Whether to allow a for-profit company to close Harrison Park and charge admission for a concert was a point of discussion for the Ellijay City Council.
Councilmember Tom Crawford had asked for an exception to the Harrison Park rules for a May 10 concert to be put on the agenda at the Nov. 18 meeting.
During the work session, Ellijay Police Chief Edward Lacey and City Attorney Kayann Hayden West listed various reasons why current state laws prohibit the use of public areas for private for-profit events.
Lacey pointed to the gratuity clause which would prevent the city taking a gratuity for the benefit from a company which was benefiting. He also cited the ad valorem code for land owned by a nonprofit which prevents for-profit uses.
West agreed with Lacey but said she could not give a definitive opinion until she saw an application. She said she could think of at least three city ordinances which would be changed if the concert was allowed.
Lacey told the board a hard policy was needed to deal with the various event applications instead of making exceptions on a case by case basis which could be seen as arbitrary and capricious.
West agreed a policy was needed to give reasons why one event could be approved and maybe another could not.
Right now, a for-profit is prevented from holding an event which denies access to citizens.
Ray Green, whose company was asking to put on the May 10 concert as part of the Songwriter’s Festival said because there was disagreement about allowing the event, he could not pull it together in time.
He urged the city to get a policy in place.
No motion was made when the official issue was brought up.
HB 581
Councilmember Thomas Griffith updated the council about HB581 which stems from the recent Amendment 1 vote.
He said many other boards in the state were leaning toward opting out of the measure which caps property assessments to the inflation rate of the previous year. The measure was approved in Gilmer County and statewide.
Griffith said the city could opt out between starting in January but before March 1. A resolution would have to be passed and three public hearings would need to be held.
“It’s a very short timeline,” he said.
Crawford asked why the city would want to opt out.
Griffith said the law was vague, and additions could be made in the future which affected the city’s ability to collect taxes. But, the city only had one chance to opt out of the measure.
Mostly, he said, the idea was to keep local control of revenue and assessments.
“It was voted in across the state,” he said. “But, did people really understand it? Do our local folks want the state to have control of our taxes, or do they want local control over them?”
He said he would have more information at the December meeting.