Newton County Board narrows millage rate after public criticism of rising taxes

The Newton County Board of Education voted to set the district's fiscal year 2026 millage rate at 15.50 mills after extended public comment and several competing proposals from board members.

Public participation before the vote included three residents who pressed the board to address how rising property values and successive millage choices are affecting seniors on fixed incomes. Edna McKenzie, who identified herself as a Newton County resident of 19 years, said she lives on a fixed income and asked why seniors continue to pay school taxes when they no longer have children in the system. Louise Cobham, a 31‑year educator, reiterated the concern and said many seniors cannot afford additional tax increases. John Clemens, a long‑time resident, expressed similar frustration and questioned why the board had not enacted a tax cap similar to the county commission’s military cap, saying longtime residents are “carrying the brunt” of rising assessments.

Those public comments framed the board’s debate. Superintendent Bradley introduced an initial recommendation (15.7 mills with a 0 mills debt service rate) consistent with the budget adopted in May; board members then proposed several alternatives. Board member Trey Bailey moved to adopt a full rollback rate of 14.84 mills; that motion failed (the board recorded this vote as 3 noes to 2 yeses). Subsequent motions and amendments to set other millage figures also failed. After additional discussion about the district’s reserves, timing of tax collections and obligations, the board ultimately approved a millage rate of 15.50 mills. The motion to adopt 15.50 mills was moved by Mister Anderson Bailey and seconded by Miss Henderson Baker; the board chair announced the motion carried and the millage was set at 15.50.

Board members cited competing priorities in explaining their votes. Supporters of lowering the rate referenced the one‑sentence opt‑out language in state House Bill 581 and community sentiment favoring tax relief; proponents of a higher rate pointed to cash‑flow timing (the district receives large property tax distributions later in the year), existing budget commitments such as mental‑health services and school safety programs, and the district’s projected monthly expenditures. Finance staff told the board that the district is operating on reserves until major tax revenues arrive in November and December and that current reserves approximately cover a limited number of months of operating costs; the exact month‑by‑month cash projections were discussed but depend on state and local receipts.

The board also noted the broader drivers of rising tax bills, including rapid property valuation growth over recent years and development patterns that affect how property is assessed. Multiple speakers and board members said zoning, apartment construction and how multifamily parcels are taxed are factors outside the school board’s direct authority but that contribute to homeowners’ bills.

The board chair said the approved rate represented a reduction from earlier proposals and thanked members for the “difficult discussion.” The change will be incorporated into the formal tax notices and applied for fiscal year 2026.

Votes at a glance: the rollback (14.84 mills) motion failed 3–2; the motion to set the millage at 15.50 mills carried (mover: Mister Anderson Bailey; seconder: Miss Henderson Baker). The transcript records multiple intermediate motions and amendments; where exact roll‑call tallies were not read into the public record, the board reported outcomes orally.