NEWTON COUNTY— An estimated 2026 millage rate of 9.5 mills was set by the Newton County Board of Commissioners during Tuesday’s meeting. As the county begins to have conversations for the Fiscal Year 2027 (FY27) budget, determining an estimated millage rate is one of the early steps mandated by the state government.
County staff and the commissioners stressed that this estimated rate is unlikely to reflect the rate that will be implemented this summer. Rather, they said that passing an estimated rate is a procedural requirement.
“If you will recall, last year, one of the changes to House Bill 581 made us put an estimated rollback millage rate when the assessment notices go out,” said Brittany White, Newton County finance director. “...This by no means this will be the final millage rate.”
The commissioners also noted that they purposefully set the estimated rate higher than what they anticipated actually adopting in the months to come.
White said that implementing a millage rate that is higher than the estimated rate would create additional steps, so they like to aim higher for the estimated rate than they anticipate actually implementing.
“If you have to end up adopting a millage rate higher, then there’s a statement that has to be put on the actual tax bills when they go out,” White said. “So they do recommend going possibly a little bit higher [on the estimated rate] than you intend to adopt.”
District 2 Commissioner Demond Mason also pointed out that the previous year’s initial estimated millage rate was higher than what the county ended up adopting.
“What we’ve seen in the past, like we [estimated] 10 mills last year, we ended up adopting 8.6,” Mason said. “So I just wanted to bring clarity that just because of what the state is mandating us to do today, and we are saying ‘Hey, we’re adopting a 9.5’ or we’re stating that it’s going to be 9.5, doesn’t mean that’s the final millage rate for this board.”
Last year, the commissioners adopted a final millage rate of 8.567 mills, which was a 0.3 mil increase from the 2024 rate of 8.2. This resulted in an estimated 10.31% property tax increase from the county.
District 5 Commissioner LeAnne Long detailed some of what could be in store for future budget discussions. Referencing the March 12 budget workshop, Long said costly requests were already being presented.
“The other day when we had the budget hearing, it was $20 million that was requested just from constitutional officers,” Long said. “Twenty million. They asked for $20 million in one setting. We’re not doing $20 million. So I just want you to know that everybody asks for as much as they think they need, and we have to do the hard job of going back and saying we’re not funding $20 million.
“I don’t know what $20 million would be on a millage rate, but I don’t think it would be very good.”
District 4 Commissioner J.C Henderson spoke unfavorably about the tax increases over the last few years.
Henderson has historically opposed any increases to the budget or the millage rate. Dating back to the FY20 budget vote in 2019, Henderson has only voted in favor of passing two budgets: FY23 and FY24. The longstanding commissioner abstained from the FY20, FY22 and FY26 budget votes, and voted ‘no’ on the FY21 and FY25 budgets.
“I think the citizens of Newton County need to know the truth,” Henderson said. “A rollback is a tax increase…The taxes are higher than they’ve ever have been.”
Long said that part of the reason for higher taxes in recent years stems from high home values, which are not determined by the board of commissioners.
County staff and the commissioners stressed that this estimated rate is unlikely to reflect the rate that will be implemented this summer. Rather, they said that passing an estimated rate is a procedural requirement.
“If you will recall, last year, one of the changes to House Bill 581 made us put an estimated rollback millage rate when the assessment notices go out,” said Brittany White, Newton County finance director. “...This by no means this will be the final millage rate.”
The commissioners also noted that they purposefully set the estimated rate higher than what they anticipated actually adopting in the months to come.
White said that implementing a millage rate that is higher than the estimated rate would create additional steps, so they like to aim higher for the estimated rate than they anticipate actually implementing.
“If you have to end up adopting a millage rate higher, then there’s a statement that has to be put on the actual tax bills when they go out,” White said. “So they do recommend going possibly a little bit higher [on the estimated rate] than you intend to adopt.”
District 2 Commissioner Demond Mason also pointed out that the previous year’s initial estimated millage rate was higher than what the county ended up adopting.
“What we’ve seen in the past, like we [estimated] 10 mills last year, we ended up adopting 8.6,” Mason said. “So I just wanted to bring clarity that just because of what the state is mandating us to do today, and we are saying ‘Hey, we’re adopting a 9.5’ or we’re stating that it’s going to be 9.5, doesn’t mean that’s the final millage rate for this board.”
Last year, the commissioners adopted a final millage rate of 8.567 mills, which was a 0.3 mil increase from the 2024 rate of 8.2. This resulted in an estimated 10.31% property tax increase from the county.
District 5 Commissioner LeAnne Long detailed some of what could be in store for future budget discussions. Referencing the March 12 budget workshop, Long said costly requests were already being presented.
“The other day when we had the budget hearing, it was $20 million that was requested just from constitutional officers,” Long said. “Twenty million. They asked for $20 million in one setting. We’re not doing $20 million. So I just want you to know that everybody asks for as much as they think they need, and we have to do the hard job of going back and saying we’re not funding $20 million.
“I don’t know what $20 million would be on a millage rate, but I don’t think it would be very good.”
District 4 Commissioner J.C Henderson spoke unfavorably about the tax increases over the last few years.
Henderson has historically opposed any increases to the budget or the millage rate. Dating back to the FY20 budget vote in 2019, Henderson has only voted in favor of passing two budgets: FY23 and FY24. The longstanding commissioner abstained from the FY20, FY22 and FY26 budget votes, and voted ‘no’ on the FY21 and FY25 budgets.
“I think the citizens of Newton County need to know the truth,” Henderson said. “A rollback is a tax increase…The taxes are higher than they’ve ever have been.”
Long said that part of the reason for higher taxes in recent years stems from high home values, which are not determined by the board of commissioners.
“My personal house went up $230,000 in five years in value,” Long said. “That’s where your tax increase comes from. It comes from your valuations. I’m in real estate. Values have been insane for the last couple years. But the good news is, is we’re seeing some leveling off of values.”
