HB 1386: Local government; county development authorities for certain counties shall not operate within certain municipalities; provide

Current Georgia law lets certain 'massively municipalized' counties, those where cities cover 95 percent or more of the county's land, have their county development authority blocked from handling property tax incentive projects inside a city, but only if that city is located north of the northernmost limit of the municipality containing the county seat and the city passes a resolution against the authority. This bill removes that geographic 'north of' limitation, so any municipality within such a county could pass a resolution to keep the county development authority from purchasing or accepting property for tax incentive projects within its limits. The bill also changes the grandfather clause for existing projects. Instead of protecting only projects approved before January 1, 2026, it protects any project a development authority approved within a municipality before that municipality adopted its own blocking resolution. Existing amendments, refinancing, renewals, or property transfers tied to those earlier projects stay unaffected. Section 2 repeals conflicting laws.

• Removes the requirement that a blocking municipality be located north of the northernmost limit of the city containing the county seat, letting any municipality in a massively municipalized county pass a blocking resolution.
• Keeps the rule that a county development authority cannot purchase or accept title to property for a tax incentive project inside a municipality that has passed such a resolution.
• Changes the grandfather clause so projects are protected if approved before a municipality's own resolution, instead of before a fixed date of January 1, 2026.
• Preserves protection for existing project amendments, refinancing, renewals, or property transfers tied to previously approved projects.

County development authorities in Georgia's massively municipalized counties (counties without a consolidated government where cities cover 95 percent or more of the land), the municipalities within those counties, and businesses or developers involved in property tax incentive projects that rely on county development authority involvement.

By dropping the geographic restriction, more cities within a heavily municipalized county could vote to keep the county development authority out of their limits for tax incentive projects, potentially shifting control over economic development deals from the county authority to individual city governments.

• Section 1 revises O.C.G.A. § 36-62-4.1, striking the language limiting blocking resolutions to municipalities located north of the northernmost limit of the municipality containing the county site.
• Section 1 keeps the core rule that a development authority cannot purchase or accept property in a municipality that has adopted a resolution against it.
• Section 1 changes the grandfather protection for prior projects from a fixed date (January 1, 2026) to the date each municipality adopts its own resolution.
• Section 2 repeals any conflicting laws.

1. 2026-03-03House Committee Favorably Reported (House)
2. 2026-02-24House Second Readers (House)
3. 2026-02-20House First Readers (House)
4. 2026-02-19House Hopper (House)

• Robert Dawson (D, HD-065)Primary sponsor
• Bryce Berry (D, HD-056)
• Sheila Jones (D, HD-060)
• Lydia Glaize (D, HD-067)
• Mekyah McQueen (D, HD-061)
• Jan Jones (R, HD-047)

• development authorities
• local government
• economic development
• Fulton County
• property tax incentives