Stonecrest holds second public hearing on whether to opt out of stateHouse Bill 581

Stonecrest held a second public hearing Feb. 10 on whether the city should opt out of House Bill 581, a recently enacted state measure that creates a statewide floating homestead exemption tied to inflation and changes how rollback rates and public notices operate.

City officials said the decision affects only Stonecrest's small portion of the overall property tax bill and reiterated that the council has not made a final decision. "The total tax bill is $3,474. The Stonecrest portion of it is only $18.34," said Ed Walls, the council's financial advisor. "Your action of whether to stay in or opt out only affects you, only affects Stonecrest." The council opened the hearing and closed it at the same meeting; the final vote is scheduled for Feb. 24 after a required third public hearing.

Why it matters: Supporters and critics framed the choice as a tradeoff between immediate, modest homeowner savings and long-term local control over tax policy and community growth. City leaders said Stonecrest's local homestead exemptions and authority would remain available if the council opts out, while proponents of remaining opted in argued the measure would provide additional, though small, immediate savings for homeowners.

What presenters said: Deputy City Manager Michael McCoy and financial adviser Ed Walls walked the council and public through how property taxes are calculated in Georgia (assessment at 40% of market value multiplied by a mill rate) and provided examples showing that HB 581 would reduce Stonecrest's city portion of tax bills by only a few dollars for many homeowners. Walls cited examples: a $250,000 home would pay roughly $23 under Stonecrest's current exemptions and $22 with HB 581; a $500,000 home, $49 vs. $46; a $1 million home, $100 vs. about $94. Walls and McCoy also explained that the city currently levies 1.257 mills and effectively reduces that to about 0.257 mills for many homesteaded properties via local exemptions.

Local-control argument: Several council members and one extended council presentation argued that opting out preserves local authority to craft exemptions tailored to Stonecrest's goals. "If our community said 'we want some kind of exemption like this, we could do that on our own,'" a council member said, noting that Stonecrest already has unique local exemptions (including a one-mill local exemption) and that state action could limit the city's ability to grow its property digest and revenue in the long term.

Public comment: Resident Dave Marcus criticized the presentations as one-sided and urged the council to consider five- and ten-year revenue projections before deciding; he said the city has other revenue options (new development, revisiting abatements, hiring grant staff) to cover future needs. Marcus said, "This bill is called the save our homes bill," and warned that the city's long-term revenue needs could exceed the small annual savings HB 581 would yield for many homeowners. Resident Aquanita Lucas asked how any change would affect residents with disability exemptions and whether those exemptions would be preserved; Mayor Jasmine Cobble responded that existing exemptions (for example, the disabled residence exemption) would remain in place unless the property owner removed them.

Procedure and next steps: Under the state law cited by staff, jurisdictions were automatically opted in on Jan. 1 and must hold three public hearings before formally opting out; Stonecrest scheduled its third hearing and final council decision on Feb. 24. Council members requested additional analysis at the final meeting, including millage-rate scenarios tied to possible services the city might assume from the county (for example, adding a local police department). Staff agreed to present cost scenarios at the final meeting. The city also plans an additional south-side town-hall-style briefing before Feb. 24 for residents who could not attend this hearing.

Discussion vs. decision: The Feb. 10 session was a public hearing and informational presentation; no final policy change was adopted. The council unanimously voted to open and close the public hearing during the meeting. The final directive to vote on staying in or opting out will occur Feb. 24 after the third required hearing.

Ending: The council closed the Feb. 10 public hearing after receiving staff presentations and two public comments and scheduled the required final vote for Feb. 24. Additional outreach and a request for scenario-based millage projections were requested by council members ahead of that vote.