Statham hearing on state tax overhaul lays out trade-offs; council must decide by March 1

Statham held a public hearing on House Bill 581 where the city’s attorney and accountant explained how the law’s new statewide floating homestead exemption and a contingent local-option sales tax could affect city finances and services.

Jody Campbell, the city’s attorney, told residents that HB 581, enacted in 2024 and effective Jan. 1, 2025, creates a two-step system: a dollar-for-dollar floating homestead exemption that offsets year-over-year assessment increases and an annual inflationary adjustment set by the state revenue commissioner. Campbell said the statute does not cap millage rates and cautioned that the law “does not guarantee you a tax break.”

Campbell said the exemption is additive — it does not repeal existing local exemptions — and noted taxpayers will receive whichever exemption is more beneficial. He explained base-year valuation rules (Statham will use 2024 assessed values as the 2025 base for eligible properties) and said transfers or substantial improvements reset a property’s base year.

Campbell also described the FLOST, a new 1% floating local-option sales tax that would be available only if the county and participating cities (representing at least 50% of municipal population) adopt floating exemptions and agree via an intergovernmental agreement on rate, duration (maximum five years) and distribution. He stressed that any FLOST would require a voter referendum every five years.

Rachel Bimbury, the city accountant, presented Statham’s fiscal profile and a modeled five-year scenario to show local impacts. She said property taxes account for about 29.5% of Statham’s general-fund revenue and that police and public works represent the largest spending obligations. Using historic assessment growth smoothed to an 11.39% five-year average versus a capped residential increase of roughly 3–3.5% under HB 581, Bimbury estimated the city could collect about $1,000,000 less over five years under the modeled scenario. In her illustrative example, a homeowner’s first-year saving was roughly $44 (about $271 over five years in that model).

Bimbury explained how a shortfall translates into millage-rate pressure: to close an $844,000 funding gap in her example, Statham’s calculated millage was 6.76 mills under current digest and collection assumptions. She said the city would need to choose among three paths: opt out and keep existing levies; opt out and adopt different local exemptions; or remain under HB 581 and adjust the budget, millage rate or pursue new revenue.

Members of the public spoke during the hearing. Adrian Mello urged caution and suggested the council consider spending cuts and procurement improvements before shifting tax burdens; Mello cited local street-condition concerns as part of his plea.

The city’s public-hearing process requires three hearings before a final local decision. Campbell noted that if the city does nothing it remains subject to HB 581; to opt out the governing authority must adopt a resolution and submit the signed resolution and supporting documents to the secretary of state by March 1. The chair indicated the council’s final decision is scheduled for next Tuesday.

The public hearing opened by motion and closed by motion; the meeting adjourned at the end of the session. No final local action on HB 581 was recorded at this hearing; the council must take a vote on the opt-out question by the statutory deadline.