Camden County budget committee trims $2.23 million but draft FY26 still shows roughly $2.0 million shortfall

Nancy Gonzales, chief financial officer for Camden County, presented the budget committee’s draft of the fiscal year 2026 budget and told commissioners the committee reduced department requests by $2,230,000 but the draft still carries a shortfall of about $2,003,270.

The deficit, Gonzales said, results from projected revenues of about $46,155,000 against initial departmental requests totaling $50,385,000, and the committee’s net adjustments brought the draft to roughly $48,159,000 — an overall increase of $608,000 (about 1.28%) from FY25. “By state law, OCGA 36-81-3, requires that local governments … adopt and operate under an annual budget,” Gonzales said in her presentation.

Why it matters: the county’s fund balance and timing of federal reimbursements could affect whether Camden uses reserves to balance FY26. Gonzales said the county’s finance policy targets a 25% fund balance reserve and noted the county is projecting to use about $2,072,000 of fund balance in FY25; if that use occurs the reserve would still be above the policy target but trending downward.

Major budget drivers and committee decisions

- Revenue mix: Gonzales highlighted that ad valorem (property) taxes and local-option sales tax make up about 75% of general fund revenue. The draft assumes no additional fund-balance carryforward to balance revenues and expenditures.

- Committee reductions: After the committee’s net adjustments the draft budget is about $48.16 million, lowering the initial gap from roughly $4.23 million to roughly $2.00 million.

- Payroll and pay-scale changes: The draft includes a proposed one-step pay-scale move (a 2.5% step) effective July 1, with an estimated cost near $767,000. In addition, routine merit/anniversary increases of 2.5% were retained in the estimates; Gonzales said finance staff are refining those numbers.

- Employee benefits and insurance: The employee health-insurance line was increased by almost $500,000 to align with trending claims; about $400,000 of that increase is for claims and about $100,000 for stop-loss and administration. Workers’ compensation projections also increased. Property, auto and liability premiums were budgeted with a conservative 20% increase (about $300,000) while final vendor quotes are still pending.

- Department changes and new positions: The budget packet lists new positions the committee recommended for inclusion and positions not included in the draft that may need board discussion. Examples included a human-resources reclassification, a fire training assistant moved to unincorporated-fire funding, and several requests that were not included in the draft (nurse practitioner at the county clinic, additional district-attorney staff, and other law‑enforcement positions).

- Public safety and EMS cost splits: The EMS/fire cost split was adjusted to 88% general fund and 12% unincorporated for FY26 (from 90/10). The committee also reallocated three EMS positions to be funded by fire because those positions are “almost 100% fire” work, Gonzales said.

Capital, grants and timing risks

The budget packet includes capital-expenditure requests totaling about $7.8 million; after review the committee recommended funding about $618,000 from the capital-improvement fund (general fund/ARPA sources noted in the packet). Gonzales and Deputy County Administrator Seth Collins also reported multiple federal and state grants with delayed reimbursements or administrative holds that could affect near-term cash flow. Examples cited in the presentation:

- FEMA and hazard-mitigation reimbursements (various projects; one referenced total near $425,000 for two hurricanes). - A NOAA/Department of Commerce grant (Congressman Carter’s funding) awaiting grants‑management review with an expected reimbursement around $1.2 million after agreement execution. - A U.S. Department of Transportation grant (about $750,000) under administrative hold.

Gonzales cautioned that timing of those reimbursements may affect FY25 year‑end fund balances and therefore the county’s ability to meet FY26 cash needs without transfers or increased use of reserves. “There’s a possibility that the fund balance could get down to around $11,000,000 before this is said and done,” a commissioner asked; Gonzales clarified that number reflected a conservative scenario if multiple reimbursements are delayed and additional budgeted fund‑balance use occurs.

Shortfalls in special funds

Gonzales also highlighted a structural gap in next‑generation 9‑1‑1 operations: projected 9‑1‑1 revenues were about $1.2 million while expenditures approached $1.7 million, requiring an expected general-fund transfer (about $550,000 in FY26 as shown in the packet). The county will continue to monitor that fund and present year‑end amendments if the actual FY25 outturn requires them.

Next steps and options for the board

Gonzales presented a calendar: the budget work session was May 6; staff plan to present a proposed budget at the board’s regular meeting on June 3, post the proposal online that same week, hold a public hearing (proposed June 12), and adopt the budget at a special meeting (proposed June 24). She told commissioners finance will continue to refine payroll projections and other estimates and return with updated figures and options for bridging the roughly $2.0 million gap: additional cuts, use of fund balance, or a tax-rate change.

Speakers quoted in this article are limited to those on the official meeting record.