Chesterfield finance panel advances first draft of FY2026–27 budget, flags major staffing and capital requests

Chesterfield County's finance committee on March 23 advanced a second draft of the FY2026–27 general fund budget after a full review of departmental requests and significant discussion about staffing, public‑safety pay and capital equipment.

Miss Stanley, presenting the county's first draft, said she modeled a ‘‘worst‑case’’ scenario that currently assumes roughly a 3–4% increase for benefits and a 4% cost‑of‑living adjustment across departments. She told the committee that a 1% COLA would cost about $207,000 and that a 4% across‑the‑board increase would be roughly $828,000.

The committee debated multiple large requests. The sheriff's office asked for a flat $5,000 increase per deputy and asked the county to continue matching grants for items such as body cameras and ballistic vests; members asked staff for comparative salary data from neighboring counties before considering the full request. Miss Stanley said the sheriff's office often pairs its requests with grant opportunities and that match lines have been funded in past cycles.

Committee members also discussed a proposed vehicle replacement plan from the sheriff's office. Staff described replacing as many as 29–34 vehicles (deputy vehicles, investigators and security transport), with estimated capital costs in the $1.5–1.8 million range and a projected annual payment in the $500,000–$600,000 range depending on the final package. Members asked staff to model a smaller package and to show how proceeds from surplus vehicle sales and the capital equipment fund would affect millage and future growth.

On personnel, the solicitor and public defender offices requested converting part‑time prosecutors to full time and adding positions. The solicitor's office sought funding for two full‑time prosecutor positions (estimated at roughly $350,000); the public defender requested a second full‑time public defender (estimated near $330,000). Members raised the statutory implication of moving positions into a recurring line (once allocated under state law they can be difficult to reduce later) and agreed to keep the additional positions on the county administrative side while asking for more operational data before approving new recurring staff.

The committee also reviewed detention‑center and juvenile‑hold costs, including requests for two new detention positions (maintenance and transport) and an increase in operating lines; several members said they preferred one‑time capital fixes (for example, a backup generator and building repairs) be prioritized over adding payroll until building needs are addressed and costed.

Transit funding was another focus. PDRTA requested a phased county contribution — $100,000 year one, rising to $110,000 and $120,000 in subsequent years — to expand demand‑response and workforce routes. Committee members asked PDRTA to pursue industry matches through economic development and recommended further outreach before the county commits a full amount. Miss Stanley and members discussed splitting initial contributions or using economic‑development funds for workforce‑related routes as part of a match.

After tabling several line‑item questions for additional information, the committee voted to move the discussed changes into a second draft and asked staff to return with the answers to tabled questions and a net revenue/expenditure comparison. The motion to advance the second draft passed by voice vote; the meeting adjourned later in the session.

The committee requested supplemental materials for its next meeting: salary comparisons for law enforcement, a scaled vehicle‑replacement model, more detail on grant matches, and proposed industry contributions for transit. Staff said it will incorporate the committee's direction into the next draft and circulate updated numbers prior to the follow‑up meeting.