Short thoughts
Nothing much left to say here folks, so everyone please go out and let your voices be heard at the polls.
posted by Jmac at 6:56 AM
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
About Me
- Name: Jmac
- Location: Athens, Georgia, United States
Email me with tips and comments to safeashousesathens@gmail.com.
Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/beyondtrestle.
Previous Posts
- Couple of things
- Concert-goers
- Movie watchin'
- Love him, hate hm
- Couple of things
- EITC at the state level
- Working for change
- Couple of things
- One final go
- Couple of things
5 Comments:
I find the comments here and over at AthPo quite interesting. On the one hand, there is a discussion about the merits of a targeted floating homestead exemption. On the other hand, there is a discussion about broader property tax relief.
Regarding the former, I presented a solution to this problem as part of my campaign, namely that of enacting a floating homestead exemption for everyone of the type already enacted by 30 Georgia counties and the City of Atlanta. I see no need to target a floating exemption to any one local population over another based on age, income, or any other measure; simply apply it to every property in Clarke County on which a homestead exemption is claimed. Given the brisk pace of revenue increases on the part of the Unified Government (up more than $30 million according to the online budgets for FY02-FY07, even with two millage rate reductions), I seriously doubt that such a floating exemption would unduly burden local government’s finances.
Regarding the latter, I do not think that the Unified Government has initiated any meaningful property tax relief in the past several years. That is not a criticism of the mayor, but rather of the entire Unified Government.
The millage rate reduction in 2004, from 13.7 to 13.4 mills, was not originally advocated by anyone in the Unified Government. The FY05 budget as initially proposed would have simply applied the projected increase of $3.2 million in new revenue over FY04, gained through growth in the property tax digest, to increases in existing budget items and new spending. A group of citizens composed entirely of local Republicans and of which I was a part, analyzed the proposed budget and presented the Commission with a series of budget reduction recommendations. Many of those recommendations were eventually adopted, thereby making the decrease possible. Until we citizens presented those recommendations, no one “inside the rail” was even talking about a millage rate reduction. Note that even with such a reduction, property taxes went up and spending increased over the previous year.
I would argue that the millage rate reduction in 2005, from 13.4 to 12.8 mills, in no way constituted meaningful property tax relief. Instead, the money ostensibly saved by the taxpayers through a decreased millage rate was promptly taken back by the Unified Government through the new stowmwater utility fee. According to the text of the FY06 budget concerning the decrease in the millage rate, “This reduction was due in large part to the removal of $1,500,000 of storm water costs.” In other words, whatever money that was not paid to the Unified Government in the form of property taxes instead was paid in the form of a new fee, while simultaneously increasing the pool of those of whom the new fee was required (churches, UGA, the Board of Education, etc.). Again, even with a millage rate reduction, property taxes went up and spending increased over the previous year.
Thus, it is vital to remember that a millage rate reduction does not necessarily entail a property tax reduction. Local property taxes have gone up any number of times through increased assessments even though the Unified Government’s portion of the millage rate has remained the same or even has been reduced.
The problem with the “tax relief” ideas that come out of organizations such as ACCG and GMA is that they usually just shift the burden from one form of tax to another (i.e. from property taxes to sales taxes) without really doing anything about spending, which is the root of the problem. FWIW, Mayor Davison is vice-chair of the ACCG Revenue & Finance Policy Committee. To the best of my knowledge, she does not hold any equivalent position with the Georgia Municipal Association (though I could be wrong).
James, just to be sure, when you write "property taxes went up," are you referring to the absolute value of the revenue collected from the tax on property, the proportion of the tax collected compared to the value of the property, the actual amount of the tax collected as a proportion of the value of the property, or some other figure?
I know that's somewhat tangential to what I take is your point (the shift towards a stormwater fee), but it sets up a discussion of what I think may be your larger concern: bringing tax relief (sorry, Hillary!) to the people of Athens. That could clear up how you might go about producing that relief, since it seems there are different ways of doing that.
I don't know how it all comes out in the wash, but there are points to always consider:
* UGA voluntarily keeps a portion of its property on the tax rolls without claiming its exemption unless and until the property is used by purely academic departments.
* UGA pays for its stormwater management by managing stormwater itself. It has a utilities department that provides the sorts of services that a local government usually provides. It maintains sewer and water lines and a steam plant, and it maintains storm sewers and retention systems. It pays for its road paving.
* In that vein, UGA provides its own police services. It pays for its traffic light service. It even contributes to the Clarke County Fire Department nowadays.
Sure, UGA has a lot of tax exempt land, but it is under state jurisdiction where it does not use county services and thus does not "take" from the county. Athens-Clarke would not really gain from tax revenue on UGA land if it had to go in and provide services that UGA is providing. Again, I don't know how it balances out, but it's practically a non-issue. UGA is much like a separate jurisdiction.
blackfin:
Thanks for the compliment. I am as opinionated as anyone else, even more so than some, but I try to keep the rhetoric in check and present coherent arguments . . . most of the time.
Your point about spreading stormwater runoff treatment costs around to folks other than home and business owners is well taken. As a general rule, I think that we should pursue ways of reducing local government’s reliance on property taxes wherever they present themselves. On the other hand, the stormwater utility fee is not based on “use” in any meaningful way, at least not insofar as the folks in District 1 are concerned. My home is not connected to the sewer system (and stands no reasonable hope of ever being connected), nor is there a stormwater drain anywhere near where I live. Thus, my property does not directly contribute to the cost of treating stormwater runoff; yet I pay the fee just the same. Why? Because the Unified Government mandates that I pay, that’s why.
Polusplagchnos:
When I note that taxes went up, I mean in the aggregate sense (i.e. the revenue generated by the total property tax digest), as opposed to the taxes on any specific property. Granted, in any given year a portion of those increases can be attributed to new development, but a significant portion also results from increased assessments.
Without getting into the details of the property tax sections of the state Code, suffice it to say that, according to the provisions of the state’s Taxpayers Bill of Rights, any millage rate that is not “rolled back” by the rate needed to limit revenue to the amount collected the previous year is deemed a tax increase. In other words, if a certain millage rate brings in more tax revenue than it did in the previous year, the added amount is considered to be a tax increase, even if the millage rate remains constant or goes down (if I’m talking in circles here, see O.C.G.A. 48-5-32.1 and Department of Revenue Substantive Regulation 560-11-2-.58, both of which can be accessed through the state’s web site).
Adrian:
A few years ago I did some research on the this topic; as I recall, the properties of five of the six largest employers in Clarke County were exempt from property taxes, namely those of UGA, the Unified Government, the Clarke County Board of Education, Athens Regional Medical Center, and St. Mary's Hospital. While is it true that UGA's holdings are not quite the property tax black hole that many assume, it is also true that with so much of the county's geographic area being exempt from property taxes, those who do pay them are very sensitive to the subject, and rightfully so.
hey did anyone here besides me vote against that exemption for the elderly homeowners?
did anyone besides me vote against allowing the salvation army and other charities to stop paying property taxes?
and is anyone besides me of the opinion that in the interest of the seperation of church and state that churches ought to be paying taxes on their money and land too?
just wondering,
aquariusrizing
Post a Comment
<< Home