Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Taxes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Statham council reviews recommended millage; accountant says homeowners would save about $35 a year
Summary
At a June 10 public hearing, Statham City Accountant Rachel Bembry presented a recommended millage rate that is lower than last year27s rate; she said the rollback would reduce the city budget by $49,714 and save the typical household about $2.98 per month (roughly $35 per year). Council members discussed budget risks to public safety and inflationary pressure.
The Statham City Council held a public hearing June 10, 2025, at which City Accountant Rachel Bembry presented the city27s recommended millage rate and explained how property-tax components affect the municipal budget. Councilmember Patterson moved to enter the public hearing at 6:01 p.m.; Councilmember Penn seconded and the motion passed 4-0.
City Accountant Rachel Bembry said the recommended millage adoption is lower than the previous year27s rate. She told the council that, unless a homeowner27s assessed value increased, homeowners would see a nominal decrease in taxes. Bembry said a lower millage (a rollback) would reduce the city27s budget by $49,714 and estimated the savings per household at about $2.98 per month, or roughly $35 per year.
Councilmember Bogenrieder asked for a dollar translation of the rollback rate; Bembry provided the $49,714 figure as the city27s projected reduction if the rate were set lower. Councilmember Penn asked about household savings; Bembry gave the per-household estimate. Bembry also reminded the council that a large portion of the city27s budget is allocated for public safety and warned that revenue reductions could require cuts in those departments.
Councilmember Bogenrieder asked where any projected tax increase would appear in the documentation; Bembry clarified there is no tax increase shown in the recommended adoption and emphasized that the proposed rate is below last year27s rate. Councilmember Patterson said the proposed millage would cover current expenses but does not account for inflationary pressures; Bembry agreed that, absent inflation, a greater rollback could have been recommended. Councilmember Terilli, participating by phone, said he had no questions.
There were no additional questions or public comments recorded. Councilmember Penn moved to exit the public hearing at 6:12 p.m.; Councilmember Patterson seconded and the motion passed 4-0. The council adjourned the meeting at 6:13 p.m.
The hearing record notes the presentation, the dollar and per-household effects of a rollback, and council concerns about budget impacts to public safety and the influence of inflation on rate-setting. No formal change to the millage was adopted at this meeting; the presentation served as the public notice and council discussion on the recommended rate.
