I think they should go back to the drawing board and start again this time try to manage the money as if it were their own! Obviously had this budget been leaked to the press Chairman Bannister would have been run out of office instead of riding in on his Trojan horse.

When I make my budget if it doesn’t balance (which the County’s hasn’t for the entire time Bannister has been in office) I cut things, things I can’t afford, think the Board of Commissioners ever heard of this? I know it is a new concept for them so I’ll be
patient while they get informed. I know there are more items in the 2009 budget that can be streamlined or omitted entirely in order to keep property taxes down, maybe they could look at some of the fat in the budget and trim it a bit, huh? I do it, I manage my money and I am very *frugal with my funds! For those on the Commission Board and our deep pocketed, big headed Chairman who have probably never heard of this word I am happy to provide them with it’s meaning and maybe they could add it to their own vocabulary;

*fru-gal 1. not wasteful; not spending freely or unnecessarily; saving; economical 2. not costly or luxurious; inexpensive. b. sparingly provided.

What a concept, huh? Gotta love it!

So I wonder how much revenue will come in from businesses?

So lets assume that the milleage rate will increase everyones taxes by $100 per year,using the same 180k houses that will generate another $18 million. How quuickly the shortfall gap will close before even figuring in comercial assesments.

I just pulled down the 2008 budget and noticed that the Operating budget was $855.8 Million and the Capital budget was $676.3 Million for a grand total of around $1.5 Billion. If you look at their little budget presentation for 2009 you see a total budget of $1.67 Billion made up of an operating budget of $901.9 Million and $770 Million in Capital projects. Where did they make the cuts? It seems to me that they are proposing an INCREASE in spending over last year!

Compare the school system demographics between the Atlanta and Gwinnett school systems between 1990 and 2005. The demographic component of interest (let’s call it DCI) shows a start difference between Atlanta’s Ask policy and Gwinnett’s Do Not Ask policy.

The DCI remained almost unchanged for Atlanta’s school system for the DCI, but had a +20 fold increase in Gwinnett’s school system. If one conservatively estimates the representation by the illegal population within the DCI as being only one-in-five (20%) and apply this against the 2009 budget student population (DCI is 30,050 students in Gwinnett’s K12) the amount is approximately $70 Million.

And let’s not forget about the costs of burden the illegal representation of DCI is on other county systems such as the Sheriff’s department, the medical system, etc., and thence look at who is employing their household heads via a tax evasive operations.

Gwinnett county needs to do the right thing and not financially support the illegal portion of DCI. Look to your neighbors, friends, and businesses conducting their business in questionable manners.

I had actually forgotten about the Value Offset Exemption, which is a floating exemption that increases by the same dollar amount that your assessed value increases. The VOE is only beneficial to homestead, while HB-233 freezes the assessments of non-homestead as well as non-residential.

Also, the VOE only applies to county taxes while HB-233 will cap assessments for not only county taxes but city and school taxes as well.

Yes, the Commission screwed up by rolling back the rate even when it produced a deficit. You may recall that I did an analysis of the millage rates of all Gwinnett jurisdictions in 2005. While I found that most cities OVERtaxed via an arbitrarily-inflated millage rate, the county and the school board actually UNDER-taxed. I have looked at only one year since 2005, but the county undertaxed in that year, also.

It is my opinion that it is just as irresponsible for the county to undertax (create debt) as it would be for it to overtax.

Finally, you might be interested in the history of HB-233. When Rep. Edward Lindsey first submitted it, it had nothing to do with an assessment cap. It modified a definition related to conservation use property. Lindsey also submitted HR-1, which was a constitutional amendment to impose a permanent, three-percent assessment cap.

The Democrats resisted HR-1. Because the proposed constitutional amendment required a “super-majority” to pass, the Republicans were unable to push it through.

So Lindsey, in committee, completely changed the subject– he rewrote HB-233 to impose a temporary three-, then ZERO-percent assessment cap. The entire purpose was to threaten Democrats and “encourage” them to support HR-1. If the Dems continued to oppose HR-1, the Republicans would proceed with the NEW HB-233 which, as a regular bill could pass with a simple majority.

The Dems held firm. As soon as HR-1 failed to receive a super-majority on its second try, Lindsey and House leadership presented HB-233, which passed.

Majority Leader Chip Rogers presented the bill in the Senate and it passed without question after it was amended in committee so that it didn’t apply to a couple of counties that had just, or were about to complete a county-wide revaluation.

HB-233, if it is enacted, will hopefully be challenged. It won’t withstand a challenge on constitutionality because it creates a privileged class of taxpayer, and that can only be done by constitutional amendment.

The Republicans’ conduct during the progress of this bill was despicable…. especially since an assessment cap can easily be shown to be ineffective and harmful.

For 100% EFFECTIVE property tax reform, visit http://www.millagerate.com. To read more about the dangers of assessment caps, visit http://www.millagerate.com/blog/