Georgia bill would let counties value property at purchase price; opponents warn of commercial freeze

Representative Stan Washburn presented House Resolution 250 (LC280648), a proposed state constitutional amendment to let any county or consolidated government choose an alternative method of valuing real property based on purchase price rather than periodic appraisals.

“It's simply ... the option to adopt a system of valuation of real property that is based on purchase price,” Representative Stan Washburn said, urging the committee to consider the marketplace as the “purest method” for placing value. He told the subcommittee the current assessed values would become the starting point and, thereafter, a property's value would be the amount paid when the property last sold.

The nut graf: supporters said the change would reduce appeals and administrative costs by tying value to observable sales; critics — including the Association County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG) and the Georgia Municipal Association (GMA) — cautioned that freezing commercial and industrial values could shift upward pressure to millage rates and create unintended consequences for local revenue.

Washburn emphasized predictability for property owners and counties that opt in, saying appeals “would drop to almost nothing because it's gonna be hard for somebody to come argue that a property is not worth what they paid for it.” He and other backers argued the approach would make tax digests more transparent and steady.

Dante Hanel with the Association County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG) told the committee ACCG members “have some concerns” similar to questions raised in last year's proposal, specifically the effect on treating commercial and industrial property and the risk of creating a freeze-like system that pushes up the millage rate. Leona Rittenhouse with the Georgia Municipal Association said GMA shared ACCG's concerns and asked for further work with the bill sponsor in the off season.

Les Schneider, who testified as an independent proponent, said the change would eliminate “ambiguity of appraisals and assessments” and reduce appeals and administrative costs. He said the proposal would be optional for counties and argued voters in a county would decide whether to adopt the method.

Committee members pressed about edge cases. Representative Newton asked whether a homeowner who bought during a market peak would remain “stuck” at the purchase price even if market values later declined; Washburn acknowledged that the approach is a “two-edged sword” that would not allow a lower market price to reduce the set value until the property sells. Representative Buckner asked whether the proposal was equivalent to “current-use” valuation; Washburn said the bill relies on actual sales prices for each parcel rather than comparisons to neighboring properties.

Testimony and questions stretched across the hearing. Witnesses urged continued discussions and technical fixes. The subcommittee held this matter as a hearing only to allow additional work with local governments and stakeholder groups.

Ending: The measure remained in hearing status with committee members and stakeholder groups agreeing to continue discussions during the interim so that questions about commercial property treatment, millage impacts and implementation mechanics can be addressed before any formal vote.