Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Property Taxes topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Newton County holds third public hearing on tentative 8.567 millage rate, residents warn seniors will be hit hard

5957643 · August 7, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a third public hearing on the county's tentative millage rate, county finance staff said the 8.567 mills would fund the FY26 budget and represents a 10.31% tax increase; residents and commissioners debated budget priorities, solid waste authority funding, and potential relief for seniors.

The Newton County Board of Commissioners held a third public hearing on the county's tentative millage rate, and finance director Britney White told the board the rate would be 8.567 mills, a 0.801-mill increase that county staff says amounts to a 10.31% increase in property taxes.

The tentative rate, White said, is intended to support the fiscal year 2026 budget the board adopted June 17, 2025. White told the board the majority of the $8.7 million in new revenue needed comes from a $3.7 million compensation and classification salary increase, $1.5 million for a 14% increase in health insurance costs, $1.75 million for contingency and new positions (including public works mowing and litter crews), $1 million for bridge repairs and $750,000 for culvert replacements. White also read the county's tax increase statement into the record and said the county had held two prior hearings on July 29 (11 a.m. and 6 p.m.), and that three hearings are required.

Why this matters: County officials said the tentative millage is intended to pay recurring operating costs included in the adopted FY26 budget, including public safety and road maintenance. Residents who spoke said the increase would be unaffordable for many seniors and questioned whether the county is using existing revenues and authority efficiently.

Public comments: Several residents addressed the board during the allotted three-minute public-comment period. Kevin Gough, a Covington resident, said, "services certainly today are no better than they were in 02/2009," and expressed displeasure with the proposed tax increases. Cynthia VanVeench, who said she is 76 and living on Social Security and savings, described shutting down a long-running local newspaper and appealed, "Please do not make the seniors have to pay that much." Dennis Taylor questioned continuing payments to the Solid Waste Authority and called the current arrangement "double taxation," saying the convenience centers had been losing money historically and asking the board to "pull them back in" if they could not be self-sustaining. JL ("JL Scout"), a resident of a Bridal subdivision, urged that tax increases be decided by voters via a ballot question when referencing HB 8581 as he heard it, and said he was concerned that commercial development and sales tax revenue were not returning sufficient local amenities. Elena Sanders challenged commissioners' comparisons to other counties, saying other counties invest in parks and affordable housing and urging closer review of the budget and authorities that receive county funds.

Commissioner responses and discussion: Commissioners responded to residents' concerns and explained aspects of the budget process. Commissioner Edwards said she had regularly requested meetings with finance staff over many years. Edwards said some revenues from Stanton Springs and the joint development authority are already "plowed back into the budget" and that the county continues to pay debt service related to a settlement tied to the Solid Waste Authority. Edwards said convenience centers were losing money as of 2016 and that, adjusted for inflation, those losses would be substantially higher today.

Commissioner Mason addressed seniors directly: "I just want our seniors to know that this board does care, and we do wanna make sure that we do our best to find ways to provide relief to all of our residents." Mason noted the county's millage had fallen from 13.4 mills to about 8.2 in recent years and said some increases reflect costs for deputies, firefighters and other services residents request.

Commissioner Cooper said she participated in budget discussions where possible and heard constituent concerns, particularly about road repairs. Commissioner Henderson called for greater transparency and said the historic approach to budgeting had concentrated work with the chair and county manager; he urged that all commissioners be included and public meetings be preserved. Commissioner Long said she attended department meetings and emphasized that rising market values on homes are contributing to higher tax bills for some homeowners.

What officials said about specific impacts: Finance staff provided two example tax impacts included in the tax increase statement: a home with a fair market value of $325,000 would see an approximate annual increase of $100.93 under the tentative rate; a nonhomestead property with a fair market value of $300,000 would see an approximate increase of $96.12. White said without the tentative increase the millage would be no more than 7.766 mills.

Formal actions recorded in the transcript: the board approved the meeting agenda (vote recorded as unanimous at the start of the session) and later closed the public hearing and recessed to commissioner responses; at the end of the meeting the board voted unanimously to adjourn. The transcript includes the reading of the county's tax increase statement into the record but does not record a roll-call vote adopting the tentative millage rate in the excerpt provided.

What remains unresolved: Residents and several commissioners asked for greater transparency on how authority funds (for example, the Solid Waste Authority and joint development authority receipts from Stanton Springs) are being budgeted and used. Multiple speakers asked for consideration of senior relief options; no legislative changes or voter-referred measures were adopted during this meeting. The county noted that the Newton County School System is a separate governmental entity whose millage is set by the elected school board, and that questions about school taxes should be directed to school board meetings.

Next steps: The tax increase statement indicates this was the third required public hearing on the tentative millage; the transcript does not show a subsequent roll-call adoption vote in the provided excerpt. Any final adoption, rollback, or other change to the millage rate would be reflected in later official minutes or a recorded vote not included here.