Budget panel approves 3% general‑fund raise; deep debate continues over sheriff's larger pay request

The Anderson County Budget Committee on June 16 approved a 3% pay increase for general‑fund employees and then engaged in an extended debate over whether to grant the sheriff's office a substantially larger boost.

Commissioner Small Ridge moved, and Commissioner Allen seconded, the 3% across‑the‑board raise for general‑fund employees. The motion carried on a recorded hand vote (six in favor, two opposed). Finance staff said the 3% raise will cost the general fund about $1,187,852.

The vote followed a presentation from Robbie, a county finance staff member, who told commissioners the county's proposed budgets produced a $3.8 million deficit including all departmental requests and that a zero‑increase baseline would leave a deficit near $395,384. Robbie also provided rollover figures for departments and said the sheriff's office had roughly $3.6 million in four‑year rollover when grant funds were excluded, while the county had also augmented the sheriff's budget with roughly $1.9 million from unassigned fund balance in prior years.

Sheriff Barker urged the commission to approve substantially larger increases, saying his office needs “a minimum of 15%” to be competitive in regional labor markets and to reduce chronic staffing shortfalls. "We will never convince me otherwise," the sheriff said of the size of the need, adding that pay is market‑driven and not a matter of deputies "having their hands out."

Commissioners weighed several options: using rollover (unspent salary) to fund raises; designating some funded but unfilled positions as non‑funded to free payroll dollars; increasing overtime budgets; or providing a flat supplemental appropriation to the sheriff rather than raises tied to payroll. Several members warned that relying on rollover or one‑time fund‑balance dollars to pay recurring raises is fiscally risky because pay increases recur year after year and will reduce the county's fund balance.

Commissioner White proposed an $800,000 transfer from unassigned fund balance for the sheriff's department to "use as he sees fit." That motion drew further debate about long‑term affordability and was placed on the table for later consideration; the committee voted to table the $800,000 proposal rather than adopt it, leaving the supplemental funding unresolved.

Finance staff and members repeatedly stressed that recurring pay increases must be balanced against the county's fund balance and future revenues. The committee did not finalize additional sheriff funding during the special meeting and agreed further meetings or revenue adjustments will be needed before adopting a final budget.

The committee also addressed other revenue and cut proposals during the meeting, including failed and amended motions affecting school and highway allocations and a separate approved cut to the county's soil conservation line item. The budget committee recessed and adjourned without completing all outstanding sheriff requests; commissioners said they will revisit unresolved items at subsequent budget sessions.

The 3% raise applies to general fund staff only; commissioners explained other funds must address raises within their own budgets. The committee's next steps include further review of departmental requests and potential revenue moves to cover recurring costs.