Newton County officials present $149 million proposed FY2026 budget; millage estimated at 9.3

Newton County officials on a special called meeting received a presentation on the county’s proposed fiscal year 2026 budget that the finance director said totals about $149 million across all funds and includes an estimated general fund of roughly $112 million.

The presentation by Britney White, the county’s finance director, outlined major drivers of the proposed increase and identified a public hearing on the budget for June 10 and a planned budget adoption vote on June 17. White emphasized the document is a proposal and subject to change: "It is a proposed budget, so I wanna emphasize that. It is not a budget that has been voted on and is in stone."

Why it matters: The proposed package would raise the county’s estimated millage rate to about 9.3, which White said would amount to an estimated increase of around $175 a year on a $300,000 home. The budget proposal contains multi-million-dollar additions for employee compensation and benefits and includes continuing debt-service obligations tied to prior facility upgrades.

Key figures and priorities - Total all-funds budget: about $149,000,000 (presented by Finance Director Britney White). - Proposed general fund: roughly $112,000,000 (presented by White). - Compensation and classification study: an increase of about $3,700,000 to keep pay competitive, according to White. - Health insurance: a presented increase of $1,500,000 compared with the prior year’s estimate. - Contingency for new positions to support SPLOST projects and public-works crews. - Public Works allocations listed in the presentation included approximately $1,000,000 for bridge repairs and $750,000 for culvert replacements; a $245,000 virtual server upgrade was also noted. - ABM-related debt service: White listed an annual payment of about $1,100,000 under debt service and said the county still carries long-term payments related to earlier facility upgrades contracted with ABM. A county staff member summarized the long-standing issue: "There is a lot of dissatisfaction with the quality of the work performed by ABM, and a lot of question about whether ABM ... the money they were paid. Think of it like when you buy a house, ... you still have to pay the bank." The staff member said contractual claims have largely expired, leaving the county responsible to lenders. - Other revenue actions highlighted: an estimated millage rate of 9.3, an estimated $175 increase on a $300,000 home, an increase in LOST collections by $400,000, planned use of $4,000,000 in fund balance, and an insurance premium tax increase of about $400,000.

SPLOST and paving Presenters and commissioners discussed how recent SPLOST (Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax) allocations were directed to specific projects rather than a general paving pool. White clarified the most recent SPLOST designated funds for the Brown Bridge Road project, which commissioners said reduced the pool of generic paving dollars available for other unincorporated roads and left the general fund to cover shortfalls.

Commissioners’ reactions and questions Commissioner Long warned the board to continue searching for reductions: "We gotta cut, cut, cut, cut, cut." Other commissioners asked for more detailed explanations of the ABM-related debt-service line and for staff follow-up on departmental spending trends to determine whether budget increases should reflect prior-year expenditures rather than prior-year requests.

Next steps and formal action White said the proposed budget book is posted on the county’s transparency portal and a public hearing is scheduled for June 10 at 7 p.m., with adoption to be considered June 17 at the regular meeting. The board voted by unanimous verbal consent to adjourn into executive session for personnel and potential litigation matters; commissioners explicitly said the executive session was "not for the budget."

Ending note The presentation covered broad revenue and expenditure categories, an employee pay-plan adjustment, higher health-insurance costs and continued debt obligations tied to earlier facility contracts; commissioners requested additional detail, particularly on debt-service and department-level spending, before final adoption at the June 17 meeting.