So we will have more government and lower taxes? Are you personally willing to indemnify each and every tax payer in the city of Brookhaven if our taxes happen to rise?

I only hope the proposed residents of Brookhaven can see the reality of the situation and block any attempt to create a city without a one or two year investigation to see the true costs of cityhood. This should include thorough analysis of Sandy Springs and Dunwoody.

+1 on Rick's comment. Which of us woke up one morning and said to ourselves "Wow, I wish I had another layer of government to deal with and intrude into my life." jacobs would NEVER indemnify anyone for anything. It is the old political "Trust me, I am from the government and I am here to help". Instead of Jacobs' spinning the numbers, I would rather he describe, in plain English, WHY this is a good idea. I understand the downside...more taxes, more bureacracy, more hoops to jump through, more bureaucrats who feel that they aren't doing their jobs without writing more regulations and laws. But, Mike, how about your version of the Top Ten reasons this is good for me and my neighbors? Holding my breath......

DeKalb County should have become familiar with the term disenfranchised years ago; it is a term that those of us in unincorporated DeKalb have been using for years, as we watched the greater share of our tax dollars leave our local communities to build parks, sidewalks and infrastructure in the central and southern parts of our county. Mr. Ellis believes that “…It is a fundamental right for our citizens to choose more government and pay a premium for heightened levels of service..." and that statement gets right to the point. Historically, south and central DeKalb received the heightened levels of service, while unincorporated DeKalb paid the premium. Our Parks are in disarray, our sidewalks overgrown, and our police force absent. We in unincorporated DeKalb are confident that we can provide these services at no additional cost. Even if it does cost more for the privilege of having a local government that we can hold accountable, we are willing to take our chances with the higher potential cost.

With regard to the tax rate, my property tax bill for 2010 shows I paid an actual tax rate of 1.72 mils when I factor in the HOST tax credit available for residents in unincorporated DeKalb NOT the 3.5 mils rate noted in Rep Jacobs letter. My property tax bill for 2011 shows I paid an actual tax rate of 3.23 mils when I factor in the HOST tax credit for residents in unincorporated DeKalb NOT the 6.39 mils rate noted in Rep Jacobs letter. This is NOT a tax reduction, it is Rep Jacobs giving you the tax rate you are currently paying in unincorporated DeKalb and calling it lower taxes to sell the city.

Page 19 of the feasibility study prepared by the Carl Vinson Institute for the proposed City of Brookhaven includes the statement "Deficit based on Revenue Estimates Using 2010 Property Taxes (3.50 mils): -$1,272,623". How can the feasibility study prepared for Rep Jacobs and the Committee include a $1.2m deficit using a property tax rate of 3.50 mils rate yet Rep Jacobs letter above states a property tax millage rate of 3.4 mils will produce a surplus of "approximately" $362,878. I was never a math wiz but I fail to see how collecting less property tax will produce over $1.5 million in additional revenue for the proposed City of Brookhaven. Rep Jacobs please explain the wide discrepancies between your numbers and the feasibility study produced by the Carl Vinson Institute that "has a track record of reliable, conservative predictions for the studies it has performed".

Jim, you are missing something, namely that the HOST credit is already deducted from the property tax figures shown in the Carl Vinson report. The study uses actual property tax amounts without adjustment.

In other words, you are deducting the HOST credit a second time.

I am very confident that a tax rate of 3.4 mills and a $20,000 homestead exemption generates a property tax cut for homeowners in the proposed city, as compared to what DeKalb County is currently charging for city services less the HOST credit.

For your benefit, this is from pages 15-16 of the study:

"The figures given here represent the amount of real property taxes being paid by study area residents to the county for the services being provided through county special service tax districts. . . . In other words, the method utilized here demonstrates the amount of property tax revenue being generated in the study area for the county that would become available to a municipality that took over the provision of those municipal services currently being provided by the county if the amount of property tax collections remained constant but was instead collected by a city. . . . The 2011 figure is based on 2011 taxable assessed value figures, identification of homestead exemptions, value of the homestead exemption and millage rates provided by the Tax Commissioner, as well as the application of the HOST tax credit. . . . The HOST tax credit was calculated based on a HOST factor of 47.3%."

Joe, I'd be happy to take you on a tour of Dunwoody City Hall to show you that it is different from the "government" you've described.

I'd also encourage citizens to talk with folks who live in Dunwoody about their new city. Generally it gets high marks.

This is an opportunity to keep some of our tax dollars here at home, to deploy them more efficiently, and to locally control the development of our community.

The numbers aren't being spun. They are actual numbers.

I think the numbers are being spun.
Fines at $1.9 million. Determined by a ratio of population. Seems very vague. Dunwoody with a much higher daytime population, larger traffic count and Perimeter Mall reported $1.1 million in fines collected. CVI said , " an assumption was made that rates of petty offenses of this nature take place on a fairly consistent level across unincorporated .." Brookhaven has no mall, a significantly smaller traffic count and a smaller daytime population. Add the county officers who are almost exclusively dedicated to traffic enforcement and the formula used gets even more distorted. The revenue in this area looks grossly over stated.
Law Enforcement-Confiscated Money estimated at $241K. Again very vague in how that revenue would be generated by a City of Brookhaven. The county dedicates numerous detectives in several different assignments. I don't think a limited manpower Brookhaven police could duplicate anything close to a quarter million in revenue. An assumption that money seizures are uniform throughout the county is an incorrect assumption. Dunwoody reported only 7K in confiscated money.
These two small areas of the proposed revenue should raise red flags. Before a government is created a thorough feasibility study NOT based on assumptions should be undertaken.
If a government is created and the revenue isn't there will that government fold or will it just forcefully take more?

Jim @ 9:24 a.m., that is incorrect because your methodology does not account for the effect of the homestead exemption on the assessed value. If the methodology is to equalize everything else (which is flawed to begin with) and make the only variable the millage rate, then the resulting millage rate is higher than 3.36 mills, and 3.40 mills for that matter, whereas the Brookhaven millage rate is proposed to be 3.40 mills at most.

I am very confident that a tax rate of 3.40 mills and a $20,000 homestead exemption generates a property tax cut for homeowners in the proposed city, as compared to what DeKalb County is currently charging for municipal services less the HOST credit. This is based upon actual dollars paid, not just the millage rate.

Thank you Mike for the correction. I see now that when I factor in the actual taxes I paid with respect to the items noted above, my numbers are off by 0.08 mils....sorry to present inaccurate information.

Now, how do we address the larger issue presented in my comments - what are the citizens of the proposed City of Brookhaven actually receiving for whatever level of taxes they will pay?

You point often to the shining city on the hill that is now Dunwoody..we heard from Rep Tom Taylor and the other proponents for Dunwoody that they worked for two years meeting with residents at every neighborhood swim/tennis group; every school group; every church group; every coffee shop group; every every group; to discuss and determine the level and type of services they would like to see BEFORE the proposed charter for the City of Dunwoody was finalized and presented to the GA Legislature for approval.

Why are the citizens of the proposed City of Brookhaven not being allowed the same opportunity to develop the level and type of services they feel most important before you bring the tablets containing the city charter down the steps of the state capital and present them to the citizens for a vote? The process MUST be slowed to allow people the opportunity to discuss, digest the information and discuss further what their vision is and will be for the proposed City of Brookhaven!

LiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarLiarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarliarlia