CummingHome

Subsequent to a 7 hour bench trial on April 30th, visiting Judge Hugh R. Stone enjoined Forsyth County from collecting the "penny tax" that was to begin on July 1st as an extension of the current SPLOST V. This was as a result of arguments by the City of Cumming that the ballot referendum language was improper because, among other things, it failed to list all 8 projects that the city presented to the county and it just listed one, with a potential funding amount less than the required amount the city presented. Additionally, the Judge felt that even though the Board of Commissioners publicly adopted the suggested transportation projects at their work session January 8th, this was not sufficient time for the public to know what they were voting for on February 5th.

Unless overturned between now and July 1st by the Georgia Supreme Court, a somewhat unlikely event in such a compressed timeframe, the county will experience significant revenue shortfalls of between $2 million and $3 million per month. Furthermore, a new SPLOST referendum is not likely to be put before the voters until November of this year, and according to Georgia Law (OCGA 48-8-112 (a) for those of you so inclined), it may not take effect until as late as April 1, 2009. In addition, there will be no revenue pass through to the City of Cumming after July 1st.

This scenario puts the revenue loss at between $20 million and $25 million. But there is more bad news.

The SPLOST VI provided a mechanism for immediate funding of the Ronald Reagan Parkway extension which would provide enhanced access to the future Taubman project. And while it is not necessarily an impossibility to overcome in time for the projected opening of the Taubman project, it makes things that much more difficult on everyone.

Also, the potential project at Mary Alice Park is in jeopardy since the funding for the road improvement was also from SPLOST VI proceeds.

And those other road-widening and intersection improvements that we so desperately need in our county? A year further out, I suspect.

A couple of observations from the proceeding…

There was confusion on the bench about motions made by the Board at the Tuesday work sessions and the Thursday meetings. Our Board of Commissioners makes motions both at the Thursday public meetings and the Tuesday work sessions. These motions are certified by the Board Clerk after each meeting, and if the motion was made during a work session, it is re-certified again at the larger Thursday Commission meeting. Regardless, the will of the Board is expressed when the motion was passed, and it is not ratification that takes place at the subsequent meeting, but merely re-certification. In determining the date of the motion to pass the resolution, the Judge engaged in close to an hour of discussion, asking the Board Clerk to explain to him the Commission process. Unfortunately the Judge ruled that the later date on the certification letter was the date that the will of the Board was stated. This appears faulty.

The jurist’s reasoning was that since the Board could change the motion between the work session and the regular meeting, the latter is when the motion was actually certified. What Judge Stone did not take into account was that any Board at any time can make a motion offsetting or cancelling previous business. This mattered somewhat because the Judge later used the reduced timeframe in determining when the general projects were made public.

The county attorney attempted to show that SPLOST VI resolution language was identical to other counties’ as well as language in previous SPLOST resolutions in Forsyth County. The judge would not allow previous SPLOST language in as testimony, ruling that there was no relevancy.

Denying evidence and testimony surrounding previous SPLOST action appears inconsistent with the same judge at the same trial allowing other case law to be cited, regardless of the relevancy finding. While it is true that only case law affirmed at the appellate level can be cited, I think it was unfair to disregard the fact that close to identical resolution language was presented to the voters in Forsyth County in previous SPLOSTs and that no legal challenge was raised ever to previous SPLOSTs.

Finally, the will of the voters has been spontaneously reversed by the bench; apparently the Judge had a different regard for the will of the majority of the voters of every precinct in our county that voted for SPLOST VI. And the enormous impact of this ruling is in disproportion to the alleged technical errors of the county.

The Board of Commissioners and legal counsel are working to determine what the best action would be in the immediate future. For now, the rest of us just have to hope the stars and planets line up just right and that a higher court will overturn all aspects of this unfortunate litigation.