Burke County commissioners spent the bulk of their meeting on an urgent request from the sheriff's office about a budget shortfall that staff said could jeopardize the next payroll. Commissioners reviewed a list of department expenditures and discussed options including paying payroll, withholding nonpayroll bills, and legal steps the sheriff has threatened to take.

Chairman (reading an email from the sheriff) told the board the sheriff formally requested that the county attorney represent the sheriff in a court action seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to stop the board from passing the 2026 budget. The chairman read the sheriff’s written request, saying, “Please consider this correspondence a formal request to represent the office of the sheriff over the 2026 proposed budget.” The sheriff did not appear at the meeting.

County staff told commissioners the sheriff’s office has limited funds remaining and that the next payroll is about $284,000, with additional accounts-payable obligations due in the following weeks. County staff and several commissioners listed line items they said contributed to the shortfall, including vehicle repairs (about $101,000), a contract for IT and cybersecurity services (about $123,000), and recent hires including a chief of staff (about $91,000), a public information officer (about $40,000, described as partial-year pay), and an IT specialist (about $85,000). One commissioner said those and other expenses totalled roughly $450,000 in charges that, if absent, would have kept the sheriff within budget; that figure was presented as the commissioners’ analysis.

Commissioners and staff described other financial details during the discussion: insurance deductibles that have increased (cited in the meeting as up to $75,000 on one claim and $100,000 on another), past outsourcing of inmates (commissioners referenced prior-year costs “at least $100,000”), and a seized-assets fund the sheriff controls (staff said a transfer request earlier in the year had been about $140,000). County staff emphasized that Georgia law vests spending discretion in elected constitutional officers once the board sets a budget, and that the board’s options to limit a constitutional officer’s spending within a fiscal year are legally constrained.

Commissioners considered short-term measures to ensure deputies and staff are paid. County staff said the board could authorize payments to cover payroll even if that exceeds current appropriation, or the board could limit payments to payroll while deferring other invoices; staff cautioned that invoices are recorded to the fiscal year in which they are dated and deferring them can still leave charges on FY2025 accounts. Commissioners said they wanted to avoid stopping deputies’ pay.

On the legal front, County Attorney Adam Nelson explained the process under Georgia law if a constitutional officer seeks counsel to sue the county: the county attorney typically is conflicted when a constitutional officer sues the board, and state law allows the chief judge of superior court to appoint outside counsel. To avoid that appointment process and the added expense, the board has previously allowed conflict counsel to represent a constitutional officer at the county attorney’s rate. Commissioners voted to follow that prior practice for the sheriff’s current claims.

Commissioner Kelly moved to allow the sheriff to hire conflict counsel at the county attorney’s rate to pursue the claims described in the sheriff’s request; Commissioner Liley seconded the motion. The motion passed on a voice vote.

Commissioners did not take a separate formal vote to advance additional appropriation requests in public session at this meeting. Several commissioners urged state oversight, recall efforts and public pressure as longer-term accountability mechanisms. Commissioners also asked staff to continue tracking sheriff’s-office spending and to present options for controlling future budgets during next year’s appropriation process.

The meeting record shows the sheriff did not attend the scheduled meeting with commissioners. Commissioners said they had warned the sheriff months earlier about spending and monitoring and that a hiring freeze and other steps earlier in the year had reduced projected overages compared with prior years. The board scheduled follow-up budget oversight work during its regular budget process.