NEWTON COUNTY — After a flurry of failed motions, the Newton County Board of Education narrowly passed a millage rate of 15.5 mills at Tuesday night’s work session. This is a 0.25-mill decrease from last year’s rate of 15.75.
Following a number of unsuccessful motions for lower rates — including 15.7 mills, 14.84 mills, 15.65 mills and 15.447 mills — District 4 Representative Anderson Bailey made a motion to pass a millage rate of 15.5 mills. This motion was seconded by District 3 Representative Shakila Henderson-Baker.
Though it passed, the vote was split. Despite seconding the motion to pass 15.5 mills, Henderson-Baker voted in opposition. With District 2 Representative Eddie Johnson opting to abstain, the vote passed 3-1 due to a last-minute ‘aye’ from District 1 Representative Trey Bailey.
Even with the decreased millage rate, homeowners can still expect their property taxes to increase compared to last year. With home values changing each year, a board must adopt the full rollback rate in order to keep homeowner payments from increasing.
Based on the presentation, on an average home that is valued at $325,000, under the 15.5 millage rate, taxes will be at $1,953.
Trey Bailey, Shakila Henderson-Baker push for rollback rate
Superintendent Dr. Duke Bradley III recommended a slightly decreased millage rate of 15.7 at the beginning of the work session. However, the board members had different plans.
Trey Bailey had been an advocate for taking the full rollback rate of 14.84 mills, repeatedly stating that the board should not exceed 15.447 mills.
During the third and final millage rate public hearing, which took place only hours before the board voted in its work session, Trey Bailey said that his push for a significant decrease was a philosophical decision, citing the board’s FY26 budget.
“In May, when we passed that budget, the millage rate that we would need to get the amount to $241 million in revenue would be 15.447 [mills],” Trey Bailey said. “The 15.447 [mills], to me, is the highest millage rate we should even consider, because we passed a budget in May that said that’s all we need.”
Trey Bailey also addressed House Bill 581 (HB581), which the board of education voted to opt out of. HB581, if voted into effect, would have enacted a floating homestead exemption and kept property values from increasing.
But Trey Bailey believes that enacting the homestead exemption would have forced the board to raise the millage rate to make up that income. He pointed to the governing bodies of Newton County and the city of Covington, both of which opted in to HB581 earlier this year and have since increased their millage rates.
With the board legally prohibited from raising the millage rate beyond 20 mills, Trey Bailey said that the school district would quickly max out the rate and lose its means of generating additional income.
“We have the opportunity to roll this rate back, to show the community that when we opted out of House Bill 581, it’s because we knew we needed to control the millage rate,” Trey Bailey said.
Trey Bailey pushed for the board to turn to its reserve funding to make up any additional income, saying that this was the plan when the budget was passed and that the board should not waver because there is a new opportunity to fill that gap with taxes.
“This board passed a budget in May, $265 million, in which we knew that the estimated revenue was going to be $241 million,” Trey Bailey said. “So we knew we would have to dip into the reserves for $24 million. And that would still leave us an ending fund balance of well over $32 million, so 12 percent plus in that ending fund balance.”
Trey Bailey’s push for the rollback rate was joined by Henderson-Baker, who also spoke at length about the topic during the work session. However, when he made a motion to pass the rate at 14.84, it failed, with only Henderson-Baker voting alongside him. A few minutes later, another motion for 15.447 failed with the same support.
Further board discussion
Though outnumbered, Johnson remained firmly set on keeping the millage rate at or above 15.75.
Federal and state sources of funding and aid have reportedly been insecure as the Department of Education faces additional hurdles. Johnson pointed to this as a need for the board to avoid relying on its reserves to fund normal operations.
“What would you do if the state told us that you’ve got to pay for all employees’ insurance? They’ve done it once, in part. What if that happens? What could you do?” Johnson asked. “…We’ve got to manage accordingly to some of the expectations. And the expectations are out there that yes, we’ve got to fund more of what we used to get from the state and the federal.”
Like Johnson, District 5 Representative and Board Chair Abigail Coggin pointed to changes that have been coming down the pipeline, forcing the district to open its wallet in ways it has not been called to previously.
“Since we passed our budget, even in June, we’ve had changes from the federal government as well,” Coggin said. “And we just don’t know. And that’s another reason why I don’t want to let our reserves go too low.”
Coggin’s concern over depleting reserve funds was a topic she spoke on more than once. She voiced her worry that this fund needed to remain intact for the district to dip into as unpredictable expenses arise. However, her reservations were not as intense as Johnson’s, as she remained in favor of a millage rate reduction.
“I am all for reducing the millage rate, do not get me wrong,” Coggin said. “I do not want to increase it, I don’t want to keep it the same and I do want to reduce it lower than what Dr. Bradley has recommended. My fear is the reserves, because we have to use that until we get the money in the bank.”
Motions for a 15.7 and 15.65 millage rate failed to garner a majority vote.
Ultimately, after four failed motions, Anderson Bailey proposed a millage rate of 15.5. This passed with a 3-1 vote, with Trey Bailey siding with Anderson Bailey and Coggin at the last second.
Citizen concerns, senior taxes
Though no citizens opted to speak during the first and second public hearings, four people did comment at the final hearing. An additional three people spoke during an allotted time for general public participation at the beginning of the work session.
The overwhelming attitude of those who came to speak was that the tax burden on citizens has become far too weighty, particularly for seniors. Many senior citizens are on a fixed income and do not believe they should pay as much in school taxes when their children are no longer in the school system.
“Other districts, other counties, do not have their seniors paying taxes from the board of education,” said Edna McKenzie. “And I’m here to complain and ask why does Newton County continue to charge seniors for taxes when they do not have children in the system anymore?”
“At the age of…it’s well past 65, we want to know, when will you consider us?” said Louise Cabo. “We cannot afford for our property taxes to go up any higher…Being a teacher for 31 years, I know what it’s like in the schools. I know what y’all need. I know it’s not easy. But, when you’re living on a pension, it’s not easy either.”
During the third public hearing, the board members acknowledged that seniors have faced a weighty tax burden. Some of the conversations questioned the best method for alleviating this load.
While Trey Bailey said that passing a lower millage rate was fulfilling a promise of later relief that was given when the board opted out of House Bill 581, Coggin pointed to the millage rate as having a relatively low impact on one’s taxes compared to other methods.
Based on the presentation from Erica Robinson, chief financial officer, on a home assessed at $325,000 in value, a millage rate of 15.75 would result in $1,985 in school tax. Accepting the full rollback of 14.84 would lower this amount to $1,870 — a $115 difference.
“I agree wholeheartedly with you [Trey Bailey] philosophically about the HB581, and we want to do something significant,” Coggin said. “The fact is, this millage rate is not that significant. It’s $100 basically. However, if we did a [local] homestead exemption, increased it for seniors, that’s where you’re going to make more of a chunk, so to speak, and more of a difference.”
Bradley shared a similar sentiment to Coggin in that he felt that offering the community a tax break would be better accomplished through another method.
“This is an estimate; I think the range of savings from holding the millage rate flat, from 15.75, all the way down to the rollback rate, is somewhere between $6 and maybe, I don’t know, $50 a month,” Bradley said. “And I’m not saying that those are not real savings, that that’s not real money. But I’m not convinced that those are the kinds of savings that our community is clamoring for. In other words, what I’m saying is that I’m not sure that the millage rate is the vehicle to ensure the kind of savings that our community is expecting.”
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by PostX News and is published from a syndicated feed.)
