County Judge presented the Shaw County proposed 2026 budget Friday, saying the countywide spending plan totals $84,680,000 and represents a $1.4 million (1.6%) decrease from the 2025 budget.

The proposal increases general-fund budgeted spending to about $66.9 million while projecting $58.8 million in general-fund revenues. The judge told the court the tax rate in the plan is a quarter-cent lower than last year but that higher property valuations would yield about $1.8 million more in property-tax revenue year over year.

Why it matters: the draft budget would expand employee compensation and IT spending in response to market pressures, while redirecting revenue to road maintenance. The judge said the bulk of discretionary growth is for employee pay, cybersecurity and software licensing.

Key details: the plan would fund a 3% across‑the‑board increase for most county employees, with larger targeted increases for some classifications including an 8% increase for deputies, 6% for jailers and 4% for administrative staff in the sheriff’s and jail offices. The budget also reflects legislative increases to judicial salaries; the judge said those supplements are offset in part by state transfers but must appear as expenses in the county budget.

One-time and contingency spending: the budget includes roughly $750,000 in explicit one-time spending (about $700,000 for vehicle purchases and $50,000 for furniture). It also carries roughly $5.2 million of contingency and emergency spending: $3.7 million of contingencies across accounts, about $1.0 million set aside for payroll contingencies and $500,000 reserved for indigent-defense contingencies. The draft also includes $1 million transferred to permanent improvements and a planned $1,080,000 transfer to the road-and-bridge mileage allotment.

On fund balance and risk: the judge walked the court through three scenarios — a conservative projection, a plausible operating result and a worse-case “catastrophic” scenario — showing that even under a higher‑spend scenario the county would retain an ending general‑fund balance the judge described as healthy (roughly 30–33% of annual expenses under the scenarios presented). He emphasized that the numbers assume conservative revenue estimates and that fund balance planning is intended to avoid abrupt tax or service changes if conditions change.

Policy choices for commissioners: the judge identified decisions for the court, including how much to spend up front on records-retention work and whether to continue the shift of tax rate cents into the road-and-bridge allotment that distributes funds to precincts by mileage. He invited commissioners to propose cuts or additions before the budget is finalized.

What the county will watch next: the judge said ongoing state-level policy discussions (including proposals to alter voter-approval tax-rate calculations) could affect future flexibility and that the county will continue to monitor property-value trends and legislative changes.

Ending note: the judge asked the commissioners for feedback and indicated staff will return with more detail for decision points in coming meetings.