The infantilization of America continues apace.

@Curls: You are entirely correct, as these public hearings are held to satisfy a legal requirement - period.

I've been to a good many of them over the years and the sad fact is that typically not so much as a dime changes in the budget as the result of the public's input. Even so, just for the sake of argument I'll go to this evening's meeting. If past history and the budget presentation on the CCSD web site are any indication, it will be nothing more that a propaganda exercise designed to explain how the CCSD is underfunded.

So why is there extra money in this year's budget? And since there apparently is extra money, the intention of City Hall is to spend it - not return it to the taxpayers. Par for the course.

"Quick was the sole dissenting vote in sending the agreement on for approval."

And, once again, Regina does the right thing when no one else will.

I didn't have room to delve into it in the column, but the two millage rate reductions by City Hall in 2004 and 2005, both long since obviated by later hikes, are deceptive.

In 2004, growth in the tax digest during the housing boom resulted in substantially more revenue for the city-county government. The folks down at City Hall were simply going to spend the new "free" money. A group of local citizens (and by that I mean Clarke County Republicans) studied the budget and recommended some specific reductions which, to its credit, the Mayor and Commission adopted and were thereby able to lower the millage rate. Readers should remember, though, that taxes can go up even as the millage rate goes down because of higher assessments, which is what happened in this instance. And don't forget that, prior to the public outcry, local government was quite content to simply spend the new revenue.

In 2005, City Hall's own budget documents made plainly clear that the millage rate reduction was not a tax decrease at all. With the implementation of the stormwater utility fee, what money was "lost" via a millage rate reduction was simultaneously gained via the new source of revenue. Clarke County residents were still paying the same amount (actually more), it was just coming out of one pocket as opposed to another.

Unified Government

FY2013 Budget (see page A-8 and A-9): http://www.athensclarkecounty.com/DocumentCenter/View/10465

FY2014 Budget (see pages A-3 and A-4): http://www.athensclarkecounty.com/DocumentCenter/View/13552

Charter (see Section 1-105(b)): http://www.athensclarkecounty.com/?nid=314

Public hearings on the Unified Government’s budget and millage rate increase will be held in the Governmental Building Auditorium at 5:30 on May 14 and in City Hall’s Commission Chambers at 5:30 on May 21 and at 6:30 on May 23. Final approval of the budget and millage rate will take place at the Commission’s regular voting session, slated for 7:00 on Tuesday, June 4, at City Hall’s Commission Chambers.

Clarke County School District

FY2013 Budget (see page 1): http://www.clarke.k12.ga.us/files/44843/ccsd%20final%20approved%20fy2012...

FY2014 Budget (see slide 17): http://www.clarke.k12.ga.us/files/14/fy2014%20budget%20%20power%20point%...

Public hearings on the CCSD’s budget and millage rate will be held at Gaines Elementary School at 6:00 on May 14, at Alps Road Elementary at 6:00 on May 16, and at the CCSD’s administrative offices at 6:00 on May 21. Final approval of the budget and millage rate will take place at a special called meeting before the Board of Education’s work session June 6.

Other

Clarke County Millage Rate Chart (graciously complied and provided to me by Tax Commissioner Mitch Schrader; most of this information used to be available on the old departmental web site, but did not make onto the “new and improved” version): https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwYXoEIsxK7hQk93UFo3YmprTHM/edit?usp=sha...

Clarke County Tax Comparison Report: http://www.athensclarkecounty.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=402

[quote][b]Save our Republic[/b] -

@jrgarland: already posted what I was looking for!

[/quote]

That's what I'm here for.

I analyze the per pupil expenditure numbers on an annual basis - and the results are always the same: Clarke County is always on the high of expenditures, but the low end of academic achievement. And note that the differences are not "a few hundred dollars more per student," they are a few thousand dollars more per student.

[quote][b]Athens Trojan[/b] -

It is the quality of student . . .

[/quote]

Precisely.

Just so folks will remember, the FY 2012 per pupil spending for the area's other school districts was as follows: Barrow County $7,457.87; Commerce City $8,593.19; Jackson County $9,273.25; Jefferson City $6,860.63; Madison County $9,272.90; Oconee County $8,226.60; and Oglethorpe County $9,125.20.

Plot these expenditures against student achievement (graduations rates, test scores, AYP - take your pick) and you will immediately note that increased spending does not equal increased student achievement - far from it.

Compare these figures to Clarke County's $11,621.30. Remember this amount when the CCSD incessantly laments decreased revenue and nonexistent budget cuts in its upcoming public hearings on the FY 2014 budget - which is going up over that of FY 2013, by the way.

And as I previously noted, Regina was the only member of the local legislative delegation to vote against the unconstitutional "bed tax" extension as well. So much for her not being a real conservative, huh?

First, a nod to my colleagues over at Flagpole; the entire People of Hope thing has been below the radar for a good while, save these recent pieces by Blake and Allison: http://flagpole.com/blogs/in-the-loop/posts/no-more-hope-for-people-of-hope http://flagpole.com/news/news-features/2013/04/17/people-of-hope-s-dream...

Concerning “affordable housing” generally see this, lifted verbatim from my 2006 campaign web site:

“The Commission should establish a separate and dedicated zoning category specifically tailored to mobile homes, which comprise the best market-based solution to the issue of affordable housing. Unfortunately, since city-county unification, the Commission has all but excluded mobile homes from most areas of the county. Class A mobile homes (multi-sectional or doublewides) are limited to existing parks or large lots in the AR zones. Class B mobile homes (single-wides) have been restricted to existing parks for years. While recognizing that mobile homes may not fit in with traditional stick-built home neighborhoods, we have done the low-income among us no favors by excluding from the county the best housing option available to them.”

“I feel that efforts to mandate ‘inclusionary zoning’ in the county are misdirected. The resulting housing would not be “affordable,” it would instead be subsidized. Someone other than the person paying the submarket rate mandated by government will be required to make up the difference, whether it is the other residents of a given development or the taxpayers.”

“For what it is worth, I remain convinced that the rezoning of land for the People of Hope, contrary to the recommendation of the Planning Commission and requiring alteration of the Comprehensive Plan, not to mention the subsequent sanitary sewer line extension to that park, would not have been approved for any other petitioner. The Commission did the right thing, but for the wrong reason.”

Needless to say, these were/are not the dominant opinions in the Classic City. Also needless to say, the manner in which local ordinance serve to drive up housing costs is all but universally ignored (except by me and a couple of others): conservation subdivision ordinance; “green belt” ordinance; one-size-fits-all stream buffer ordinance; tree cover ordinance; grading ordinance; definition of family ordinance, etc. I’m not arguing that all of these ordinances are inherently bad, but rather that their roles in driving up housing costs are never acknowledged by the powers that be.

Be that as it may, see this letter to the editor in which I actually defended the Commission against a charge of “ethical” criminality for not foolishly going the moratorium route: http://onlineathens.com/stories/022202/let_letter3.shtml

See this news article about a particular Commission meeting, where I explicitly told City Hall that its treatment of People of Hope was rooted in politics and that no one else would get approval to put a trailer park in peripheral Clarke County (much less one necessitating a rezoning, an amendment to the future land use map, a sewage pump station, and a sewer line extension): http://onlineathens.com/stories/092504/new_20040925043.shtml

Note that I spoke against both the rezoning/future land use map amendment and the sewer line extension, not because I thought that they were the wrong things to do in and of themselves, but because People of Hope got approvals that no one else would have. See the minutes for the cited Commission meetings:

December 2003 http://athensclarkecounty.com/Archive.aspx?ADID=351 See pages 30-32. Ironically, at this same meeting that the Commission approved the People of Hope rezoning, by another unanimous vote it also approved an ordinance that explicitly banned Class A mobile homes (doublewides and multi-sectionals) from the county’s agricultural residential, single family residential, and commercial zoning classifications. Placements of Class B mobile homes (single-wides) have been limited to existing mobile home parks for many years.

October 2004 http://athensclarkecounty.com/Archive.aspx?ADID=319 See pages 2 and 5.

That news article review of funding includes (and I daresay that it is incomplete): • Federal housing grants – $377,500 (as best as I could determine this included $175,000 in HOME funds and $202,500 in CBDG funds) • Presbyterian Church (USA) – $150,000 • Affordable Housing Program of the Federal Home Loan bank – $446,443 • Governor’s Discretionary Fund (Roy Barnes) – $10,000 • Georgia Community Loan Fund – $25,000 • Other private donations from individuals, business, and churches – $200,000

“HOME” would seem to indicate an acronym, just as CBDG stands for Community Block Development Grant, but all I could find was HOME Investment Partnership Program.

Let the long knives begin.

"Speaking of 'perilously close,' I recognize that I’m perilously close here to sounding like some kind of whacked-out conspiracy theorist. But I think it’s important for everyone to recognize that the recent events in Boston put us perilously close to, if not directly on, a slippery slope that might, one day, lead to some unthinking surrender of our civil liberties."

With respect, no you're not. This is exactly the same kind of argument that I've been making in several of my recent columns. Government at all levels is constantly pushing the envelope in terms of what the public will tolerate insofar as government violating its own rules and treating citizens without regard to the basic civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution. And to judge by the AB-H comment board, lots of folks are perfectly fine with that - their willing surrender of civil liberties being anything but "unthinking."

Of course, this is not openly done on the basis of overt power grabs, but on the illusory basis of public safety (and of protecting us from ourselves). Unfortunately, the end result will be the same.

For what it is worth, the FY 2014 Budget Presentation on the CCSD web site gives a "total FY 2014 budget" figure of $120,360,835.

@Nevermore: Wow, thanks. I've been likened to the Ku Klux Klan, slave-owners, and assorted Nazis, but never Michener.

@Nevermore: The column I started to write concerned how specific amendments in the Bill of Rights (the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th come immediately to mind) have been all but eviscerated (or at least are in the process of being so), and how a couple of other amendments (the 16th and 17th) have seriously undermined the concept of federalism on which the county was founded. And, of course, you mentioned the rampant perversion of the "commerce clause" and the employment of judicial fiats to justify all manner of government activity. But, sometimes in the writing process, the one you intended to write morphs into something else, so this is what I ended up with.

@E.J.: No argument from me about that - I'm just commenting on how City Hall voluntarily left the only station located in District 1, where I live, closed for 21 months. Any chance of that happening with the Taj Mahal in Five Points (or any one of the other stations for that matter)? I don't think so. And the closed station just happened to be the one closest to the biggest environmental disaster that has occurred in Clarke County in recent memory - due to a fire.

Just so folks will know, the proposed FY 2014 budget comes to $120,360,835. This is an increase of $2,381,519, or a little more than 2%, over the FY 2013 budget of $117,979,316.

FY 2014 Budget Presentation (see page 17): http://www.clarke.k12.ga.us/files/14/fy2014%20budget%20%20power%20point%...

FY 2013 Final Approved Budget (see page 1): http://www.clarke.k12.ga.us/files/44843/ccsd%20final%20approved%20fy2012...

"Athens-Clarke officials and other observers faulted the state Environmental Protection Division for its slow response to the spill."

Of course, Athens-Clarke officials did not fault themselves for keeping Fire Station No. 6, located only about a mile down Olympic Drive from J&J Chemical, closed for well over a year waiting for an Obama "shovel ready" stimulus grant that never appeared. In the event, the station remained closed for 21 months, during which the J&J Chemical fire occurred.

To read Wagner’s supposedly inflammatory essay, “As American as . . . Compromise,” for yourselves, see below. Just use something like “Wagner,” “Emory” and “three-fifths” as search terms and you will find plenty of media coverage. http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_MAGAZINE/issues/2013/winter/register/presiden...

To the best of my knowledge, those states that have passed some sort of bill concerning alternative currencies, or that have at least expressed interest in studying the idea, include Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. Just use something like “state alternative currency” as a search term and you will find plenty of media coverage.

Understand that I'm not trying to pick a fight, as my point was to demonstrate the spurious reasoning used to sell the public on the idea that education funding has been decreased. But, in the spirit of debate, here are some observations on your comments.

"Can anyone tell me what reductions in budgets and furloughs have accomplished for public education?"

But that is just it, there haven't been any meaningful reductions in budgets, at least not in Clarke County.

"And yet, teachers in Clarke County are still having to spend out of pocket money to have what they need in their classrooms."

Then the next meeting of the Board of Education needs to be jammed with teachers (and parents) demanding to know just how that gargantuan $118 million budget is being spent.

"And when all is said and done and the school taxes are cut, the average individual taxpayer might save twenty-five dollars on his tax bill, if that."

But school taxes haven't been cut - not by a long shot - nor are they likely to ever be cut.

As usual on this topic, we will have to agree to disagree.

As I recall, funding the SCHIP expansion of a few years back was predicated on some 22 MILLION NEW SMOKERS lighting up and paying tobacco taxes. Of course, the financing was smoke-and-mirrors then, just as it is now.

And even if the feds save money on health care cost through this, experience dictates that they will simply spend any new "free" money on something else.

This is simply the baseline budgeting argument applied to QBE. You add up the supposed "cuts," which were almost always merely reductions in projected increases, that have taken place over the years and produce an eye-popping figure to illustrate that the state has slashed its funding of local school districts.

But, of course, the reality is quite different. From its inception back in the 1980s, QBE has never been "fully funded," due to the simple reason that the funding formula is hopelessly unrealistic and to do so would have bankrupted the state.

Even so, in almost ever year since "austerity reductions" became the norm (which, by the way, started when Democrats still controlled the General Assembly and the governor's mansion) state funding of local school districts has actually increased - and in some individual years by startling amounts.

As I have demonstrated, aggregate and per pupil spending in Clarke County has skyrocketed in recent years, easily outstripping increases in the student population and inflation combined.

So, $11,621 per pupil for the FY 2012 is still not enough? And keep in mind that FY 2012 was the first time in at least 16 years that such spending decreased - by the shocking amount of 1.61% - still making it the second highest annual spending figure on record (trailing only FY 2011).

Such lavish spending amounts to "slash-and-burn?" Give me a break.

And the proposed solution is to raise taxes and dump even more money into the system. Yeah, that has worked so well in the past, hasn't it?

[quote][b]Thomas Jefferson Snodgrass[/b] -

Yeah, because smoking is a legal activity and all...

[/quote]

I remember a few years back when the Commission was considering rewriting the local smoking ordinance (doing so with the full knowledge that the state was poised to enact its own much stronger ban). I pointedly asked that if the Commission could ban an activity that was 1) otherwise legal, 2) engaged in by consenting adults, and 3) engaged in on private property, just what fell outside the purview of City Hall to ban and/or regulate? Needless to say, I received absolutely no answer - other than to get compared to Southern slaveowners who, prior to the Civil War, I was lectured used the same argument

Of course, it used to be standard practice for an armed police officer to be in attendance at Commission meetings - don't know if that is still the case or not - so it is/was okay for them to be protected but not me if I happen to be on campus?

There already is a "downtown" tax district that pays an additional 1 mill of property tax (and yes, I know that what is proposed is not a tax increase, but rather a redirection of any revenue increase due to increased assessments).

Whatever the proposal's merits (and generally speaking, I am a supporter of TADs), do we really want to add yet another layer of bureaucracy?

But, of course, any revenue "lost" by the Commission would, in all probability, simply be made up by increasing taxes elsewhere (and not necessarily property taxes).

And I would guess that the chances of the school district voluntarily foregoing any additional tax revenue are precisely zero.

Note that, according to whom one is speaking, the terminology concerning a school district’s sales tax levy varies. The technically correct term is “SPLOST,” just like with a county’s sales tax levy, though the two are (sometimes) governed by different O.C.G.A. sections. The terms “E-LOST” and “E-SPLOST” are similarly used, but all three means the same thing.

Remember that, legally speaking, school districts cannot levy taxes; they are “requesting” authorities. The actual imposition of taxes falls to the county governments; they are “levying” authorities. Of course, case law leaves essentially no leeway for county government not to approve whatever school districts request, assuming that the requests are otherwise legal.

Some of my concerns about the CCSD’s SPLOST 4 bonds actually began with questions I had about the SPLOST 3 bonds – questions to which no one seemed to know the answers. After very long and circuitous investigations through quite a number of local and state bureaucracies (CCSD, Department of Education, Department of Revenue, etc.), I eventually found the answers to a couple of them. The first listed below, about exceeding the 20 mills limit, is courtesy of the Attorney General’s office. The second is the result of a conversation I had with a bond attorney over in Atlanta (because the AG’s office clammed up on me):

Seaboard Air-Line Railway Company v. Wright, comptroller-general, et al. - I could not find the text of this decision online, but I am told by the AG’s office that this is the case that exempts bond debt service form any constitution limit on a school district’s millage rate.

O.C.G.A. §48-8-121(c) – Use of proceeds; issuance of general obligation debt: “General obligation debt issued under this part shall be payable first from the separate account in which are placed the proceeds received by the county or qualified municipalities within the special district issuing such debt from the tax authorized by this part. Such debt, however, shall constitute a pledge of the full faith, credit, and taxing power of the county or qualified municipalities within the special district issuing such debt; and any liability on said debt which is not satisfied from the proceeds of the tax authorized by this part shall be satisfied from the general funds of the county or qualified municipalities within the special district issuing such debt.” http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/gacode/default.asp

Readers can follow the progress of the SPLOST 4 bond resolution for themselves below (note that the agenda items in January concerned the SPLOST 4 “schedule and plan,” not the bond resolution itself, so I have omitted those meetings):

December 2012 – Board Regular Meeting Agenda (no agenda meeting in December) See page 88 PDF. Note that the memorandum had to do with initiating the bond issuance process only, having nothing to do with the bond resolution itself or any other links or background material. http://www.clarke.k12.ga.us/files/filesystem/121312boepacket.pdf

December 2012 – Board Regular Meeting Brief See page 4 of the PDF. Concerning the SPLOST 4 bonds under New Business, it notes “The Board approved the authorization to initiate the process to issue bonds for the upcoming SPLOST 4 construction projects.” That’s it; no other information or links to background material are provided. http://www.clarke.k12.ga.us/files/filesystem/board%20briefs%2012-2012.pdf

December 2012 – Board Regular Meeting Minutes See page 5 of the PDF. http://www.clarke.k12.ga.us/files/35355/december%2013%2C%202012%20%2D%20...

March 2013 – Board Regular Meeting Agenda (no agenda meeting in March) See page 1 of the PDR. Under Superintendent’s Report, all that is mentioned is “SPLOST Bond Resolution.” No additional or background information or links are provided. http://www.clarke.k12.ga.us/files/filesystem/030713BOEPacket.pdf

March 2013 – Board Regular Meeting Brief See page 2 of the PDF. Note that the paragraph pertaining to the Superintendent’s Report merely says about the SPLOST 4 bonds that “After that, attorney Terrell Benton introduced a presentation on a SPLOST Bond Referendum that will be voted on at a called Mar. 20 Board of Education meeting.” Note also that no time or place is given for the special called meeting nor are additional or background information or links are provided. http://www.clarke.k12.ga.us/files/filesystem/board%20briefs%20march%2020...

Calendar of Events Note that the Finance Committee and full Board meetings on 07 March are clearly indicated, but that the special called meeting on 20 March is notable by its absence. http://www.clarke.k12.ga.us/calendar_events.cfm?theyear=2013&themonth=3&...

“This Week in the CCSD” It is true that the email message forwarded to me by a member of the local new media did contain notice of the Board’s special called meeting in the text of the email message itself. Note, however, that three is no mention of the special called meeting in the document. Had one not received the email directly and relied on the attached file, one would not have known of the special called meeting. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwYXoEIsxK7hMU15eTBqNGR6am8/edit

For a further critique and timeline of the hurried process used to pass the bond resolution and the stunning lack of public notice, see my first comment following this news article: http://onlineathens.com/local-news/2013-03-21/athens-clarke-commission-s...

I received three responses to my emailed inquiries about how much money would be saved by issuing SPLOST 4 bonds and how such savings could be calculated, which were sent to Board members (as elected officials) on purpose so as to establish that I had concerns about the SPLOST 4 bond issue. One indicated that the Board member had forwarded my questions to the appropriate CCSD administrative personnel, which was a fair enough response, as I knew that Board had no idea. The second merely was a “reply all” that sent my questions to all of the other members of the Board, the email addressed of whom I had purposefully included in the address line (not the CC or BCC line) specifically for the purpose of letting the Board Members know that I had sent my questions to all of them. The third response was to ask me if I had received any other responses.

Finally, I must thank Denise Spangler and Ted Gilbert. When I asked the former, after the Board meeting on 20 March, where a member of the public could get a copy of the various resolutions just approved, she graciously gave me her copies. That is the only reason I have them – to my knowledge, they are still not available anywhere else. The latter, with whom I have had amicable dealings in the past, has indicated that he will try to come up with some numbers for me as to how much money the CCSD ostensibly saved by issuing bonds under both SPLOST 3 and SPOST 4.

Count me as a cynic.

@Willow Branch: But the Board and the CCSD administration have incessantly claimed paucity at every turn for years - even as its budget and spending increased dramatically (and even when factoring in inflation and a modest increase in its student population) - far outstripping the state averages in every measure available.