Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Taxes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell Bulloch County commissioners that proposed property tax increase would hurt fixed‑income households
Summary
At a public hearing Aug. 18, multiple Bulloch County residents urged commissioners to reject a proposed property tax increase, saying assessments and rising costs are squeezing seniors and those on fixed incomes. Commissioners scheduled additional hearings and will vote after further public input.
Bulloch County residents pressed the Board of Commissioners on Aug. 18 to reject a proposed property tax increase, with speakers saying higher millage rates would be unaffordable for many seniors and fixed‑income households.
At the start of the public hearing, Melissa Gonzales told commissioners she ‘‘actually oppose[d] the increase’’ and described how reassessments had pushed the taxable value of her mobile home upward while her income remained unchanged. ‘‘I don’t have, my disability doesn’t increase my pay every time my taxes does, but my mortgage payment sure does,’’ Gonzales said.
Cassandra Michael, another public commenter, framed her remarks around the last election, saying voters ‘‘sent a mandate that has continued to be ignored’’ and urging commissioners to "stand for the people" by finding budget solutions other than a tax hike. Marcus Toole acknowledged personal hardship from an increase but said he understood the county’s need to fund services.
Chairman David Bennett closed the comment period after three signed speakers and announced two additional public hearings at the same location later this month. Bennett said the board will hold a vote on whether to raise the millage rate after those hearings.
Why this matters: Commissioners repeatedly pointed to population growth and rising service costs as drivers of the county’s fiscal pressures. The board also discussed a potential 1% floating local option sales tax (FLOST) referendum intended to provide ad valorem tax relief if voters approve it; that proposal was discussed and placed on the November ballot later in the meeting.
What the record shows: Speakers testified about their personal financial strain and questioned property assessments; the board did not adopt any tax change at this meeting but scheduled additional hearings and signaled a forthcoming decision following further public input.
The board is expected to reconvene for the next scheduled public hearing and then vote on the millage rate; no change is effective until that formal vote.
