Fulton County keeps millage rate at 8.87 after hours of public comment; commissioners hear midyear budget review and consent‑decree costs

The Fulton County Board of Commissioners on Wednesday voted to set the county's 2025 general‑fund millage rate at 8.87 mills after a lengthy public hearing in which dozens of residents urged commissioners not to raise property taxes.

The vote followed a midyear budget review from county finance staff showing stronger-than-anticipated receipts in sales and public utility taxes and an estimated $54 million underrun in operating spending; together, the office projected roughly $69 million in additional year‑end fund balance under the current 8.87 millage projection. The board adopted the millage on a 6–1 vote.

Why it matters: Commissioners said they face competing fiscal pressures — most immediately a federal consent decree stemming from conditions in the county jail — while many residents argued an increase would push seniors and other households out of the county. County staff said some of the consent‑decree costs are not yet fully quantified and will be a moving target through the rest of 2025.

Budget review and the consent decree County Chief Financial Officer presented a midyear review showing that fiscal 2025 revenue is running above the budgeted plan chiefly because of stronger local option sales tax receipts and a larger final public utility tax billing than was available when the budget was set. The office projected roughly $930 million in total revenue at the adopted millage (8.87 mills) and about $1.0 billion if the county adopted a proposed 9.87 millage.

On the spending side the county projects about $936 million in general‑fund expenditures, roughly $54 million less than the adopted budget — driven largely by a running personnel vacancy rate and other under‑spending. Putting those projections together yields an estimated year‑end fund balance materially higher than the reserve level assumed when the budget was adopted.

CFO Sharon Whitmore (presenting) cautioned that some consent‑decree and staffing items remain in flux and that final 2025 outlays will depend on timing, appeals and hiring patterns. The county is already identifying near‑term compliance items — monitoring fees, contract adjustments and initial corrective measures for jail operations — and expects additional identified costs before year end.

Public comment and political pressure Commissioners heard more than an hour of public testimony in Assembly Hall and many additional statements submitted by Zoom. The comments were overwhelmingly opposed to raising the millage (the county’s measure of property tax rates); speakers included elected officials from cities inside Fulton County and many residents who said recent assessment increases already made housing unaffordable.

State Rep. Deborah Silcox told the board: "This decision to raise the millage rate 12.49% at one time will disproportionately affect senior citizens and those that are disadvantaged in our community." Lee Hills, a Roswell city council member, cited a breakdown of typical bills in Roswell and warned that higher Fulton taxes "would exacerbate financial strain, accelerate out‑migration, and stifle economic growth." Maria Gaudio, a Fulton resident, told commissioners that property taxes on her home had already doubled in two years and called a new increase a political issue for the upcoming election.

At the same time, Commissioner Moe Ivory — who repeatedly said he was prepared to stand alone — argued the county faces a real and present crisis tied to jail conditions and court supervision, and he urged the board to plan for the costs the consent decree will impose. "I may be the only commissioner planning to vote for the increase," Ivory said, adding that he wanted the county to be able to meet federal compliance requirements and to replace closed hospital capacity that affects county residents.

Board reaction and next steps Commissioners debated how much of the midyear surplus should be dedicated to consent‑decree compliance versus other priorities. Commissioner Dana Barrett said the process for setting the millage this year was harder than normal because of those unknowns but that the board needed better long‑range planning; Commissioner Khadija Abdul Rahman said she had received hundreds of constituent contacts urging no increase and moved to set the millage at the rollback rate of 8.87 mills.

The board adopted 8.87 mills by a 6–1 margin. County staff will return to commissioners with refined cost estimates for consent‑decree compliance and with a request for follow‑up budget adjustments where needed. The county manager and CFO both urged the board to view some of the consent‑decree costs as multi‑year obligations in which partial spending this year would be less than full annualized costs.

Votes at a glance (items acted on Wednesday) - Adopt 2025 general‑fund millage rate at 8.87 mills: outcome — approved; tally 6 yes, 1 no. (Motion moved by Commissioner Khadija Abdul Rahman; second not specified in public record.) - Adopt consent agenda (initial): approved, 5 yes, 0 no. (Consent agenda items carried by single motion.) - Approve midyear budget soundings and adjustments (risk connect maintenance increase, etc.): approved (unanimous where recorded). Specific soundings approved included a $25,000 increase for risk‑management software (voted unanimously). - Authorize contracts and settlements presented from executive session, including: request for representation (items 1–3): approved, 5 yes, 0 no; opioid settlement with Purdue (item 5): approved, 5 yes, 0 no; other settlement authorities (items 6,7): approved, 5 yes, 0 no. - Approve Walls Group recruitment contract (not to exceed $788,000): approved, 5 yes, 0 no. - Approve employment contract extension for County Manager Richard Anderson (four‑year term; annual salary $371,000): approved, 5 yes, 0 no. - Approve childcare pilot benefit summary and amended eligibility (waive 10‑mile radius for special‑needs placements): approved unanimously.

What commissioners said going forward County leaders said the most important next steps are (1) refining and prioritizing consent‑decree spending requests so the board can act in a measured way and (2) exploring a longer‑term financial plan that maps recurring obligations (courts, new judgeships, health‑care access, facilities) over multiple years.

Ending note Board members agreed the meeting reflected strong public engagement and that staff must return with more specific cost estimates for the consent decree and related jail remediation. Commissioners also pledged to bring analysis of commercial assessment appeals and other pressing revenue‑integrity issues back to the board for consideration in a future session.