Resolution would let Georgia counties use purchase price as property value; advocates cite predictability, local governments raise concerns

Representative Washburn introduced House Resolution 250 (LC280648), a proposed constitutional amendment that would permit the governing authority of any county or consolidated government to adopt an alternative valuation method for real property based on purchase price.

Washburn said the option is permissive — local governments would not be forced to adopt it — and described the approach as "the purest method" of valuing property because market transactions set real value. Under the draft resolution, current assessor values would become the starting point; when a property next sells, the sale price would become the new assessed value and would remain until a subsequent sale. The sponsor and supporters argued the system would increase transparency, reduce appeals and produce a more predictable digest.

Opponents and municipal stakeholders raised concerns. Dante Hanel of the Association County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG) warned the measure would effectively "freeze" values for properties that do not sell and said he had not seen similar systems applied to commercial and industrial property elsewhere in the country. Leona Rittenhouse of the Georgia Municipal Association (GMA) said GMA shared ACCG's concerns. Les Schneider, who said he was not representing a particular client, urged lawmakers to offer the option to counties and argued it would reduce administrative burdens and appeals.

Committee members asked how the approach would treat properties that decline in market value after purchase; Washburn replied that the method is "two‑edged" because a purchaser would be locked into the purchase price until another sale occurred and the resolution does not provide an automatic reduction when market values fall. Members also asked whether other states use the approach and whether the method would apply to residential versus commercial property; witnesses said they had not seen it commonly applied to commercial and industrial properties and that a residential‑only approach might raise different considerations.

The item was a hearing only; committee members and witnesses said they expected continued discussion in the off session. No vote was recorded in the transcript.