Rising property taxes in Georgia continue to dominate kitchen table conversations around the state. As such, expect proposals to rein in property taxes to be at the forefront of the 2026 legislative session.
Home values, which have continued to rise in the wake of the pandemic housing boom, are now being layered with increased millage rates as local expenditures continue to grow. This is chalked up generally to “inflation” and includes not only city and county governments, but local school systems.
Hearing this explanation typically causes voters to observe they have had to “tighten their belt” in recent years for their household budgets, and question why their county or school can’t do the same.
It’s fair to conclude that for years a general political calculus at least kept the millage rates in check: While local elected officials determined the millage rates, the unelected boards of assessors were in charge of the assessed value. Essentially, rising assessments could do the “dirty work” of generating higher revenues.
Thus, as personal and commercial values continued to rise, local taxation debates would inevitably shift to whether the rollback rate – the lower millage rate that would generate the same amount of property tax revenue as the previous year – should be enacted.
In Georgia, local governments are required to provide notice if they intend to adopt even the same millage rate if it would generate more revenue than the previous year. Such an increase is typically due to rising value assessments.
At least in theory, rising millage rates can be rectified at the ballot box. But unfairly high property values force homeowners and business owners to go through a time-consuming appeals process.
In 2024, amid rapidly increasing home values, the Georgia Senate passed a bill that would have limited annual increases in home valuations for property taxes to no more than 3% per year.
Momentum for this proposal ultimately stalled and the legislature instead shifted to passing legislation which allows local governments (not including school systems) to receive up to a penny sales tax in exchange for a floating homestead exemption tied to inflation. Adoption of this measure by school systems and local governments has remained low – despite 63% of Georgians across the state voting in favor of it.
According to the Tax Foundation, as of April 2025, “about two-thirds of counties (64.8%), representing nearly 83% of Georgia’s population, saw their school system, general government or both opt out. These counties tend to be larger and more economically significant to the state.”
Notably, of the 316 local government entities that opted out before April 2025, the largest share were school systems. Of Georgia’s 180 school districts, 123 (68%) chose to opt out of the property tax relief system.
Critics of the 3% annual cap on home assessments contended that it was unfair because it would disproportionately shift the cost burden for funding local governments and schools to new homeowners.
One alternative proposal using a similar approach is to place an overall cap on the property taxes that can be assessed in the form of a levy limit. Rather than focusing solely on limiting the annual increase in home assessments (or millage rates), this would take both into account.
For example, instead of capping home values at no more than a 3% annual increase, this would mean that local government revenues could rise no more than 3% on an annual basis. If any resulting rise in values accounted for more than a 3% annual increase, the millage rates would have to be rolled back to bring the revenue increase under the levy limit.
In another scenario, if revenues from property values rose 2%, then millage rates could increase by up to 1%. Essentially any total up to 3% would be allowed.
The revenue limit doesn’t necessarily have to be 3%; it could be a similar number or even tied to the cost of inflation.
In case additional revenues are needed beyond the annual cap, a local referendum can always be put to the voters to override the annual limit in time of economic need.
But as many homeowners continue to feel the squeeze on both sides of the property tax equation, perhaps the time has come to consider how to limit the overall burden.