Cobb County commissioners set 2025 millage rates and adopt FY2026 budget after two public hearings

The Cobb County Board of Commissioners voted to set the county’s millage rates and adopt the county’s fiscal year 2026 budget at its July 22 regular meeting following three public hearings and hours of public comment.

The board adopted the county general fund millage at 8.46 mills, set the fire fund at 2.97 mills (a 0.02-mill reduction the board said would lower expected fire-fund revenue by about $1 million), kept the Cumberland Special Service District 2 commercial millage at 2.45 mills, and set the 6 Flags Special Service District millage at zero. The millage resolution carried 3-2, with Commissioners Burrell and Gamble recorded in opposition.

Why it matters: Millage rates determine how property tax bills are calculated. County officials said the adoption finances services the board already authorized in the 2025 budget and funds operations such as police, libraries and senior services; opponents said keeping the county rate above the state rollback rate would raise taxes for many homeowners and renters.

Deputy Chief Financial Officer Buddy Cesar opened the public hearing, calling it “our third public hearing” on the rate and outlining the county’s four millage components. Cesar told the board the county planned to hold the general fund millage steady at 8.46 mills and proposed a small reduction in the fire millage to reflect budget adjustments. He also explained that the general fund’s floating homestead exemption means many primary homeowners would not see a higher county portion on their tax bill if the rate stayed the same, while non‑exempt funds such as the fire fund or school mill do not receive the same exemption.

Speakers at the hearings ranged from homeowners and renters to advocacy groups. Dozens urged the commissioners to roll back the millage or to examine department spending, with recurring public concerns about a sheriff’s office budget overrun and the county’s use of consultants and special-purpose payments. Several speakers also tied millage and budget decisions to housing affordability, saying tax increases indirectly raise rents when rental properties are reassessed.

Commission discussion focused on clarifying the difference between the state-required rollback rate and the county’s proposed millage, the mechanics of homestead exemptions, and the budgetary consequences of reducing the millage. County leaders said a rollback to the state rate would create a roughly $4 million revenue shortfall to the FY2026 budget as proposed and would force the board to identify cuts in services or other reductions.

On the FY2026 budget itself, County staff presented a condensed “reader friendly” summary that listed a proposed net increase of approximately $48 million driven largely by: higher water purchases and utility costs in the water fund; a countywide employer roster and benefit updates ($12.3 million) to reflect filled positions and pension/health-care costs; and a 2% pay-scale/COLA adjustment countywide with merit up to an additional 3% (about $8.6 million). Staff said the adopted plan includes no new general‑fund positions but funds two fire and two water positions. The budget passed 3-2, the same margin as the millage vote.

Votes at a glance - Board of Commissioners: Adopt county millage rates (general fund 8.46; fire fund 2.97; Cumberland SSD2 2.45; 6 Flags SSD 0). Outcome: Approved 3–2. Commissioners Burrell and Gamble opposed. (Motion text: adopt resolution setting the millage rates and authorize the chair to execute documents.) - Board of Commissioners: Adopt FY2026 budget as presented. Outcome: Approved 3–2. (Motion text: adopt FY26 budget and authorize chair to execute necessary documents.) - Board of Commissioners: Ratify Board of Education school millage (18.7 mills). Outcome: Ratified 5–0 (the school board had already set its rate; the commission ratified it as the taxing authority).

What commissioners said: Chairwoman Lisa Cupid emphasized the retroactive nature of the millage (that it funds the prior year’s expenses) and urged continued transparency and public outreach about how property assessments and exemptions work. Commissioners who opposed the measures said they were concerned about budget growth and departmental overspending in prior cycles.

Ending: Commissioners and staff encouraged citizens with questions about their individual tax bills to use the county’s online tools and to attend future budget briefings; several board members invited residents to participate in further strategic‑plan workshops on economic and housing priorities.