Madison County adopts FY2026 budget, approves 2-cent real-estate tax increase

Madison County on Tuesday adopted its fiscal year 2026 budget and approved Resolution 2025-10, which includes a two-cent increase in the county real-estate tax rate.

The board voted by voice after a motion to adopt the resolution; the motion passed with the chair calling for the ayes. The budget as presented totals about $70,000,000, and supervisors said the increase responds to reduced state funding and cumulative inflation pressures.

Why it matters: supervisors and staff said cuts in state support — including a $6.7 million reduction in the county’s school allocation that was referenced during debate — and rising costs made some increase unavoidable to preserve mandated services such as schools, law enforcement and emergency medical services.

Supervisor Jim Smith, who participated in the budget discussion, said the board pursued intense line-by-line reductions before settling on the final package: “We went through line by line, and we reduced the budget down to where it's about a 4 to 5.4% increase,” he said. Smith and other supervisors described the process as “excruciating” and credited county departments with cost controls.

A member of the public, Jim Smith of Brightwood, urged the board to approve the budget during general public comment, saying, “It is the fiscally responsible thing to do.” That comment was made during the public-comment period that preceded the formal adoption vote.

Board members repeatedly referenced the county’s long-term reserve policy (18% contingency target) and said an appropriation step remains to take place in June. Staff affirmed the advertised budget is the text before the board and will proceed to appropriation after adoption.

What the vote does and next steps: adoption of Resolution 2025-10 authorizes the FY2026 spending plan; the formal appropriation to allocate spending will occur in June. Several supervisors asked staff to continue pursuing economic development to broaden the tax base and reduce pressure on property taxpayers.

Public-finance context and constraints were a frequent theme. Supervisors noted that state-level changes, federal funding instability, and inflation have tightened local revenues; one supervisor summarized that further cuts would risk reducing essential services or staff.

No roll-call vote with individual tallies was recorded in the transcript; the board adopted the resolution by voice vote.