Newton County commissioners held a second public hearing July 29 on a proposed increase in the countyraction of the property tax bill that, if finalized, would raise the millage rate to 8.567 mills and increase property taxes by 10.31%.

Brittany White, Newton County finance director, told the Board of Commissioners the advertised, tentative millage supports the fiscal year 2026 budget adopted June 17, 2025. "Newton County has tentatively adopted a millage rate, which will require property taxes to increase by 10.31%," White said while reading the required property-tax notice into the record.

The finance director and commissioners said the advertised increase is tied to roughly $8.7 million in new budget items for FY26, with line-item increases White listed during the hearing: $3.7 million for a compensation and classification salary adjustment, $1.5 million for health insurance driven by an approximate 14% premium increase, $1.75 million as contingency for new positions mainly to staff facilities added by SPLOST (Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax) projects, $1.0 million for public-works bridge repairs, and $750,000 for culvert replacements. White also read the public-notice examples showing a homeowner with a $325,000 fair-market-value house would see an approximate annual tax increase of $100.93; a non-homestead property at $300,000 would see about a $96.12 increase. She said this was the second of three required public hearings; the third is scheduled for Aug. 5 at 6:30 p.m.

During public comment, residents questioned the need for a tax increase while citing what they described as large county surpluses and unmet local services. Elena Sanders said she obtained records showing "we made almost $139,000,000 in a surplus this year," and asked why taxes were being raised. Commissioner Edwards responded that the county oes not have $139 million in unencumbered surplus and that about $60 million is unencumbered savings; he said much of the larger figure is already encumbered or obligated. "Our unencumbered surplus is around $60,000,000," Edwards said, adding auditors recommend maintaining that level for bond ratings, emergencies and operating cash.

Several speakers emphasized senior hardship and housing affordability. Linda Lackey said higher taxes threaten her ability to keep her home while caring for a spouse with stage 4 prostate cancer, and asked commissioners to "reassess these numbers" and use existing funds rather than raising taxes. Other commenters urged more visible economic development and recreation to match new housing growth.

Speakers also reiterated the legal separation between county and school levies. A county staff member prefaced the hearing by noting that the Newton County School System is a separate governmental entity and that "the board of commissioners cannot increase, decrease, or otherwise influence the school system's tax rate during BOC meetings or county millage rate hearings." Commissioners repeatedly directed residents with school-tax concerns to attend Board of Education meetings.

Commissioners defended budget work done in preceding weeks. Commissioner Mason and Commissioner Long said they and other commissioners worked to reduce higher initial proposals (originally as high as 10 or more mills in earlier drafts) and to bring the current advertised rate down from past levels; Mason referenced a 2022 referendum implementing House Bill 581 property-tax relief measures that the county has opted into. Several commissioners emphasized that some increased spending follows earlier voter-approved SPLOST projects that now require staffing and operations.

No final vote on the millage was held at the hearing; commissioners described the session as part of the required public-notice process and indicated a final adoption would follow the remaining public hearing and any statutory deadlines. The hearing closed after public comment and commissioners iscussion, and the board took a motion to adjourn by voice vote.

Discussion versus decision: the record shows the county has advertised (tentatively adopted) an 8.567-mill rate that would increase property taxes by 10.31% and read the statutorily required notice into the record; commissioners clarified that final adoption and the statutory timing of hearings and votes remain pending. Public commenters expressed objections and requested reconsideration, asked for redeployment of existing funds, and cited senior hardship and economic-development shortfalls.

The board provided contact and scheduling information for school-board meetings in response to multiple speakers who raised school tax concerns, and commissioners reiterated the county's limited authority over school-district levies.

The board will hold the third public hearing Aug. 5 at 6:30 p.m.; a final vote was referenced by commissioners as forthcoming but not recorded in this hearing.