Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jones County commissioners ask state legislators to revisit House Bill 1116 over local revenue concerns
Summary
County staff warned that House Bill 1116’s proposed 3% property-tax cap could shift revenue to sales taxes that would disproportionately affect smaller counties; the board unanimously approved a resolution urging state negotiators to address county concerns and authorized staff to transmit the resolution when appropriate.
County staff briefed the Board of Commissioners on House Bill 1116 during the March 17 meeting and commissioners approved a resolution asking state legislators to continue negotiating changes to the bill.
A county department head identified as Jason summarized the bill as a property-tax reduction or freeze proposal that imposes a 3% cap on increases but does not reset assessed values for taxpayers who are frozen at higher or lower valuations. He warned the bill “doesn’t give it room to get the tax values right” and said it may leave counties exposed if replacement revenue is routed to local sales taxes.
Jason cited an Association of County Governments (ACCG) analysis showing that, for Jones County, replacing property-tax revenue could require the equivalent of “a little over 3 cent[s]” in sales tax — moving local sales rates from roughly 11 to 12 cents in his example — which staff said would be particularly burdensome for small counties with limited retail bases. ‘‘If it’s 2 or 3 cents more on the dollar and we start losing people to Macon…we’re going to lose tax revenue,’’ a commissioner said during the discussion.
Commissioners expressed concerns about regressivity and the practicality of relying on sales-tax increases to replace property-tax revenue. Several commissioners said they favored a regional or statewide approach to avoid penalizing small counties that do not capture large retail volumes.
The board voted to approve a resolution urging state legislators to negotiate changes that would mitigate negative impacts on small counties and authorized Jason to send the resolution once ACCG or state negotiators reach an agreement that addresses the county’s concerns.
The resolution was passed by voice vote during the meeting; the transcript records the board’s direction to staff to transmit the resolution if state negotiations produce terms that are not “detrimental” to Jones County.
