Blog Archives
HB170 – Proposed Transportation Bill in the House
As of today (Valentine’s Day), HB170, the Transportation Bill is in the full transportation committee of the House. Basically, this bill is changing the current SALES tax on motor fuel (Gas & Diesel) to an excise tax. The advantage is that this will level out the fluctuating taxes raised by a sales tax which is dependent upon the price of gas which changes daily. By changing to an excise tax, which is charged PER GALLON rather than PER DOLLAR, it should level out the income received by the state. The trucking industry also receives larger tax benefits on an excise tax over a sales tax, so the trucking industry will see a huge benefit of this change. And we all want to help out industries in Georgia.
The State of Georgia is attempting to raise an additional $750 million + (annually) for the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT). However, THEY (our state elected officials) don’t want to “raise taxes.” So they are promoting this bill as a “revenue neutral” bill. Yeah, right! If they are bringing in an additional almost 1 BILLION dollars, it’s got to come from SOMEWHERE!
That somewhere apparently is going to be from your LOCAL governments (County, City, and School System). You see, our local governments currently receive 3 cents of every SALES TAX dollar raised. 1 cent goes to LOST (Local Option Sales Tax). 1 cent goes to SPLOST (Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax). And 1 cent goes to ESPLOST (Educational Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax).
When you remove MOTOR FUELS from these sales taxes, this 3 cents will disappear from the local coffers of your local governments. We will still receive LOST, SPLOST, and ESPLOST taxes, but not on Motor Fuel Sales. In Pulaski County, Motor Fuel sales account for almost 16% of the total sales taxes collected in Pulaski County. Therefore, your school system’s next ESPLOST will be reduced by almost 16% which will amount to a LOSS of income to the Pulaski County School system of approximately $131,410 per year. Constitutionally, the school system CAN receive sales taxes, but CANNOT receive excise taxes. And there are no plans by the state to supplement this loss. There are no plans by the state to help reduce expenses or other requirements. No, this will be a LOSS each and every year. ESPLOST is used for capital purchases (Buses, buildings, technology, etc.). Apparently, the state thinks the school can simply “absorb” this loss of income. No big deal. (yeah, right!).
The loss of the 1 cent on SPLOST will effect both the city and the county. Currently we have a negotiated agreement that we split SPLOST revenues 50/50. So this loss will effect each of us the same amount. SPLOST income currently amounts to about $842,911 per year. By removing Motor Fuels from the calculation, this number will reduce each year to $711,501. A loss of about $131,410 per year. This money is going away. So the county and the city will each face lower SPLOST revenue on the next SPLOST of almost $65,705 EACH! Like the school’s ESPLOST, SPLOST is used for capital expenditures like Road Equipment, Tractors, Recreation Department improvements, Sheriff Department Vehicles, etc. This loss of $131,409 per year amounts to a loss to the city and county of $788,460 on the next 6 year SPLOST! The tractors are STILL going to wear out. The deputies are STILL going to need vehicles. Water Meters are STILL going to go bad. Our option? We can only raise property taxes or fees to take care of the shortfall.
The loss of the 1 cents on LOST will also effect both the city and the county. Currently we have a negotiated agreement that we split LOST revenues 50/50. So this loss will effect each of us the same amount. LOST income ON MOTOR FUELS current amounts to about $393,690 per year. So this is ANOTHER $400K that the state is pulling away from local coffers.
BUT WAIT! NO WORRIES! The state is going to “come to our rescue.” They are going to “allow” the county to vote an additional 6 cents excise tax to be added to motor fuel in addition the the excise tax that the state is accessing. And to hear them talk, “that solves the problem.” But does it?
In Pulaski County, we sold 4,224,231 gallons of gas in fiscal year 2014. So the 6 cents would increase the COUNTY coffers by $253,454 each year. Now last time I used my calculator, $253,454 does not bring back the lose of $140K (in LOST dollars) and $131K (in SPLOST dollars) and $131K (in ESPLOST dollars). Nope, by my calculations when you combine the decreases in LOST, SPLOST, and ESPLOST, our citizens are being short changed by about $403,000 PER YEAR! And that is AFTER our sole commissioner implements the 6 cents excise tax. If he should choose NOT to implement this tax, then the citizens will lose some $650K per year. Thanks Legislators!
But wait! There’s more!
Even if our sole commissioner DOES implement the 6 cents of excise tax (taking the heat of a “tax increase” rather than the state taking that heat!), the STATE is telling us HOW he has to split it with the city. Previously, our LOST and SPLOST splits were NEGOTIATED LOCALLY. Now, they are giving us a formula based on road miles in the city/county and population in each. The result will be on both LOST AND SPLOST rather than splitting 50/50 as we have for years, the STATE is telling us the motor fuel excise tax will be split 73/27. The county will get 73% and the city will be reduced to 27%. OUCH!
SO…. Not only are they reducing our monies, but they are TELLING US how to split the reduced amount they plan on giving us!
Based on 2014 figures, and assuming the county DOES implement the 6 cents, then the COUNTY will still lose $78,000, the school system will lose $131,000, and the city will lose $194,000 PER YEAR! And this is AFTER the 6 cents excise tax which the county may or may not implement. “Revenue Neutral huh?”. The city will bear 48% of the reduction. The school system will bear 33% and the county 19%. To replace this money, the county could be forced to raise their millage by almost a half mill. The school system could be forced to raise their millage by almost half a mill. And the city (who is hit the hardest) could be faced with over a 2 mill increase. (and we haven’t raised the millage since 1987).
THERE’S EVEN MORE! With LOST, the revenues go into the general fund. Your elected leaders can spend this money how they see fit (and answer to their local constituents). With SPLOST and ESPLOST, while the money has to go to capital projects, your local officials decide (by voter referendum) the projects that our citizens need. But with the coming changes, all the money from the motor fuel EXCISE tax MUST be spend on Transportation. We will have no choice. The State again TELLING us how to spend our money!
Hope is not yet lost. The bill is still in committee. The final has not been seen. And then regardless of what the house comes up with, the State Senate will still have their input and revisions. So ultimately it might be better. It might be worse. No one knows at this point.
My fear is that the final version won’t be significantly different that I have presented. I encourage you to contact our local state representatives and tell them NOT to pass this bill in its current state. Do we need more transportation dollars in Georgia? Yes! Do we need to collect those dollars by pulling them from the local economy? No!
The alternatives are many. They can leave our local 3 cents sales tax on gas and go on about their merry way. Or they can convert the 3 cents to an excise tax but LET LOCAL ENTITIES decide how to spend and how to divide the money. They can simply ADD to the state’s portion of the excise tax and fund the transportation needs. But no, that would mean THEY would be seen as raising taxes rather than forcing us LOCALLY to raise taxes.
Representative Buddy Harden is Pulaski County’s legislature in the State House. Senator Ross Tolleson is our Senator. Please contact these gentlemen and tell them to fund the state needs from state coffers. Not by pulling money away from our local governments. Their contact information is below:
Buddy Harden
R-District 148
504-G Coverdell Legislative Office
Atlanta, Ga. 30334
404-656-0188
buddy.harden@house.ga.gov
Ross Tolleson
R-District 20
121-F State Capital
Atlanta, Ga. 30334
404-656-0081
ross.tolleson@senate.ga.gov
Please let me know your thoughts. Reply to this post or email me at shelly@hawkinsvillega.net
I look forward to hearing from you!
Shelly Berryhill
Hawkinsville City Commission
Share this:
Pot Holes and Paving……
I have had more than the normal phone calls lately over some bad roads in Hawkinsville. Almost all of the conversations start like this…
Citizen: “The city needs to come out and repave the road in front of my house. It’s in bad shape and me and my neighbors pay our taxes and deserve better roads.”
Let me just start out by saying, “They are right!”. However, it is not as easy as just sending out a crew.. For starters, the City of Hawkinsville does not have a paving machine or paving crew. Our guys can certainly fix a pothole or repair a road cut. But we don’t have the resources to actually pave or even resurface a road. In order to do that, we rely on the state Department of Transportation (GDOT). GDOT allocates so much money to us each year to use toward resurfacing. In 2014 that amount was $48,719.74. We are required to do a 30% match, so that means we have $63,336 allocated toward resurfacing in 2014. We then submit a list of roads (in priority order) that we feel need resurfacing. The top 15 list we submitted for 2014 was:
| Name | Start | End | Distance | Width | |
| 1 | Markel St. | Martin St. | Lakeview Rd. | 1753 | 20 |
| 2 | Hillcrest Ave. | McCormick Ave | end of street (Clark Dr) | 1409 | 20 |
| 3 | Jordan Drive | Sunnybrook Circle | Sunnybrook Circle | ||
| 4 | W. McDuffie St. | McCormick Ave. | Brookside | 682 | 22 |
| 5 | Ryan St. | Broad St. | Commerce St. | ||
| 6 | S. Union St. | Broad St. | Carruthers St. | 3646 | 20 |
| 7 | Kibbee | Turner St. | Jackson St. | 2447 | 25 |
| 8 | Second Street | Progress Ave. | Houston St. | 2535 | 37 |
| 9 | Liberty St | S. Florida Ave. | Warren St. | 2419 | 30 |
| 10 | Clark Dr. | Hillcrest Dr. | Kamellia Dr. | 1223 | 19 |
| 11 | Fairgrounds Rd. | S. Jackson St. | County Landing Rd. | 2100 | 17 |
| 12 | Wildwood Ave | Mansfield Dr. | Craftway Cir. | 2432 | 20 |
| 13 | Craftway Cir. | Wildwood Ave. | Thompson Way | 1314 | 20 |
| 14 | South Wood St. | Broad Street | Commerce Street | ||
| 15 | Pineywood Drive | Knotty Pine St. | end of street |
(This list is compiled from our street department as well as citizen complaints and then prioritized by the City Administration and the City Commissioners).
It costs us an estimated average of $0.56 per square foot to resurface (some more, some less depending on current road conditions and other factors). So once we find out how much money the state is going to allocate for us, then we have to re-prioritize our list to see that we get the most bang for our buck. We have to consider such questions as: Do we pave ONE long road, or several smaller roads, even if the long road is in worse condition? How many citizens actually live on that road? Is it a thoroughfare to other areas? Can we temporarily patch it and get by another year?
For 2014, we ending up having enough funds to do:
| 1 | Markel St. | Martin St. | Lakeview Rd. | 1753 | 20 |
| 2 | Hillcrest Ave. | McCormick Ave | end of street (Clark Dr) | 1409 | 20 |
| 3 | Jordan Drive | Sunnybrook Circle | Sunnybrook Circle | ||
| 4 | W. McDuffie St. | McCormick Ave. | Brookside | 682 | 22 |
It is estimated that it will cost the city (and GDOT) $66,000 to complete these projects.
In order to complete any additional roads, they would have to be paid for 100% by our local tax dollars. By waiting on each years GDOT allocation, we get much more for our local dollars (with the state contributing 70% of our cost). While we know there are other roads that need paving, we also have many other infrastructure needs to pay for as well. And on the other infrastructure needs, the state gives us no help. Thus the local taxpayers have to pay 100% of the other costs. So it makes more sense to only pave the roads each year that GDOT will help us with and put our other limited resources toward the other infrastructure needs. If we DON’T do at least the amount that GDOT approves, they will not pay ANY! So we need to at least do enough roads each year in order to get their 70% contribution. Anything OVER our total, we would have to pay 100% for.
I was sitting at McDonald’s the other day with one of the “coffee clubs” that meet there. They took the opportunity to tell me of all the needs in the city of Hawkinsville. For example, they want us to fix all the roads, replace all the old water and sewage lines, and invest heavily in industrial recruitment (among other things). But most importantly, don’t raise taxes. In other words, their request was to correct outstanding problems (aka spending money) while not raising taxes (aka increasing revenue). An impossibility. We operate under a TIGHT, LEAN budget. So in order to do any additional work each year (pave additional roads, replace additional pipes, etc.) would require MORE revenue (aka higher taxes).
So, I am writing this post to assure you, our citizens, that we are doing our very best to correctly, efficiently, and effectively allocate the limited resources that we have. Do we have bad roads? YES. Can we afford to simply repair/resurface them all now? NO. We simply take our list each year, (again, compiled from our street department and citizen complaints) and prioritize and fund based on the dollar amounts that GDOT allocates to Hawkinsville each year.
If you know of a bad street, let us know. Our crews have spent the last two weeks repairing MANY of the potholes around town, but I am positive there are more. Call City Hall (478-892-3240) or simply email City Hall (cityhall@hawkinsvillega.net) or you can even reply to this post. We will look at the road, add it to our list, and then consider it when we re-prioritize each year.
Pot holes and patches? YES, we can do those ourselves, so again, LET US KNOW. Sometimes, the worse the condition, the LESS people report it. I suppose they feel that “surely someone has told the city how bad this pothole is.” But if everyone is thinking someone else is reporting it… well,… sometimes NO ONE reports it. Also, not all roads are city maintained. Some are STATE roads, and some that get reported are actually COUNTY roads. But let us know and we will pass along the information to the appropriate agency or government.
Thoughts?
Share this:
Consolidation continues? Zoning Boards to merge
Well, the citizens decided against consolidating Hawkinsville and Pulaski County governments. However, that is not stopping the respective governments from continuing to work together to consolidate services whenever it makes sense. We are now working with County Commissioner M.A. “Butch” Hall to consolidate the zoning ordinances and zoning boards of Hawkinsville and Pulaski County.
We will utilize ONE set of zoning ordinances, ONE county wide zoning map, and ONE zoning board to hear zoning requests. This move will not only save a little money (we pay our zoning board members AND the county pays their zoning board members), but it will also make things more consistent and easier for our citizens. A citizen can get the maps, forms, ordinances, etc from EITHER government.
We will continue to look for ways to make our respective governments more responsive, better fiscal stewards, and better listeners to our citizens. If you have any input on this or any issue, please respond below. I look forward to your thoughts….
Share this:
Consolidation: My 2 cents after the election…
Now that the election is over, let me share my thoughts on the consolidation issue here in Hawkinsville / Pulaski County. I really did not want to say much prior to the election. Whatever I said, (or say now probably) would have been construed by the pro-side as being against consolidation and would have been construed by the con-side as being for consolidation. As a sitting official, I really felt that I should remain neutral. I think the citizens of this county should have whatever form of government that they want – therefore, I voted to allow the citizens to vote in the Nov. 5th referendum to decide that question.
Ironically, now that the election is over, I am probably getting asked more about it than before the election.
First, let me clear up (or attempt to) the confusion about – “City people got to vote twice”. There were two completely separate elections taking place. The city residents had to decide if they were in favor or not in favor of consolidation. The county residents (which is everyone that lives in Pulaski including those within the city limits) also had to decide if they were in favor or not in favor. So if you live in the city, it was not exactly that you voted twice in one election, but you voted once each in two different elections. Whether you agree or disagree that is how the Secretary of State’s Office told us to do the election. The Secretary of State guy quoted as saying it was illegal was probably simply asked if it was legal to vote twice in an election. This is the same way the vote was done in 1999 as well. A good analogy is this: if COKE and PEPSI were going to merge, and you owned stock in BOTH (city AND county resident), then you would get to vote in the COKE election and the PEPSI election.
When this issue first came up of the consolidation, I was certainly not going to stand in the way, because again, I feel the citizens should have whatever form of government that they want. However, if we were going to go down that road, I wanted it done right. So we (city and county governments) appointed a 16 person study committee to look into this idea. We had young, we had old. We had white, we had black. We had men, we had women. We had business people, we had farmers. We had a great cross representation of people on this committee. We then provided them the resources necessary to fully explore this issue. The city/county accountant attended those meetings. The city attorney attended those meetings. City/County personnel attended those meetings. City/County officials attended those meetings when asked. We had the Regional Commission out of Macon facilitate the meetings. GMA (Georgia Municipal Association) and ACCG (Association of County Commissioners of Georgia) attended many of the meetings. The group was tasked with exploring the avenues, the good, the bad, the financial, the personnel, etc. etc of this issue and to report back to the governments if they would recommend we pursue a consolidated government or not. This group met for over a year. They finally concluded that the majority of the group felt that we SHOULD pursue the consolidation. So both the city and county governments then changed the group from a study committee to a charter commission. They were to formulate the recommended “look and feel” of the new proposed government that would govern the consolidated “Hawkinsville / Pulaski County’. They wrote the charter which defined things such as the number of commissioners, their terms, the rotation, the pay. They came up with the proposed districts, and all the other items that had to be addressed. The proposed charter was then sent back to the local governments, where they were deemed appropriate and the charter was then sent to the Georgia State Assembly for approval. After they approved, and the Governor signed it, it was then placed on the ballot for the November 5th election.
As with any issue there are pros and cons. As with many issues there are disagreements as to the assumptions made. The pro-side was proclaiming that the consolidation would save lots and lots of money. My personal belief is that it could have saved some money over time. Not a whole lot, but some. Economies of scale and increased efficiency were sure to happen. However, at the same time, the merger itself would have been expensive. Simply merging the two general ledgers and accounting systems would probably not have been cheap. Long term, we would be managing ONE accounting system rather than two, but short term, we have to create the system to do it. We have ALREADY functionally consolidated many departments with the County, so much of the savings of a consolidated government have ALREADY been realized. 911, EMA, FIRE, POLICE, ANIMAL CONTROL, TAX COLLECTIONS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, RECREATION DEPARTMENT, BUILDING AND CODES ENFORCEMENT have all been functionally consolidated with the county over the last 10+ years.
I think a positive would have been that we could project ourselves as larger. When a potential industrial prospect inquired as to the size of our city, we could report 12,000 rather than 4,000.
A positive would have been some reduced bureaucracy on items that previously would have had to obtain both city and county approval. However, for items requiring JUST county approval, you would have had to convince 3 of the 5 county commissioners rather than the current sole commissioner.
For many people that do not like that we have a SOLE county commissioner, a board of 5 was more appealing.
Some on the con-side were proclaiming that suddenly the county would have to conform to city ordinances or pay city taxes. That was not accurate. All ordinances applying NOW to the county would have remained to the county, while all ordinances applying just to city residences would have remained applying just to city residences. All city taxes collected would have remained in the city. The county was NOT suddenly going to have to pay city taxes. Their dirt roads were NOT going to suddenly be paved, and they were NOT going to suddenly have the option of utilizing city services such as water or trash pickup.
I think consolidation would have removed one barrier to city annexation. NOW, we must not only have the proposed properties’ owner’s approval, but we must also have approval from the county. I suppose since the consolidated board would have represented both city and county, the county approval would not have been necessary. Depending on how you feel about the possibility of annexation, this could be either a pro or a con for consolidation.
On the negative side, I like the fact that we are all (city and county officials) elected at-large. I like that I feel I get to represent ALL of the residents of Hawkinsville, and not just my little “district.”. I also like the fact that the way it is now, 100% of the people voting on city taxes are required to LIVE within the city and pay the taxes that they might propose. Under the consolidated government, it would have been possible for only some (or even none) of the elected officials to have to pay 100% of the taxes they were proposing (if they lived in the county, but were voting on taxes or fees for the city district).
There are many other valid arguments for or against the proposed consolidation. But the people have spoken. And we will continue as we were. I heard several residents proclaim that their reason for voting against consolidation was simply, “It ain’t broke, so it don’t need fixin'” There is some truth in that statement. Unlike many cities and counties across Georgia, our two governments work very well together. In fact, just this past Friday, Sole County Commissioner M.A. “Butch” Hall, myself, and Jerry Murkerson, the City Manager, were invited as guest panelists at a joint GMA/ACCG training session in Dublin, Ga. The training was on City/County Cooperation and we were presented as a MODEL for how to accomplish this.
I love that we live in a country where the PEOPLE get to decide. The PEOPLE are in charge. Not a few but all. I applaud those of you who VOTED in this election and I think I can speak for both the City and the County governments when I say, “We will strive to continue to work together to improve the lives of the citizens of this great community. We need more industry, we need more jobs. We need to continue to make sure that EVERYONE has a voice and that EVERYONE gets heard. We need to continue to find ways to keep costs (aka TAXES) down while providing the services that the government needs to provide.”
We have a great community. As with any group of individuals, there are differences of opinion. There are facts to any issues and there are incorrect facts about any issue. We will continue to work together, even when we disagree on some items, or some points. We all want what’s best for the community and our children. Finding the optimum route to get there is often a challenge and the route chosen is often debated. But the end-goal is hopefully the same.
I would love to have your feedback on this post or any post….
Shelly J. Berryhill
Hawkinsville City Commissioner
Share this:
Consolidation Update
The consolidation bill passed the House yesterday. As far as I can tell there were no changes to the charter as was presented.
The following link will take you to the House site that describes the actions. Our next step is the Department of Justice.
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20132014/HB/286
Share this:
Consolidation Efforts Move Forward
Consolidation efforts of Hawkinsville and Pulaski County moved forward this week when Rep. Buddy Harden introducted House Bill 286 which asks the state assembly to give it’s blessings of the potential merger. If this Bill passes, the consolidation agreement would then go before the Justice Department for approval. Assuming they approve, the measure would then be placed on a local ballot for our residents to determine if this is their future vision for Hawkinsville / Pulaski County. The measure could hit our local ballot as early as November, 2013. If it passes, the new government would then go into effect on January, 2015.
Share this:
City / County Consolidation
There are many citizens that have expressed an interest in the city and county governments consolidating into one entity. This was previously tried in 1999 but the county citizens voted the proposal down. It passed in the city but lost in EVERY precinct in the county. In this post, I am going to try to detail some thoughts, concerns, and suggestions on consolidation.
Personally, I have not made up my mind. I see some benefits and some concerns with this proposal. I will attempt to break down both my concerns and the potential benefits in this post.
Benefit: SIZE Since we are only 4,000+ in the city and 8,000+ in the county (excluding the city), it probably makes since for a community our size to consolidate. There is no need to fight over resources when there are so few resources to go around. I can see an advantage when applying for grants or when presenting ourselves to a potential industry when we can present ourselves as 12,000 strong rather than 4,000 strong. For example, when we apply with DCA for a grant, one of the “blanks” is how many people will this impact. Indicating 12,000 rather than 4,000 has got to carry weight.
Benefit: Cooperation Again, when presenting ourselves to potential industries, I think consolidation will show a spirit of cooperation that would please a prospect. And, although the city and county currently get along fabulously, there is no guarantee in the future if this will be the case. We all hear of communities (read MACON) that continually fight over LOST (Local Option Sales Tax), SPLOST (Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax), and other shared revenues. They also continually bicker over shared expenses. Read the rest of this entry
Shelly Berryhill 