County approves $12.7 million budget, including employee raises
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
By Christa Jennings
Senior Staff Writer
As reported last week, during its reconvened meeting September 22, the County Commission reviewed and, after much discussion, approved the county budget for the 2027 fiscal year.
In discussing appropriations requests, county attorney John K. Johnson explained that the Commission did not have to approve appropriations at that time and could come back at a later meeting to approve any appropriations it wishes.
Commissioner Brandon Davis referenced the initial September 8 meeting, which was recessed until September 22, during which the Commission approved purchasing the former Second Chance Garage building on Jackson Street for $105,000. That purchase was approved by a 3-2 vote, with commissioners Davis and Bertha K. McElrath opposing it.
“We just bought a building, too, and we didn’t factor in gas, water and insurance for it,” Davis said to Johnson during discussion. “So that’s another expense. You didn’t say [anything] about that last meeting. Why are you being so harsh about this, and you didn’t say nothing about [those] expenses?”
“I don’t know if it’s in here or not, but it is an expenditure that you’re going to have to do for this year, and that’s got to come out of your general fund,” Johnson said.
Davis further stated, “I’m just saying, when we had the meeting, you didn’t say anything about us paying gas, insurance, water, or [anything], but today you’re saying something about these appropriations that folks in the county are going to be asking and looking at us, ‘Why y’all didn’t approve this?’ It’s the same thing. You said we didn’t have the money then, so why didn’t you say something last week then?”
“It’s not my function as your attorney to make decisions on costs,” Johnson said. “I make a recommendation regarding legal service, but I don’t have anything to do there. You know that you’re going to have to have an increase in your insurance, as you say, your utilities, everything there dealing with the purchase of a building. That’s got to be inside your budget.”
Following discussion Commission Chair Lamar Daugherty asked about tabling the appropriations requests until the October 13 meeting to then consider approving them after County Administrator LaCresha Alexander reviews all the numbers. With no further discussion, the Commission unanimously approved tabling the appropriations until its October 13 meeting.
Also during the reconvened meeting, Alexander reviewed the one-page fund summary presented to the Commission with a budget proposal for the 2027 fiscal year.
She explained that the bottom portion of the proposal showed what the county’s current budget is and what the county did year to date. She stated that the county exceeded what was budgeted for the 2026 fiscal year.
She added that her main concern would be the general fund since “it’s what operates everything.”
She proceeded to go over the proposed budget and department funds with the Commission, including an almost $4 million general fund and other funds totaling an overall budget of $12,767,264.71 for the 2027 fiscal year.
Alexander said that there is a cushion built into the budget because of reimbursements. She said those, including salary reimbursements, were not reflected in the proposed budget.
Alexander further reviewed budget information for if the Commission approved a 2% salary increase and with the county absorbing the 3.1% insurance increase that would affect employees.
“After calculating all of that, you’re looking roughly at $249,694.86 as an increase,” Alexander said. “Our net is at $305,401, and that does include the appropriations.”
In discussion it was stated that Alexander could remove the appropriations from the budget and then add them back in later, if approved.
Chair Daugherty asked if the commissioners were included in the budgeted raises.
Alexander said they were, adding, “It reflects like the commissioners, right now y’all are getting paid like $962, but the starting salary for commissioners is $1,022 and some change. So that increase factors if you guys decide to take the increase, as well.”
Daugherty stated, “I’m just speaking for me; I’m not going to vote for an increase for myself, but I would vote for the departments that asked.”
Alexander said the budget numbers reflected what Judge of Probate Richard Dean and Revenue Commissioner Debra Lamberth requested, as well.
In discussing the budget Daugherty told Sheriff Michael Howell that he knows Howell requested a $3 an hour raise for his employees, but said, “Looking at what we’re looking at now, on this side, there’s no way that’s feasible at this point. Again, it’s just me talking.”
Daugherty further added that he did not think the county could do the 5% salary increase that was asked for, either.
“My suggestion, I was going to propose that we do a 3% pay increase and absorb the insurance,” he said. “I think, based on the numbers from a while ago, that would be about $15,000 more than what this paper says, and I think that’s doable, especially depending on what you do with the appropriations. …That’s just my proposal.”
Daugherty also stated that all of the department heads have done “a great job” keeping up with their numbers and managing money.
However, he added, “But this year, especially, if there’s something that just doesn’t have to be bought, please, please keep the money in the line item and carry it over, because we’re close on some numbers right now. There were some accounts that monies were not going into like they were supposed to be. There were some things that we had to change, some things that were found. We’re close to having everything caught up on the computer system as far as being up to date on it. …And there are accounts that were never put in the system, so we’re just going to have to pick a date and start and get it caught up.”
Daugherty asked if anyone else had any suggestions on the budget numbers or percentages.
Commissioner McElrath spoke up about the appropriations and fitting those into the budget.
“Any way you can help us out on these appropriations some kind of way, even if we have a decrease, but these people do depend on us for help because they can’t get it anywhere else,” McElrath said. “I can see kind of like decreasing a little bit, but I’ve been with a lot of those programs, and I’ve seen them work, and I’ve seen them help a lot of people, people in the community. So it’s not just Goodwater; it’s all over the county. I sit on those boards. They do need help.”
In discussion, Alexander said her recommendation would be to start at a 2% raise and absorb the insurance, stating that the Commission can amend it later.
“That way you still give yourself a little cushion just in case of unexpected expenses or costs arise,” she said. “Fifteen [thousand] might not seem like a lot, but fifteen can actually go a long way.”
After further discussion, Daugherty stated that the budget has to be approved by October 1, but that the Commission could come back later and amend it.
“We just have to get the ball rolling on something today to get LaCresha some solid numbers to work on,” he stated. “She’s proposed a 2% increase. I’m proposing a 3% and absorb the insurance. I’m open to suggestions from anybody else.”
Commissioner Davis said that he would recommend just going with the lowest raise for right now.
Sheriff Howell said that absorbing the insurance does not help all employees since not all employees are on the county’s insurance. He said his opinion was that the money would be better given as a higher percentage for salary increases.
“Whether it’s in insurance or whether it’s in salaries, the money’s the money; it just depends on whichever line item it’s on,” Daugherty said.
He added, “That’s my proposal, is 3% and absorb the insurance. I’ll ask for a motion to approve that. It can be changed later. …This is just something to get us through the budget cycle. This can be changed.”
Howell then asked about moving $65,000 from a vehicle line item to the salary line item in his budget, planning to not purchase a vehicle this year and to use the money towards salary increases instead.
Daugherty stated, “When your budget is approved, you can transfer monies in your line items any way. That doesn’t have to be on our approval. That’s your budget. Just keep in mind, once you fund those salaries, you’ve gotta’ fund them.”
Commissioner John Forbus added, “The cost of living is going to be spoken of every single year. It doesn’t matter if they’re making what they’re making now or if you give them $25 an hour, $30 an hour, it’s always going to be ‘cost-of-living raise.’ …The cost of living is never going to stop, and then you’ll be back here again wanting more for them. Even though you gave them $3 an hour raise this year, the cost of living is going to come again next year and the next year. It’s just going to keep growing. It never stops.”
In further discussion, Forbus also said that the insurance increase is not much per pay period.
“I’d much rather have the raise and let the county eat the insurance, but we’re going to hear some mess about not covering the insurance if we don’t cover the insurance, no matter,” he said. “We can’t win. Behind the table can’t win.”
In ongoing discussion, Forbus said, “That’s our job, is to try to take care of our employees, but we’ve got to think about the increase – either it being a salary and them cover the insurance of $1 and some change for single coverage, $4 a month for family [insurance] increase. We’re going to hear one way or another, no matter if it’s the best decision for the employees. We’ve got to make a decision, if we’re going to do 2% what [Alexander] suggested, 3% what Lamar suggested, or 5%, what they asked for, and let them cover the insurance. If we give them 5%, in two or three hours they can cover their monthly insurance increase.”
Judge Dean said the greatest flack he has received over the years was when the county does not cover the insurance. He said that if the department heads can be given the numbers of what it is really costing the employees and could show what the affect is going to be on each employee, then he felt that would be helpful.
In ongoing discussion, Daugherty stated, “There’s no perfect way to it. There’s no way to win.”
In discussing the insurance rates, Revenue Commissioner Lamberth asked Alexander if she knew what the increase was going to be for a single policy versus the family policy.
“It increased by 3.1%,” Alexander said. “So the county will go from, if it absorbs the 3.1%, right now we’re paying $1,186 on family coverage. It’s going to go to $1,236. On single coverage right now we’re paying $478.80. If the county absorbs the 3.1% it goes to $499.80.”
That reflects that the single coverage would be increasing $21 per month, and family coverage would be increasing $50 per month.
Daugherty said the Commission had recommendations for a 2% salary increase plus absorbing the insurance increase, a 3% raise plus absorbing the insurance increase and a 5% salary increase without absorbing the insurance increase.
“Those are the only three options I’ve heard,” he said. “I’m going to go back to my 3% and absorb the insurance and ask for a motion to approve that.”
Alexander asked if that raise was for everybody, including Judge Dean and Revenue Commissioner Lamberth, or if it was just for the departments. Daugherty stated it was for the departmental employees only and not the department heads.
After more discussion, Daugherty stated that no motion had been made regarding his proposal and asked that the Commission “come up with some more numbers.”
In further discussion, Commissioner Davis asked if the county could cover the 3% increase. Alexander said she was “feeling good” with 2%, but that 3% was “shaky,” if the county plans on approving appropriations as requested.
“The majority of people, regardless of the perception and percentage and dollar amount, the majority of people want the insurance covered,” Daugherty said. “The ones who don’t have it is by choice. They’re on their spouse’s insurance because it’s cheaper or better, so… I don’t know what the perfect answer is.”
During ongoing discussion, Alexander said, “Think of it this way, if we do the 2% and absorb the cost, if your [department heads] salary line items have enough to give your employee an increase, you can always still give your employee an increase if you are under budget or if you have money you can maneuver. That way you can increase based on, maybe, merit or performance throughout the year.”
Daugherty said, “So to get something on paper and get a start on this budget, do y’all have any more suggestions or ideas or any other numbers you want to throw out? We can change it to 2% and absorb the insurance, for now, and always go back and amend it later. This is not set in concrete.”
After lengthy discussion, the Commission ultimately approved the 2027 county budget to include a 2% salary increase for employees and the county absorbing the 3.1% insurance increase, as well.
For coverage of the remainder of the County Commission meeting, see next week’s edition.
