Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sb6 Audits Overview topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Georgia Ways & Means reviews SB6 tax‑incentive audits; DOAA corrects data‑center summary
Summary
Department of Audits and Accounts and contracted researchers presented 12 audits under Senate Bill 6. DOAA said it corrected a one‑page data‑center summary after failing to apply the researchers' 30% 'but‑for' adjustment; presenters described mixed results across credits and suggested administrative alignment across incentives.
The Georgia Senate Ways & Means committee convened an informational meeting to review Department of Audits and Accounts (DOAA) evaluations of tax incentives required under Senate Bill 6 and later amended by Senate Bill 366.
DOAA staff and university researchers described the statutory review process, analytic methods and limits. DOAA said it had contracted universities to produce the underlying studies and that the law requires reports to include net economic activity, state revenue, state expenditures and the public benefit, where applicable. "This is the we’ve done these for 4 years now," a DOAA presenter said, noting SB366 increased the number of allowable reports and added automatic reviews for incentives costing more than $20 million.
DOAA acknowledged an error in a written summary of the University of Georgia (UGA) data‑center report. "The primary issue with the summary that was originally created was we had not applied the but‑for percentage to the numbers," a DOAA presenter said; he added the UGA report itself was correct and that DOAA adjusted the summary by applying the 30% but‑for share UGA had estimated.
Presenters from Georgia State, Georgia Southern and UGA reviewed specific incentives. They emphasized that many donation‑linked credits show substitution effects — donors shift existing giving rather than produce net new funds — and that short evaluation periods limit conclusions about long‑run reputation effects or sustainability. Several presenters recommended administrative changes to harmonize carry‑forward, administration and reporting across credits to reduce taxpayer confusion and improve monitoring.
The committee did not take formal votes. Members asked for additional breakdowns and follow‑up analyses — for example, credit utilization by county tier for the Manufacturer’s Investment Tax Credit (MITC). The chair said the committee would reconvene for deeper dives on topics that attracted many questions, especially data‑center incentives.
The meeting concluded with the chair thanking presenters and adjourning without formal action.
