Fairburn council members April 10 voted unanimously to respond to a request to join the South Fulton Community Improvement District (CID). The request related to city owned tax parcels adjacent to existing CID boundaries. The 300-acre parcel, the former site of a proposed wastewater treatment plant and now designated as a city nature preserve, is situated in the unincorporated area southwest of city limits.

Responding to questions by the council, city attorney Brad Sears said he did not know specifically why South Fulton CID had approached Fairburn, suggesting the invitation might have to do with city ownership of property with the CID area.

“I don’t know why they want us to join,” Sears said. “I’ve never heard of cities joining, but it may be that they want property contiguous with property already included in the CID.”

Continuing the response to the council, Planning Coordinator Gail Denman said Community Improvement Districts are self-taxing for defined districts of commercial and industrial development within district boundaries. The possibility exists, she added, that membership in the South Fulton CID might lead to board representation.

The issue of Fairburn joining the South Fulton CID surfaced, according to an April 7 memo from City Administrator Jim Williams, when the CID requested that Fairburn participate by including tax parcels owned by the city within District boundaries. The city attorney reviewed and edited the proposed consent form and approved it for council action, Williams said.

Sears said he reviewed the written consent of owner form “with regard to enumerated properties owned by the City of Fairburn being included in the (CID) boundaries and consent to be subject to taxation, fee and/or assessments pursuant to” South Fulton CID. Sears noted that Fairburn is constitutionally exempt from taxation, fee and/or assessment by South Fulton CID. Citing Georgia law, Sears said inclusion of city owned property within an expanded CID boundary would not alter prior legislation, adding that inclusion in the CID boundary “should not subject the city owned property to county services and the right of the city to provide services to its own property should not be affected.”

Sears concluded that while he saw no benefit for the city to consent to its property being included within the CID boundary, there is probably no down side.

“If the city sold the property and the property was returned to the tax digest, the subsequent owner would be bound by the legislation. If the city were to create a CID within its corporate limits, the presence of city owned property within the municipal CID would be treated similarly. I can only assume that the request is being made to include the city property to reach other property not otherwise contiguous to the CID’s current boundaries,” Sears said.

login to post comments