Habersham’s lower overall tax-rate proposal included a higher emergency-services levy

Habersham County commissioners opened public consideration of proposed FY 2024 property-tax rates at a July 19, 2023 hearing in Clarkesville, where Financial Administrator Kiani Holden presented a package with a 25.002-mill combined county rate and a higher levy dedicated to emergency services. The meeting was the commission’s first public hearing and first reading on the rates; its minutes document discussion of the proposal, not its adoption.

The distinction matters for county taxpayers because an overall rate reduction does not mean every element of a property-tax bill falls. The proposal paired the combined rate with an increase in the emergency-services component, while county millage supports functions including general government, courts, public works, public safety and hospital debt. Individual bills also can change with assessed value and exemptions, so the proposed rates alone would not settle what every homeowner would pay.

At the first hearing, Holden described keeping the General Fund maintenance-and-operations rate at 12.682 mills and the Hospital Debt Fund rate at 0.842 mills, while raising Emergency Services from 0.825 to 1.124 mills. Staff said property taxes made up 57% of county revenue. That presentation prompted discussion not only about the proposed levy but also about the homestead-exemption freeze, reassessment cycles and staffing concerns that can shape residents’ tax experiences.

County staff presented the rate structure as part of the FY 2024 budget and revenue discussion, identifying emergency services as the component proposed for an increase. Commissioners and attendees focused part of the hearing on how assessments and exemptions affect tax bills, according to the minutes. Those exchanges show concerns about the practical consequences of the proposal, but they did not establish a separate county policy on homestead exemptions, reassessments or staffing.

What occurred is clear: the commission held a first hearing and first reading, and staff presented proposed figures. What remains unproven by those minutes is equally important. A unanimous vote recorded in the meeting was a vote to adopt the agenda, not approval of the millage package. The minutes do not show whether commissioners later adopted the 25.002-mill total, modified the emergency-services levy or rejected the proposal.

The next public step needed to answer that question is a later county commission minute, resolution or other conclusive county action on the FY 2024 millage rates. Until a final action identifies the adopted figures, residents cannot determine from the July 19 hearing alone whether the proposed emergency-services increase took effect, whether the combined rate changed, or whether commissioners chose another approach.