Newton County holds second millage hearing as officials defend FY26 budget and residents voice affordability concerns

Newton County held its second public hearing on the proposed FY26 millage rate July 29, during which county officials said a tentative 10.31% property tax increase would raise the county millage to 8.567 mills to support $8.7 million in new budget spending.

The hearing matters because the millage funds county services such as public safety, roads, parks and administration; county staff and commissioners said the increase is needed to pay for salary adjustments, higher health insurance costs and staffing for projects funded by SPLOST (Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax).

Britney White, Newton County finance director, read the tax-increase statement into the record and described the FY26 budget additions. "Newton County has tentatively adopted a millage rate which will require property taxes to increase by 10.31%," White said. She told the board the tentative rate would be 8.567 mills, an increase of 0.801 mills from a no-increase rate of 7.766 mills. White also gave estimated household impacts: a home with a fair market value of $325,000 would see an increase of approximately $100.93; a non-homestead property with a fair market value of $300,000 would see an increase of approximately $96.12.

White and the presentation tied the proposed increase to $8,700,000 in new FY26 spending the county listed as: $3,700,000 for a comp-and-class salary study and related increases, $1,500,000 for a 14% rise in health insurance costs, $1,750,000 held as contingency for new positions (largely to staff SPLOST projects and public works mowing and litter crews), $1,000,000 for public-works bridge repairs and $750,000 for culvert replacements. White said this was the second of three required public hearings; the first was held the same day at 11 a.m., and the third is scheduled for Aug. 5 at 6:30 p.m.

The meeting opened with a staff reading clarifying the limits of the county's authority: the presenter told attendees that the Newton County Board of Commissioners "has the legal authority and responsibility to set the county's millage rate" and that the Newton County School System "operates as a separate governmental entity" whose millage the county cannot change.

Public commenters pushed back on the proposed increase and raised a mix of budget and policy concerns. Dennis Taylor, a resident, criticized county management turnover and said the school board and assessment process are the bigger drivers of taxes. Elena Sanders, a resident, said she obtained records showing a large surplus and argued that the county should not increase taxes when cash balances appear high. "If you look at the numbers, take the time and get that same document I got from the finance director, you would see that we made almost 139,000,000 in a surplus this year," Sanders said. Linda Lackey, a resident, described the strain on seniors and said higher taxes would be difficult for households with serious medical expenses.

Other public remarks asked officials to prioritize services differently. Angela Touchstone, a resident, said growth has outpaced recreational and economic development offerings and worried higher taxes would not bring needed amenities for youth. John Dobbs, a resident, suggested reallocating resources, for example by asking the school system about its school-resource staffing.

Commissioners responded with explanations and differing emphases. Commissioner Edwards said the larger figure cited by speakers includes encumbered funds and reiterated that the county's unencumbered surplus is "around 60,000,000," a level he characterized as recommended by auditors for cash flow, bond ratings and emergency needs. "That gets tired, real tired," Edwards said, responding to repeated references to school taxes and the surplus.

Commissioner Mason pointed to a 2022 referendum and state legislation, saying the county had opted into House Bill 581's property tax relief provisions and worked to reduce its millage from 13.44 to roughly 8.2 in recent years. Mason said this board had negotiated the budget and reduced initial proposals (which she recalled as high as 10 mills) before arriving at the current tentative rate.

Commissioner Long defended the lengthy budget negotiations and said commissioners repeatedly cut spending to try to limit any increase. Long noted that rising property values are a major driver of tax bills and said the county's millage remains lower than some neighboring counties.

Commissioner Henderson said he opposed the budget increase when he was evaluating it and invoked concerns about impacts on seniors and children, while noting his personal health history in explaining his stance.

No final millage vote was taken at the July 29 hearing. Commissioners described the hearing as part of required public-notice steps; one commissioner said the budget had been worked on "behind the scenes" and that final action would occur at a subsequent meeting. The board moved to adjourn at the end of the session; a motion to adjourn was made and carried by voice vote, with names not recorded in the transcript.

The hearing record and the finance director's statements will be part of the public record ahead of the final action on the millage expected at the board's coming meeting.