Floyd County staff proposes 44 cents per $100 revenue-neutral tax rate as FY 2026 budget highlights presented; public raises concerns over grants, staffing and债

Floyd County staff presented a proposed fiscal 2026 budget and recommended a revenue-neutral real estate tax rate of 44 cents per $100 of assessed value during public hearings before the Floyd County Board of Supervisors.

County presenter Linda Mills outlined budget highlights including a staff-proposed 2.5% cost-of-living increase for employees, a reduction in monthly health-insurance premiums for employees covering families (from about $1,400 to roughly $960), continued funding to keep a school resource officer in every county school after the end of a grant, expanded investment in emergency medical services training and equipment, and a proposal to add one economic-development staff member to increase grant-writing and business support capacity. Mills said, “the new proposed real estate levy is 44¢ per hundred dollars.”

The presentation also explained the local reassessment process that produced large changes in assessed values countywide. Mills gave examples to show how the new rate would affect sample homeowners and said the county’s reassessment process is nearly complete and that appeals went to the Board of Equalization. She told attendees that 44 cents is currently the revenue-neutral rate and that, if approved, it would be only the second time since 1987 the county’s real estate tax has been below 50 cents.

During the public comment portion of the hearings, residents balanced appreciation for the staff presentation with calls for tighter fiscal controls. Paul Kitchen of the Little River District thanked county staff and said he supported the proposal, noting his own tax change: “If the new tax rate is approved, my personal property tax will increase by only $173.10 or 6.6%,” and urging supervisors to approve the FY 2026 budget and proposed rate.

Other speakers urged more scrutiny of budget items. David Whitaker of the Courthouse District asked, “why do we need 3 full time grant writers,” estimating that staffing costs could total “almost a quarter of a million dollars a year,” and questioned recurring increases in social-services spending while the county’s population is decreasing. Leon Moore of Burkes Fork urged the board to look for cuts and to “be saving our money,” citing historic boom-and-bust cycles in real-estate markets. Dan Vest of Lotus Grove asked for clearer plans to reduce county debt: “what are we putting towards that every year? And what's our plan to get out of debt?” Linda Wagner said the county should require documentation from organizations requesting increased funding and called for greater accountability: “When they come in, ask questions, ask for documentation.”

On personnel and services, Mills described expected EMS improvements, including specialized paramedic training and enhanced teleconsultation with the county’s overseeing medical director, Doctor Patterson, allowing paramedics to transmit EKGs and consult in real time. Mills also noted the county is funding one full-time deputy in the clerk of court’s office that is paid in part by state funding, and mentioned restricted accounts and small building-security improvements planned for county facilities.

Board procedure during the meeting: the board opened public hearings on the tax rate and the FY 2026 budget, then paused the tax-rate hearing until the advertised 8 p.m. start and later formally closed the tax-rate public hearing and the budget public hearing. Motions to adjourn each public hearing were seconded and approved by roll call votes of attending supervisors. No final vote adopting the tax rate or the budget took place during the meeting; the sessions were public hearings and part of the adoption process.

The presentation and comments showed two competing themes among residents: some supported the recommended revenue-neutral rate as a relative reduction compared with prior years’ rates, while others urged the board to reduce recurring operating spending, scrutinize grant-funded positions, and produce a clearer plan for debt reduction. The board did not adopt the budget or tax rate at this meeting; next steps include any follow-up board actions and the formal adoption process scheduled under the county’s public-notice timetable.