[PUBBY]

Fire tax debased by falling property values The county's fire tax, passed in 2006 has saved most residents hundreds of dollars through lower insurance premiums due to the drop in the Insurance Service organization number, but those benefits may disappear if the county fails to act to maintain service levels, the commission was told. Matthew Chambers, chairman of the Paulding County Fire Advisory board came to the commission today to discuss how the two-mill fire tax currently assessed is no longer able to keep up with the expenses of the full time fire department. The reason is simple, with a property digest that has declined in value along with homes - by some estimates close to 50 percent - so have revenues from that fixed two mill assessment. Of course with the lowered property values, residents have also experienced a decline in taxes paid ... and that is the rub. View the roughly 15 minute video above for the information straight from the horses mouth ... and the discussion to fund the fire tax at three mills, still well below the five-mill limit in the law passed by voters in 2006. The commission won't vote on the tax rise until later this summer.

Click for RECENT TOPICS click for RECENT TOPICS click for RECENT TOPICS

[zoocrew]

This makes sense, but I fear the Tea Party group that doesn't get the math will be pitching a fit because they think it is a tax hike.

Easy math but, say, 5% on a $100,000 = $5000.

Now the value is down. 5% on a $50,000 = $2500.

That means a tax bill DECREASE of $2500.

The only way to have the same service from the county is to bring the taxes back to the previous amount. That is not a tax hike but a mileage hike. Yes, it a larger rate but the taxes are still the same.

My math above is for simple illustration purposes only.

Here is a mileage calculator to actually put this in real numbers for people if they would just fill in the appropriate boxes. My link

Same thing happened back in the boom years when the mileage rate was CUT but since the value of the houses kept climbing, the tax bill could have been higher. It's just the way the math works.

[LPPT]

I am not all surprised by this. I have seen the budgets they are on line on the county website. I know we have some archived video of the various dept. heads in the county that had trimmed their budgets to the bone and were concerned with how long they could sustain the cuts and still be functional. Public safety in this county has a lot of land mass to deliver services to. Nobody wants their taxes to go up especially in this economy, but I saw it coming, not because money is being wasted but because our values are not improving on our homes. The 2 houses on either side of me just sold for a combined total that was less than my house sold new. We are basically serving the same population as before the recession and houses are beginning to sell again but people are sometimes paying less than 1/2 of what they sold for new.

[mei lan]

I seem to recall after the Fire Tax was approved, that they took the fire dept. out of the budget, leaving it to be funded only by the tax. I'm guessing this wouldn't be needed had that not happened. :breathingdeeplytolowerbloodpressure:

[zoocrew]

mei lan, on 22 May 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

I seem to recall after the Fire Tax was approved, that they took the fire dept. out of the budget, leaving it to be funded only by the tax. I'm guessing this wouldn't be needed had that not happened. :breathingdeeplytolowerbloodpressure:

It would have been the same difference either way. The money would either have come from the Fire Tax, or the general budget would have had to absorb the same dollar figure.

[winston1972]

I will vote no to any new tax. I learned my lesson several years ago on voting yes to Paulding County buying the property in W. Paulding County. How many years later and nothing has been done with the property and there is still little to no access to it for citizens who are paying for it.

[gonefromhere]

winston1972, on 23 May 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

I will vote no to any new tax. I learned my lesson several years ago on voting yes to Paulding County buying the property in W. Paulding County. How many years later and nothing has been done with the property and there is still little to no access to it for citizens who are paying for it.

[PUBBY]

A millage rate increase that maintains the revenue is not a tax increase; it is a rate adjustment.

To understand how this is the fairest way to do things, consider the alternative.

You could, for a service like fire, have a per property rate - say $100/property. So the man with a 20,000 sq ft home worth $5 million pays $100 and the person with a trailer (that couldn't be saved from fire if he tried) worth $2,000 also pays $100. That is, I know the holy grail of conservative tax policy which is to say you can't assess a proportional tax because it costs the guy with the $5 million property more (a lot more) than the guy with the rotting house trailer.

That is what the mill rate does ... is make the tax proportional based on the property.

When you have a service you establish a budget. We will say that budget is $1,000,000. That is the amount of money that must be raised by taxes.

If overall property values in the county requires you have three mills to raise that million dollars, then it takes three mills. If it can be done with two mills because values are higher, then the assessment would be two mills. The point, though, is that the million dollars is the amount that needs to be raised by taxes.

Taxes are not increased. Those who complain are just trying to get something for nothing.

pubby

That the property values have fallen to the level that it takes three mills to fund the service is really the point.

[The Sound Guy]

PUBBY, on 23 May 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

That the property values have fallen to the level that it takes three mills to fund the service is really the point.

I really don't have a problem with that, except I will note that for some people who's value has not dropped 30% or more, it *will* be a tax increase vs values at the peak as well as a rate increase.

<Rant>

It's especially irritating since if that @#$%^&^%^@# Jerry done as he promised and hadn't robbed the original county fire budget for his cronies in the other departments when the fire tax passed(then bragged about not raising taxes that year.. #@##@@!!!) we'd now have a fully *manned* department (instead of only two-three guys per station) that would be saving us even more on our insurance.

</Rant>

[Ugadawgs98]

Everyone should have seen this one coming. When the level of service must stay the same and the necessary funding is no longer there then something must give. Either vote to fund it or cut fire stations and accept there will be an overall slower response to fires and medical emergencies.

[Ugadawgs98]

winston1972, on 23 May 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

I will vote no to any new tax. I learned my lesson several years ago on voting yes to Paulding County buying the property in W. Paulding County. How many years later and nothing has been done with the property and there is still little to no access to it for citizens who are paying for it.

What do you expect them to do? The reason for the project was to ensure there would be a large tract of undeveloped woodlands in the county for the future. There are access points dotted all around it where you can park to hike, camp, fish and hunt which is exactly what it was intended for.

[Greatma]

Here we go agein. I guess we could use the thousands of dollars he is paying
for attorney fees, when it is supposed to be already settled. Wonder what else
is out there that is being paid that we could do without. Somebody needs to do
a lot of investigating before this election. Sometimes it seems if they want
to find the money for something they can. Just wondering.

This post has been edited by BMR: 23 May 2012 - 02:58 PM

[surepip]

BMR, on 23 May 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

Here we go agein. I guess we coukd use the thousands of dollars he is paying
for attorney fees, when it is supposed to be alredy settled. Wonder what else
is out there that is being paid that we could do without. Somebody needs to do
a lot of investigating before this election. Sometimes it seems if they want
to find the money for something they can. Just wondering.

Amen Brother. Justice delayed is Justice denied, and more county money wasted.

They could have settled it for our attorney's fees, and 2 letters to the developer and 1 letter to the state EPD, 3+ years ago. Instead, since then they have spent another $500,000+ on their attorney's fee, double of what we were asking.

So go figure.

And for anyone interested, yes, the BOC made us an offer 1 year ago to pay half our attorneys fees and give us back our 12-1/2 feet for property they let the developer take while PDOT and Community Development looked the other way.

So in essence, they make us an offer to give us back land we are still paying taxes on, minus the trees and a substantial amount of dirt, plus 12-1/2 feet of asphault, and it will ONLY cost us $175,000.

[zoocrew]

Ugadawgs98, on 23 May 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

Everyone should have seen this one coming. When the level of service must stay the same and the necessary funding is no longer there then something must give. Either vote to fund it or cut fire stations and accept there will be an overall slower response to fires and medical emergencies.

But that would mean the Tea Party has to go against its stated purpose.

The Sound Guy, on 23 May 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

I really don't have a problem with that, except I will note that for some people who's value has not dropped 30% or more, it *will* be a tax increase vs values at the peak as well as a rate increase.

<Rant>

It's especially irritating since if that @#$%^&^%^@# Jerry done as he promised and hadn't robbed the original county fire budget for his cronies in the other departments when the fire tax passed(then bragged about not raising taxes that year.. #@##@@!!!) we'd now have a fully *manned* department (instead of only two-three guys per station) that would be saving us even more on our insurance.

</Rant>

But we don't know what sort of plan is being offered to see if it is any increase on anyone yet.

[mei lan]

The Sound Guy, on 23 May 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

I really don't have a problem with that, except I will note that for some people who's value has not dropped 30% or more, it *will* be a tax increase vs values at the peak as well as a rate increase.

<Rant>

It's especially irritating since if that @#$%^&^%^@# Jerry done as he promised and hadn't robbed the original county fire budget for his cronies in the other departments when the fire tax passed(then bragged about not raising taxes that year.. #@##@@!!!) we'd now have a fully *manned* department (instead of only two-three guys per station) that would be saving us even more on our insurance.

</Rant>

Thank you, on both points.

[zoocrew]

If we want the fire service, we all have to pay for it.

Can someone come up with a plan to fund it that is more fair than a mileage increase?

[winston1972]

zoocrew, on 23 May 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

If we want the fire service, we all have to pay for it.

Can someone come up with a plan to fund it that is more fair than a mileage increase?

A fixed fee per residence.

[zoocrew]

winston1972, on 23 May 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

A fixed fee per residence.

Ok. The problem is that for the property valued at $5000 they are paying a much larger percentage as a tax compared to the wealthy who may own large a million dollar residence and another million dollars worth of buildings on the same lot. The wealthy then pays pittance compared to the person on unemployment and barely making ends meet.

That doesn't sound like a fair plan.

[PUBBY]

Ugadawgs98, on 23 May 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

Everyone should have seen this one coming. When the level of service must stay the same and the necessary funding is no longer there then something must give. Either vote to fund it or cut fire stations and accept there will be an overall slower response to fires and medical emergencies.

You point out only part of the equation.

The second part is that because of the overall slower response, the ISO insurance rating increases and everyone except those who live in ISO eight and nine rated places, now has to pay a higher premium - essentially sending more money that could circulate in the county, out to NY or Connecticut.

I'd rather the increase - we'll pay more either way - be kept here and circulated amongst residents and local businesses ...

Oh, and Sound Guy ... if you listened to the video, you'd also know that the county FD has expanded by, I think, 30 full time firefighters, the department so that there are actually fully staffed (I think) in the current fire stations (i.e. a minimum three firefighters per shift with 24/7 coverage). The increases also includes staffing the planned - yes there are plans for I think one or two more stations including the one that would serve Yorkville and the airport the brick and mortar paid for by the existing SPLOST. The idea is that the two mills stops that process altogether because there is not funding for more firefighting positions without an increase in the dedicated fire tax.

pubby

[winston1972]

zoocrew, on 23 May 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

Ok. The problem is that for the property valued at $5000 they are paying a much larger percentage as a tax compared to the wealthy who may own large a million dollar residence and another million dollars worth of buildings on the same lot. The wealthy then pays pittance compared to the person on unemployment and barely making ends meet.

That doesn't sound like a fair plan.

In Alabama for example in unincorporated sections of some counties, residential households are charged a fixed fee each year for fire service, along with a library fee, these are escrowed.

FYI--I have a major problem with someone who has a 1 million house paying more for services via ad valorem taxes than a lower priced home. Usually, there is an inverse relationship between taxes collected vs. services used.

[zoocrew]

winston1972, on 24 May 2012 - 07:47 PM, said:

In Alabama for example in unincorporated sections of some counties, residential households are charged a fixed fee each year for fire service, along with a library fee, these are escrowed.

FYI--I have a major problem with someone who has a 1 million house paying more for services via ad valorem taxes than a lower priced home. Usually, there is an inverse relationship between taxes collected vs. services used.

What you're describing is a regressive tax system where the poor pay more than the wealthy. I have a major problem with the tax system you're describing.

[FreeBird]

Have not had the chance to view the report - but I will. Seems the max was 2 mils towards public safety. And I thought it went in at he max of 2 mils which leads me to believe there is no room for increase?

[FreeBird]

Okay - I watched report - the funding will max out at 5 vs. the current 2 mils today. I see that in the headline report too.

I love the way Tommie Graham can confuse an issue. He always seems to just want to talk to try to impress the other commissioners as it is an easy thing to do. I wonder if that guy every figured out how three fire truck units can fit in a 2 bay fire station?

It will be interesting to see if the current members vote for an increase during an election year.

Pubby - thanks for providing these types of reports.