The following article was published on CummingHome.com on 6/25/08

THE FORSYTH COUNTY NEWS REFUSES MY LETTERS
(Ron Seder 6/25/08)  

The Forsyth County News has informed me that it will no longer publish my “Letters to the Editor”.  

I was told the decision was made at the highest levels (Dennis Stockton who is the Publisher of the Gainesville Times and still retains oversight of the Forsyth County News).  

The person who called me from the Forsyth County News would not give a reason for the decision, and subsequent attempts to contact Dennis Stockton, asking for the reason, have produced no response.  

I am a citizen who once was a Forsyth County Commissioner. I have used the “Letter to the Editor” to spread the facts about, and my assessment of, some county issues.  

I have some knowledge, both by firsthand experience and by observation, about the unfair dealings of the city with the county, so when the subjects of “LOST/SPLOST/Water Rates” are addressed I take special interest.  I do not see any rational justification for the city receiving a share of county sales taxes amounting to $2 to $6 per city resident for every $1 the county receives per county resident.  

Let me back up and review the recent events surrounding the Forsyth County News (FCN) decision to not print my letters.

(1)        I submitted a letter to the FCN on Wednesday morning, June 11.

(2)        I received a call from the FCN on Thursday afternoon to verify that I was the letter writer, which suggested to me that the letter would be printed in the Sunday paper

(3)        The letter did not appear in the Sunday paper

(4)        Monday morning I sent an email and called for the FCN editor asking why my letter had not been in the paper

(5)        Monday evening I got a call from the FCN saying that Dennis Stockton decided the FCN would no longer print any letters from me.  The caller would not give me a reason for Dennis Stockton’s decision

(6)        Attempts to contact Dennis Stockton to find out the reason for his decision have produced no responses. 

So, I am left in the dark about the reason(s) for the FCN action.  It seems to me that if the FCN had a factually defensible reason it would give it to me.  Since the FCN will not tell me why, I am left to make some educated guesses.  

Let me first explain that the letter I submitted to the FCN on June 11 was critical of the Cumming-Forsyth County Chamber of Commerce for being hypocritical in their SPLOST VI involvement.  Following is content lifted from my letter:  

“A Cumming-Forsyth County Chamber of Commerce full page advertisement in the Forsyth County news on June 8, 2008, congratulated the city and four county commissioners for reaching an agreement that gave the city $12.5 million more than county voters approved in the February “SPLOST VI/Green Space Bond” vote.  The ad even emphasized that it was better to give the city most of that $12.5 million anyway.  Hogwash!  

The ad advanced the notion that there would be serious consequences if there was a lapse in the county SPLOST collections.  A position in which the Chamber apparently finds comfort now that it is on the side of the mayor receiving more county funds.  The ad also boasted about the many politicians who supported the county give-away.  

Where were the Chamber and the politicians when the mayor’s “VOTE NO” SPLOST committee was urging county citizens to defeat the SPLOST VI vote and terminate SPLOST collections?  At that time the Chamber issued no public warnings, nor even publicly supported a “yes” SPLOST VI vote.”  

My educated guess for the FCN refusing to print my letters is that the FCN did not look with favor on the content of my last letter, and perhaps some of my other past letters, for some of the following reasons.

(1)        The mayor does not like me explaining to the public how he is taking unfair advantage of the county.  I have long felt, from my personal observations and the lack of city criticism in the FCN, that for whatever reason (maybe pressure) the FCN is partial to the city.  I cannot remember an article in the FCN critical of the city, while the paper seems to seek out every negative on the county.

(2)        The Chamber does not like me pointing out its hypocrisy.  Dennis Stockton is an active Chamber participant and much of his advertising revenues come from Chamber members.

(3)        The FCN does not like letters that are contrary to its own writings.  

Whatever the FCN reasons are, it is a shame when it refuses to print legitimate citizen views for public consideration.  

The following letter was submitted to the Forsyth County News (FCN) on June 11.  Subsequently I was informed that the FCN would not print this letter or any of my future letters.

June 10, 2008

Letter to the Editor
Forsyth County News  

An example of hypocrisy right here at home.  

A Cumming-Forsyth County Chamber of Commerce full page advertisement in the Forsyth County news on June 8, 2008, congratulated the city and four county commissioners for reaching an agreement that gave the city $12.5 million more than county voters approved in the February “SPLOST VI/Green Space Bond” vote.  The ad even emphasized that it was better to give the city most of that $12.5 million anyway.  Hogwash!  

The ad advanced the notion that there would be serious consequences if there was a lapse in the county SPLOST collections.  A position in which the Chamber apparently finds comfort now that it is on the side of the mayor receiving more county funds.  The ad also boasted about the many politicians who supported the county give-away.  

Where were the Chamber and the politicians when the mayor’s “VOTE NO” SPLOST committee was urging county citizens to defeat the SPLOST VI vote and terminate SPLOST collections?  At that time the Chamber issued no public warnings, nor even publicly supported a “yes” SPLOST VI vote.  

The city’s SPLOST VI rant has now resulted in the city receiving about 10 percent from the county instead of the 4.29 percent share we approved in our “SPLOST VI/Green Space Bond” vote.  

I strongly believe the county made a mistake by not appealing Judge Stone’s technicality decision in favor of the city.  That may or may not have resulted in some delay of SPLOST VI collections.  The delay could have been as long as nine months, but it might also have been zero or a time period of less than nine months.  Of course, a delay would also have reduced the sales tax burden on county citizens.  

The city has too long received large unfair shares of the county LOST, SPLOST and water supply revenues.  The county had an opportunity to finally do it right and establish a new reasonable precedent for the city’s share, but the county blew it.  

Ronald Seder  

The SPLOST VI give-away deed is done
(Ron Seder 6/1/08)

The deed is done.  

The Forsyth County Board of Commissioners gave the city more than twice as much of SPLOST VI than county residents approved.  

Forsyth County residents voted to give the city 4.29%, and the Board of Commissioners decided to give the city more than 10%, which is an extra $12.5 million.  

The county insists that the city is still receiving only 4.29% of SPLOST VI because the county is using other sources of funds for the $12.5 million give-away to the city.  But, we all know that is just back door funds shuffling, which still gives the city more than twice as much SPLOST VI funds than was authorized in the SPLOST VI vote.  

We are told that giving $10 million to the city for an aquatic center is really a good deal for the county anyway because the city is unintelligent enough to pay the operating costs.  Now, the county commission can try to convince us that the city mayor is ignorant on this issue, but don’t you believe it.  The city can be rightfully accused of many things, but anyone who believes the mayor is slow on the uptake is wrong.  

What the county has done by giving the city the $10 million to build, own and control the aquatic center is like me giving an acquaintance, who has wronged me many times over past years, $30,000 to buy himself a new car because he said he would let me use it.  What an absurd idea.  

Those of us who were against giving more to the city are accused of being non thinking, acting because of a grudge against the mayor, twiddling our thumbs, preferring a legal document to hold in our hand and other apparently condescending remarks.  But those remarks are just a means of using the long standing diversion technique of attacking the messenger rather than the message.  

I am still convinced that the county should have appealed the technicality ruling offered by Judge Stone.  That may have resulted in no delay in SPLOST VI implementation and the county could have kept the $12.5 million for investment in its own infrastructure.  Even if there had still been a delay, the discontinuance of huge unfair county donations to the city would have stopped the tradition, and established a new precedent for future Boards of Commissioners that will have to make decisions on the next LOST/SPLOST splits and potentially costly future water purchases from the city.  

A valid argument is made that if the implementation of SPLOST VI had been delayed some much needed road projects would be delayed.  That might have happened, with the corresponding decrease of sales taxes on county residents, but I know of no crisis that would have been caused by the delay.  

I know the Board of Commissioners received a lot of political and chamber pressure to give in to the city, but I believe it was unwise for the Board to succumb to that pressure rather than escalate their disagreement with Judge Stone’s decision.  

Add this $12.5 million to the $9 million the county gave the city a few months ago for the city to complete its Pilgrim Mill Road project, the potentially unwarranted $15-$20 million to be given to the Taubman group to locate an upscale shopping center in its ideal customer demographic in the highest income county in the state, and a proposed 7.3% pay increase for the county staff in the face of declining tax revenue increases, and pretty soon we will be talking about real money.  

A Bad SPLOST VI Deal For The County
(Ron Seder 5/11/08)

It looks like a bad SPLOST VI deal between the city and the county is about to be consummated.  The county has offered to give the city more than twice as many dollars (an additional $12.5 million) than provided by the SPLOST VI ballot language that won our 70 percent approval.  Depending on actual SPLOST VI collections the ballot would have given the city, over five years, between $9 million and $11,797,500 (4.29% of SPLOST VI). But, now the maximum SPLOST VI collection to be realized by the city is $24,297,500.

During the city/county SPLOST VI discussions the city never offered less than its original $50 million demand, and because the city did not get the $50 million, it convinced a judge to rule against the SPLOST VI implementation on a procedural basis, although the judge found the 4.29% city share to be legal.  And, apparently that judge’s decision to stop SPLOST VI implementation can be reversed by a signal from the city.

How can the new city SPLOST VI share be legal?  We voted for a maximum $11,797,500 share for the city. If the ballot had indicated a $24,297,500 share for the city I would have voted against it.

I see no city needs more important than identified county needs that should cause the county to give the city more SPLOST VI funds than the state required 4.29% share.

$10 million of the $12.5 million gift to the city is to come from the $100 million “Recreation and Green Space” bond we also passed by a 70% vote, allowing the spin to say the city will not really receive $12.5 million additional SPLOST VI funds because $10 million is really coming from the “Recreation and Green Space” bond.  But, I think that is just a subterfuge.

I also believe the Board of Commissioners broke faith with county voters on the bond vote.  We voted for a $100 million “Recreation and Green Space” bond that included $10 million for an aquatic center.  I do not believe county voters envisioned that the $10 million would be donated to the city for the city to build, own and control an aquatic center on Pilgrim Mill Road.

An argument is made that we will lose several months of SPLOST VI funds if we do not make this deal with the city.  Maybe, but why would the city be so anxious to also forgo several months of SPLOST VI money?  Of course, if SPLOST VI collections were delayed for several months the 1% tax burden on Forsyth County citizens would also be removed for that same period of time.  We do need the projects identified for SPLOST VI, but there would be no crisis caused by the delay.

I am disappointed that the Board of Commissioners made a political rather than a principled decision on this issue.  Decisions in dealings with the city similar to this one over the past 20 years have cost the county maybe $50 million, and this decision fails to break the precedent for similar county losses over the next 20 years.

Letter in Forsyth County News 5/11/08

Well, now we have an interesting SPLOST VI development for Forsyth County.

The city is not satisfied with a population share of SPLOST VI. The city demanded $50 million. The county offered the city 10 percent of SPLOST VI and the city turned it down. Before the vote, the city never made an offer other than its original $50 million.

When the county decided, as allowed by law, that the city should get its population share (4.29 percent based on the 2000 census) the city determined that it wanted a parking deck put on the ballot (one of the projects identified in the city's original $50 million demand) even though the 4.29 percent share was projected to produce fewer funds than the city had envisioned for the parking deck.

The city was unhappy because it would no longer receive an unreasonable share of SPLOST, and worked to defeat the SPLOST VI vote.

Almost 70 percent of Forsyth County voters voted for SPLOST VI.

The city sued to stop SPLOST VI implementation and the judge agreed.

Superior Court Judge Stone interpreted the state SPLOST rules to require that all the demanded city projects should have been listed on the ballot, although most of them were not funded by SPLOST VI.

Judge Stone's rules interpretation also determined that the county should have identified its specific SPLOST VI projects earlier in the process.

Therefore, the judge stopped SPLOST VI implementation on his interpretation of the rules, not on the legality of the 4.29 percent split.

To me this is just another case of the city's pettiness. The city was unable to convince the board of commissioners to give the city an unjustified large share of SPLOST VI. The city took the case to court, and now the city's lawsuit may punish county citizens by delaying or denying them the benefits of SPLOST VI projects.

I hope the board of commissioners stands firm on a fair SPLOST population share for the city.

Ronald Seder

Gainesville

SPLOST VI VOTE RESULTS
(Ron Seder 2/28/08)

This is just a quick report on the SPLOST vote earlier this month.  SPLOST VI passed overwhelmingly with about 70% of the voters voting in favor of it.

Response to the article titled: “Vote NO Committee Responds to Opinion Article”
(The referenced opinion article is the article titled: "THE VOTE NO TO SPLOST” COMMITTEE
MISLEADING STATEMENTS" which appears below)

The following article was published on cumminghome.com 2/2/08

Former Commissioner Responds to Opinion Article
(Ron Seder 2/1/08)

The article deserves response because there are statements in it that are misleading or just plain wrong. 

The claim is that the “Vote No Committee” (committee) is not a Mayor Ford Gravitt Committee.  However, the mayor initiated the committee, recruited committee members and instructed his city council to recruit committee members.  The readers can look at these facts and use their own judgment as to whether or not this is a Mayor Ford Gravitt committee. 

The article states: “as was inaccurately pointed out, the committee has not made an issue of the SPLOST split at any time.”  That is just not true.  The committee website had a statement on it last week that said: “the proposed split of the money with the City of Cumming is unjust.  While the city generates over 20% of the revenue, the county wants to cut their share of funds to 4.29%.”  That committee website statement fails to recognize that that city residents pay only 4% of the SPLOST paid by all county residents.  And, I think because the author is a member of the committee we might also doubt his article statement: “At this time, I am not involved with the disagreement regarding division of SPLOST money so I will not address those comments at this time.” 

The article states: “Taxes will go up if we approve SPLOST VI and its related $160 million bond if we cannot go back to the table and include other projects that are badly needed.”  That is a misleading statement.  Property taxes will go up and/or necessary county projects will not be done if SPLOST VI is voted down. 

The article states:  “We need to find a way to include a jail and courthouse in SPLOST funding.”  This is like trying to put ten pounds of sugar in a five pound bag.  The county has many more needs than a 1% SPLOST can pay for.  The county’s Capital Needs Review (on the web at http://www.forsythco.com/, click on SPLOST VI,  then click on Capital Needs Review) last year identified $697.5 million dollars of Forsyth County capital needs. The most optimistic forecast for SPLOST VI revenue is $275 million.  Therefore the county had to prioritize and include only the projects in SPLOST VI that most deserved to be there. 

The article states: “Defeating the renewal of SPLOST VI for 12 months will not create an unbearable burden.  Sometimes we have to face small burdens”.  Delaying SPLOST VI for one year will reduce the county’s revenue by $30+ million.  That is not a small burden, and there is no legitimate reason for a delay.

The article says: “SPLOST VI was not created to respect the citizens”.  This is a bogus assertion.  The county board of commissioners produced a “Capital Needs Review” last year from which a citizens committee helped the board of commissioners prioritize the projects to be included in SPLOST VI.  That is a thoughtfully and respectfully produced list of SPLOST VI projects. 

The article states: “Regarding SPLOST 5 projects, I too want everyone to get the list from the county website.” The committee continues to assert that SPLOST V was mismanaged by the board of commissioners.  I just don’t agree.  I think the board of commissioners has done a decent job of managing SPLOST V projects.  Status of the SPLOST V projects is on the county website at http://www.forsythco.com/, click on SPLOST VI, then click on SPLOST V Update. 

A county commissioner explained that most, but not all SPLOST V projects are completed or will be completed soon.  He said: “the county did not receive $.75 on the dollar for every dollar of road costs as we were promised in 2003 - only $.15 on the dollar. Plus, construction costs ballooned in the past 5 years including right-of-way costs. Still, we have completed 70% of all road projects with the $.60 per dollar state deficit, and an 11% expected reduction in SPLOST revenues. Add to that, we have another 10% of planned projects either under construction today, or expected to have the state contracts let in February of 2008.  We have completed all but three parks and rec projects, but two of those are the city's responsibility, not ours. We have completed all but two of our public safety projects, and have acquired land for one (Fire Station 7), and hope to have land for the other (Fire Station 6) shortly. Senior Center expansion is completed. Cumming Library expansion is completed. Hampton Library is ready to be built.” 

The article states: “I propose we empower a citizens committee to be deeply involved with recreating SPLOST VI and that the committee remains in place to monitor SPLOST money management and monitor projects”.  I think this is a bad idea.  We already elect a citizens committee called the board of commissioners.  Who would appoint the suggested citizens committee?  Special interest groups?  City politicians? Another county wide election to elect a “super board of commissioners”?  We elect our commissioners on a countywide basis and if a majority of citizens do not like a commissioner’s performance they can vote the commissioner out of office. 

As you can see, there are a lot of things incorrect or misleading in the referenced article.  It is important that we not let the demagoguery of the committee influence our vote. 

A YES vote for SPLOST VI is best for Forsyth County Citizens.

 The following letter was published in the Forsyth County News on January 27, 2008

 SPLOST VI should be approved by the county 

Forsyth County voters are being asked on the February 5 ballot to extend the 1 percent SPLOST tax for another five years.  I recommend a yes vote for this tax extension called SPLOST VI. 

We all know that Forsyth County has had fast paced growth that requires county infrastructure expenditures to maintain a quality of life desired by most county residents.  SPLOST VI allows sales taxes paid by county and non-county residents to reduce the burden applied to property taxes. 

The county has done an admirable job of identifying projects to be included in SPLOST VI by having a professional capital plan produced and using a citizens committee to prioritize the transportation projects from that plan for inclusion in SPLOST VI.  Numerous details of SPLOST VI expenditures have been displayed in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Forsyth County News, and with supporting material on the county’s website (www.forsythco.com, click on SPLOST VI). 

The City of Cumming is fighting the SPLOST VI extension because the county finally has three county commissioners who refuse to give the city a huge unfair share of SPLOST VI, as has been done in past SPLOSTs.  The city’s share of SPLOST VI is fairly and logically based on the city’s population percentage of the county’s population. 

The city challenged SPLOST VI in court and lost.  The city has formed a committee to fight SPLOST VI, which is now trying to mislead the public into voting against it.  The city is challenging the SPLOST VI wording on the February 5 ballot, which, although not exactly the same as the wording of SPLOST V when it passed unchallenged by the city, contains essentially the same information and detail. 

The city had none of these concerns when it thought it might again receive an unconscionable unfair share of SPLOST VI.  These challenges only arose because the city did not have its way with the county this time around. 

The best interests of county citizens will be served if SPLOST VI is passed. 

Ronald Seder

THE “VOTE NO TO SPLOST” COMMITTEE
MISLEADING STATEMENTS
(Ron Seder 1/27/08) 

The City has organized the “Vote No To SPLOST” Committee.  The committee has made several negative assertions about SPLOST VI, but the committee has not challenged the need for the totality of projects the county has identified for SPLOST VI. 

Let’s review some of the misleading statements on the Committee Website (website assertions are bold and underlined).

The committee recommends that you vote NO to SPLOST VI and Bond and not raise our taxes

Do not allow the committee to combine the two and confuse the vote.  "SPLOST VI" and the "Park, Recreation and Green Space Bond" are two separate votes on the February 5 ballot.

SPLOST VI is an extension of the current SPLOST, and therefore will not raise our taxes.  A defeat of SPLOST VI will increase property taxes because the defeat would eliminate SPLOST revenue for needed projects. 

The “Park, Recreation and Green Space Bond” will raise property taxes. 

The committee is not just for the benefit of the City of Cumming.  It is for everyone in Cumming/Forsyth County.  Will not create a city vs. county campaign. 

The Committee would not have been organized without city leadership and push.  A cochairman of the committee works for the City.  The city had no issues with SPLOST VI until the city discovered that the county commission was only going to give the city the SPLOST VI share it deserved (percentage of SPLOST VI matching the city’s portion of the county population). 

SPLOST VI fails to respect the citizens. 

I think it respects the citizens very well because projects have been thoughtfully selected to satisfy the most pressing citizen needs. 

The ballot is written in such a way it can mislead the voter. 

I think the ballot could have been better written to weaken opponent demagoguery of it.  The $160,000,000 bond, to be repaid with SPLOST VI revenues, allows the county to borrow money to speed up the implementation of SPLOST VI projects without a tax increase. 

The ballot intent is clear to almost all voters.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that a majority of the county commissioners is trying to deceive county citizens. 

The County Rushed to put SPLOST VI on the February 5 ballot.  

What rush?  The county prepared for the SPLOST VI extension proposal for several months during 2007.  As early as March 30, 2007, Mayor Gravitt talked about the upcoming SPLOST (SPLOST VI) considerations in a speech at a Chamber Breakfast. 

Projects have not been adequately identified. 

The county commission has carefully and thoughtfully identified SPLOST VI projects with professional and citizen group assistance.

Details of SPLOST VI projects have been published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Forsyth County News, and with supporting documentation on the county website at http://www.forsythco.com/DeptPage.asp?DeptID=6&PageID=1003. 

Past projects are not complete but the money is gone. Where did it go?  

A detailed SPLOST V project status has been published in the Atlanta Journal Constitution in an article titled, “How Forsyth spent the last SPLOST”, on the web at http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/northfulton/stories/2008/01/27/forsythtax0127ns.html, and on the Forsyth County website at http://www.forsythco.com/DeptPage.asp?DeptID=6&PageID=1003, click on SPLOST V Update. 

The county has an accounting of the use of, and continuing plans for, SPLOST V funds for SPLOST V projects.

Let me add just a couple more comments. 

The committee says that the city deserves more of the SPLOST VI funds because 20 percent of the tax is generated in the city, but even if the 20 percent claim is factual it fails to recognize that city residents pay only 4 percent of the total SPLOST paid by county residents. 

It appears that the committee (city) is trying to convey the idea that county commissioners who voted for SPLOST VI are secretive and not to be trusted.  I think the real evidence shows just the opposite.  One indication of this can be seen in a comparison of the county website to the city website.  There is much greater information openness on the county website including detailed project status reports and detailed financial reports.  There is no display of this information on the city website. 

You may also want to review County Commissioner David Richard’s 1/25/2008 response to the “Vote No To SPLOST” Committee comments on his website at http://www.davidrichard.info/id3.html. 

HUH?
(Ron Seder 11/26/07) 

The absurd conclusion of the Cumming Mayor, reported by the Forsyth County News, is that if the county voters pass the next SPLOST extension, property taxes may go up.  Huh?  Obviously, sales tax revenues reduce the need for more property taxes. 

The mayor should know that.  Cumming has had no city property tax because the city has been receiving such a large unfair portion of the SPLOST and the LOST, not because of efficiency in city government. 

The mayor is determined to defeat the next round of SPLOST because the county refused to give him an unconscionably large share of the sales tax again.  This small town mayor should not be allowed to be bigger than life.  Those days have passed and we now finally have three county commissioners who are insisting on fairness in the split of the SPLOST between the city and the county. 

The SPLOST allows those who visit our county to help pay for some of our needed infrastructure improvements, which reduces the burden of county residents paying for all of it through property taxes.

The following letter to the editor appeared in the Forsyth County News on November 11, 2007.

Commissioners finally stand their ground 

At last, a majority of three Forsyth County Commissioners produced a fair split of the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) between the city and the county. 

For the first time ever, Forsyth County voters will vote on an extension of the SPLOST based on the city and county population proportions.  Commissioners David Richard, Jim Harrell and Charlie Laughinghouse produced a final vote on October 30, which gave the city 4.3 percent and the county 95.7 percent based on the 2000 census population percentage. 

Thank you Commissioners Richard, Harrell and Laughinghouse. 

The city has been receiving 15 or 20 percent of the SPLOST, depending on what is included, and that is three to four times the city’s population percentage.  This is the first time we have had a majority on the Board of Commissioners who fairly protected the county’s interests in a sales tax negotiation with the city. 

The city still receives an unfair 15 percent of the Local Option Sales Tax (LOST), and that will not be renegotiated again until 2012.  But for now I am grateful that we currently have three commissioners who did the right thing for all of us whether inside or outside the city limits. 

Ronald Seder

A Fair SPLOST Split!!!
(Ron Seder 11/10/07) 

On October 30, 2007, for the first time ever, there was a majority on the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners who protected the county’s interest and produced a fair split of the next Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) with the City of Cumming.  Commissioners Richard, Harrell and Laughinghouse voted to give the city its population share (4.29%) of the next SPLOST. 

Currently, Cumming receives 15% of both the SPLOST and the LOST (Local Option Sales Tax).  Based on the 2000 census that is 3.5 times more than its deserved population share.  I can find no other city in Georgia that comes anywhere close to that ridiculous multiplier. 

You might ask, how did the county ever agree to give the city 15% of the sales taxes? It boils down to what I think are unscrupulous tactics of the Cumming Mayor. 

I have never seen the mayor negotiate anything in good faith with the county.  In my view the mayor’s tactics have always been to demand, intimidate or blackmail the county into submission. The current 15% of the LOST and the SPLOST can be traced back to the 1995 LOST negotiation when the mayor told the county that if the county did not agree to give the city 15% of the LOST and 15% of the next SPLOST the city would allow the LOST to be discontinued. You see, there is a provision in the LOST legislation that discontinues the LOST if the city and county cannot agree on how to split it.  Losing the LOST, of course, would cause an increase in property taxes.  The County Commission voted 3 to 2 to give the city the 15%. 

Not unexpectedly, the mayor is now using a tactic he did not have to use before.  He is suing the county because the county did not give in to his unconscionable demands this time.  I suspect he really has no legal basis for the suit, but expects to get something, out of court, to suspend the legal harassment and expenses of the county, which could go on for a long time.  In my opinion this is just another action by the mayor that is in character with his past bullying techniques. 

DO I EVER HAVE A DEAL FOR YOU???
(Ron Seder 10/26/07) 

Commissioner Brian Tam has figured out a way for the city to receive more than twice its population share from the next SPLOST.  It’s simple; make the SPLOST collection for the next six years instead of five, and more than double the percentage for the city at an additional $12 million cost to the county. 

Apparently Commissioner Tam’s rationale is that the county could also receive more because the total SPLOST would be six years worth rather than five. 

According to the Forsyth County News, Commissioner Tam said the county receiving 95.7% (the population share) over five years would not give the county as much money as receiving 91% over six years.  Well duh! 

So, the idea is for the county to give the city 9% of the next SPLOST at a cost to the county of $12 million to avoid giving Forsyth County citizens the opportunity to vote on another SPLOST extension in five years.  Why, because the voters may not want a SPLOST extension in 5 years?  If voters do not want a SPLOST extension in 5 years wouldn’t that mean that voting to accept a six-year SPLOST now is a mistake? 

Does this make sense to anyone other than Commissioner Tam and the City of Cumming political leaders?

FORSYTH COUNTY AND CUMMING CITY TAXES
Some Musings About the City and county LOST and SPLOST Split
(Ron Seder 10/9/07) 

The city says its daily population is greater than its nighttime population, as being a reason for the city to get a larger share of the Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) and Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST).  If that is true I think the city should put a property tax on their businesses because they are the cause of the increased city daytime population. 

If the city wants a fairgrounds, Mary Alice Park Commercial development, aquatic center, City Hall with an unused floor of space, increases in sewer service, annexation of shopping centers into the city, widening roads with less traffic than some county roads with greater needs, a playhouse, etc., the city should collect the money required over and above a population split of the sales taxes from city businesses and citizens.  I suspect if the city was not getting ”free” money from the county the city residents would not tolerate all the city spending. 

The Mayor says county people use city roads (much of that road use in the City is on state roads, i.e. GA 9 and GA 20) as a justification for a greater share of the sales taxes.  Does that mean that because people from outside the County use County roads the state should give some of its sales tax to the County? 

The county provides some services to city residents that the city does not provide, Superior Courts, Fire Protection Service, Library system County Jail, Senior Center, etc. 

The city brags about having no property taxes.  How can the city do that, they may even spend more money per resident than the county does?  They can do that because they are receiving a huge unjustified share of the sales taxes.  Why shouldn’t city residents and businesses pay city property taxes rather than the county paying for city services?  City folks presumably get special or better breaks and services by being part of a chartered city. 

The city brags about its low price of water to its water customers, especially those inside the city limits.  This too, they could not do if the county was not purchasing a lot of water from the city at unjustifiably high wholesale water prices, and giving the city a more than deserved sales tax share. 

The city says it needs a larger share of the sales taxes because a larger percentage of retail businesses are in the city.  If these businesses are such a burden to the city why did the city annex some shopping centers into the city?  Also, why do shopping centers want to be annexed into the city? 

The Forsyth County News says consider that a disproportional share of the sales tax is collected inside the city.  Why not rather consider that the county residents outside the city pay a disproportional of the sales tax?  According to the 2000 census, median family income inside the city was $47,370 and median family income in the county was $74,003.  City per capita income was $16445 and county per capita income was 29,114. 

If county citizens want an aquatic center why not keep the funds in the county and have it built and controlled by the county rather than by the city? 

If county citizens need more parks why give money to the city to build a city park that is mostly for non-city county folks (Mayor said that only 3% of the current city park usage is by city residents)?  The county should satisfy its expenditures on, and keep control of, parks for its growing county park it needs. 

In a presentation I saw last Saturday City Councilman Rupert Sexton said the county pays the city $.03 per 1000 gallons impoundment fee to the city for its water – everything else is profit to the county except for reading the meters.  Obviously this is just another untrue statement by city leaders. There is a lot more cost to taking in raw water, treating it and delivering it to the end user than just reading meters.  Does the city pay a $.03 per 1000 gallons impoundment fee to the Corps? 

Councilman Sexton also said, in response to an audience comment about the Mary Alice Park project moving fast, and the lack of public participation in and exposure to the Mary Alice Park project, that the only city involvement in the Great Wolf project is handling the lease.  He said public participation is the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers. He denied that the City courted Great Wolf for the project.  Of course, having Mary Alice Park surrounded by non-city county residents might cause the city to be less responsive to these non-city voters. 

Based on the county 2007 budget I estimate the city will receive about $2,000 per resident while the county will receive about  $400 per resident from the combination of the LOST and SPLOST. There is no logical justification for this.  In a fantasy where the county would receive $2000 per county resident the county would receive $300 million this year, which would allow the county to eliminate property taxes, build a new jail and courthouse, accomplish its SPLOST projects and have millions of dollars to put aside for future operations and capital costs.  Also, I find it interesting that if the city population was 20% of county population, and the city received $2000 per resident, 100% of the LOST and SPLOST would be required to do that, leaving nothing for the county.

THE CITY HAS GOTTEN RICH OFF THE COUNTY
(Ron Seder 4/18/07)

My April 15, 2007, letter in the Forsyth County News explained that the City of Cumming receives five times more LOST (Local Option Sales Tax) and five times more SPLOST (Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax) per resident than Forsyth County receives. 

Currently the city gets 15% of the LOST and SPLOST and the county gets 85%.  The city has only 3% of the county population based on an estimated population of 5,000 in the city and 150,000 in the county. 

The April 15 letter also pointed out that if the county received as much outside funding per resident as the city gets from county sales taxes the county would be able to eliminate property taxes, have an annual $100 million revenue surplus in its General fund, build a jail and courthouse without bond debt, and have several hundred million dollars for other infrastructure investments. 

Of course, this really is fantasy because the state or federal governments would think the county to be wacky if the county asked them for that kind of financial support. 

Obviously, the city portion of the sales taxes is hugely unreasonable and unfair, and begs the question – how did this unjust distribution of county taxes come about?  There are two main reasons.  First, there was a flaw in the LOST legislation.  Second, the county has had a majority of county commissioners who voted to give the city much more than was reasonable. 

When I ran for office in 1992 the city was receiving 12% of the LOST based on the city’s population percentage in 1970 census, which was the most recent census when the LOST was first implemented in the late 1970s.  However, the 1990 census showed the city to be 6% of the county population, and that percentage was expected to decrease as the county continued to grow. 

The sales tax split disparity was one of my focus points during the election campaign of 1992, even though there was no provision in the LOST legislation at that time to renegotiate the split.  During the early 1990s the LOST legislation was changed to force a renegotiation by 1995 and in succeeding decades during the second year after the census (2002, 2012, etc.) 

Renegotiation under the updated legislation had a serious handicap.  The legislation allowed a city in a one-city county like Forsyth to refuse to agree to a fair split of the LOST and cause the LOST to be eliminated for both the city and county.  This gave the city some extortion powers, which it flaunted.  The city demanded an unconscionable 25% of the LOST. 

There was a provision in the legislation that allowed non-binding third party arbitration of the LOST distribution.  The county pressed for this arbitration and the Superior Court appointed an arbitrator. 

A peculiar thing happened on the way to the first arbitration meeting.  The night before the first scheduled arbitration meeting a county commissioner called for an emergency Board of Commissioners (BOC) meeting to be held one hour before the scheduled next day arbitration meeting.  As it turned out, the purpose of the meeting was to allow three of the five county commissioners to pass a motion to give the city 15% of the LOST and 15% of the next SPLOST.  That county action eliminated the need for the arbitration meeting. 

I am convinced that tying the next SPLOST split to the 1995 LOST split was done because the SPLOST legislation did not contain the extortion flaw of the LOST legislation. 

Why was this BOC vote forced one hour before the meeting with the court appointed arbitrator?  My conclusion is that the city and three county commissioners did not want the real facts exposed to the public by fair and unbiased arbitration.  Subsequent BOCs have also had a majority of commissioners who gave the city the ridiculous 15% share. 

The LOST and SPLOST split have allowed the city to build and operate a fairgrounds, a sky ride, a race track, a theatre and restaurant, accumulate money for a swim center, accumulate funds for a sewer plant expansion, rejuvenate an old hotel, produce grand and potentially expensive plans for Mary Alice Park, widen roads carrying minimal traffic compared to busier county roads, etc. 

These city expenditures have been going on while the county has raised its property tax millage rate (even with a rapidly growing tax digest), cannot build a needed new courthouse and jail without full indebtedness, has not eased some serious road and intersection traffic problems, and without investment in other needed infrastructure improvements. 

The Mayor of Cumming says one of the reasons the city needs a large share of the sales taxes is that the city does not have a property tax or impact fees to pay for city expenditures.  Well “duh”, if the city is determined to spend the money it should impose a property tax and impact fees, as the county does.  It just does not make sense that the county should pay for things the city leaders, elected by only 3% of county residents, unilaterally decide to do. 

The city has too long been receiving an outrageous share of the county sales taxes.  For fairness and to help limit taxes on county residents the distribution of the SPLOST and the LOST between the city and county needs to be corrected. 

I think the best method of proportioning the sales taxes between the city and county is to base it on city and county population percentages.  

The following letter was published in the Forsyth County News on April 15, 2007.

City’s share of tax is unreasonable 

A March 30, 2007 Forsyth County News article reported on a speech by Cumming Mayor Ford Gravitt to a Chamber breakfast.  Mayor Gravitt expressed concern that the city may not get as large a share of the next SPLOST (Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax) as it has historically. 

Currently the city receives 15% of the SPLOST and the county receives 85%.  The city has only 3% of the county population based on an estimated population of 5,000 in the City and 150,000 in the County. 

The city also receives 15% of the LOST (Local Option Sales Tax), and based on the 2007 county Budget the county will receive approximately $190 per county resident and the city will receive approximately $1000 per City resident.  That split applies to both the LOST and the SPLOST, so the combination of the two gives the county approximately $380 per county resident while the city realizes a whopping $2000 per city resident.  

Obviously, the city receiving five times more tax dollars per person is unreasonable. 

To emphasize the absurdity of city’s tax share, let’s pretend the county also got $2,000 per year per county resident from some outside source.  The county would be able to eliminate property taxes, have an annual $100 million revenue surplus in its general fund, build a jail and courthouse without bond debt and have several hundred million dollars for other infrastructure investments. 

Of course, this really is fantasy because the state or federal governments would think the county to be wacky if the county asked them for that kind of financial support. 

The next SPLOST split negotiation is coming up soon and I think the city’s share should be similar to its population percentage. 

The LOST split should also be based on population percentages, but that does not come up for renegotiation again until 2012. 

The Board of Commissioners needs to make sure the county receives its rightful share of the taxes to support its growing need for operating and capital funds. 

Ronald E. Seder

FORSYTH COUNTY SHOULD RECEIVE A FAIR SHARE OF THE COUNTY SALES TAXES
(Ron Seder 6/23/02) 

Forsyth County gives Cumming three to four times more of the County Sales Tax revenues than the City deserves.  That amounted to a County overpayment to the City of something like $24 million during the past seven years, and if continued, would probably be about $60 million during the next ten years. 

LOST (Local Option Sales Tax) and SPLOST (Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax) are each 1% of the 7% sales tax levied in Forsyth County. 

From the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia information, on the web at http://www.accg.org/lost/lost2.asp?countyid=58&countyname=Forsyth, we learn some interesting facts about the LOST distribution between the City of Cumming and Forsyth County for the year 2000. 

The above information shows that Cumming realized about $2 million more LOST revenue in 2000 than its population percentage deserves.  I estimate that by the end of 2002 Cumming will have received an underserved $12 million during the seven years of the current 15/85% LOST split, and almost that same $12 million amount in the split of the SPLOST.  That is $24 million Forsyth County should have kept for its own growing needs. 

Negotiations between Cumming and Forsyth County this year will determine the LOST split percentage for the next ten years.  I conclude that If the County and City continue their growth patterns for the next ten years, and Cumming continues to receive 15% of the LOST, Cumming will get about $30 million more LOST revenues than would be allowed if based on Cumming’s population percentage. 

I have been told that, even though the law does not require it, the percentages established this year for the next ten years of the LOST will also apply to the SPLOST.  Assuming the County Voters continue to vote extensions of the SPLOST, and Cumming continues to receive 15% of the SPLOST, the City would receive another $30 million more than its population percentage would support. 

That would mean a total County LOST and SPLOST overpayment to Cumming during the next 10 years of about $60 million. 

The overpayment of $24 million during the past seven years, and an overpayment of $60 million during the next 10 years, would provide a lot of improvements needed in our growing County, and those improvements could be accomplished without forcing Forsyth County property owners to increase their property tax payments for additional County bonding and increasing operating costs. 

I am sure we will hear rationales from Cumming trying to justify a LOST and SPLOST share greater than Cumming’s population proportion.  For the most part these rationales are the result of a conclusion looking for a rationale to support it.  When the current 15/85% split was determined, it was done because politics allowed it to be done, regardless of what was fair. 

It is interesting to note that the six cities in Hall County contained 22.76% of the total County population and received 24.5% of the LOST in 2000, and the ten cities in Fulton County contained 75.67% of the County population and received 65.02% of the LOST in 2000.  There is no logical reason for the City of Cumming to receive such a disproportionately larger share than these cities in Hall and Fulton counties. 

There should be a fair split, based on population proportions, of the LOST and SPLOST between Cumming and Forsyth County.  If you feel as I do, please express your views to your Forsyth County Commissioners

FORSYTH COUNTY SPLOST
(Ron Seder 3/15/98)

Who is providing the tens of thousands of dollars for TV, newspaper and mail advertising, and citizen surveys? Is it the average citizen or is it those who have the most to gain financially from the tax. Doesn't the sales tax, as opposed to other sources of revenue, shift more of the tax burden away from businesses and large landowners/speculators to average citizens? Wouldn't Forsyth County businesses, developers and large landowners/speculators realize the most financial gain from the SPLOST?

Why do we have to approve $100 million in one big chunk? That is the only option the voters have been offered. Do we feel comfortable giving $100 million to any Board of Commissioners for a potpourri of projects, let alone this Board of Commissioners with the record they have produced during their first year of existence?

The voters have received a lopsided presentation in favor of the sales tax. As in the election of candidates for local office, the average citizen just does not get nearly as involved as those who have the most to gain financially from the vote, and as long as that situation continues the average citizen will pay the price.

15% OF THE COUNTY SALES TAX FOR CUMMING?

(Ron Seder 12/14/97)

March Tax Budget Vote

Forsyth County citizens are being asked to vote on another round of the 1% Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) in March of 1998.   The Cumming City Council and the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners have agreed on a split of that tax of 15% for the City and 85% for the County.

Unfair Share

According the the December 7, 1997 Forsyth County News, that 15% City share will amount to fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000).  If the City was to receive a more appropriate 5% of the Sales Tax the County would have another $10,000,000 to provide much needed infrastructure improvements, such as roads, water supply, sewers, etc.

LOST and SPLOST Background

A little history may help put this situation in perspective.  The standard 1% Forsyth County Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) was established in the late 1970's (LOST is 1% of our sales taxes and SPLOST is another 1% of our sales taxes).   The LOST was enacted to roll back property taxes and was split between the City and the County based on the 1970 census proportions.  The 1970 census showed that Cumming contained 12% of Forsyth County's population (City of Cumming 2,031, Forsyth County 16,928).  Therefore, the LOST was split 12% for Cumming and 88% for Forsyth County.

Population Shift

A new law required renegotiation of the standard Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) split in 1995. The law also required the City and County to agree on a new split of the LOST or the tax would be stopped.  The 1990 census showed the City of Cumming to have 6.4% of Forsyth County's population (City of Cumming 2,828, Forsyth County 44,083).    During 1995, the City initially demanded 25% share of the LOST, and by threatening to allow the tax to expire, caused the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners, with a split vote, to settle for a City 15% share of the LOST and a 15% share of the next SPLOST, which is now being collected.

This 15% share means the City receives $3 per City resident for every $1 received by the County per County resident.  Again, I do not believe the 15% can be supported by legitimate, objective rationale. In fact, there is no requirement in the law to give the City any portion of the SPLOST.  After all, SPLOST projects accomplished by the County benefit citizens who live in the city as much as they benefit citizens living outside the City.

How Can This Be?

Why would the Board of Commissioners settle for such a lopsided proportion of the next SPLOST?  To understand why, I think one only has to consider which County Commission candidates were supported by the City leadership during the last election.   Those candidates are now County Commissioners!

Voter Power

Obviously this 15% SPLOST split between the City and the County is ridiculous!  I will not vote for another Forsyth County Special Local Option Sales Tax with this condition, and I urge Forsyth County citizens to refuse the tax until the Board of Commissioners produces a fair share split of the tax.