Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Bulloch county schools hold first hearing on proposed millage rate increase

With a proposed millage rate increase on the table, bulloch county residents are demanding answers from the school district, expressing anxieties about spending decisions and tax burdens.
boe-tax-hearing-1
The Bulloch Board of Education held it's first of three public hearings for a proposed milage rate.

Bulloch County Schools held the first of three required public hearings at noon on Thursday, August 14, at the Board of Education office to gather input on a proposed 2025 millage rate increase. The remaining two hearings will take place on Thursday, August 21, at 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., also at the Board of Education office, located at 150 Williams Road in Statesboro. The Board members explained that they have scheduled the meetings at three different times to accommodate as many citizens schedules as possible. The hearings are mandated under state law when a rate is set higher than the rollback rate.

Chief Financial Officer Alison Boatright opened the hearing by reviewing the same PowerPoint presentation that was shown at the tentative millage rate increase meeting two weeks ago. 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.

Public Comments

The majority of the six speakers during the public participation portion voiced opposition to the proposed millage rate increase, each bringing their own perspective and concerns.

The first criticized the scheduling of the earlier hearing, saying the 4 p.m. time of the last meeting made it difficult for working taxpayers to attend. He then described the entire process as confusing and undermining, arguing that the school system’s messaging about the budget has been inconsistent. They also questioned why, after years of building reserves from a previous funding plan, the district was still facing such significant shortfalls. This speaker linked the issue to what they called “a failure in leadership” and expressed doubt that the increase would lead to improvements in student performance.

Another speaker brought comments from other community members and read several aloud. The messages described residents feeling “taxed out” of their homes, particularly seniors and those on fixed incomes. Some said they had been forced to cut back on air conditioning during the summer or delay medical expenses just to keep up with property taxes. Several comments criticized the district for making purchases, such as new vehicles, while asking homeowners for more money. Others argued that rollbacks do not actually reduce taxes, but only offset rising property values, creating a false impression of relief.

A couple focused on the rapid growth of property tax bills in recent years, pointing out that retirement incomes have not kept pace. They expressed concern about what they described as a lack of transparency in spending decisions and urged the board to “rebuild trust” with the community before asking for more money.

Another speaker compared Bulloch County’s tax rates to those in other states where they had previously lived. They said their former property taxes were far lower despite owning more land, and estimated that the proposed increase would add more than $1,300 to their annual bill. They urged the board to explore other ways to control costs, such as negotiating better rates for services or reducing nonessential expenses, before turning to taxpayers.

One resident questioned whether new businesses coming into the county were paying their fair share toward the cost of infrastructure and school funding. They asked the board to look closely at the balance between residential and commercial tax contributions and to ensure the district’s budget was being used as efficiently as possible.

Another resident said they were not opposed to the proposed millage rate increase, noting that Bulloch County’s current rate is lower than those in surrounding counties. Referring to a recent millage rate publication, they said neighboring counties are paying roughly twice as much, yet have similar services and school needs. They questioned whether the long-standing practice of rolling back the millage rate had contributed to the current gap, suggesting that if the rate had not been reduced in past years, the district might not be facing such a large jump now. The speaker encouraged the board to consider avoiding future rollbacks to maintain steadier funding.

The last speaker did not take a position for or against the proposed millage rate increase but raised questions about specific budget details. They asked whether heavy equipment purchases carried a higher interest rate and if those costs were factored into long-term financial planning. They also questioned whether incoming businesses were being required to contribute adequately toward infrastructure needs, given the growth in the county. The speaker urged the board to ensure that the budget was being managed carefully and that spending decisions were made with efficiency in mind.

Board member Donna Clifton addressed criticism about the timing of the millage rate hearings, explaining that state law requires three public hearings when a rate is set above the rollback. One of those must be held in the morning. She said the board scheduled the remaining two hearings for the same day—one in the morning and one in the evening—to give residents with different work schedules a better chance to attend. Clifton emphasized that the schedule was set to comply with legal requirements while also offering multiple opportunities for public input.