Metro Council advances county budget

2026–27 budget passes on first reading, then council members retake the vote after conflict-disclosure question

8:53 p.m. June 15, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

The Moore County Metro Council advanced the 2026–27 budget Monday night, June 15, approving it 13–2 on first reading less than a month after the spending plan failed to clear the same hurdle.

The vote keeps the budget moving before the new fiscal year begins on July 1. For the second reading, Council members set a public hearing for 6:20 p.m. Monday, June 29, followed by a special-called meeting at 6:30 p.m. at the American Legion Building. That meeting will be limited to the budget and any amendments to it.

The budget failed on May 18 after receiving nine yes votes and two no votes. Because only 11 members were present, the measure needed 10 votes to pass. It fell one vote short.

Monday’s result was different. With all 15 members present, the first-reading vote passed with 13 yes votes and two no votes.

Arvis Bobo, Gerald Burnett, Douglas Carson, Amy Cashion, Marty Cashion, Bradley Dye, Dexter Golden, Greg Guinn, Jimmy Hammond, Houston Lindsey, Sunny Rae Moorehead, John Taylor, and Shane Taylor voted yes.

Robert Bracewell and Peggy Sue Blackburn voted no. Blackburn said she would not vote yes because there was no second bid to review the jail renovations.

Disclosure question leads to second vote

The first vote did not last long.

After council members approved the budget, Bracewell raised a question about Metro’s ethics policy and whether members with a potential personal interest should disclose it before voting.

The policy, read aloud during the meeting, requires an official or employee responsible for voting on a measure to disclose any personal interest before the vote. That disclosure is then included in the minutes.

Council Chair Amy Cashion said she believed the issue had come up last year because of retirement matters included in the budget, but she did not recall the council making that disclosure for every budget vote.

“I don’t know the particulars of what might or might not constitute a conflict within an individual situation,” County Attorney Bill Rieder said.

Still, Rieder told members that anyone who believed they had or might have a conflict could say so before voting. "I would say, if I was an employee, I would probably state, 'I am an employee and could have a conflict of interest.' Go ahead and vote. You're voting on the entire budget – not specifically for that individual or that individual's department."

The council then took the budget vote again.

Shane Taylor disclosed that he is an employee of the Moore County Sheriff’s Office and Metro Moore County government, but said he did not believe he had a conflict. Taylor said he was voting based on his conscience and what he felt was best for his constituents, then voted yes.

Carson also disclosed that he works for the Moore County Sheriff’s Office. Carson said he may have a conflict related to the sheriff’s department portion of the budget. He said he would abstain from voting on that specific appropriation but voted yes on the rest of the budget.

The second vote produced the same result: 13 yes, two no. The budget passed the first reading.

Fund balance draws questions

Before the vote, council members discussed the county’s fund balance and how the budget projections are built.

Burnett said the county traditionally budgets conservatively, which often leaves the actual fund balance higher than the original estimate. One example given was last year’s budget, which estimated the general fund balance at roughly $1 million. Current numbers place it above $2 million.

The general fund balance was projected at around $2.3 million at the end of the current year. Burnett said that it remains well above the 15% minimum required in the general fund.

Still, Bracewell raised concern about longer-range projections, saying the county could move from about $6.5 million in total fund balance to a negative position by 2030 if certain numbers stayed static.

Burnett countered to say those projections do not account for all moving parts, including revenue growth, one-time expenses, transfers between funds, and future council decisions.

"We did move the two cents out of capital projects into debt service to cover the cost of the jail renovation," he noted. "The two cents should cover the amortization schedule for the loan."

School budget questions kept brief

The council also touched on school funding after a question was raised about expenses inside the school system’s budget.

Burnett reminded the board that Metro’s role is to fund the school system, not manage individual line items inside the school budget.

“Our job as a council is to give the school system the money, not to nitpick their budget,” he said. “They have a school board that analyzes their budget.”

The school system did not request additional local funding beyond what the county is required to maintain. Amy Cashion said that because the school system receives a share tied to local revenue growth, schools will receive additional funding from that growth without having to return to the council for each expense.

Burnett said questions about specific school expenses should be taken to school board budget meetings.

Amendments pass, more may follow

• Council members first approved one set of amendments 13–2, with Blackburn and Bracewell voting no.

• A separate amendment vote later passed 14–1, with Blackburn the lone no vote.

Mayor Sloan Stewart noted more amendments could come before the end of the month.

The budget now heads to a June 29 public hearing and second reading, the council’s next step toward adopting the county’s spending plan for the 2026–27 fiscal year.