- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: CPA firm's analysis shows higher taxes needed to support St George City
Posted on 12/20/14 at 1:40 pm to LeonPhelps
Posted on 12/20/14 at 1:40 pm to LeonPhelps
quote:
Posted by LeonPhelps
2 things:
1. The people that paid for the report have a vested interest in hurting the prospects of St. George happening, so immediately I know the report will be skewed if not a Big 4 accounting firm.
BRAF is a shady organization, IMO but your attitude is idiotic.
BRAF gets a lot of money from that IBM deal. Their connections are actually more with the state than anything.
The SG thing sure had made for strange bedfellows and unusual alliances.
0
Posted on 12/20/14 at 2:43 pm to LeonPhelps
quote:You obviously don't have business contacts in Baton Rouge.
The accounting firm is Faulk and Winkler. I've never heard of that firm.
F&W is one of the oldest, most respected accounting firms in Baton Rouge. They have a section that specializes in local government audits and planning & budgeting. They perform accounting consulting services for quite a few local government entities, including parish police juries, small cities and school boards. I remember reading it was F&W that was hired by the Pointe Coupee Parish Police Jury a couple of years ago after the legislative auditor found some irregularities in that parish's finances. F&W was brought in to develop processes to clean it up.
quote:
Bert Faulk, CPA Baton Rouge, LA He has more than 40 years of experience in public accounting and is currently specializing in providing organizational accounting and tax issue guidance to governmental and healthcare organizations. He is also currently providing public accounting consult to a variety of client industries and is one of the founding partners of Faulk & Winkler.
My guess is that is why they were selected to do the study for BRAF and BRAC. They are familiar with Louisiana and local taxation issues from the government's standpoint.
quote:Such as Arthur Andersen???
They couldn't use a Big 4 firm to get some ironclad credibility?
Posted on 12/20/14 at 3:54 pm to LSURussian
quote:So everyone can disregard the analysis prepared by Faulk & Winkler since it is based on certain assumptions. The report is not based on historic information. It only makes sense if certain assumptions are correct. So the entire report should be cancelled applying the same logic you are making.
Key word that cancels out the rest of your post.
As such this entire topic is hypocritical on your part. When assumptions are convenient for you they deserve consideration, but when inconvenient they should be ignored.
Posted on 12/20/14 at 4:18 pm to Poodlebrain
quote:Most SG fanboys like you have already disregarded it. Just like I'm disregarding your posts.....
So everyone can disregard the analysis prepared by Faulk & Winkler since it is based on certain assumptions.
Posted on 12/20/14 at 4:59 pm to LSURussian
Should have hired Delloite, the brainiacs who recommended building thinner, shorter lasting roads as a cost-saving measure.
Posted on 12/20/14 at 5:46 pm to LSURussian
Fan boy here.
Can you explain the duality of your arguments?
On the one hand you argue that the study shows a 9mill per year deficit, and SG Will have to raise taxes.
On the other hand you argue that SG will not continue to pay the cost of the constitutional offices (17 million per year). That still leaves SG With an 8 million dollar per year surplus.
So which is it? I'll hang up and listen, thanks.
Can you explain the duality of your arguments?
On the one hand you argue that the study shows a 9mill per year deficit, and SG Will have to raise taxes.
On the other hand you argue that SG will not continue to pay the cost of the constitutional offices (17 million per year). That still leaves SG With an 8 million dollar per year surplus.
So which is it? I'll hang up and listen, thanks.
Posted on 12/20/14 at 6:04 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
Should have hired Delloite, the brainiacs who recommended building thinner, shorter lasting roads as a cost-saving measure.
Posted on 12/20/14 at 6:15 pm to Sprocket46
quote:Where have I written anything, much less "argued," about a $9 million deficit?
On the one hand you argue that the study shows a 9mill per year deficit
quote:If you believe any future elected city council and mayor will agree to paying that kind of money when there is no legally binding requirement to do so, you are that fool I was referring to earlier.
On the other hand you argue that SG will not continue to pay the cost of the constitutional offices (17 million per year).
The same thing already happened in Central with legacy costs. The incorporation organizers agreed to pay BR legacy costs during the annexation drive and once the city was established the first thing the mayor and council did was disavow any requirement or intent to do so. Going on five years and not a penny of legacy costs have been paid.
Why don't you write the authors of the study and ask them your silly questions?
Posted on 12/20/14 at 6:30 pm to LSURussian
quote:
f you believe any future elected city council and mayor will agree to paying that kind of money when there is no legally binding requirement to do so, you are that fool I was referring to earlier.
The same thing already happened in Central with legacy costs.
Legacy costs and the costs of constitutional offices are 2 very different things. The unincorporated area has footed 100% of costs of the constitutional offices for many years. BR, Central, Zachary pay zero. With the loss of revenue from annexations, there is 0% chance SG will agree to pay 100% in perpetuity.
quote:
Where have I written anything, much less "argued," about a $9 million deficit?
The study says it. You have defended the accounting firm's study. Do you now disagree with their conclusion?
So again, what are you arguing? According to THIS study, if SG doesn't pay the constitutional office costs at aNY thing above 50% or so, they will have a budget surplus.
So do you disagree with the study or not?
Posted on 12/20/14 at 7:16 pm to Sprocket46
quote:That's the point, you dolt, there is NO ST. GEORGE which can agree to do it.
there is 0% chance SG will agree
quote:I have defended the accounting firm. They are a sound group who zealously defend their reputation.
You have defended the accounting firm's study.
quote:
Do you now disagree with their conclusion?
You really are an idiot. I've specifically said I disagree with their 20.5 mills increase in property taxes. I think it would be much more than that.
Other than that I really don't know about their report because I have not read it. Have you?
Why do you try to parse words in every SG thread? Is it because you have nothing of substance to offer? Are you that desperate?
ETA: Argue with yourself or with the authors of the study. You're boring me....
This post was edited on 12/20/14 at 7:17 pm
Posted on 12/20/14 at 7:40 pm to LSURussian
The whole discussion is hypothetical, based on the foundation of SG. Don't try to back out of your own arguments now because it doesn't exist yet. You have more threads and posts than anyone on a city that "doesn't exist". Now you're talking out of both sides of your arse claiming taxes will increase, but the study you post here disagrees with you, because as you have stated SG won't be footing 100% of the constitutional offices cost.
For a city that "doesn't exist" , you sure have devoted a hell of a lot of time trying to spread lies and misinformation in attempt to convince people to not support it.
For a city that "doesn't exist" , you sure have devoted a hell of a lot of time trying to spread lies and misinformation in attempt to convince people to not support it.
This post was edited on 12/20/14 at 7:43 pm
Posted on 12/20/14 at 7:47 pm to Sprocket46
Posted on 12/21/14 at 7:37 am to LSURussian
scare tactics, scare tactics.....one glaring example, which also leads me to believe the whole study is highly flawed and meant to scare residents
Why would they choose a $350,000 house as the example, when the average house in BR is valued at aprox $180,000, well the answer is quite simple, if they used the average price of a home the increase in taxes ( based on 20.5 mills and 75k homestead exemption) would roughly be $200/ year, or about $18/month and that would not have near the same wow factor, but much to thier demise, even with cooking the books they were only able to come with $720/year which is no big deal
quote:
At 20.5 mills, the report says, a person with a house valued at $350,000 would pay $720 more in property taxes per year, with the homestead exemption.
Why would they choose a $350,000 house as the example, when the average house in BR is valued at aprox $180,000, well the answer is quite simple, if they used the average price of a home the increase in taxes ( based on 20.5 mills and 75k homestead exemption) would roughly be $200/ year, or about $18/month and that would not have near the same wow factor, but much to thier demise, even with cooking the books they were only able to come with $720/year which is no big deal
Posted on 12/21/14 at 8:00 am to Tigerpaw123
quote:The average priced house in the proposed city of SG is a teeny bit more than 180,000. There are several subdivisions in the 70817 zip that the minimum price would be in the high 200's to the low 300's. Most of the home's in LAWO and WOL would be in the 350's on up category.
Why would they choose a $350,000 house as the example, when the average house in BR is valued at aprox $180,000,
Posted on 12/21/14 at 8:22 am to Tigerpaw123
quote:What's the median house value in the proposed St George area?
Why would they choose a $350,000 house as the example, when the average house in BR is valued at aprox $180,000
Posted on 12/21/14 at 8:33 am to LSURussian
quote:
What's the median house value in the proposed St George area?
Very good question, one that was failed to be addressed in the study
Posted on 12/21/14 at 8:38 am to Tigerpaw123
quote:Do you know that for sure?
one that was failed to be addressed in the study
I ask because I have not read the entire study so I don't know if that information is included in the study or not.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 9:37 am to LSURussian
The fact is that this CPA firm projected and assumed numbers that were provided for them and did not do any independent research!
The facts are that when St. George is incorporated, both the City of Baton Rouge and the City of St. George will have to increase property taxes.
The City of Baton Rouge will have to increase property taxes to make up for the tax incentives (Costco, etc.) and to feed the giant monster called inefficient city government or go bankrupt.
According to the report the City of Baton Rouge/Parish Government has over $ 400 million in UNFUNDED pension liability and has been debt serving at the minimum each years (Refer to New Orleans debt service for Police and Firefighters that has placed their budget in jeopardy).
St. George will not have this liability of legacy costs starting out since they did not incur the liability. Either way the City of Baton Rouge and the Parish Government are screwed! Refer to the latest on the Detroit bankruptcy where the bond holders took a bath and pensioners took a haircut.
That being said, St. George will have a bonding capacity that would exceed the City of Baton Rouge and the Parish Government combined, since they will not have any legacy cost or unfunded liability on their books. The St. George Independent School District will be in the same category without the legacy cost that were incurred by the inefficient EBRPSS jobs machine AKA as EBR School District.
The facts are that when St. George is incorporated, both the City of Baton Rouge and the City of St. George will have to increase property taxes.
The City of Baton Rouge will have to increase property taxes to make up for the tax incentives (Costco, etc.) and to feed the giant monster called inefficient city government or go bankrupt.
According to the report the City of Baton Rouge/Parish Government has over $ 400 million in UNFUNDED pension liability and has been debt serving at the minimum each years (Refer to New Orleans debt service for Police and Firefighters that has placed their budget in jeopardy).
St. George will not have this liability of legacy costs starting out since they did not incur the liability. Either way the City of Baton Rouge and the Parish Government are screwed! Refer to the latest on the Detroit bankruptcy where the bond holders took a bath and pensioners took a haircut.
That being said, St. George will have a bonding capacity that would exceed the City of Baton Rouge and the Parish Government combined, since they will not have any legacy cost or unfunded liability on their books. The St. George Independent School District will be in the same category without the legacy cost that were incurred by the inefficient EBRPSS jobs machine AKA as EBR School District.
Posted on 12/21/14 at 9:39 am to WindboyCajun
quote:How do you know?
and did not do any independent research!
quote:
St. George will not have this liability of legacy costs starting out since they did not incur the liability.
: dope :
Posted on 12/21/14 at 9:45 am to LSURussian
You and the members of the City Parish Council are complete idiots if they do not recognize the legacy costs that will take down the City of Baton Rouge. But then again you may be one and the same!
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News