Blogosphere

Highlighting Gwinnett bloggers

Business

Community

Miscellany

Politics & Govt.

Home » Bob Griggs: `It Must Be Said`, Politics & Govt.

`CYA,` Gwinnett Commission Style

Submitted by TalkGwinnett.com on Thursday, 13 August 20094 Comments
Visited 1163 times, 1 so far today Print This! | Twitter This!

Elephant ButtWe now know the price of a political rear end. It is approximately $1.2 million, or $600,000 per cheek. That is the amount of money that the County Commission risked yesterday for no other reason than to save their political butts.

At Tuesday’s court hearing, attorneys for the county proposed a single millage rate of 11.18, a .21-mill increase over last year’s rate. The compromise solution came after the judge indicated that he would reject the county’s initial proposal for a temporary collection which included a separate, higher tax rate for city residents. The county had asked for a rate of 10.94 for unincorporated property owners and 12.00 for those living in Gwinnett’s 15 cities. [More background]

The increase over last year’s rate (11.18 from 10.97) would have meant less than an $18 dollar increase on the tax bill for a $200,000 home, but most property owners would still have seen a smaller tax bill this year because of lower assessed values.

The “tax increase” would have generated an additional $6.2 million in tax revenue to take the edge off of the massive cuts proposed last month, even though the county would have collected no more than it did in 2008.

With no explanation, the Commission refused to approve the negotiated rate at yesterday’s specially-called meeting. Comments from Bannister and other Commissioners from other sources indicate that they were not going to “raise taxes” under any circumstance.

When they voted not to make a formal recommendation of 11.18, they left it to Judge Tim Hamil to make the decision for them. The judge, however, does not have the authority to set the county’s millage rate; that is solely the responsibility of the BoC.

As the basis for the Temporary Collection Order, the judge can only impose a previously-approved rate. In other words, he cannot make the decision for the Commission, but he can use their previous decision to authorize tax collection.

He does have the authority to declare the 2009 Net Tax Digest to be the basis for taxation this year, despite the fact that the State has not officially approved the digest.

As a consequence, Judge Hamil will issue an order authorizing tax collection using the 2008 tax rate but applying it to the 2009 Tax Digest. Doing so will produce a $6.2 million loss of revenue.

This is the total fault of the County Commission.

Unless the Commission sucks it up and adopts a permanent rate of 11.18 or higher (which it can do any time it chooses), you can count on additional cuts to essential services. At least, that is what Bannister has suggested.

Bannister has claimed that the cities have prevented the county from adopting a millage rate. On that point, he is lying. The cities reportedly notified the county that it would oppose an attempt to set a separate, higher rate for city residents, but that they would not oppose the adoption of a single tax rate for all county residents. They did not oppose a single tax rate proposal this week, before the judge.

There is only one reason why the County Commission, with its back against the wall and the county teetering on the brink of financial disaster, would CONTINUE to refuse to enact a piddling tax hike– they are trying to cover their political rear ends… trying to protect their public careers. They are so afraid that you will punish them for “raising taxes” that they are willing to jeopardize the financial welfare of our county.

If this isn’t a violation of their oath of office; an abdication of their fiduciary responsibility to you and me… and an impeachable offense… it comes awful close.

(Updated: 8-13 9:24p)

More on This Topic:

4 Comments »

  • Mack Perry says:

    The Gwinnett BoC is a joke. It is time to RECALL all of them!!!!!

  • Gerald says:

    The BOC cannot vote on a single millage rate because it would be counter to their pleading in the SDS court case.

    • Bob Griggs says:

      I am not an attorney; however, a plain reading of the Temporary Collection Order indicates that your assertion would not be true.

      The order reads, in “Conclusion of Law #15:” The arguments, claims, and defenses that are addressed in “Gwinnett County, Georgia vs. City of Auburn et al”… shall be preserved and shall not be affected in any way by the findings, conclusions, and rulings in this matter. The Court hereby specifically states that it is making no ruling or judgment on the insurance premium issue, the ability to set differing millage rates or any other matters….”

      The Commission’s recommendation of a single millage rate to facilitate the temporary collection of property taxes would not have prejudiced their position in that case. There has to be, therefore, another reason.