White County budget committee forwards FY27 draft with roughly $390,000 shortfall; weighs borrowing from school sales-tax allocation

The White County Budget Committee on May 11 reviewed a draft fiscal year 2027 general fund budget showing projected revenues of $21,243,142 and projected expenditures roughly matching that total, and agreed to forward the draft to the full county commission for additional review and public comment.

Director Martin, who presented the draft, told the committee he had recalculated the proposal after the last meeting and included a 3% across‑the‑board pay adjustment, mandatory pay increases required by TCA, and funding for the two election cycles in 2026. He also said the draft anticipates a funding shortfall in the range the committee discussed — roughly $389,844 — and identified several ways the county could narrow the gap, including trimming non‑payroll items and modest transfers between lines.

“Current projected revenues are 21,243,142. Current projected expenditures is $21,000,006,” Director Martin said, summarizing the packet. He later said the totals “put us in that sweet spot there that we like to be,” while noting some figures (notably health‑insurance premiums) are provisional until state releases are available.

Committee members pressed Martin on specific line items. The draft includes a proposal to transfer about $50,000 from the county vehicle line to EMS salaries and benefits, a plan to fund a dedicated courtroom security liaison from restricted funds rather than the general fund, and several payroll items under consideration: a corrections‑officer investigator post, a reclassification of a sergeant to staff sergeant (a 55¢‑per‑hour adjustment), a middle‑school secretary, and a finance assistant. Martin also flagged recurring non‑payroll costs such as insurance, election expenses and contract renewals.

The committee discussed operational and timing options for a proposed full‑time custodian for the new, larger health‑department building (Martin estimated a September opening). Martin recommended budgeting the full year but said an inservice hire date would reduce the first‑year cost; commissioners debated whether to budget the full annual cost now or add the position later via amendment.

Commissioners discussed tapping other small savings to reduce the shortfall. Martin said the county earned significantly more interest after switching to a new trustee bank, but that interest posts to the debt service fund rather than the general fund. He also flagged that certain capital projects (paving, courthouse roof) might be handled from reserves rather than the operations budget.

One recurring policy option drew extended debate: moving some proportion of local‑option sales‑tax pennies currently allocated to schools into the county general fund. Committee members discussed pulling a half‑penny (or a different fraction) from the school allocation to reduce the deficit. Supporters said recent sales‑tax growth made the option feasible; opponents warned that if sales tax underperforms the county would need to cover the difference from fund balance, and that removing long‑term revenue from schools carries policy and equity implications.

The committee did not adopt a final, binding budget. Instead it agreed to present the draft to the full commission and follow the public‑notification timeline: publish the proposed budget on June 5, hold a commissioners’ discussion June 8, and reconvene the budget committee for a formal vote (and cleanup amendments) on June 15. Chair confirmed the proposal, as drafted, would not change the county’s tax rate as currently published.

Public comment at the end of the meeting raised a handful of operational questions. Daniel Trivette asked for a contract breakdown and clarification of line‑items related to the Flock camera and pursuit‑alert services; Martin said he would pull the contract and report back. A resident asked whether Cherry Creek funds its own hose testing and whether the proposed finance‑assistant slot (cited on the budget list) could be deferred; commissioners said the finance position listed was not an additional request in the current draft but that the custodian remained under consideration. Emery Thompson urged considering smaller, incremental tax increases each year rather than larger adjustments at five‑year reassessments.

The committee approved forwarding the draft to the full commission so the commissioners can review the package, receive public comment and return for any cleanup amendments before a final vote.