Cobb commissioners open millage and budget hearings; county proposes flat general fund rate, trims fire contingency and faces questions over water fee transfers

Cobb County opened the first of three public hearings on the 2025 millage rate and budget on July 8, 2025, where Deputy CFO Buddy Tessa presented proposed millage rates and budget highlights and the board took public comment on water-fee transfers and other budget items.

The county is proposing to keep the general fund millage flat at 8.46 mills, to reduce the Cobb County Fire Fund millage by 0.02 mills (about $1 million), and to keep the Cumberland Special Service District millage flat at 2.45 mills. The six-flags special service district will no longer be assessed because of the creation of Mableton. The county reported a net digest increase of 3.39 percent for 2025, down from prior years’ stronger growth.

Why it matters: the millage and budget determine property tax bills and how departments are funded. At the hearing, residents raised concerns about the county’s practice of transferring water-fee revenue to other funds, and commissioners and finance staff described efforts to slow growth in some funds while protecting service levels.

Buddy Tessa, deputy chief financial officer, walked the board and members of the public through the proposed millage structure and a sample homeowner illustration meant to show the effect of the floating homestead exemption. In his example, the general fund portion of a homeowner’s bill remained roughly $609 under the county’s proposed 8.46 mills; without the county’s floating homestead exemption that portion would have been roughly $1,447.64 in the example shown.

During public comment, resident Tracy Stevenson questioned the math behind recent water-rate changes and the county’s water-fee transfer. “That means that extra money just in the water fund fee — I mean, the $8 per month — that covers the transfer as well as the overage or thereabouts within a million dollars. So then we’ve got that 7% water increase already. Can you square the circle for me? None of that makes sense to me,” Stevenson said.

Stevenson and other speakers told commissioners they want water-fee revenue kept for water and stormwater infrastructure rather than used to fill other budget gaps. Several speakers said the transfer is regressive because low-income households pay the same flat fees.

CFO Bill Volkmann and other county leaders answered questions about the transfer and broader budget. Volkmann said the county has been working to reduce the water transfer annually and that it remains the board’s stated goal to get the transfer to zero. Volkmann also outlined budget drivers: a $48 million net increase in the county budget compared with the prior presentation (reduced from a prior $49 million figure), about $11.4 million of which is higher water operations costs (water purchases, chemicals, electricity and gas). He said the budget includes a personnel roster update that increased costs by about $12.3 million because previously vacant, board‑approved positions were filled; a proposed 2 percent pay-scale adjustment/COLA costing roughly $8.6 million; and an increase in the county’s claims fund of about $5.9 million to cover health/worker-comp costs.

On the fire fund change: Volkmann said the 0.02-mill reduction is meant to slow rapid fund-balance growth, not to reduce operations. “We are not proposing to cut any fire operations,” Volkmann told the board. He said the board met with fire leadership, that fire’s personnel and capital requests are fully funded in the proposal, and that the fire fund will retain roughly $11 million in contingency. Volkmann noted the fire fund’s unassigned fund balance grew from about $35 million in 2018 to about $107 million in 2024 after earlier board decisions to improve cash balances.

Commissioners and staff also reiterated the hearing schedule and next steps. This first hearing was informational; the county plans a second hearing on July 16 and a final public hearing and formal adoption of the millage and budget at the July 22 board meeting.

The hearing included a mix of praise for county staff and critical public comments. Speakers asked for clearer online tools and transparency about where fee and tax revenue are spent. County staff said the presentation materials and the full budget will be posted online and that staff are available to meet individually with residents and commissioners about specific questions.

The board took no final vote on the millage or the budget at this meeting; the hearings continue through July and the board will vote during the scheduled adoption meeting.