Newton County holds third hearing on HB 581; officials warn district could lose about $30.6 million through 2029

Newton County Schools held the third and final public hearing on House Bill 581 on the statewide floating homestead exemption, where district leaders described how the law works and presented an estimate that the district could lose about $30.6 million in property-tax revenue through fiscal 2029 if the district does not opt out.

Dr. Bradley, Newton County Schools superintendent, opened remarks by reminding the public that HB 581 contains a permanent, one-time opt-out available to counties, municipalities and local school boards and that the district must follow specific procedures if it chooses to opt out. "Zeroing out the debt millage service rate, further reducing a 30‑year low millage rate, and supporting the senior homestead exemption are all noteworthy actions intended to provide relief to homeowners," Bradley said, urging the board and community to consider impacts on students and staff.

Erica Robinson, chief financial officer for Newton County Schools, presented the law's mechanics and the district's revenue projections. Robinson explained that HB 581 establishes a floating homestead exemption that caps annual taxable-value increases for qualifying primary residences at the rate of inflation as set by the State Revenue Commissioner, using 2024 assessed values as the base for 2025. She said the law took effect on Jan. 1, 2025, following voter approval of a constitutional amendment in November 2024.

Robinson illustrated the homeowner effect using the district's 2024 average homestead value of $300,000: under Robinson's example, a 10% market increase to $330,000 would raise school taxes to about $433 per month; limiting the increase to 2% inflation would yield a taxable value of about $306,000 and roughly $402 per month, an estimated savings of about $32 per month for that homeowner. Robinson then presented the district's estimated revenue reductions if the exemption is fully implemented: about $3,900,000 in 2026; $6,200,000 in 2027; $8,800,000 in 2028; and $11,600,000 in 2029, for a cumulative estimated loss of roughly $30,600,000 through fiscal 2029. Robinson told the board those reductions could force cuts to staff, programs, facility maintenance and safety resources if no replacement funding is identified.

During a public-comment period that followed, speakers offered a range of viewpoints. Dennis Taylor, a resident, argued the law would be beneficial to homeowners and warned that opting out could be politically costly: "If you go against what the citizens voted for ... it's going to be long term probably unforgiving," Taylor said. Several seniors and long-time residents said property-tax increases have strained fixed incomes; Emery Christian said she feared losing her home and cited recent foreclosures in her neighborhood. Other speakers urged the board to reconcile differences in revenue estimates and cited alternate ways the district could respond, including carrying forward reserves and holding budget increases near the rate of inflation.

Board members and staff emphasized the hearing series is part of a required public-notice and comment process and said no decision would be made that evening. Board member Trey Bailey thanked speakers and said the board would continue deliberating. He and other board members noted the district has taken measures to provide targeted relief to seniors and had reduced millage rates in recent years. Board members also said they would continue outreach to the local legislative delegation about senior exemptions and other options. The board did not vote on a resolution to opt out at the hearing.

Robinson and others noted procedural requirements under the law for any jurisdiction that wishes to opt out: a minimum of three public hearings (including at least one scheduled between 6 and 7 p.m. to accommodate working residents), public advertising at least one week in advance, a press release to local media, and formal submission of an opt-out resolution to the Secretary of State by March 1, 2025, after completing the hearing and advertising requirements. Speakers also referenced pending state bills that could affect the board's timeline or options.

Next steps: the board will continue its review and has time to deliberate before any final action. Board members invited residents to continue sending written comments and said the district will monitor state legislation that could alter deadlines or opt-out procedures.