Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Finance Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Liberty County presents FY2026 budget and adopts five‑year CIP; commissioners keep millage decision for June
Summary
County staff presented a proposed FY2026 general fund budget of approximately $65.6 million, proposed a 4.6% increase in salaries and benefits and new personnel November‑to‑July starts, and the board adopted a five‑year capital improvement plan while reserving final millage and budget adoption until after the tax digest.
Liberty County officials presented a proposed fiscal 2026 budget totaling about $65.6 million and highlighted a proposed 4.6% increase in payroll costs largely driven by a cost‑of‑living adjustment. Commissioners received the proposed budget during a public hearing and later adopted the county’s five‑year capital improvement plan (CIP) as a planning document.
Samantha Richardson, county finance, said the 2026 proposal reflects roughly $3.5 million in departmental reductions from an original $69.2 million request, bringing the draft to $65.6 million — about a 5.1% increase above FY2025’s $62.4 million. She said property taxes (ad valorem) are the single largest revenue source, projected to account for about 62% of total revenues, and cautioned the board that final adoption may change after the state tax digest is certified.
The budget proposal includes $1.17 million for new personnel and benefits, of which roughly $909,000 is for a county‑wide COLA to help employees with inflation and to keep pay competitive, Richardson said. Commissioners discussed timing for six new positions budgeted to start July 1; staff said hires were prioritized for critical needs but reminded the board the full budget will be revisited if the digest alters revenue projections.
Commissioners pressed finance staff for more detailed data on specific line items and raised several operational concerns during the hearing: Sheriff’s Office contract labor and electricity accounts were running ahead of plan, the jail’s food contract had increased, and one department’s contract labor line showed a sizable variance. Finance staff said some of those variances were timing issues or related to lump‑sum payments recorded in a given month.
Several members of the public used the hearing to raise local concerns about roads and T‑SPLOST allocations. One resident asked how the county handles road projects when a city lacks funds; commissioners and staff explained cities receive T‑SPLOST allotments based on population and may collaborate with county commissioners for projects, but the immediate responsibility for city streets rests with the city.
The board did not set final millage rates at the meeting — that decision remains scheduled for a later public hearing and vote (June 3) after the tax digest is published. Separately, the board voted to adopt the county’s five‑year CIP as a planning document; commissioners and staff stressed projects on the CIP list without identified funding would be pushed out in timing until funding sources are identified.
Staff also updated the board on county finance matters including March financials, SPLOST/TSPLOST collections, and project funding requests. The board approved some small budget adjustments (for example, to cover an overrun on a village project) and asked staff to return with more granular reporting on areas running ahead of budget.
