Camden County public hearing on tentative millage draws broad opposition; commissioners to set rates Oct. 7

Camden County commissioners held a public hearing on a proposed tentative millage increase and heard a range of objections from residents, after a county presentation outlined how higher property tax revenue would be used to fund a new jail, an animal control facility, park maintenance and expanded funding for the Joint Development Authority.

Nancy, a county staff presenter, told the board the tentative countywide millage discussed for 2025 would raise an estimated $3.5 million in additional general-fund reserves and help increase the down payment on a proposed 300-bed jail. She said SPLOST 9 designates $10 million for the jail and that the county expects some excess from SPLOST 8; the county would borrow the remainder, combining the jail and a proposed animal control shelter into a single bond package. Nancy presented the county's estimates that a $35.5 million loan for the combined project at a 20-year term and 5% interest would produce roughly $2.8 million in annual principal and interest payments, versus about $3.1 million annually if the county borrowed $39 million, and that a larger down payment would reduce total interest by roughly $2 million over time. She also said the animal control facility is estimated at about $3 million and would be fully financed if built.

Nancy reviewed other budget details presented to the board: a 10-year property tax digest showing growth in countywide net digest value, the county's general-fund balance (about $14.7 million at the end of fiscal 2025, roughly 30% of the budget), an unincorporated-service special revenue fund with a projected first-year cost of $977,389 to assume county maintenance of parks and boat ramps, and JDA funding requests that would raise annual county support above the current $1 million level in coming years. She said the board is scheduled to decide on funding and set millage rates at its Oct. 7 regular meeting.

Dozens of speakers used the public-comment period to oppose the proposed increase, saying it would harm fixed-income households and that voters were promised SPLOST 9 would obviate a tax increase. Common themes in public remarks included claims of past fiscal mismanagement, concern that SPLOST 9 was sold as not requiring additional property taxes, requests for forensic audits, and demands for greater transparency on JDA spending and the Public Service Authority (PSA) that manages parks and recreation.

Stephen Faye, a resident who identified his address to the board, said: "This proposal, commissioners, is not only ill time, but it is a breach of public trust." He referenced money the county spent on the Spaceport Camden effort and said voters approved SPLOST 9 expecting projects would be funded without a property tax increase.

Other speakers repeated similar themes. A teacher and resident, Cheryl Clark, said: "That is what this tax increase feels like to families here. We already gave you the money, but part of it wasn't managed responsibly. Now you're asking us to fix it." Kendra (Condra) Wells asked why the county had not done more public outreach beyond posting information online: "Where was the public relations? Where was the, the meetings out in the public?" Several speakers asked for outside audits or a citizen-approved forensic review before any tax hike.

Speakers also questioned particulars of the capital proposals. Mark Fouts asked why a 300-bed jail is needed and whether a smaller, expandable facility or alternatives — including housing inmates in other counties — had been considered. Multiple speakers asked for annual reports, performance data or publicly available audits from the JDA to justify increased county funding.

Several residents raised distributional concerns tied to Camden's homestead-exemption freeze enacted by state law (identified in the presentation as Senate Bill 496). Nancy explained the freeze reduces tax liability for homeowners who have not changed their primary residence since the base year and that the county's ability to raise revenue is affected by that policy because growth in assessed values is partly shielded for long-term homeowners.

Multiple commenters said the county should cut waste, provide line-item budget detail for public review and hold wider public engagement, while others emphasized the impact on seniors and fixed-income households. Some residents also questioned how impact fees, tax allocation districts (TADs) and city-collected fees affect the county's revenue picture; the board clarified during the hearing that impact fees collected inside city limits or TADs do not flow to the county general fund.

The hearing included repeated calls to postpone or reject the millage increase until independent financial reviews or further transparency measures occur. Commissioners and staff noted that setting the tentative millage rate is one step in a multi-stage budget process and that the board will vote to adopt final rates at a later meeting; Nancy said the board would set final millage rates at the Oct. 7 regular meeting.

Public-record documents and the county presentation with the detailed figures that Nancy used were posted on the county website, the presenter said. No formal vote to adopt a tentative millage rate occurred during the hearing; the session was a public-comment hearing and presentation ahead of the board's later decision.

Ending: The commissioners left the record open for public input and will reconvene to set millage rates at their Oct. 7 meeting. Many residents said they will return with written comments and asked the board to provide additional line-item budget detail and independent audits before any final decision is made.