DeKalb County Organizational Act

The DeKalb County Organizational Act

During the discussions of the DeKalb County Operations Task Force (OTF), the Organizational Act for the County has been a regular focus of their discussions. Unfortunately, there has been some confusion over the exact requirements and language of the Organizational Act, combined with the fact that only a select few members of the Task Force have any familiarity with the Act.

Confusing the matter even more, a pdf version of the Organizational Act, scanned from an original document found somewhere in the dusty files of the county's legal department and made available to the OTF and the public, differs from the version found on Municode, the official repository of all current laws for DeKalb County.

Both versions of the Organizational Act are available here and are downloadable. The version from Municode, the official version available HERE, was downloaded and combined into a single Word file, reformatted for spacing and outlining, and turned into a pdf document. This is an accurate copy of the Organizational Act as of September, 2014, but should always be regarded as UNOFFICIAL, due the circumstances of its creation, and that it is NOT being distributed by the county.

Both versions, after the break:

But You Left Out the Franchise Fees!

Brookhaven Explains It All

Brookhaven recently mailed out a flier, titled The Facts About Property Tax In Brookhaven, to every property owner within the City limits. In an attempt to justify their position that property taxes are lower in Brookhaven when compared to adjacent areas of unincorporated DeKalb County, Brookhaven has provided a point-by-point analysis of the tax advantages supposedly enjoyed by City residents.

The Truth-O-Meter In Action!

In an article titled Claim Exaggerates Tax Savings, PolitiFact Georgia, a joint site managed by PolitiFact.com and ajc.com, took a hard look at the numbers provided in the flier and attempted to determine just how accurate Brookhaven's claims actually were. Their analysis can be found HERE.

In essense, where Brookhaven claims that tax savings for a home valued at $200,00 would be $260.84 per year. PolitiFact, in its analysis, determined that the true savings for that same home would be less than $50.00 per year. Ultimately, PolitiFact rated Brookhaven's claim as Half True.

But Where Are the Franchise Fees?

In reading the both the flyer and the PolitiFact article, we note that both groups omitted the impact of franchise fees on their city revenues, exactly how much is paid by City residents and how those fees vary between the new cities and the County. In researching franchise fees, I've found it is problematic to determine exactly how they work, who pays what, who ultimately receives that revenue, and just how it is accounted for. In general, cities may collect franchise fees that the County cannot, but franchise fees are assessed on both city and county residents, often unknowingly. Some franchise fees paid by unincorporated residents are distributed to cities statewide, but not to the County which generates them. A tricky slope indeed, franchise fees.

So what impact do franchise fees have on Brookhaven's budget? And how does that compare to the County? They're not saying, and its quite possible that nobody really knows for sure.

The flier itself, after the break.

What Do You Do When The Hired Expert . . . Isn't So Expert?

YOU SPEAK UP!

GSU Presentation to the DeKalb Operations Task Force

At the recent DeKalb County Operations Task Force meeting, held on July 16, 2014, a presentation to the Committee On Municipalization / Annexation was made by Dr. Laura Wheeler, a Senior Research Associate with the Fiscal Research Center of the GSU Andrew Young School of Policy Studies.

During her presentation, which was marred by a computer failure which kept her PowerPoint presentation from being displayed, Dr. Wheeler made several statements that some in the audience knew to be incorrect or misleading. This was disappointing to hear, considering the supposed expertise that Dr. Wheeler, and by extension, the Andrew Young School, was expected to bring to the proceedings. What is worse is that the committee members, believing her to be an expert in these matters, were highly inclined to believe that everything she referenced was true and correct. Given the minimal level of their understanding of the issues before them, and my impression that these committee members are not inclined to do their own homework, this does not bode well for the entire process.

A audio recording of the meeting can be found HERE. This is the only accurate documentation of what was said in the meeting as it was not televised or recorded by the County.

Herman Lorenz, of the City of Briarcliff Initiative, was in the audience and was equally troubled by what he heard. As Herman is one of the most knowledgeable and well-read individuals in the entire incorporation debate, his words should be heard and appreciated. His understanding and expertise on many of the issues before the Task Force would seem to go well beyond that of their hired 'expert'.

Operations Task Force - Meeting of the Committee On Municipalization/Annexation

Please note that only 5 of the 8 appointed committee members bothered to show up. (The list of committee appointments can be found HERE.) Commissioner Stan Watson, Rep. Mike Jacobs and BoE member Jim McMahan were absent. I would further note that Commissioner Watson has not shown up to ANY of the Task Force meetings.

Herman's comments, after the break.

Second Verse, Same as the First!

Clarkston Gets Its Re-vote on Annexation

The annexation in Area 1 is now scheduled for a "re-run" election on Tuesday, November 4, 2014, Election Day in the United States.

We've been closely following the proposed Clarkston annexations for a while now and earlier this week noted how the annexation question had inexplicably disappeared, given the tie vote in Area 1, and Clarkston's intent for a second vote. Having asked the question earlier this week, we now have the answers.

Clarkston had filed a petition against the DeKalb County Board of Registrations and Elections, after their refusal to allow a re-vote on the annexation of Area 1, as they maintained that the tie vote, under Georgia law, constituted a rejection of the referendum, normally requiring 50% + 1 Yes vote to pass. But as seen Clarkston's petition (which can be found HERE) they cited two reasons which justified a "Re-Run" of the vote.

1) The Bill Was Poorly Written

The local bill for annexation, HB 1128, allowed for separate votes for annexation in both Area 1 (Part 2-B) and Area 2 (Part 1-A).  Area 2 failed to pass; Area 1 was tied 35-35.  In HB 1128, you will find the following language: