----- Forwarded by Isaiah Hugley/Columbusga on 03/05/2008 09:39 AM -----
Pamela Hodge/Columbusga
03/05/2008 09:32 AM
To
Isaiah Hugley/Columbusga@Columbusga
cc
Subject
SR 796
Isaiah
I spoke with Betty and some of the specific information is not something that
they currently track. It would require substantial changes in our system and
the way we do business to track assessment in this manner and comply with this
legislation if it was approved. Below are my comments for each.
1) Freezes the assessed value of all real property at its 2008 value.
Although the Columbus Consolidated Government has a tax freeze, it only applies
to residential property with homestead.
2) Limits residential increases to no more than 2% a year.
Although the Columbus Consolidated Government has a tax freeze on residential
property, it only applies to residential property with homestead. This would
limit the reassessments for residential property without the homestead
exemption to only a 2% increase per year. It is unreasonable to apply an
artificial cap on all residential property without considering any local
conditions.
3) Limits non-residential increases to no more than 3% a year.
Again, restricting non-residential increases to an artificial cap makes no
sense with the varying needs and priorities of each county/city. This
restricts local elected officials and limits their ability to manage the local
revenue and expenditure budget. With the growth and changes we expect in
Columbus over the next several years, this cap would artificially stifle our
ability to prepare for the future.
4) Caps property tax revenue growth to the governmental inflation rate plus
new construction.
This type of restrictions assumes every municipality in Georgia is the same and
applies an artificial cap across the board. The governmental inflation rate is
an average and may or may not apply to the specifics of a certain
municipality. As we saw with the Economic Outlook, even during a recession
that could substantially affect other areas of Georgia, Columbus is still
expected to grow. One size does not fit all.
5) Allows local governments to increase property tax revenue beyond the
inflation rate only if a local referendum is passed.
It is not sound fiscally to operate government by referendum. Tax increases
like this would not have a high success rate.
NOTE: This would be considered as a state mandate and would require
substantial changes to the way we do business. Significant changes would need
to be made to our assessment system to be able to track each parcel and the
restrictions placed on each type of parcel. Additional recordkeeping would be
required with limited staff with the restriction in place of a revenue cap. If
the cap is placed on 2008 value, this would require compliance next year.
System changes would need to be in place by January 1, 2009.
Pamela Hodge
Finance Director
phodge@columbusga.org
706-653-4087
706-653-4086 (fax)
Attachments
No attachments for this document.