Brookhaven staff recommends holding general millage at 2.74 mills; council hears proposal to raise Special Tax District to 12 mills for I‑85 pedestrian bridge

Brookhaven opened a second public hearing on proposed 2025 millage rates where city staff recommended keeping the general maintenance and operations millage at 2.74 mills and the debt‑service (bond) millage at 0.47 mills while proposing a separate Special Tax District increase to pay for a pedestrian bridge over I‑85.

The presentation to Mayor John Park and council members laid out the city’s fiscal picture: the budget adopted earlier this year totaled $13,970,000, but the county digest at 2.74 mills is projected to yield about $13,193,000—an estimated shortfall of roughly $776,000. A presenter identified in the transcript as Speaker 3 told the council that residential property makes up roughly two‑thirds of the tax base and commercial property the other third, and that reassessments and freeze exemptions are constraining taxable growth.

“We’re recommending to leave the millage at 2.74 mills for our general MNO,” the presenter said, adding that the city will attempt to close the gap by controlling expenditures and pursuing other revenues. The presenter recommended keeping the bond millage at 0.47 mills to cover debt service for general obligation bonds tied to the Park Swan project, which the presenter said was financed with approximately $38.8 million in borrowing.

For the Special Tax District that covers areas south of I‑85 (including Emory and Executive Park), staff reported a preliminary 2025 digest of about $238,000,000—a 9% decline from 2024 driven largely by appeals of commercial assessments. Staff recommended raising that district’s millage from 6.45 to 12 mills, which the presenter estimated would yield about $1.7 million to pay debt service for a planned pedestrian bridge across I‑85. The presenter noted the council could instead set a higher rate (he cited 14 mills as an option) to provide more cushion if costs or interest rates rise, or amend the resolution at the time of the vote.

The presenter also recommended keeping the special service district millage at 4 mills; based on the digest figures presented, that district would generate just under $8,000,000. Staff noted two written public comments were received: one from Judy Cusi opposing the special district millage reset, and one from Robin Moray asking the city to increase the rate to 12 mills.

Council members and a citizen volunteer discussed the city’s long‑standing institutional commitments tied to earlier annexations and tax‑exempt properties, the uncertain outcomes of several large tax assessment appeals awaiting Board of Appeals rulings (which would be effective for three years), and the need to balance fiscal conservatism against the risk of underfunding debt service. Staff emphasized ongoing monthly revenue monitoring and said the FY2026 budget process would be the primary vehicle for any substantive expenditure adjustments.

No in‑person public testimony was offered in the chamber and the hearing was closed. The council did not adopt millage rates at the hearing; staff said the council’s final vote that evening (after a later hearing at 6:30 p.m.) will be final for the year. The public hearing was adjourned by motion and a voice vote.