Columbia County hears public concerns and technical questions about HB 581 homestead cap and optional sales tax

Columbia County commissioners and staff spent the hearing explaining House Bill 581 and answering residents' questions about how the bill would cap homestead assessments, how a potential 1% floating local option sales tax (FLOS) would be implemented, and what opting in or out would mean for residents and local governments.

County staff emphasized the bill does not eliminate the existing homestead exemption. “We are in no way eliminating the Homestead Exemption,” a staff member said. County Manager (name not specified) explained the mechanics: “House Bill 581 … actually sets a base year,” and that after a significant change in a property (for example repairs after storm damage) the property would be revalued and the capped assessment could reset to the new value.

The manager described three pieces of the legislation: (1) capping assessment growth for homesteads (an additional exemption beyond the existing $2,000), (2) authorizing a countywide ballot referendum for up to a 1¢ sales tax (the FLOS) to offset property tax revenue losses, and (3) changes to assessment notices. He warned the Department of Revenue would set the cap reference and “shall take into consideration the CPI,” but the law does not mandate which inflation measure must be used.

Residents and speakers pressed several practical and equity questions. Speakers noted the FLOS would only be usable if all taxing entities in the county (Columbia County, the school board, and cities such as Harlem and Grovetown) opt in; if any opt out, the county cannot levy the sales tax. “If either Harlem or Grovetown opt out, even if we opt in, we cannot levy the sales tax,” the county manager said. Multiple commenters warned that transferring revenue from property taxes to a sales tax could be regressive and shift burdens to businesses and non-homesteaded properties.

Public commenters described personal and community concerns. John Gillespie, an Evans resident, said California’s Proposition 13 had made housing less affordable for new buyers and warned a similar cap here could have adverse long-term effects. Ben Current, a veteran and retired chief petty officer, urged the boards to opt out and proposed two local actions if the boards did opt out: study comparable counties with local assessment-freeze exemptions and form a community action committee to educate residents. Bradley Raymer called the bill’s wording “poorly worded” and argued the ballot language misled some voters because it did not name HB 581.

Speakers and staff outlined fiscal effects and budgeting implications. County staff said the county’s M&O (maintenance and operations) general fund is about $100 million and that property taxes supply roughly 42% of that revenue; homestead-related property tax revenue was described at different points as around one-third to 42% of property-tax revenue depending on the measure cited during the discussion. The manager said the county has historically lowered the millage rate 8 of the last 9 years as values rose, and that lowering the millage rate applies countywide while HB 581’s cap would only apply to homesteads.

Other practical points raised in the hearing: - The cap is not portable: once a capped property is sold, the new owner’s assessment begins at the sale price. - The statute’s opt-in decision would bind the county for 50 years if the county opts in. - SPLOST and other earmarked sales taxes are legally restricted to capital projects and cannot be used for operations; the proposed FLOS would be a different sales tax option intended to offset property tax revenue.

No formal vote was taken at this hearing. County staff said the board must decide by March 1 whether to opt in or opt out of HB 581 and that the earliest a FLOS referendum could appear for voters would be the November ballot. The board held three informational hearings and planned a fourth on Feb. 18.

The meeting combined a technical presentation from county staff with extended public comment. Residents urged clearer statewide guidance, more time to analyze the bill’s consequences and greater transparency about potential revenue and distribution scenarios if the county moved forward.

Ending: The board did not take action at the meeting; staff and commissioners will continue analysis and public outreach before the March 1 opt-in/opt-out deadline.