Revenue and taxation; increase maximum acreage to qualify for assessment and taxation as a bona fide conservation use property
HB 90 amends Georgia’s current-use property tax law for bona fide conservation use property. The bill increases the maximum acreage that a single owner may qualify for under the preferential assessment from 2,000 acres to 4,000 acres. It makes corresponding changes throughout the statute so that the higher cap applies to individual owners, family-owned farm entities, environmentally sensitive property, and the statewide limit tracked through the central registry maintained by the commissioner.
The bill also preserves the existing structure of conservation-use covenants and related classifications on county tax digests, while updating the acreage references to the new threshold. It does not change the basic eligibility requirements for conservation use, such as agricultural production, timber production, or environmentally sensitive land maintenance; rather, it expands the amount of qualifying land that can receive the tax benefit. The act is contingent on voter approval of a constitutional amendment at the November 2026 statewide general election and would take effect January 1, 2027, only if that amendment is ratified.
HB 90 would affect Georgia’s property tax administration by allowing larger tracts of land to remain under favorable current-use assessment, which could reduce property tax liability for qualifying landowners, especially farmers, timber producers, and owners of environmentally sensitive land. It also requires the state’s conservation-use registry and county tax assessors to administer the higher acreage cap statewide, and it repeals conflicting laws once effective.
The general sentiment reflected in the votes was supportive but not unanimous. The bill passed the House by a substantial margin and later passed the Senate with strong support, indicating broad legislative approval for expanding the conservation-use acreage limit. At the same time, the House vote showed meaningful opposition, suggesting some concern about the fiscal or policy implications of enlarging the tax preference.
The main point of contention is the size of the tax benefit and its potential impact on local tax bases. Supporters appear to view the bill as a way to better accommodate larger agricultural and timber operations and preserve land in conservation use, while opponents likely worry about extending preferential tax treatment to more acreage and the resulting revenue effects for counties and school systems. The bill’s contingent effective date also shows that lawmakers intended the change to depend on separate constitutional authorization.
HB 90 would amend O.C.G.A. § 48-5-7.4 to raise the acreage cap for bona fide conservation use property from 2,000 acres to 4,000 acres, with conforming changes to related provisions governing family farm entities, environmentally sensitive property, covenant limits, and statewide compliance tracking. If the required constitutional amendment is ratified, the bill would expand eligibility for current-use property tax assessment and potentially lower property tax bills for qualifying landowners while affecting county tax digests and the state conservation-use registry.
The bill appears to have broad legislative support, as shown by strong passage votes in both chambers, but not complete consensus. The House vote was more divided than the Senate vote, suggesting some concern about the policy’s tax and revenue consequences. Overall, the sentiment was favorable toward expanding conservation-use treatment for larger landholdings.
The primary contention is whether doubling the acreage cap from 2,000 to 4,000 acres is an appropriate expansion of a preferential property tax program. Supporters likely emphasize support for agriculture, timber, and land conservation, while critics likely focus on reduced tax revenue and the fairness of extending tax benefits to larger property owners. Another point of concern is the bill’s dependence on a future constitutional amendment, which underscores that the change is significant enough to require voter approval.