White County commissioners reject proposed revenue resolution tied to $1.57 tax rate after public outcry

White County commissioners on Wednesday rejected the revenue resolution tied to the proposed fiscal year 2026 property tax rate after an hour of public comment that focused on tax increases and questions about landfill sale proceeds.

The commissioners voted 2–12 against Resolution 57-06-2025, the revenue resolution that budget committee members said would produce roughly $11,492,473 for the general fund and set a penny value of $97,394 — numbers that, when combined with school and highway needs, equated to the $1.57 composite rate presented by the budget committee.

The vote came after a half hour of public comment in which residents asked the commission to delay passage until the state-certified tax rate and the county’s expected landfill proceeds were clearer. Crystal Templeton of Webscamp Road told commissioners, “It is ludicrous for you to pass a budget, any budget, until we know what this tax rate is likely to be.” Connie Davis said, “Please don’t hurt our county,” and several speakers urged the commission to prioritize raises for first responders rather than across-the-board increases.

During the public-comment period, Commissioner Paul Sheryl asked about the status of the landfill sale and the timing of proceeds. Executive Robinson responded that an initial $2,000,000 payment from the sale has been received and used to retire landfill debt and buy two roll-off trucks. He said the county expects another $2,000,000 when the landfill operator’s permit amendment is approved later this year, that a host fee of $1.50 per ton would generate roughly $650,000–$750,000 annually once operations start, and that a future permitted expansion could trigger a $12,000,000 payment. Robinson said those items together could yield “approximately $40,000,000 over 20 years,” but he emphasized the phased nature of payments and permitting.

Chairman Goff, speaking for the budget committee, reviewed the revenue math that produced the $1.57 composite figure: roughly $1.18 for the general fund, three cents for highways and about 36 cents for the general purpose school fund. He noted the budget package also included personnel raises and other department requests that drive most of the tax-change pressure.

A fellow commissioner raised a procedural concern on the floor, asking whether three commissioners — named during the exchange as Commissioners Gough, White and Rogers — had met privately with county staff after the last budget meeting; the questioner said the practice would raise Open Meetings Act concerns if it constituted a quorum meeting outside public notice. No formal evidence of an illegal meeting was presented during the session.

Because Resolution 57 failed, related measures — the FY2026 appropriations resolution (58-06-2025) and the nonprofit contribution resolution (59-06-2025) — could not be approved as presented and were sent back to the budget committee by unanimous vote.

What’s next: Budget committee members said they will reconvene to develop alternatives and examine additional cuts or different compensation scenarios. The committee set a follow-up meeting for Tuesday, June 24 at 5:30 p.m. to continue work on a plan that can command broader support from the commission.

The meeting record shows widespread public opposition to the $1.57 figure and multiple commissioners said employee compensation — especially raises for first responders and EMS — represents the single largest driver of any possible tax increase.