Bulloch County school board approves millage rate increase following weeks of debate

The Bulloch County Board of Education has spent the past month in the center of a heated debate over whether to raise property taxes to cover a growing school budget deficit. After weeks of discussion, three public hearings, and hundreds of community voices, the board reached its final decision to raise the millage rate on Thursday night, August 21, 2025.

Board Comments

Before the vote each board member shared why they were voting the way they did.

Lannie Lanier acknowledged that he had previously voted against the tentative increase because he felt the board had not yet examined all the details or considered every option. After further review, he said he had changed his position, stressing that while “no one likes how we got here,” the board now faced a clear choice.

Lanier emphasized that the main driver of the deficit was rising property values and reassessments, not decisions by the school board. He noted that Bulloch County’s millage rate had been among the lowest in Georgia, and even at 10.4 mills, it would still remain comparatively low.

He laid out four main reasons for supporting the increase:

1. Protecting community schools – Lanier said Bulloch County’s 15 schools, including smaller ones in areas with high poverty such as Portal, are essential to student success. He argued that preserving the community school structure ensures students in low-income areas are not left behind.

2. Protecting the fund balance – He explained that while he had once suggested using reserves to cover the shortfall, he now believed that was risky. With a major ESPLOST referendum coming in November and a potential $120 million loan needed to build the new Southeast Bulloch High School, maintaining a strong fund balance would be key to securing favorable loan terms. Draining reserves now, he said, would only lead to higher borrowing costs later.

3. Protecting teachers – Lanier said that approving the increase would prevent teacher layoffs, even though Superintendent Wilson will still need to trim about $3.5 million in FY27. Preserving classroom teachers, he stressed, was essential to keeping schools stable.

4. Protecting students – He closed by saying the most important reason was to safeguard students. Without the increase, class sizes would grow, courses would be cut, and vital student services would be eliminated. By passing the increase, he said, the board could keep programs intact and ensure children receive the education they deserve.

Lanier said he was sensitive to the concerns of taxpayers, especially seniors, but ultimately concluded, “While I am very sensitive to the needs of taxpayers, I have to support this increase,” calling it the only path that protects schools, teachers, and students.

Jennifer Mock argued that the debate had been framed too narrowly, as though the board only had two choices — raise taxes by three mills or avoid an increase altogether. She said there should have been more options considered, including the possibility of raising the millage rate by four mills if that meant saving every teaching position and preventing program cuts.

Mock said she favored using the district’s $45 million reserve this year to avoid immediate layoffs and buy time to find better long-term solutions. She explained that both of the options on the table were harmful to the county’s most vulnerable children: cutting teachers would directly reduce classroom services, while raising taxes would place an added burden on families already struggling with housing costs and poverty.

She stressed that voting against the three-mill increase did not mean voting against education or students. Instead, she said it was a vote for more time, more flexibility, and a more thoughtful approach. She left the door open to supporting a larger millage increase in the future if it could be tied directly to preserving teachers and services.

Donna Clifton said her decision ultimately came down to what was best for students, even though she personally understood the burden that higher taxes place on families. She shared that several members of her own family, including her mother, husband, sister, and son-in-law,  live on fixed incomes or face job loss, and she acknowledged how difficult a tax increase would be for them. “I could easily vote no and say four people in my family, just like that,” she said. “But I ran for District Four to serve our children.”

Clifton argued that even those without children in school benefit from a strong public education system, since schools are preparing the county’s future electricians, plumbers, doctors, nurses, funeral directors, and other professionals who serve the community. She said the decision should not be about personal interest but about the future of Bulloch County.

She also pushed back on the idea of relying heavily on the reserve fund, noting that while it is substantial, the district will soon need to borrow money to build new schools, especially in Brooklet where mobile units have outnumbered classrooms. Maintaining a healthy reserve, she said, is key to securing favorable bond terms. Clifton credited Superintendent Charles Wilson with managing finances responsibly over the years, even when the board voted against many of his proposals, and said that supporting teachers with raises and bonuses, while costly, was necessary to keep them from leaving for neighboring counties.

Clifton concluded that the millage increase was needed to avoid job losses and to protect classrooms, but stressed that it was not a permanent decision. “It’s not locked in stone to stay that way forever,” she said. “We can always look at it again next year.” She said her vote was about making the best choice for students today: “That’s why I ran for this board, that’s why I serve on this board, to do what is best for our children.”

Elizabeth Williams said she fully supported the millage rate increase, framing the decision as a matter of duty to children rather than to taxpayers. She noted that some in the community believed school board members should prioritize the broader public, but she stressed that unlike county commissioners or other officials, the school board’s legal and moral responsibility is to put students first.

Williams addressed the financial concerns raised by many citizens, acknowledging that she, too, lives on a fixed income and owns property subject to rising taxes. But she said her personal circumstances could not outweigh her oath to protect students and preserve the school system. “We cannot have education without children,” she said, reminding the public that the very name of the board, Board of Education, made its mission clear.

She warned that without the tax increase, the board would be forced to make drastic cuts. Programs like the Transitions Learning Center (TLC) and the LIFE Program would be eliminated, leaving some of the county’s most vulnerable students with nowhere to go. If teacher layoffs occurred, she said, schools would lose talent quickly as staff sought jobs in other districts. That would leave classrooms overcrowded and dependent on substitutes, creating instability for students and schools alike.

Williams also rejected the idea of draining the fund balance, comparing it to spending down a personal savings account. She said maintaining reserves was essential to prepare for emergencies and to keep borrowing costs down when the district must issue bonds for new school construction. “Why should we spend all our savings when we know we’ll need them later?” she asked.

In closing, she acknowledged that raising taxes is never popular, but said the board could not let public pressure deter it from its legal and ethical role. “There is never a good time to raise taxes,” Williams said. “Our job is to make decisions that are in the best interest of our children.”

Maurice Hill said the decision before the board was difficult but necessary, and he emphasized his unwavering support for public education. Reflecting on his years of service, he recalled past crises,  from furloughs to No Child Left Behind to the COVID-19 pandemic, where the district’s fund balance helped the schools weather hard times. He cautioned against draining reserves now, noting that “life can always throw another curve ball,” and argued that the district must preserve its financial stability while addressing today’s challenges.

Hill calculated the proposed tax increase as roughly $56 per month for the average family, which he compared to the cost of a single meal out. He said that while seniors deserve consideration, most in the community understood the importance of contributing to education. He acknowledged hearing concerns from taxpayers but also cited messages of support, including from older residents willing to “do their part” for the schools.

He also pointed out that the burden of cuts would fall especially hard on his own district, which has a higher concentration of working-class families, renters, and at-risk students. Hill stressed that reducing teachers and programs would only deepen inequities, while investing in schools could help lift communities. He challenged the board and other local governments to work together more closely, saying too often officials acted “selfishly” instead of collaborating for the greater good.

In closing, Hill said the district’s responsibility was to protect its neighborhoods and its children, urging: “Let’s be a well-rounded school district.”

Glennera Martin framed the millage rate decision as ultimately about protecting children and the future of Bulloch County. She said the discussion could feel like a tug-of-war between taxpayers, seniors, and schools, but emphasized that “the most important product is our children.”

Martin highlighted the value of programs like TLC and the LIFE program, stressing that without them, more students risk falling behind or ending up in trouble. She said strong teachers and supportive programs give students “a second chance,” and that investing in education will pay off through higher graduation rates and stronger communities.

She called on the board, staff, and community to work together rather than apart, adding that while finances are difficult, the district must put children first in every decision. Martin said she would vote yes to raise the millage rate, and closed by urging the board to also begin looking for ways to provide relief to senior citizens in the future, but for now, the priority must be the students.

Jay Cook reminded the audience that school board members are elected to ensure children receive a quality education. He emphasized that “education is power” and said the board’s responsibility is to provide that power to every child in Bulloch County. Responding to those who noted they no longer have children or grandchildren in the schools, Cook stressed that others once invested in the system for them, and now it is this generation’s duty to do the same.

Lisha Nevil said she would vote no on the millage rate increase, stressing that her decision did not mean she cares less about children. She explained that she still has a child in Bulloch County Schools and has personally seen the challenges students face, including her other daughter who was bullied and eventually earned a GED before finding success. Nevil said money alone will not solve every problem in education and emphasized that teaching, and serving on the board, is about love for children, not pay.

She also expressed frustration with what she described as the political nature of the board’s work, saying she had not realized how much “games” and politics were involved when she first ran. Nevil said the timing of the millage rate change felt sudden, pointing out that the board had only recently discussed rolling back the rate. She said she wanted more time to consider other options before raising taxes, but ultimately needed to make the choice she could “sleep with,” which was to vote no.

Public Comments

During the final hearing, even though a majority of residents spoke in favor of the increase, residents shared sharply divided opinions on the proposed millage rate increase.  Some of them urging the board to approve it as a necessary investment in schools, while others warned it would place too heavy a burden on taxpayers. There were 4-5 people who spoke at the hearing that were against the millage rate increase, and over 20 people speaking for the increase.

Those in favor argued that without additional revenue the district would be forced to lay off teachers, increase class sizes, and cut vital programs such as TLC and the LIFE Program, which provide critical support for at-risk students. They emphasized that strong schools benefit the entire community, not just families with children enrolled, by preparing a skilled workforce, raising property values, and reducing crime and poverty in the long term. Several speakers noted that Bulloch County’s tax rate would remain lower than surrounding counties even with the increase, and pointed to years of millage rollbacks as a key reason the district now faces a crisis. Many described the increase as a moral responsibility, urging the board to treat schools as an investment in the county’s future rather than a financial burden.

Opponents focused primarily on affordability and fairness. Some said rising property assessments have already left homeowners, particularly seniors and those on fixed incomes, struggling to keep up, and argued there should be tax exemptions for older residents. Others questioned past spending decisions, such as land purchases and facility construction, and said the district should “live within its means” before asking for more money. Several argued that the rapid growth associated with the Hyundai plant should be funded more by new businesses rather than local homeowners. A few warned that raising taxes could worsen housing insecurity for vulnerable families. Others acknowledged the need for funding but maintained that the district should turn first to its reserve funds, spending cuts, or alternative revenue sources instead of raising the millage rate.

A timeline of how we got here.

Budget Crisis Comes Into Focus (July 24)

The issue first came to light on July 24, when Superintendent Charles Wilson presented a grim financial outlook to a packed board meeting. He warned that the district faced a $15 million deficit for FY2027, much larger than the $4 million shortfall originally projected for FY2026.

Wilson explained that the deficit was the result of:

• Revenue losses, including about $1 million from House Bill 581 property tax caps.
• State funding cuts, with nearly $7.9 million lost through changes in the state’s equalization formula and higher “local fair share” payments.
• Rising costs, including higher Teacher Retirement System contributions, healthcare premiums, and general inflation.
• Local commitments, such as adding school resource officers and increasing coaching supplements.
• A long history of millage rate rollbacks, which left little cushion.

Because salaries and benefits make up nearly 88% of the budget, Wilson said cuts would fall mainly on staff. Up to 125 teaching positions could be eliminated, along with programs like the Transition Learning Center (TLC) and the LIFE program for at-risk students.

Board members voiced concern. Elizabeth Williams, the board chair, called the potential loss of teachers “devastating” and noted the millage rate had been 10.4 mills as recently as 2012. Board member Donna Clifton stressed that reductions should not harm children, while Board member Lannie Lanier described the funding changes as a sudden “balancing act.”

Community members also spoke emotionally. Educators described students who rely on staff support, while others argued that schools are an investment, not a burden, warning that deep cuts would hurt both children and the community long-term.

That meeting set the stage for the July 30 tentative vote.

Tentative Vote Sets Debate in Motion (July 30)

On July 30, the board voted 5-3 to tentatively adopt a 10.400 millage rate, up from the rollback rate of 7.446 mills. This represented a 39.67% increase and would mean about $348 more annually for a $300,000 home and $325 more for a $275,000 non-homestead property.

Board members who supported the increase said it was the only way to prevent major cuts. Those opposed said the timing was unfair to taxpayers and suggested using reserves or cutting expenses first.

During that meeting, 25 people spoke during public comments, 24 in favor of raising the millage rate and one opposed. Supporters said the increase was necessary to protect students, teachers, and programs like TLC and LIFE. Opponents argued the district had enough reserves to avoid a tax hike for now.

First Public Hearing (Aug. 14)

Chief Financial Officer Alison Boatright opened the hearing by reviewing the same PowerPoint presentation that was shown at the tentative millage rate increase meeting. Reading directly from the slides, she explained the proposed 2025 millage rate and how it would affect local taxpayers.

Boatright said the school system is recommending a 10.400 millage rate for 2025, compared to 7.932 mills last year. The historical chart she displayed showed that over the past decade, the board has often approved partial or full rollbacks, with the last significant increase coming in 2023 at 8.478 mills. Some earlier years also included an additional .450 mills for school bonds.

BCS M&O Millage Rate History

• 2025 10.400 (recommended increase)
• 2024 7.932 (partial rollback)
• 2023 8.478 (increase)
• 2022 8.263 (partial rollback)
• 2021 8.568 (full rollback)
• 2020 8.918 (full rollback)
• 2019 9.038 (full rollback)
• 2018 9.427 (full rollback)
• 2017 9.685 (full rollback)
• 2016* 9.804 (full rollback)
• 2015* 9.848 (no change)
• 2014* 9.848 (full rollback)
• 2013* 9.950 (millage rate is less than rollback)
• 2012* 9.950 (millage rate is less than rollback)
• (* Additional millage rate for school bonds of .450 mills in effect for these years)

She reminded attendees that the millage rate represents the amount of tax charged for every $1,000 of a property’s assessed value. At the proposed 10.400 mills, property owners would pay $10.40 in tax for each $1,000 in assessed value.

To show the real-world impact, Boatright used two examples. For an average homestead property valued at $300,000, the assessed value at 40% would be $120,000. After applying a $2,000 homestead exemption, the taxable value would be $118,000. Dividing that figure by $1,000 results in a $118 “per mill” tax, which at 10.400 mills equals $1,227.20 in school tax—about $349 more than under the rollback rate.

For a non-homestead property valued at $275,000, the assessed value at 40% would be $110,000. That works out to $110 per mill, which at 10.400 mills equals $1,144 in school tax, about $325 more than rollback.

Boatright said the higher rate is being recommended to address several funding challenges. The district expects to receive $5.9 million less in state equalization funds due to higher local property values, will be required to contribute $2 million more toward the state-mandated “local fair share,” and anticipates losing about $1 million in revenue as a result of House Bill 581’s property value caps. She also cited rising healthcare costs, higher Teacher Retirement System contributions, inflation, and board initiatives as additional financial pressures driving the recommendation.

At the first hearing, five of the six speakers opposed the millage rate increase, raising concerns about scheduling, confusing communication, and what they called failures in leadership. Several said rising property taxes were forcing seniors and families on fixed incomes to cut back on essentials, while others questioned recent spending decisions and urged the board to rebuild trust. Some compared Bulloch’s rates to other states, warning the hike could add over $1,300 to annual bills, and called for better cost controls and fairer contributions from businesses. One speaker argued past rollbacks may have deepened today’s shortfall, while another did not take a side but pressed for clearer long-term financial planning.

A Closer Look at School Funding

Ahead of the second round of hearings, Grice Connect published an explainer on how the district is funded. Key points included:

• The district will receive $7.9 million less in state funds this year due to changes in the funding formula.
• It must contribute $2 million more in local fair share payments.
• $1 million will be lost due to HB 581 property value caps.
• Healthcare and retirement costs continue to rise.
• Past rollbacks reduced available revenue year after year.

Georgia law requires school districts to levy at least 10 mills to qualify for state equalization funding. Bulloch’s use of Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) counts toward this requirement, which is why the board’s direct millage rate is lower, but it still left the district facing a major shortfall.

Second Public Hearing (Aug. 21, 9 a.m.)

The morning hearing drew a larger crowd and more balanced testimony. Roughly 40 in attendance with 15 speakers. 

Arguments in Favor

Supporters said the increase was necessary to prevent deep cuts to the school system.

• They warned that without new revenue, more than 100 teaching positions could be eliminated, leading to larger class sizes and less individual attention for students.
• Programs like the LIFE Program and the Transition Learning Center were cited as being at risk, both of which provide critical support for struggling or at-risk students.
• Several stressed that rolling back the millage rate for more than a decade has left the district behind, and this increase was simply “catching up” to where it should have been.
• Others framed the decision as a responsibility to the community’s children, saying that strong schools are essential to the county’s future and that investing now would pay off later.
• Many stated that they didn't want to have to pay more in taxes, and you'll never hear someone say they really want to, but when it comes to the kids, and the future of this county, it is money well spent.

Arguments Against

Those opposed focused on the tax burden and spending priorities.

• Many said seniors and families on fixed incomes cannot afford another jump in property taxes, especially after years of rising bills tied to reassessments.
• Some argued that the board should phase in the increase gradually, rather than approving nearly three mills at once.
• Others questioned spending priorities, pointing to purchases such as vehicles and athletics supplements while asking taxpayers to contribute more.
• Several urged the district to ensure new businesses and developments contribute fairly to school funding and infrastructure, instead of placing the load mainly on homeowners.
• Concerns about transparency and trust were raised, with residents asking the board to show greater accountability in how money is managed before raising taxes.

Board member Donna Clifton addressed a social media post that had circulated after the previous week’s meeting. She explained that a partial clip of her remarks had been shared, which left out important context.

Clifton said that if the full comment had been shown, it would have made clear that she was responding to Lawton Sack's remarks about the timing of the hearings, not to Ms. Mikell or her Facebook comments. She reiterated that her point was that the hearings were scheduled at 9 a.m., 12 p.m., and 6 p.m. so that people on different work shifts (first, second, or third) could all have the opportunity to come and speak.

She emphasized that she personally believes everyone has the right to come to the podium and share their views, and she does not support making false accusations or spreading untruthful assumptions. Clifton encouraged anyone with questions to review the full recorded meeting for her exact words.

She closed by thanking the board for allowing her the chance to clarify the record.