Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jefferson County presents balanced 2026 budget draft as revenues fall from 2025
Summary
County staff presented a proposed 2026 budget that staff said remains balanced despite lower revenues, carrying forward grant-funded projects and absorbing prior ARPA-funded operating costs; councilors pressed for line-item clarity on COLA, salary-study adjustments and grant reimbursements.
Jefferson County officials on Wednesday reviewed a proposed 2026 budget the county’s presenter described as balanced despite a decline in projected general revenue. Christy, the county’s budget presenter, said the revenue total for next year is about $51.6 million versus roughly $55.1 million in 2025, and identified carryovers for large projects — including the warning-siren system and the James Hardie project — that will reduce next year’s revenue needs as the work completes.
Why it matters: The budget review set the framework for next month’s formal adoption process and surfaced policy choices about staffing, grants and capital priorities that could affect services countywide.
In the work session, presenters highlighted several drivers of the decline: one-time grant carryovers in 2025, the winding down of direct appropriations and the need to convert services that were paid with ARPA funds into recurring operating lines. Christy said some technology and software costs previously paid from ARPA must now be absorbed into the IT operating budget, and she urged councilors to submit written questions in advance to speed the final hearing.
Councilors pressed for clearer separation of recurring pay increases and one-time salary-study adjustments. Several members asked that the proposed payroll-matching increase be split into two distinct line items — a fixed COLA and a separate salary-study adjustment — so the council can see how much of the increase is statutory cost-of-living and how much reflects market adjustments.
On grants and reimbursements, staff said some department budgets (for example, juvenile services and the prosecutor’s child-support program) include state reimbursements that must be shown as expenditures and then recognized as offsetting revenue, netting to zero. Christy reiterated that those flows are budgetary presentations and that actual cash carryover appears on financial statements rather than the line-by-line budget book.
Next steps: Staff will refine explanatory detail requested by councilors, verify ARPA project lists on the county website and present a final draft for adoption at the scheduled public hearing. The council did not take any formal vote on the overall budget during the work session.
Sources: Comments and numbers presented aloud by Christy during the meeting; councilor questions logged in the county’s budget work session.
