Clayton County adopts FY‑2026 budget package after debate over millage and amendments

The Clayton County Board of Commissioners voted June 24 to adopt a resolution to approve the proposed FY‑2026 budget together with budget amendments 1, 3 and 4, after public comment and extended discussion among commissioners.

The vote implements changes proposed during a budget hearing and follow‑up presentation by interim CFO Angela Jackson, who said the proposed general fund budget for FY‑2026 is $335,000,000 and that the proposal was prepared with a net millage rate basis of 15.126 mills (the FY‑2025 net millage was 15.266 mills). The board debated whether adopting the amendments would require advertising a property tax increase and how rollback calculations would affect revenues.

Why it matters: The budget funds public safety, courts and capital projects and includes targeted salary adjustments while commissioners argued about balancing services without shifting additional tax burden to residents.

Jackson summarized the budget process and headline figures during the presentation, saying the county’s proposed FY‑2026 general fund is $335,000,000, representing a 6% increase over the FY‑2025 adopted budget and a 3% decrease from the FY‑2025 amended budget. She told commissioners the proposed budget assumes property taxes will provide 63.7% of general fund revenues and listed major expense shares, including courts and law enforcement at about 37% and public safety at about 21%.

Commissioners questioned the timing and notice for late amendments. Commissioner Reeves asked when amendments were distributed; Jackson said she began sending them the prior day as she finalized language and received approvals. Commissioner Reeves and others expressed concern that commissioners had roughly 24 hours to review some amendments before voting.

Commissioner Allen pressed Jackson for a clear yes‑or‑no on whether the proposed budget as presented contained a $10 million shortfall. After exchange about which millage basis to use, Jackson said there was not a $10 million shortfall using the current net millage basis; she warned that reverting to a rollback rate would create a shortfall. Commissioner Allen emphasized for the record that, under the proposed figures shown that day, “we currently do not have a $10,000,000 shortfall.”

The board discussed several specific amendments Jackson had circulated. Amendment 1 adds positions in Superior Court and makes personnel changes in the sheriff’s office; Amendment 3 includes a set of cuts and reclassifications that would roll taxes back to the rollback rate and presented an alternative budget figure; Amendment 4 reduces local assistance grants and reallocates funds to address flooding. Commissioners debated whether adopting certain amendments would require the county to advertise a tax increase; county counsel and staff advised that, provided calculations used the digest and growth reports on file, the motion on the floor would not require advertising a property tax increase.

Votes at a glance - Motion to adopt agenda: Passed (voice vote). - Consent agenda (routine contracts and requisitions): Passed (voice vote). - Resolution 2025‑132 to adopt the FY‑2026 budget with amendments 1, 3 and 4: Approved (motion carried; one recorded abstention by Commissioner Allen). - Motion to enter executive session for personnel and litigation: Passed (voice vote). - Return from executive session and adjournment: Passed (voice vote).

The board approved salary adjustments included in the proposal: Jackson said employees earning under $55,000 would receive a 3.75% increase, employees earning between $55,000 and $80,000 would receive 2.5%, and those earning above $80,001 would receive 1.25%, effective July 5, 2025, based on pay status as of June 30, 2025. Jackson also listed capital projects funded primarily through SPLOST 2021, including new fire stations, the county records center, a small business incubator and park upgrades.

Several commissioners requested a midyear review to monitor revenue and expenditures and to consider whether department requests require adjustments later in the fiscal year. Jackson and counsel said the budget process can accommodate amendments and midyear reviews; commissioners discussed tradeoffs if the board opted to roll back the millage rate, noting reduced available funding would require identifying offsetting sources for any midyear increases requested by departments.

The meeting record shows extended debate about process and timing of amendment distribution, and several commissioners said they would prefer a different calendar or more lead time for future budget deliberations. The adopted resolution and associated amendment documents will be posted in the county clerk’s official records as required.