Chickasaw County supervisors set targets, order departmental cuts and wage freeze as FY2526 shortfall looms

The Chickasaw County Board of Supervisors spent much of its March 5 meeting working through a plan to close a projected shortfall for the fiscal year 2526 budget, directing department heads to prepare reduced spending plans, discussing a countywide wage freeze and setting timelines for public notice and hearings.

The board hashed out target reductions across departments and discussed procedural options to reach roughly a $500,000 reduction in county spending. “This meeting was called…to try to get a plan together for the budget for fiscal year 2526,” Supervisor Scott said at the start of the substantive discussion, framing the session as planning to allow the board to adopt a budget by April. County staff confirmed a public hearing on the proposed tax/levy was scheduled for “the 20 fourth at 09:00.”

Why it matters: County officials said revenue growth is weak and several departments are projecting materially higher asks than past years, meaning the board must either raise levy rates or cut programs and positions. The board prioritized front-loading cuts and assigning department heads concrete percentage targets rather than naming individual layoffs in open session.

Most of the meeting focused on possible savings from elected-official offices, department-level reductions and nonessential items. Supervisors proposed a variety of line-item reductions to the Board of Supervisors budget — including mileage, lodging and training — and discussed the option of wage freezes for elected officials and department staff. Supervisor Scott noted a proposed wage freeze for supervisors would “save $4,037 off of wages for the supervisors,” and asked colleagues if they would accept freezes for themselves.

County staff provided a taxpayer-impact illustration based on a $100,000 residential assessment and a 10% valuation example; county staff member Ray explained that “less than 6% of taxable properties in our county had actually had a change in value” for the most recent assessment year and showed how levy-rate multipliers affect gross county-only tax. Ray also told the board the deadline to submit proposed levy numbers was that afternoon so the auditor could begin mailings tied to the notice.

The board discussed a range of department-level targets and draft line-item cuts compiled by Supervisor Isaac; examples included 5–20% reductions shown as illustrative scenarios across departments and a specific list of suggested cuts that would together approach the board’s stated target. Several supervisors said they had already made cuts in their own office budgets (health insurance, mileage and lodging items were cited) and urged other elected officials and department heads to follow suit.

Board members and department representatives repeatedly emphasized process questions: how to handle severance/vacation payouts, whether separation dates should fall in the current fiscal year (June 1 was discussed repeatedly), and how layoffs or early retirements would affect the county’s General Basic (GB) and General Supplemental (GS) funds. The board repeatedly returned to the need for department heads to rework and submit budgets to meet the board’s targets and timelines.

Next steps: Supervisors set a department-head meeting for March 10 to review revised numbers and expected to act on appropriation and levy hearings later in the month. Board members said they would use the next two weeks to collect concrete revised budgets from elected officials and department heads, then reconvene for final decisions and a formal public hearing and adoption process.