Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the House Bill 581 Homestead Exemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County holds second public hearing on House Bill 581 homestead exemption; officials outline trade‑offs and next steps
Summary
Lowndes County held the second of three public hearings required under House Bill 581 on whether to opt into the homestead property‑tax cap; staff described the statute's effects, potential revenue shifts, and the narrow March 1 opt‑out deadline while residents offered differing views on taxation, school finance and fiscal management.
Lowndes County commissioners held a public hearing on House Bill 581 — the state homestead property‑tax exemption measure — hearing presentations from county staff and public comment as the county continues a month‑long series of hearings required before the March 1 deadline to submit an opt‑out decision.
County staff explained the statute’s mechanics and potential fiscal effects. The homestead exemption would cap annual increases in a homestead’s taxable value by a rate tied to inflation determined by the state revenue commissioner, with the 2024 value serving as the base year for existing homesteads. Staff warned the cap would create a growing gap over time between actual market value and the capped taxable value; that gap would need to be made up by millage increases on non‑homestead properties (rentals, businesses, farms), shifting tax burdens to those properties. Staff also described a separate local option sales tax (a “floating local option sales tax” or FLOST) that could be placed before voters only if all local governments opt in; that sales tax is a consumption tax and would be returned to property owners as a rollback rather than being available to fund general county services.
County staff and the county manager emphasized the narrow statutory timeline: under the law in effect at the hearing, local governments must file an opt‑out by March 1 or be locked in permanently; staff noted additional state legislation was under consideration that could extend that deadline. Commissioners said they are exploring alternatives including a proposed additional senior exemption for residents 65 and older in coordination with the local school board, and promised to continue seeking options that minimize unintended shifts in the tax burden.
Public comment was split. Some residents urged the county to opt in to House Bill 581 to protect homeowners from rising taxes. William Veil said he supported staying “opted in on $5.81” (House Bill 581) because homeowners’ property is often the only savings many residents have and further tax increases would displace homeowners.
Other residents urged the commission to opt out and preserve local control. Pam Hubbard said she preferred to keep the decision at the local level and recommended the county opt out so the commission and school board can pursue local solutions. Patricia Williams criticized what she described as rising local property taxes and asked for more accountability and enforcement of commercial code compliance before reducing homeowner tax protections.
County staff said the county and school board are actively exploring a larger senior exemption to reduce tax pressure on older homeowners, and reiterated that the county’s millage rate has been rolled back several times in recent years. Commissioners said they are following the statutory hearing schedule, will continue discussions with the school board and will make a final decision at the end of the hearing series before the deadline.
Because state law governs the opt‑in/opt‑out timeline, the county’s hearing series is intended to collect public input before commissioners vote on a resolution that would be filed with the secretary of state. The board did not vote at the hearing; the matter will return for a final decision at a later meeting in accordance with the statutory schedule.
