NEWTON COUNTY — The Newton County Board of Education (BOE) is considering a multitude of options for its 2025 millage rate.
On Aug. 5, the board held its first of three public hearings to weigh changing the millage rate for the upcoming year. Despite dissatisfaction with the school system’s taxes being a repeat topic at the Newton County Board of Commissioners’ millage hearings in recent weeks, no citizens spoke during the public hearing portion of Tuesday’s BOE meeting.
Though the public hearing was devoid of citizen participation, the board members convened for an hour to weigh potential millage rates for 2025, sparking an impassioned conversation.
Opening remarks from Superintendent Dr. Duke Bradley III set a tone for the evening when he declared his recommendation that the board vote to decrease the millage rate.
“I am recommending that this board adopt a decrease to the district’s millage rate, which is currently set at 15.75 mills,” Bradley said. “Please know that I’ve given significant thought to this recommendation, and it is informed largely by the expressed concerns and interests of our community, most of whom have been voiced by our seniors.”
By the numbers
The school system’s 2026 fiscal year (FY26) budget accounts for approximately $265 million in total expenditures. Revenues are projected to be $241 million, though the district will have a beginning balance of over $55 million that will roll over from FY25, which increases the total available sources to $297 million.
Funding to support the district’s budget is obtained through a combination of state and local sources. Approximately 58% of the funding will come from the state, with the other 42% being acquired locally, mainly through property tax revenue.
Erica Robinson, the school system’s chief financial officer, gave a 30-minute presentation that showed the board a backlog of past millage rates and revenues. This included the county’s millage rates dating back to the year 2000, which showed that the district’s millage rate is currently at a 25-year low.
When the district was formulating its FY26 budget, they projected a 6% tax digest increase totalling $6,018,126,215. The latest tax digest showed an 8% increase, landing the board at $6,136,134,591, meaning that there are monetary differences with each proposed millage rate that are different from the early FY26 budget projections.
Robinson shared that if the board opted to keep the millage rate the same as 2024, the district would collect more revenue due to the updated tax digest.
“If we maintain that 15.75 millage rate but apply it to the updated [tax] digest, the district would generate about $93.3 million in net tax revenue, an increase of roughly $1.8 million compared to the budget projection,” Robinson said.
But Robinson also provided some hypothetical millage rate scenarios for the board to consider. Those include:
- Millage rate of 15.70 would generate an increase of nearly $1.5 million in revenue collected
- Millage rate of 15.65 would generate an increase of over $1.2 million in revenue collected
- Millage rate of 15.60 would generate an increase of approximately $900,000 in revenue collected
- Millage rate of 15.45 would generate an increase of approximately $17,000 in revenue collected
- Millage rate of 14.84 (the full rollback rate) would result in a revenue loss of approximately $3.6 million in revenue collected
Any additional revenue generally enters the district’s reserves, where it is available to be tapped into when unexpected expenses arise. Though it is recommended that boards keep a few months of funding in this reserve, state law says that this amount cannot exceed 15% of the annual budget.
“This analysis highlights the trade-offs between maintaining a competitive millage rate and ensuring we have the necessary revenue to sustain operations, support instruction and prepare for any future economic uncertainties,” Robinson said.
Board discussion
The board members held differing opinions on the best way to proceed with the rate.
The members were sympathetic to the homeowners’ struggles, with no member outright advocating for a rate increase. But the board took time to point out that student and staff services are dictated by the funding available, and some demands are non-negotiable.
“So I go back to the words Dr. Bradley used, ‘anchored by a common interest,’” said District 3 representative Shakila Henderson-Baker. “So there are some things that you guys request in the community that this is the way that we pay for those things, right. And safety is one. We don’t get, like, a whole bunch of money for safety. And so that is—and I always use that because that’s something you can’t say, ‘Well, we can’t make sure the school system is safe. We can’t make sure the kids and the staff are safe.’”
Henderson-Baker requested to see a projection of what revenues would be generated with a rate of 15.50 mills. This was echoed by Anderson Bailey, who added that seeing a projection for 15.55 mills could be beneficial as well.
Anderson Bailey also reiterated a point that Henderson-Baker had made regarding population increase. Henderson-Baker pointed out that the board cannot prepare for more families moving into the county and paying additional taxes. With several housing developments underway, the board would be remiss not to keep an eye on that potential source of increased tax revenue.
Eddie Johnson raised an inquiry to know more about how much is currently in the district’s reserve fund.
“One of the key things to this, we should know that we don’t have the control of the education department; by rights or by definition, that is gone,” Johnson said. “So we’ve got to manage differently going forward. And we must have the reserve to maintain the consistent purchase of service that we need to be the fastest improving district in the [state].”
Trey Bailey added that seeing this surplus would be beneficial, but expressed his stance that now is the time to cut taxpayers a break. He asked to see a millage rate projection that would allow the district to break even, with no excess revenue over what is needed.
Seemingly, Trey Bailey was optimistic that the board’s reserves would be sufficient without taking the additional potential income that some of the millage rates would bring in, while Johnson expressed a need for the board to continue pouring into this reserve as they face an uncertain future.
“We based everything on 6% and the actual digest came in at 8%,” Trey Bailey said. “So that was great work. I don’t think we should take that 2% and put it in the bank.”
Johnson said he, too, feels the strain of a heavy tax burden, being a taxpayer himself. But he believes preparedness is essential.
“But you can’t tell me what’s going to happen in the future,” Johnson said. “You have to have a very, very strong end reserve.”
The superintendent weighed in, saying that, upon Johnson’s and Trey Bailey’s request, they would work to bring the board information detailing how much the district has in its reserves for the meetings to come.
But Bradley added that he believes the school system would be able to accommodate—for now.
“My sense is that our ending fund balance would not be threatened with this current fiscal year,” Bradley said. “My concern is, with all things being equal and all things being even, the threat to our ending fund balance is really for FY27.”
The board will reconvene on Aug. 12 for two more public hearings at 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Henderson-Baker added that she cannot attend the hearings on Aug. 12 due to a work obligation, but will be prepared to vote at the board meeting.