Paulding County holds public hearing on proposed 2025 millage rate; board says rate will not increase

The Paulding County Board of Education held a public hearing on the proposed 2025 maintenance and operations (M&O) millage rate and the district’s fiscal 2026 budget, during which district staff said the board is tentatively proposing the same 17.675 mills used in 2024 and emphasized that the district is not raising the millage this year.

The hearing, one of three required under Georgia law before the board can finalize a millage rate and adopt the fiscal year 2026 budget, provided district staff an opportunity to explain how the advertised notice and the statutory “rollback” comparison can make the proposal appear as a tax increase even when the board proposes the prior year’s rate.

District financial staff gave the presentation and laid out the fiscal context: the proposed M&O millage rate of 17.675 is the same as in 2024; because the district funds bond debt service with the education special purpose local option sales tax (ESPLOST), the FY 2026 original budget does not include a bond millage rate. Amber Thesma, identified in the meeting as the district’s director of financial planning and analysis, summarized the numbers presented to the public: the district’s net M&O digest is projected to increase 4.1% to about $8.8 billion; exemptions grew 9.5% to roughly $2.0 billion of the gross digest (about 19%); and the district’s local revenue per pupil is 23% below the statewide average, yielding a local revenue shortfall the presentation quantified as about $47.6 million.

Thesma also explained how the required newspaper notice can be confusing: the legal template compares the proposed rate to a hypothetical prior-year rate called the rollback rate (17.178 mills in the notice), which is why the required wording may state the proposed rate “will require an increase in property taxes by 2.9%” even though the district’s proposed millage equals last year’s. A district official told the room, “we are not voting to raise the millage rate this year at all. It will stay where it was last year. So, wanna make sure that everybody understands that. If there is a property tax increase somewhere, it's because the value of the property went up, not because we raised the millage rate.”

The presentation included additional fiscal comparisons the district used to describe its position: the district reported collecting an estimated 77 cents of local revenue per dollar compared with the statewide average and noted other comparative ratios (for example, the district’s ESPLOST collections and nonresidential digest share) that staff said contribute to its relatively low local revenue per pupil.

During public comment, a resident, identified in the record as Chris Bachelor, urged the board to consider policies and targeted assistance that would reduce burdens on homeowners, including exploring homestead exemptions and supports for teachers. Bachelor suggested considering targeted Pre-K or daycare options for teachers’ children and raised concerns about rising benefit costs in the budget. He also urged the board to reconsider the location and land trade proposals for a replacement for Dallas Elementary, warning of potential off-site road improvement costs for taxpayers if the board accepts certain parcels, and proposed alternatives such as using existing school property or buying smaller parcels closer to need.

Procedural items: the board recited its public participation policy (Board Policy BCBI) and reminded speakers they would be limited to five minutes, that board members typically do not respond to public comments during hearings but may ask clarifying questions, and that property owners disputing an assessed value should contact the Paulding County Board of Tax Assessors; the transcript records an appeals deadline of July 14. The board also reminded the public of the next required millage public hearing, scheduled for June 17 at 8 a.m. at 3236 Atlanta Highway in Dallas.

No final millage-rate vote or formal budget adoption occurred at the hearing; the session was a public-comment and informational proceeding. The meeting concluded after a motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Nolan, seconded by Mr. Clayton, and the chair declared the motion approved.