The Chatham County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday adopted the 2025 millage rates and approved related budget actions that include a 2‑mill increase in the special service district (SSD) levy intended to fund county fire services.

Chairman Cheshire A. Ellis opened the commission’s third public hearing on the county’s proposed millage and read the state‑required disclosures, saying the county has advertised a general fund rate of 10.518 mills and an SSD rate of 6.502 mills. "The Chatham County Board of Commissioners have announced publicly its intent to increase the property taxes it will levy this year," Ellis said during the hearing.

The hearing followed months of debate over how to fund a county‑run fire service after the county absorbed formerly volunteer departments and a court challenge to a prior "fire fee." County staff and commissioners told residents that the county used reserves last year to cover fire operations but recommended the SSD increase for a sustainable budget.

Why it matters: The SSD levy applies only to properties in unincorporated Chatham County and is intended to pay for services such as police, fire and trash pickup there. County officials and residents repeatedly framed the dispute as a tradeoff between ending a subscription‑style fire fee and creating a stable tax‑based revenue stream to operate a consolidated county fire department.

What the board approved and the budget math
- General fund millage (M&O): 10.518 mills (advertised as 0.342 mills higher than the rollback rate). The board approved adoption of the general fund tax rate as presented.
- Special Service District (SSD) millage: 6.502 mills (advertised as 2.138 mills higher than the rollback rate; a figure the county explained appears as a 48.99% increase relative to that rollback calculation but which does not translate to a 48.99% countywide tax jump because it applies only to the SSD).
- County staff said a 2‑mill increase in the SSD is expected to generate about $14,000,000; a single mill in the SSD was estimated at roughly $7,000,000. County staff gave the fire department’s proposed budget for the coming year as about $21,000,000.

Commissioners and staff repeatedly noted legal limits on shifting revenue across funds. The county cited House Bill 513 and related state requirements for negotiating service delivery strategies with municipalities; county attorneys told commissioners that some previously proposed funding shifts would likely trigger legal challenges or did not meet state law requirements.

Residents said the SSD increase would burden homeowners and fixed‑income residents. Thomas Lafayette Grooms III, a longtime resident, told the board: "Do not, I repeat, do not raise our taxes." Clark Alexander, an Isle of Hope resident who pays a subscription to a volunteer department, asked how volunteer departments could continue once the county rolled the fee into the SSD. Chairman Ellis and county staff said volunteer departments would have options, including opting into county service, and that staff planned local meetings to explain choices.

Several speakers asked whether the county could move certain line items (for example, public works) from the SSD into the county’s general fund to avoid a millage increase. Commissioner Patrick K. Farrell urged staff to pursue that option and to bring back alternatives; Farrell and other commissioners said previous proposals had been examined but that some options were constrained by state law or would shift costs elsewhere. "If we simply move that over to the other budget…that would free up money that were already collected in the SSD," Farrell said during public comment.

County manager and legal staff responses
County staff told the board they had analyzed options and that the recommended package reflects legal advice and current constraints. The manager said staff used reserves in the current fiscal year to cover the fire department but said reserves could not be relied on long term. An attorney explained that under the upcoming service delivery strategy provisions (effective Jan. 1, 2026) municipalities will be required to negotiate, which could open new options for shifting costs, but that the county currently lacks a mechanism to compel those discussions. "Right now, we can be calling them and we can be addressing them, but there's nothing that mandates that they actually have to begin that discussion until January of 2026," county legal counsel said.

Public comment and concerns
Speakers at the hearing raised several recurring concerns: the impact on senior and fixed‑income homeowners, the fate of volunteer fire departments, the fairness of taxation for residents who do not receive services, and whether administrative or procurement choices could reduce the need for a tax increase. Residents also requested individualized estimates; county staff said they will contact anyone who provided contact information and run personalized comparisons of projected taxes versus the prior fire fee.

Votes at a glance
- Open public hearing on 2025 millage: motion seconded and approved (vote recorded on the meeting record).
- Budget and millage actions (summary of items approved):
• Adopted fiscal-year 2026 budget resolution and tax‑year 2025 general fund millage (10.518 mills): motion seconded and adopted.
• Adopted fiscal-year 2026 budget resolution and tax‑year 2025 SSD millage (6.502 mills): motion seconded and adopted.
• Approved specific budget transfers and CIP adjustments (listed to fund equipment, public works contingency and other items): motion seconded and adopted.
• Approved reappointments to Chatham Area Transit Authority and other routine board appointments (motions seconded and adopted).
• Requested/approved Chatham County SPLOST project list for November 2025 referendum: motion seconded and adopted.
(Individual roll‑call tallies were recorded in the official minutes; the transcript records motions, seconds and final outcomes but does not consistently include a line‑by‑line roll call in the public comment excerpt.)

What’s next
County staff and the board said they will continue negotiations and follow up with residents individually. Commissioners discussed the option of adopting a short continuing resolution if additional time were needed to seek legal or structural alternatives; attorneys advised the board that adopting a continuing resolution was a legally available option if the commission chose to delay final SSD adoption. Several commissioners urged staff to continue seeking ways to reallocate existing funds where legally permissible.

Ending note
Commissioners and staff framed the decision as a compromise among fiscal, legal and service priorities: the adopted SSD increase aims to stabilize funding for county fire operations after the county absorbed several volunteer departments, while commissioners pledged to continue exploring lawful alternatives and to provide residents with individualized tax comparisons.