Anderson County judge outlines proposed 2026 budget, $0.015 tax‑rate increase and $500,000 retirement payment

Anderson County Judge Wade McKinney presented the county's proposed 2026 budget and the proposed 2025 tax rate at the county court meeting, saying the plan balances growing expenditures while addressing a long‑running retirement fund shortfall. McKinney said the proposed budget leaves an estimated $1.9 million in the general fund and includes a $500,000 lump‑sum payment to the county retirement system (TCDRS) in calendar year 2026 to help reduce a multi‑year deficit.

Why it matters: The county is facing multiple budget pressures — rising court‑appointed attorney costs, jail medical and food contracts, increases in health‑insurance premiums and growing IT storage needs — and property tax revenue remains the primary funding source (about 63% of the county's revenue). McKinney framed the $500,000 retirement payment and a modest tax‑rate change as steps to stabilize long‑term liabilities without excessive immediate rate shocks to residents.

Key facts and numbers: McKinney said the county's certified taxable value is about $4.64 billion; each one‑cent change in the tax rate generates about $425,000. The court's proposed structure keeps the retirement contribution rate effectively at about 13.11% and builds a half‑million dollar payment into the proposed budget; according to McKinney, that plug lowers a modeled deficit compared with paying only the higher rate without a lump sum. He said the proposed rate change shown to commissioners is roughly 0.0149¢ in total (presented to illustrate revenue impacts) and estimated the proposed budgeted deficit would be offset by the $1.9 million ending fund balance.

Compensation and targeted increases: The budget proposes a $1,200 across‑the‑board pay increase for county employees, plus targeted salary adjustments in some offices. McKinney said he will donate roughly $12,000 of his own general‑fund pay to fund stepped increases for specific staff (IT assistant director, emergency management coordinator, elections administrator and administrative assistant) and described separate sheriff requests for additional positions and pay adjustments. McKinney cautioned that fully funding all sheriff requests would raise the tax rate by an estimated 2.36¢ and could trigger voter rollback/approval consequences.

IT and public‑safety costs: The court reviewed a sizable increase in IT and video‑storage costs driven by growth in body‑cam and dash‑cam footage and countywide disaster‑recovery storage. The presentation estimated countywide disaster‑recovery storage at roughly 21 terabytes with a vendor cost near $12,000 per month ($144,000 annually) and an additional projected increase for sheriff video storage; the county proposes moving to a SaaS model (Tyler Tech) to centralize support and reduce local maintenance needs.

State policy context: McKinney warned that Senate Bill 9 (reported in the meeting as having passed the Senate and moving to the House) would narrow the local taxing window, reducing the increment local taxing entities can adjust from 3.5 to 2.5 (as described in the meeting). He said he had contacted state legislators urging them to oppose the change because it would limit local flexibility to respond to state mandates without funding.

Special funds and community services: The proposed budget keeps many special funds balanced, with itemized allocations for precinct road funds (totaling roughly $633,919 across precincts), Meals on Wheels (increased from $15,000 to $20,000), and modest increases for the humane society and other nonprofits. McKinney noted several state grants and program shortfalls require county cash matches in some funds.

Procedure and next steps: The court approved a calendar to publish the proposed rate and budget, hold public hearings and adopt the final tax rate and budget at a regular meeting on Sept. 8. The court scheduled a workshop on the coming Monday to hear elected officials and finalize the proposed elected‑official salaries and the posting rate; staff emphasized that approving a proposed rate for publication does not bind the court — the rate may still be changed at adoption.

Quotes from the meeting: “So paying at the higher rate and doing a half million dollar, the lump sum payment, brings it down to 7,700,000.0,” Judge Wade McKinney said when describing the modeled impact of a $500,000 payment to the retirement system. On state action, McKinney said Senate Bill 9 would “narrow the window where local taxing entities… from 3.5 down to 2.5,” and urged outreach to legislators.

What did not change: McKinney said the court did not raise taxes simply because appraisals rose in 2023; the court reduced the tax rate in prior years to offset appraisal gains for many homeowners. The court also kept most elected officials' non‑salary budgets unchanged in the proposed document, while budgeting specific salary increases and one‑time adjustments.

Votes at a glance: The meeting adjournment motion was moved, seconded and approved at the end of the session (procedural vote recorded without a roll‑call tally).

Next steps and public participation: The budget document and supplemental pages are posted online; the court invited commissioners and elected officials to present questions at the Monday workshop and reminded the public of the scheduled hearings and the Sept. 8 adoption meeting.