Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Attorney Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County attorney seeks small revenue increase and recommends renaming budget lines after courtroom improvements
Summary
County Attorney John Martin reviewed the office's FY26 budget, proposed modest increases to miscellaneous revenue projections and recommended clearer line-item labels; he described courtroom improvements and flagged a state accounting discrepancy affecting judicial reimbursements.
John Martin, Carroll County Attorney, reviewed his office's fiscal year 2026 budget with the Board of Supervisors, proposing a modest upward revision to projected miscellaneous reimbursements and requesting clearer line-item descriptions in the county budget.
Martin said that, in the years after the COVID downturn, projected revenues had rebounded. He reported he had conservatively estimated $35,000 during the pandemic and later increased projections; for FY26 he proposed raising the miscellaneous reimbursements projection from $40,000 to $45,000 based on year-to-date collections and past variability. “Instead of $40,000 revenue, I want to project $45,000 of revenue on the miscellaneous reimbursements,” Martin said.
Martin described recent courtroom ergonomics and fixture improvements, noting some items ordered from a vendor (CTI) did not match specifications and remain unpaid pending correction. He said the legal community had contributed to offsetting table costs and that he would bring a donation check to the treasurer if the vendor bills are finalized.
On fees tied to judicial collections, Martin said the county formerly received a larger commission on collection of past-due fines but the state has been reducing that percentage. He suggested a neutral label change to the budget line—proposing “judicial branch fees”—to avoid implying prosecutorial emphasis on fines. “I hate to emphasize that it's fine. It's actually other revenues as well,” he said.
Martin also reported that the State Judicial Department had misapplied coding that reduced Carroll County's share in recent years; he characterized the error as a state accounting/coding problem and said the county has not yet received a correction or return of funds. He described the amount as a few thousand dollars and that the issue is under review.
On routine operating lines, Martin proposed mostly flat budgets or modest increases (generally 2.5% or no change) for salaries, office expense (suggesting an accounting label of “occupancy expense” to include rent, copier, and security), and modest reductions to some contract and data software lines. He recommended combining some sub-lines to improve auditor readability.
Martin also described operational details such as the office's shift away from charging for producing evidence DVDs and described growth in costs associated with processing multiple proprietary video formats from multiple law-enforcement agencies.
Ending: Martin closed by inviting supervisors to attend a court proceeding later in the day.
Speakers quoted or referenced: John Martin, Carroll County Attorney.
Why it matters: Changes in revenue projections, coding errors in state reimbursements and line-item labeling affect departmental budgets and how the county presents and tracks judicial-related income and expenses.
