General Assembly; increase maximum acreage to qualify for assessment and taxation as a bona fide conservation use property - CA
Summary
HR 32 proposes a constitutional amendment to increase the acreage cap for property to qualify as bona fide conservation use property from 2,000 acres to 4,000 acres for a single owner. The measure is framed as a way to protect family farmland and would allow more agricultural and timber land to receive current-use assessment and taxation rather than being taxed based on market value.
The amendment does not itself change the tax formula; it changes the constitutional ceiling that defines which properties may use the conservation-use tax classification. Property owners seeking the benefit would still have to enter into a covenant to keep the land in conservation use, and a breach within ten years would trigger recapture of tax savings and possible penalties. If ratified by voters, the amendment would become part of the Georgia Constitution and would expand eligibility for the existing conservation-use property tax treatment.
Impact
If approved by voters, HR 32 would amend Article VII, Section I, Paragraph III of the Georgia Constitution to raise the maximum acreage for bona fide conservation use property from 2,000 to 4,000 acres. This would affect agricultural and timber landowners with larger holdings by making more land eligible for preferential current-use taxation, while leaving the covenant requirement and recapture provisions in place. The change would likely reduce property tax burdens for qualifying owners and could affect local tax bases where large tracts of farmland or timberland are enrolled.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad support overall. It passed the House overwhelmingly and later received strong Senate approval on final adoption of the constitutional amendment. The large margins suggest general agreement with the stated goal of protecting family farmland and expanding conservation-use eligibility, although the Senate motion to engross passed by a narrower margin, indicating some procedural or substantive hesitation among a smaller group of members.
Contention
The main point of contention is the policy choice to expand the conservation-use acreage cap, which may be viewed by supporters as necessary to protect larger family farms and by critics as a tax preference that could reduce local revenue or extend benefits to larger landowners. The narrower Senate vote on the motion to engross suggests some members may have had reservations about the amendment’s scope or timing, even though final adoption was strongly supported. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not identify specific arguments beyond the bill’s stated purpose.