Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

The Troup County School Board held its second of three public hearings on Georgia House Bill 581, a floating homestead tax exemption. The board has stated in a press release published on Jan. 11 in the LaGrange Daily News that they intend to opt out of the exemption. The bill says entities must hold three public hearings before filing to opt out. 

As she did during the first hearing, TCSS Superintendent Dr. Rachel Hazel gave a short presentation on the bill and its potential impact on the school district. The exemption would cap annual increases in property values by the rate of inflation. This would impact property taxes for cities, counties, and school districts. 

Hazel said, “One of the largest issues is that if a school board, if the school, county or city are to opt in, that gives local control over to the state. That means they determine the rate that tax-assessed values of properties increase. That can no longer be determined at the local level … .Crises and impacts for our school system happen locally, but this would turn a local inflation rate over to the state.” 

Entities that opt into HB581, would not be able to opt out in the future. 

“There is a need to maintain flexibility for future boards… We don’t know which inflation rate would be used in the implementation of this bill, because that has not been said,” Hazel explained. 

More information about the exemption and the considerations for the school district can be found in our story covering the first hearing in our Feb. 1 edition. 

Tony Methany, a member of the public who spoke at the previous meeting, also spoke on Thursday night. 

He started by referring back to comments made by board members Dan McAlexander and Anne O’Brien at the previous hearing. Both explained that should they opt in and property taxes go down, the board may need to raise the millage rate. They added that this would shift the tax burden to low-income individuals. 

“The people who own [rental properties] are going to pay an increase in the millage rate, an increase in the tax burden that will shift entirely to the people they rent to, many of them young, on lower incomes, many of them significantly poor, and yes, many of them old,” McAlexander said during the last meeting. 

O’Brien stated, “If businesses start to get the hit of the tax burden, they’ll pass it on to the consumer. They won’t keep it themselves…They’ll pass it on to people who can least afford it.”

On Thursday, Methany asked the board to define, “least fortunate,” when discussing the shifting tax burden and what measuring stick the school board was using. 

Board member Tripp Foster replied that they were referring to income level. 

“The major measuring stick for most of these situations that you’re referring to is income-based, or the lack thereof,” he said.

McAlexander said the issue is “whether or not we think that we should be forced to shift the tax burden…85% of our budget is human resources, or roughly…And so let’s say insurance, health insurance, goes up radically, as it did last year, or property insurance goes up very significantly, as the storms that we’ve experienced in the state suggest. That money has to be paid for, and it’ll be paid for by either cutting programs, which means cutting people, or simply figuring out how to cover those insurance things.”

Methany presented the fact that HB 581 passed with overwhelming support in the Georgia Legislature and the amendment was approved by over 60 percent of voters locally and statewide. 

“I just find it hard to believe that all of these people, the voters and the legislators, somehow are against educating kids…I really still think that [TCSB should be] looking at the budget hard, cutting some unneeded funds,” Methany said. 

Board Chairman Ferrell Blair said that this was a “political strawman.” 

“Because they say they voted for this does not mean they don’t like kids or do like kids. It can mean a lot of different things. And I do agree with you, if they had that many people working on it for as long as they worked on it, and this is the best they could come up with, they should be ashamed,” Blair said. 

He explained the comment, saying, “If they had presented something that was defined, that had parameters on it…what it actually is going to be and what it’s not going to be. There’s not even an appeals process. It’s a shame for the way they put it on the ballot. They intentionally deceived people in the way they worded it on the ballot. I think that they should be ashamed. If they were selling something that would have been reasonable, would have had guardrails on it, we certainly would be looking a lot closer at it.”

Methany said he appreciated the board approving the recommendation for a senior homestead exemption in December of 2024.

“The only thing that I would like to request that the board do is to add in, at some point this year or next year, add in inflationary measures. I think 65 and older should be a no-income limit with a certain percentage of their value instead of the dollar amount.”

There was one other public speaker, Michael Hade. Had asked for some clarification on what the exemption would mean for him as a homesteaded homeowner.

“I’ve got a homestead exemption. Am I going to be looking for a new tax bill with this new homestead exemption on or does the one I have now, [is it] going to be existing for a while,” he said. 

“You would keep your homestead exemptions,” replied Hazel. “If the local taxing jurisdiction applies a more favorable base year homestead exemption to something more favorable for you, you would get the higher exemption.”

However, there was some confusion as to whether the owner receives a “more favorable” or “higher exemption.”

“It may not be until the interpretation of the bill comes down that we know exactly what that means,” replied Hazel. The board said they would find out how the state is interpreting this part of the legislation.

Hade added that he had found when researching the bill that if too many entities in Georgia decide to opt out, the state would pass a local act for a referendum, potentially forcing them to opt in. 

“This a great question, and I asked it last time of our attorney,” McAlexander said. “His opinion is that it would be highly unlikely and illegal for that to happen, given the way the bill that authorized the amendment going on the ballot as written, that is, they earn those votes with this in the bill, which means we actually do have the ability to opt out and the State would be in violation of the law it passed….anything is possible and everything is possible, but the current legal opinion, at least for my own attorney, is that is unlikely to happen.”

The third and final public hearing will be on Monday, Feb. 10 at 10 p.m. at the Administrative Building located at 100 North Davis Road.