OXFORD, Ga. – The Oxford City Council met Tuesday, Jan. 21 for a work session that covered a number of topics, including the much-talked about House Bill 581.
Every government jurisdiction throughout the state must determine if they wish to opt out of the floating homestead exemption bill and declare so to the state government by March 1, 2025.
The work session spanned several topics, but significant time was devoted to discussing the details of the bill and weighing the pros and cons of implementing the tax exemption. The meeting was held on Zoom due to the hazardous winter weather that came through the state that evening, but it remained open to the public.
Much like the neighboring Newton County municipalities, the council appeared to determine that the homestead exemption would cost the city revenue that would impact their functionality in the years to come. However, the group did not immediately decide to proceed with opting in or out, acknowledging that the measure’s passage on the November ballot could signify that the people of Oxford had made it clear how they wanted their elected officials to proceed.
“It was a state law that passed with referendum by the citizens…so it feels kind of awkward to me for us to, the seven of us – to opt out of a law that was passed by the citizens of the state,” said Councilman Jeff Wearing, Post 6.
But mayor David Eady pointed out that the council only knows the voting distribution of the state of Georgia, not the local numbers.
“We don't know what the residents of Oxford, how they voted,” Eady said. “We just know what the state result was, and things that are put on a ballot, they aren't always as clear. I think we’re elected to make decisions that are what we see as good, best for Oxford.”
The council also weighed the merits of the Floating Local Option Sales Tax (FLOST) proposal that has been presented as a way to make up lost revenue for local governments that cannot afford to lose property tax income.
Though a FLOST could make up for the revenue decline that a homestead exemption could cause, the citizens of the city would have to vote to put the FLOST into effect, and a couple of the council members find it unlikely that the residents would vote to implement further taxes.
Additionally, for the FLOST to work, every governmental jurisdiction in a community is required to opt in and implement the sales tax together, meaning that all the cities throughout Newton County as well as the county government would have to choose to work harmoniously with no one opting out.
“I'm less concerned about the floating homestead exemption than I am about this idea of this optional sales tax for property tax relief as it’s labeled there,” Eady said. “I mean, this is just another sales tax, and if we need to increase revenue to cover general government expenses, then we need to increase revenue where we should increase revenue, which is on the property tax side.
“And we would do that by increasing the millage rate. I think what this does is – and of course, I'm skeptical as to whether or not it would pass to begin with – but if it did pass, it’s just shifting the burden again to a sales tax for something that ought to be covered by property taxes.”
The council is planning to move forward in holding the public hearings that are a requirement in order for the city to opt out of the homestead exemption. Though holding the hearings does not cement a decision to opt out, municipalities cannot opt out unless three are held in the next month, so even if the city chooses to remain opted-in and implement HB 581, holding the hearings anyway gives the council the flexibility to weigh public opinion before making a decision closer to March.
The public hearings are scheduled for Feb. 3 at 6:30 p.m. and Feb. 17 at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. A special called meeting will immediately follow the final public hearing to determine whether the city will opt out or not.
Every government jurisdiction throughout the state must determine if they wish to opt out of the floating homestead exemption bill and declare so to the state government by March 1, 2025.
The work session spanned several topics, but significant time was devoted to discussing the details of the bill and weighing the pros and cons of implementing the tax exemption. The meeting was held on Zoom due to the hazardous winter weather that came through the state that evening, but it remained open to the public.
Much like the neighboring Newton County municipalities, the council appeared to determine that the homestead exemption would cost the city revenue that would impact their functionality in the years to come. However, the group did not immediately decide to proceed with opting in or out, acknowledging that the measure’s passage on the November ballot could signify that the people of Oxford had made it clear how they wanted their elected officials to proceed.
“It was a state law that passed with referendum by the citizens…so it feels kind of awkward to me for us to, the seven of us – to opt out of a law that was passed by the citizens of the state,” said Councilman Jeff Wearing, Post 6.
But mayor David Eady pointed out that the council only knows the voting distribution of the state of Georgia, not the local numbers.
“We don't know what the residents of Oxford, how they voted,” Eady said. “We just know what the state result was, and things that are put on a ballot, they aren't always as clear. I think we’re elected to make decisions that are what we see as good, best for Oxford.”
The council also weighed the merits of the Floating Local Option Sales Tax (FLOST) proposal that has been presented as a way to make up lost revenue for local governments that cannot afford to lose property tax income.
Though a FLOST could make up for the revenue decline that a homestead exemption could cause, the citizens of the city would have to vote to put the FLOST into effect, and a couple of the council members find it unlikely that the residents would vote to implement further taxes.
Additionally, for the FLOST to work, every governmental jurisdiction in a community is required to opt in and implement the sales tax together, meaning that all the cities throughout Newton County as well as the county government would have to choose to work harmoniously with no one opting out.
“I'm less concerned about the floating homestead exemption than I am about this idea of this optional sales tax for property tax relief as it’s labeled there,” Eady said. “I mean, this is just another sales tax, and if we need to increase revenue to cover general government expenses, then we need to increase revenue where we should increase revenue, which is on the property tax side.
“And we would do that by increasing the millage rate. I think what this does is – and of course, I'm skeptical as to whether or not it would pass to begin with – but if it did pass, it’s just shifting the burden again to a sales tax for something that ought to be covered by property taxes.”
The council is planning to move forward in holding the public hearings that are a requirement in order for the city to opt out of the homestead exemption. Though holding the hearings does not cement a decision to opt out, municipalities cannot opt out unless three are held in the next month, so even if the city chooses to remain opted-in and implement HB 581, holding the hearings anyway gives the council the flexibility to weigh public opinion before making a decision closer to March.
The public hearings are scheduled for Feb. 3 at 6:30 p.m. and Feb. 17 at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. A special called meeting will immediately follow the final public hearing to determine whether the city will opt out or not.
“I see this as a trend within state government to try and impose more control on local governments and removing our autonomy to determine our revenue from property taxes,” Eady said. “If we opt in and therefore allow our evaluations to be capped by the state, then we’re going to shift the burden for covering those expenses from a value-based tax that is property tax – it's based on the value of the property – we’re going to shift that over to sales tax which is a regressive tax that's going to disproportionately impact people of lower income because that's who's going to pick up that cost.”
