Hall County holds first hearing on whether to opt out of statewide homestead adjustment law

Hall County held a first public hearing Feb. 13 on whether to opt out of the statewide adjusted-base-year homestead exemption created by House Bill 581, a move county staff said would simplify administration by leaving in place the county’s local 3% cap (local act 1268).

County staff presented the staff recommendation and walked commissioners through technical differences between the two exemptions and why staff urged consideration of an opt‑out. "If both of these floating homestead exemptions remain, each parcel would have to be looked at individually and whichever one is most beneficial would be applied to each parcel and homestead on an annual basis," said Justin (staff member), who led the presentation to the board.

Nut graf: The choice before the board is largely administrative but could affect how homestead exemptions are applied at parcel level. The county’s local act resets assessment calculations to a 2023 base year and caps annual assessed-value growth for homesteads at up to 3 percent. The statewide law (House Bill 581) resets to a 2024 base year and uses the Consumer Price Index (CPI‑U) as the adjustment factor, which could produce different results for many parcels and would require the county to maintain two separate application methods if it does not opt out.

Staff outlined the practical effects and gave a local example. Using a real parcel shown to the board, fair market value rose from $426,000 in 2023 to $483,000 in 2024 (a 13% change). Under the local 3% cap the county-assessed value and resulting tax for that parcel rose more slowly; the presenter said the example produced about a $40 difference in the owner’s bill under the two approaches. Justin also said applying two different base years and two methodologies each year would create administrative complexity and additional costs, including software and staffing. "Some software costs are going to go up. I already know, for example, just because we've got the local exemption, the tax commissioner's office is looking at a $20,000 plus add-on," Justin said.

Commissioners pressed staff on specifics they did not have on hand: staff said it could not yet quantify precisely how many additional positions would be required, but that the tax commissioner's and assessor's offices had discussed additional positions and process changes. Staff also noted that if the board does opt out, the local 3% cap would remain in place regardless, preserving the local policy goal of dampening extreme assessment swings.

Staff said there is proposed legislation at the General Assembly that could push an opt-out deadline later (to 2029), but that language was not final and would not prevent the county from having to administer the program in 2025 and possibly 2026 if both exemptions remain until state action takes effect. Staff also said it had not seen language guaranteeing a future ability to opt back in.

The public hearing closed with no public speakers on the item. Justin reminded the board of the remaining public‑notice and hearing schedule: an upcoming second public hearing at a Feb. 24 work session (3 p.m.) and a later third public hearing and potential board decision in February (date not specified on the record). No formal board vote on the opt-out occurred at the Feb. 13 meeting; staff called this a first reading and public hearing and recommended the board consider opting out at a subsequent hearing.

Ending: Staff recommended the board consider opting out to avoid the administrative burden of maintaining two separate exemption methods; the board will hear the item again at a later public hearing before making a final decision.