Putnam County commissioners opt for conservative FY27 tentative budget amid looming state tax reform

Putnam County commissioners on July 14 directed staff to use a conservative approach for the July tentative FY27 budget — holding most departmental baselines steady while building in a 3% cost‑of‑living adjustment for staff — as county financial leaders and the public weighed the potential impact of state property‑tax changes.

Deputy Julianne opened the workshop with a detailed presentation of recently passed or proposed state measures she said would affect county revenues and operations. She told the board that House Bill HJR 1F and Senate Bill 4F (described in the presentation as the property tax reform measures) could take effect Jan. 1, 2027 if approved by voters, expanding homestead exemptions and tightening non‑homestead assessment growth caps — changes that staff estimated could cut a substantial share of the county’s ad valorem revenue. Staff also flagged new transparency requirements from House Bill 1329 (longer posting windows and downloadable tentative/adopted budgets), a statutory obligation under HB 7031e to pay revenue commissions on school millages, and a payment‑acceptance mandate (HB 967) that will require electronic payment infrastructure.

Julianne presented the county’s fiscal starting point: a roughly 6.2% increase in assessed value from the prior year (from about $7.7 billion to $8.17 billion), producing an estimated $2.7 million in new revenue growth before constitutionals and external costs. Commissioners and staff then walked through two scenarios: (1) a percent‑based distribution that applies historic shares of growth to constitutional officers and departments, and (2) a conservative option that holds base budgets while granting a 3% COLA to staff. Staff warned the board that external new costs — including an estimated additional ~$400,000 the county will need to cover in FY27 to pay school bond collection commissions under HB 7031e and recurring technology and public‑safety maintenance costs — would absorb much of the new growth.

Commissioners repeatedly raised public safety concerns. Staff projected the sheriff’s office consumes a large share of ad valorem dollars; fire and EMS leaders and several commissioners described rising calls for service (staff cited a projected increase from about 17,544 calls in 2025 to roughly 19,658) and noted the SAFER grant that recently helped fund personnel will step down in later years, increasing county personnel costs. Public commenters urged clear, side‑by‑side displays of what reform would mean for services and asked the board to prioritize protecting first responders, libraries and other core services.

After public input and discussion, the board reached consensus to have staff prepare the July tentative balanced budget using Scenario 2 (hold lines with a 3% staff COLA) and to return recommended maximum millage figures and supporting documentation at the next meeting. Staff was asked to model worst‑case impacts and to draft alternatives — including user fees, targeted assessments or other revenue tools — should state reform pass.

The board did not adopt any formal ordinance or vote at the workshop; the direction was consensus to proceed with Scenario 2 for the tentative budget and bring specific millage recommendations and follow‑up analyses to the July agenda.