Columbus Council considers reversing promise to refund nonprofit’s $28,706.62 tax payment
The Columbus Council is debating refunding property taxes totaling over $28,000 and paid by the Columbus Botanical Garden before its nonprofit status was exempted after the organization made a mistake in its filing.
This issue has been raised twice during council meetings. Councilor Walker Garrett of District 8 spoke in support of the garden during the council’s March 24 meeting.
“They shouldn’t have had to pay taxes because they should have had nonprofit status,” Garrett said. “There was just a mix-up where they did not have it submitted.”
Andrew Ruhs, executive director of the garden, appeared before the council during the March 24 meeting to request the fees and penalties be waived. He also spoke to the council during the April 14 meeting to request a refund for the $28,706.62 the organization paid in property taxes.
This tax was associated with a five-acre parcel of land that was donated to the garden in 2022, Ruhs told the council.
“Due to an administrative error, the nonprofit exemption was never filed,” he said. “And we are now working to correct that filing.”
The Columbus Botanical Garden is a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organization, Ruhs said, and this land would qualify for the nonprofit exemption.
“In other words, this request does not reduce city tax revenue,” he said. “It simply corrects an administrative error. As a community nonprofit organization, any funds used to pay those taxes, penalties and interest would otherwise go directly towards programs and resources that benefit the public.”
A verbal agreement reached
During its March 24 meeting, the council unanimously voted to waive the penalties and fees associated with the garden’s property tax, totaling $7,935.
The garden owed outstanding taxes for the past three years. During the March 24 meeting, Ruhs requested this to be waived without the nonprofit paying it.
City Attorney Clifton Fay advised the council it could not refund a tax unless the tax had been paid and there was an “erroneous assessment”.
Suzanne Widenhouse, chief appraiser for the Muscogee County Board of Tax Assessors, said the garden failed to file an exemption for 2023 and 2024 but did file one for 2025.
Because the garden was not in good standing in 2025, Widenhouse said, it did not qualify for an exemption for that year.
By state law, because the garden’s taxes for 2023 and 2024 had been assessed and approved by Frank O’Connell, commissioner for the Georgia Department of Revenue, the taxes for those years cannot be waived, Widenhouse said.
“You also can’t retroactively apply an exemption request,” she said. “If they fail to file for that exemption, they waive their right to that exemption for that year.”
After taxes are assessed, Muscogee County Tax Commissioner David Britt said, he is required by law to collect them.
During the March 24 meeting, Councilor John Anker of citywide District 9 spoke in support of helping the garden either not pay the taxes or receive a refund.
“I think we’re all sympathetic,” Anker said. “And I’m with Walker on wanting to do the right thing. I think maybe the chief assessor and the tax commissioner would also like to. I don’t have a solution.”
Mayor Skip Henderson told Ruhs the only possible answer is to raise money to pay the taxes.
“Council could then refund those fees and then you could redistribute it back to the people that gave you the money to pay it,” Henderson said.
Anker voiced his support for this plan.
Widenhouse warned the mayor and the council that the council could only issue a refund if it was proven that the taxes were illegally or erroneously collected.
“It could be an erroneous collection because we know that they’re a nonprofit and that’s their land,” Councilor Charmaine Crabb of District 5 said.
Crabb asked who determines whether it was collected erroneously. Fay advised that the council makes the final decision.
Henderson ultimately advised Ruhs to pay the outstanding $28,706.62 and return to the council, which could then determine it had been collected erroneously and refund it.
Taxes paid, but councilors change their mind
Ruhs returned to the council April 14 to request a refund on the taxes, which were paid after the March 24 meeting, with the understanding that the council would approve a refund .
Garrett made a motion for a full refund, arguing that the tax collection could be considered erroneous and a refund is proper because the taxpayer asserts that the property assessed was exempt from taxation.
He based this conclusion on the National Health Network v. Fulton County case before the Supreme Court of Georgia in 1999, arguing that the taxpayer asserting the property was exempt fulfilled one of six factors that could be used to allow the council to refund the payment.
Because the garden is arguing the tax was collected erroneously but not illegally, Garrett said, the council has more discretion.
“I don’t think the tax assessor’s office has done anything wrong here,” he said. “But this just comes down to a matter of if it’s within our discretion. …I think we do meet that criteria here, where we at least have the authority to make this decision.”
Councilor Glenn Davis of District 7 disagreed with Garrett. Davis said the legal argument to refund the payment “is a stretch.”
“Georgia law is very clear about this matter,” Davis said. “I believe it’s very clear. There were no refunds given in any of these cases. You do have the right to request — that’s not being argued — but the law says there has to be an error.”
Davis asked Ruhs whether he believes the money was erroneously collected. Ruhs said it was a mistake made by the garden’s past executive director.
Davis then asked Ruhs whether he believes the tax assessor or the tax commissioner erred in collecting the taxes.
“There was a mistake made,” Ruhs said. “They had a right to collect the taxes. I believe it was an erroneous collection based on the circumstances.”
Davis emphasized the error was on the side of the nonprofit, not on the tax assessor or the tax commissioner.
“That’s clear,” he said. “They did what they were supposed to do by law. We’re all sworn here to uphold Georgia law. Now, that doesn’t deny you the right to ask, as my fellow colleagues stated, but it doesn’t deny you the ability to go to court and ask a judge to interpret this.”
Davis said it would be “extremely challenging” to ask him to determine an error had been made based on previous case law.
Anker also spoke in support of Davis’ assertion that the council could not refund the payment. Anker said he has been “torn” on the issue because of his experience making mistakes as a business owner.
He acknowledged he was now contradicting his past support to refund the garden’s payment.
“I may have swayed in another direction because, as hard as it is, I don’t want a slippery slide,” Anker said. “I don’t want it to be hard for the people involved in decisions going forward, if that makes sense. I’m going to be on a different side than I was last time.”
Councilor Toyia Tucker of District 4 joined Garrett in supporting a refund of the money, primarily because of the understanding reached during the March 24 meeting.
“The last council meeting, we made a lot of promises,” Tucker said. “And you did your due diligence and went and paid that money expeditiously. You didn’t have to do that, but the promise was that you’ll come back and we would basically grant you this.”
If councilor weren’t going to uphold their part, she said, they should not have made the promises.
Tucker said it is wrong to withhold the refund after the garden paid over $28,000.
The ensuing vote was inconclusive, 5-4. The council needs six affirmative votes to approve a motion.
Tucker, Garrett, Byron Hickey of District 1, Joanne Cogle of District 7 and Travis Chambers of citywide District 10 are the councilors who voted to approve the refund. Davis, Crabb, Anker and Mayor Pro Tem Gary Allen of District 6 are the councilors who voted no.
Councilor Bruce Huff of District 5 was absent from the meeting. As mayor, Henderson is allowed to vote only to break a tie.
“For the record, I would have been the sixth vote had Mr. Huff been here for some of the same reasons that Councilor Tucker made,” Henderson said. “We walked through this, and in my mind, we laid out a path for you. We didn’t cast any dispersions at all. In fact, we identified that this was within the jurisdiction of the council.”
Because the vote was inconclusive, the council will consider this agenda item during its next meeting, April 28.
