A Georgia bill that ties property assessments to the rate of inflation is facing pushback from local government entities opting out of the measure. Approved by 63% of voters in November 2024, the Georgia property tax freeze is facing some resistance from officials who argue the restrictions could hinder their ability to fund essential services.
Local governments have until March 1 to file their intent to opt out with the Secretary of State’s office. Entities must hold three public hearings, including one in the evening, and publicize these meetings to finalize their decision. Reasons for opting out vary, but common concerns include potential funding shortfalls for schools and other critical services.
Oglethorpe County School Superintendent Beverley Levine explained the county’s opposition, stating that maintaining educational services might require raising millage rates. “We do not want folks in Atlanta determining what is best for Oglethorpe County,” Levine said. Similarly, Gwinnett County highlighted its local homestead exemption, which already protects property owners, as a reason to forego the statewide freeze.
State lawmakers are divided over how to address the opt-outs. Rather than mandating the tax break statewide, Sen. Chuck Hufstetler, R-Rome, suggested introducing bills targeting specific counties where opt-outs occur. These bills would be handled by the Senate’s State and Local Government Operations Committee.
Supporters of the measure argue that voters already approved the freeze and that local governments should respect their decision. Montgomery County resident K.C. Seabury criticized the opt-out process, citing personal struggles with property tax payments after a hurricane. “I’m offended that it’s even being considered,” Seabury said, emphasizing the bill’s voter-backed mandate.
Critics warn that the tax freeze could disrupt the housing market. An analysis by the Tax Foundation noted the bill might discourage homeowners from selling due to reassessment at higher market prices and could deter new construction, limiting housing availability.
The debate highlights tensions between local autonomy and statewide mandates, with potential impacts on taxpayers, housing markets, and public services yet to be fully realized.
