Comments on: Just Say ‘No’ to a Property Tax Increase… http://www.talkgwinnett.com/2009/just-say-no-to-a-property-tax-increase/ Home of the Gwinnett Blogosphere Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:28:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Bob Griggs http://www.talkgwinnett.com/2009/just-say-no-to-a-property-tax-increase/comment-page-1/#comment-91 Bob Griggs Sun, 31 May 2009 20:53:33 +0000 http://www.talkgwinnett.com/?p=907#comment-91 A couple of observations on your excellent article on the tax increase: The tax increase is not (or, at least, shouldn't be) a surprise. From the information released at the time of the budget's approval, I was able to calculate (roughly) the expected increase. My calculation formed the basis of my article at this site, "Are You Ready for Higher Taxes?" which I published <em>on February 25</em>. Apparently, it shouldn't have been a surprise to the Commission as well... published reports are that the county has known that 2009 would be the `year of reckoning` <em>for several years.</em> Makes you wonder why the Commission wasn't able to soften the blow a bit. I can tell you one reason why. There is no law requiring taxing authorities to adopt a mathematically-correct rate. The adoption of the millage rate therefore becomes a <em>political</em> decision and, for many years the Commission has rolled back or maintained a constant rate to make the politicians look good even as the county dips into reserves to make up the deficit. I am guessing on this because I haven't confirmed, but I bet that the $43 million is to replenish some of the funds used over recent years. Because of deficit tax rates and other reasons, the county has spent from reserves to the point that our bond rating is threatened. The restoration of the reserve account is a legitimate expense... it was the spending of reserve funds for non-emergencies that is the problem. Finally, the "we have to raise taxes because we will now police the cities" argument is bogus. Bannister is trying to confuse taxpayers, and for that he should be ashamed. That isn't to say that the cost of overlapping services and their cost to taxpayers isn't a legitimate issue and one that affects expenses and the tax rate. But the county is in a battle to maintain its tax revenue stream while the cities raise a legitimate complaint about double taxation. The cities aren't being totally genuine in their argument, however. The county PD currently polices the entire county, regardless of whether or not a city PD exists. If a municipal property owner called the county PD, it would respond and would have the authority to do so if the city PD couldn't. I regularly see county officers enforcing traffic law within cities. City property owners benefit from the county PD and should pay a fair share for the service. A couple of observations on your excellent article on the tax increase:

The tax increase is not (or, at least, shouldn’t be) a surprise. From the information released at the time of the budget’s approval, I was able to calculate (roughly) the expected increase. My calculation formed the basis of my article at this site, “Are You Ready for Higher Taxes?” which I published on February 25.

Apparently, it shouldn’t have been a surprise to the Commission as well… published reports are that the county has known that 2009 would be the `year of reckoning` for several years. Makes you wonder why the Commission wasn’t able to soften the blow a bit.

I can tell you one reason why. There is no law requiring taxing authorities to adopt a mathematically-correct rate. The adoption of the millage rate therefore becomes a political decision and, for many years the Commission has rolled back or maintained a constant rate to make the politicians look good even as the county dips into reserves to make up the deficit.

I am guessing on this because I haven’t confirmed, but I bet that the $43 million is to replenish some of the funds used over recent years. Because of deficit tax rates and other reasons, the county has spent from reserves to the point that our bond rating is threatened. The restoration of the reserve account is a legitimate expense… it was the spending of reserve funds for non-emergencies that is the problem.

Finally, the “we have to raise taxes because we will now police the cities” argument is bogus. Bannister is trying to confuse taxpayers, and for that he should be ashamed.

That isn’t to say that the cost of overlapping services and their cost to taxpayers isn’t a legitimate issue and one that affects expenses and the tax rate. But the county is in a battle to maintain its tax revenue stream while the cities raise a legitimate complaint about double taxation.

The cities aren’t being totally genuine in their argument, however. The county PD currently polices the entire county, regardless of whether or not a city PD exists. If a municipal property owner called the county PD, it would respond and would have the authority to do so if the city PD couldn’t. I regularly see county officers enforcing traffic law within cities. City property owners benefit from the county PD and should pay a fair share for the service.

]]>