant angst over high school boundaries being redrawn by the Board of Education. There is likely no perfect science to it. During this process, I learned that Chattahoochee River Club was in the original Bill some years ago, but then was dropped. It appears as though a good number of people from CRC want in. But there’s also segments of folks that may or may not belong. Fellow Committee Member Chris Clark has passionately explained that there are some people in the proposed boundaries that are included in the city limits, but they really identify more as Midway people, not Sharon Springs people. We kicked around opening it up, but if we did it for CRC, then we were going to have to debate the Midway question, plus the southwestern portion of the county where Halcyon is being developed. It’s my hope that if this passes, the new city will listen with an open mind to pleas from certain areas that want in, and areas that might want out. So in summation, I wholeheartedly support the voters in the affected area’s right to vote on this referendum, and I support cityhood. A final note: This could not have happened without the support of the Forsyth County delegation and the Board Commissioners. But specifically, Representative Todd Jones. He has spent countless hours working on this. Countless. Hours. And the highest compliment I think I can pay Todd is this – I have no earthly idea if he personally is for cityhood or against it. You just wouldn’t know by how he has conducted himself. A true professional, and now, I hope, a new friend. Special thanks also goes to all of my fellow Committee members. We didn’t always agree, but there wasn’t a time when anyone acted unprofessionally or in a manner that would embarrass their respective mothers. I now know someone in each corner of this great County, and I feel richer for it.
Committee Member Report Chris Pike
I appreciate the opportunity to express my opinion on the recommendations contained in this report. I’m equally appreciate for Representative Jones and the other elected officials who appointed highly qualified and competent individuals to serve on this review committee. Over the past few months, I have learned a lot about the people in our county. The eleven members I served with all share a genuine desire to see our county move in a positive direction. My background is in local government. I’m a certified public accountant (CPA) who has worked both in the private sector and in the governmental sector for over two decades now. Since 2003, my employment has been primarily serving within local governments. That experience includes an instructor for county, city, school systems and governmental authorities and the governing officials in those organizations across the state. I have worked with the formation of new cities, including Dunwoody, Brookhaven, Peachtree Corners, Tucker and Stonecrest; all at varying levels of assistance. I have also worked with the wrap‐up of a city during the formation of a consolidated Macon‐Bibb County. That experience has given me insights to both the pros and cons that both cities and counties have. I say all of that to make the point that I began my work with this committee assignment with some inherent and hopefully beneficial understanding. A few in the group considered this an implacable bias in favor of cityhood. I respectfully disagreed and remained open to new ideas throughout the process. I feel I am better at my job today because of what I have added to my knowledge here, and some past assumptions have changed as I learned more. In short, I did feel the bill should progress when I started the process and I felt the same in the end, but it was not because I was unwilling to change or concede valid points when raised. Some of those changes are imbedded in the report and bill; some are included in this letter. So again, I support and agree with the recommendations contained in this report. I do feel the citizens of the proposed Sharon Springs area could benefit with the formation of a city. Obviously, with any government, it will only be as good and as effective, as the citizens who chose those tasked with governing. If good people elect good representatives, their odds of success will be nearly 100%. However, my support for the bill to proceed through the legislature does not rest in my confidence of the citizens in this area. I do feel they will choose good leaders if given the chance, but my support in the bill’s progression rests entirely in the thought of self‐determination. This is the very foundation of our nation. In 1776, a document was signed that stated, “it is the Right of the People … to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” During my efforts on the committee, I heard many arguments why people should vote to start a new city. I also heard many arguments why people should not start a new city. Both proponents and opponents of cityhood made valid points. What I did not hear was a compelling argument why the citizens in this area should not be given a chance to decide for themselves whether cityhood is right for them. And with that in mind, I wholeheartedly support the recommendation of this committee and the report supporting that majority opinion.
I would like to expand on four key topics of discussion. One area of discussion that played a major part in our deliberations was how a new city could potentially affect the rest of the county and even the county as a whole that includes Sharon Springs. Lots of rhetoric voiced during these discussions on both sides of the issue. Some claimed it would spell disaster in many areas. Some claimed it would have no effect. Whoever was asked seemed to know with certainty in their convictions and each opinion was on some extreme end of the good/bad spectrum. The truth is likely … definitely somewhere in between. Also, I feel the report issued by Georgia Tech’s Enterprise Innovation Institute (dated December 2015) failed, in my opinion, because the report was written in an “all else held equal” point of view. It assumed the only way to bridge gaps in revenue was to increase property taxes as if that was the only way to balance a budget. That myopic point of view is contrary to past evidence where our county has found ways to not only sustain itself but even thrive regardless of the economic realities. For example, when the Great Recession hit in 2008, we did not see huge tax rate increases to offset the loss in property values. Conversely, as the economy improved from 2013 to present, we are not experiencing big tax rate decreases to offset the increase in revenues due to increasing values either. In reality, property tax revenues have increased over 25% since 2012. I lack confidence in that report because I have more confidence in my leaders. If the Great Recession wasn’t disastrous, there’s no way an incorporation would be. My point is we don’t operate in a vacuum and can’t rely on a report that assumes that. Organic growth, competent leadership, and wise decisions will offset any temporary decline to the county’s revenue sources without a significant impact on services to the citizens outside the county, of which includes myself. I wasn’t alone on this either. In fact, most of the members of this group did not live in the proposed boundaries of an incorporated Sharon Springs. Another area of discussion was to consider how fixing the current government structure could be done in lieu of a new city. This was key for me. If we could fix the problem that started this discussion, would the question simply go away? Over and over, we all hear the district voting in Forsyth was failing all its citizens. One question I had is if we could alter that system and dismiss the cityhood question entirely. My suggestion was to maintain district voting but also interject at‐large voting. We would have 7 commissioners including a chairman. The county would be divided into three districts with 2 commissions residing in each district. One of those two would be elected solely by those also residing in the district. The other would be elected countywide. The chairman would also be elected countywide. That means the three at‐large commissioners, the chairman, and the district commissioner would be voted on by each citizens. In other words, each voter would be allowed to select 5 of the 7 commissioners instead of just one commissioner. In the end though, that discussion was outside the mandate of the committee and as a result, stopped at the discussion level. I do feel it warrants further discussion and action. In fact, I would even today encourage the BOC, state delegation, and citizens in the Sharon Springs area to come together and try to find a solution acceptable to all. This could be that solution. A third point that surfaced was whether an incorporation of Sharon Springs would trigger other communities to start the same process. Not to be insensitive, but the end of that conversation was a decision for a different group to answer that question at a later date by another group. However, I also feel that is the perfect answer. Should Sharon Springs incorporate and the example they project to the rest of the county is that of a failure, then the rest of the county has a good indicator they don’t want the same for their community. On the other hand, if the incorporation proves to be hugely successful in
accomplishing its objectives, then why wouldn’t we want the same for other areas of the county? How could a wait and see approach not be best for the other citizens in the county. Lastly, the group considered the boundaries of a proposed city. It’s worth noting a majority of the group did not feel the bill’s boundaries are what they should be. However, some felt it should include additional areas while others felt it should exclude certain areas. In the end, the committee as a whole felt it would be best to leave the boundaries as they are currently drawn and allow them to change organically over time just like they would do with any other city. To approve cityhood or not should be the responsibility of those in the proposed boundaries. I challenge the citizen voters in this area to be diligent in this decision process. Take the time to learn facts and be vigilant to avoid political rhetoric that will get plenty of airtime as a referendum date approaches. Does the formation of Sharon Springs guarantee a success in resolving the zoning issues plaguing many citizens in this area? Absolutely not. Does the formation of Sharon Springs guarantee financial ruin, over taxation, or failure to either the citizens of this area or the county as a whole? Again, absolutely not. Cityhood will be a tool that when used correctly, can help build a vibrant community and a vibrant community identity. If the citizens take their civic duties seriously, I have all the confidence they can succeed in their efforts. Georgia has plenty of examples where recent cityhood incorporation was tried and proven. That’s a reflection of the citizens working to make their new cities successful and effective; not a reflection of a magic wand that gets waived just because a charter is adopted on paper. Everyone, step up and do your part to ensure all parts of our county are as good as they can be no matter the outcome of the Sharon Springs incorporation process. I look forward to seeing how this process moves forward in the future and will continue to be available to assist where needed. ‐
Chris Pike, CPA
Committee Member Report SreeRam Royyala I truly feel it was a privilege working with a team of people from such diverse backgrounds and great talent. My sincere gratitude to Representative Todd Jones for appointing me to the committee and giving me a chance to get an inside look at how things work in the government, sort of. In last May, when Representative Jones asked me if I could be on the committee or recommend anyone else as I am already serving in District 2 Planning commission, I finally agreed because others are busy. I did come to the table with a clear mind and no prejudices as I was not aware of the wider call for Sharon springs cityhood before. The one thing that I underestimated is the amount of work that needs to be put in to read the documents and listen to the experts. I have no complaints now as I came out learning a lot about how institutions operate and how much an individual’s freedom to choose is respected in this great country. I am one of the myriad IT professionals migrated from India in search of greener pastures and have been calling Forsyth county my home for fourteen years. I have seen a lot of change in the Southern part of the county where I live. New roads, new businesses and new schools being built and filled to the brink. All this churning, as we take it, is the result of wheels of progress turning relentlessly. I had no issues with that as I only see progress as a positive thing. After participating in the meetings, listening to experts on governance, SPLOST, LOST, county affairs, public opinion, I slowly started to digest all the information and solidify a view of what can be done and what needs to be done to address some of the issues residents are facing in southern Forsyth county. Notably there are two major reports on the cityhood of Sharon Springs. One is, ‘The Fiscal Impact of the Proposed City of Sharon Springs on Forsyth County, Georgia’, by Georgia Tech Enterprise Innovation Institute. commissioned by Forsyth county board of directors. As the title of the study reads, it is a focused study on how Forsyth county will be impacted if the city of Sharon Springs comes to existence. This study looks at the numbers from county perspective. The revenue loss that they project, is in my opinion, is not a revenue loss but a revenue adjustment where the management of the residents’ taxes has changed hands from county to city. Ultimately the money belongs to the residents, neither county nor the city. And the other report, ‘A Study of Fiscal Feasibility for a Proposed City of Sharon Springs’, by Carl Vinson Institute of Government at The University of Georgia, is commissioned by a citizen body ‘Sharon Springs Alliance’. Again, as the title reads, this study solely focuses on the viability of Sharon Springs city and does not look at how the rest of the county will be impacted if the city comes to existence. As the committee members are discussing, debating, and sometimes disagreeing on the validity of these studies, I think it is in the best interest of the citizens to read these two studies and other material thoroughly and make an informed judgement in this regard.
After going through the material and listening to various points of view from concerned residents, I do see a clear disconnect between what the residents are concerned about and what the reports portray. The residents are mostly concerned about unbridled growth, traffic, overcrowded schools, and the identity of the community. Though Cityhood is not a panacea, it does address the identity issue directly and other three indirectly. To what extent and how quickly we see the change depends on many factors including able administration and active citizen participation. Yes, the permanency of Cityhood and irreversible nature of the whole process should be thought about in depth. In my opinion, that is precisely the reason why the committee set the passing vote for the referendum at 57.5%. That clearly gives a reasonable majority and categorically establishes the fact that citizens want to go ahead with cityhood no matter what. In conclusion, I think the citizens need to be adequately educated and provided with all the information required for them to make a decision. I don’t think any committee, or a governing body should come in the way of citizens’ right for self-determination. If we don’t do this now, this demand will surface again and again and again. So, I completely support this Bill to ask citizens to vote on a referendum for cityhood. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to all the committee members for their utmost professionalism and rationale in dealing with matters of disagreement, specifically Representative Todd Jones, for putting in so much time and effort and having the right vision to deal with a sensitive matter like this. I feel honored to be part of this exercise.
City of Sharon Springs To Whom It May Concern: My name is Eric Bennett. I was appointed to this committee by Pete Amos. I went into this with one question in mind: why should I care? If a new city is a fix to the problem, why should I stop it? I only needed one question answered: what will it cost the citizens of Forsyth County? After multiple committee meetings, this along with numerous other questions cannot be answered. The city is flawed from the start. What the alliance seeks to fix, will never be solved with a new city. I have a hard time forcing a fee on fellow citizens when the amount is yet to be determined. If you go by the studies that were presented it is approximately a six million dollar cut to the county budget. The studies are outdated; therefore, the information is contradictory. The studies are unusable. Essentially, you want every homeowner to pay for a city based solely on hope because “it has worked in other counties.” Forming a new city will cost taxpayers who are not even permitted to cast a vote for or against the creation of a new city. People moved to the county for a reason, and now are ready to change it to be like the counties they moved from. I understand what the coalition says this will accomplish, but it is far from the truth. They seek to control zonings when, in reality, there is very little left to re-zone. They want to control code enforcement, but they do not have a municipality building and no plan to have a court? You can’t just go out and fine people without them having the opportunity to dispute the findings. In regards to sanitation, a multi-million dollar contract – the city will award a contract to one company and then the citizens will be forced to use that company. The multi layers of government are strictly uncalled for. This area can only draw one candidate for the commission seat, yet thinks it will have council members and a mayor. If they want to change the area, you would think you would have more people wanting to run for office. This committee has been compromised. In one of the very first meetings, I mentioned that a committee member should not be able to seek office or employment for a minimum of two years. The entire committee agreed, yet during our final meeting one of the committee members (currently employed by a municipality) who was pro-city from the start decided he did not agree. To me, this makes the committee completely null and void. The vote was very close with him casting a very important vote. Why would he not agree? I feel certain the answer will be crystal clear if this city is created. Please remember that the aforementioned committee member does not live within the proposed city limits. This, along with other reasons, is why I am completely against the City of Sharon Springs. Several positive things have come out of this committee: we agree that the county has an identity problem, zonings were approved faster than the infrastructure, and we need more businesses in the county. None of these identified issues will be resolved by a new city. Representative Jones has done a tremendous job throughout this process. He remained neutral and was well organized. Thank you for the opportunity to serve and have input on shaping the future of this great county. Respectfully submitted,
Eric Bennett
