Metro Council passes FY2026-27 budget
Spending plan OK'd 12-2 after process marked by failed votes, a corrected tax rate, questions over financial oversight
10:45 a.m. June 24, 2026
DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor
Moore County’s FY2026-27 budget is now approved.
The Metro Council passed the spending plan Monday night, two days before the new fiscal year begins Wednesday, July 1. The final vote was 12-2, with District 5 council member Greg Guinn the only member of the 15-member council absent.
Peggy Sue Blackburn and Robert Bracewell voted no. Arvis Bobo, Gerald Burnett, Douglas Carson, Amy Cashion, Marty Cashion, Bradley Dye, Dexter Golden, Jimmy Hammond, Houston Lindsey, Sunny Rae Moorehead, John Taylor and Shane Taylor voted yes.
Monday’s vote ended a budget process that stalled in May, restarted in June and never fully escaped the same questions: taxes, school spending, public safety staffing, purchasing procedures, capital costs and how clearly the county explains the cost of government.
Before the vote, council members and residents kept coming back to the same question: what Moore County can afford, and whether taxpayers are getting a clear enough explanation before the bill comes due.
Council member Gerald Burnett, chair of the Budget Committee, said the final budget includes a two-cent property tax increase over the FY 2025-26 budget to cover the county’s jail renovation project.
The adopted budget provides roughly $7.41 million for the General Fund. It also includes $12.17 million for schools, $2.6 million for Highway/Public Works, $1.66 million for debt service and $495,000 for capital projects.
Other funds include $740,912 for solid waste and sanitation, $37,400 for the Urban Services Fund, $7,500 for the Drug Control Fund and $732,230 for the Central Cafeteria Fund.
Corrected rate lowers printed figure
Before the budget vote, council members were told the tax levy resolution in their packet included a misprint.
The published General Fund rate showed 0.7689. The corrected rate is 0.6689.
That correction did not create a new spending line or change the appropriation totals. It lowered the General Fund levy from the printed figure and kept the overall increase at the amount discussed during the budget process.
With the correction, the final countywide property tax rate is $1.7612 per $100 of taxable property. The urban services rate is $1.7680.
The corrected levy includes 0.6689 for the General Fund, 0.0552 for solid waste and sanitation, 0.0097 for highway and public works, 0.8300 for the General Purpose School Fund and 0.1974 for debt service. The Urban Services District adds 0.0068.
“I will point out that in the packet, there was a copy of the resolution for the tax levy that had a misprint on it, and you have a replacement at the table,” Council Chair Amy Cashion said. “The first line for General should be .6689.”
Without that correction, the printed tax table would have implied a countywide rate 10 cents higher than the rate ultimately approved.
Budget came back after earlier stall
Monday’s vote closed a process that had already hit a wall once.
On May 18, the proposed budget failed on first reading after receiving nine yes votes and two no votes. The measure needed 10 yes votes to pass.
A second motion that night to keep the tax rate flat also failed, leaving the county without a first-reading budget vote roughly six weeks before the new fiscal year.
The budget came back June 15 and advanced on first reading, 13-2. That vote was taken twice after Bracewell raised a question about Metro’s ethics policy and whether council members with possible personal interests should disclose them before voting. The second vote produced the same 13-2 result, with Blackburn and Bracewell voting no.
Earlier this month, council members set the renovation project at $983,498, including $833,498 for construction and $150,000 for appliances and related equipment. The work includes kitchen and intake renovations, roof and ceiling repairs and modifications to existing program space for female housing.
Bracewell reads budget questions
Before Monday’s vote, Bracewell read a list of 10 questions he said had been forwarded to him by a citizen.
The questions focused on whether the county is relying too much on fund balance, how spending increases are measured against performance, how payroll growth is being evaluated and why some internal control and financial management findings appear in repeated audits.
“This budget relies on fund balance to balance recurring operations,” Bracewell read. “At what point does this practice become unsustainable, and what is the multi-year plan to return to a structurally balanced budget without relying on reserves?”
Another question asked what formal financial analysis is required before approving capital projects exceeding $250,000 and whether that analysis is available for public review.
Other questions focused on staffing and equipment levels for law enforcement, fire and EMS; debt capacity; budget amendments; and what efficiency reviews or expenditure reductions were considered before proposing a tax increase.
“If an independent financial review were conducted today by the Tennessee Comptroller or an outside CPA firm, what areas of county government would this council identify as its greatest financial risks, and what evidence supports that assessment?” Bracewell read.
The list drew a mixed response from council members. Some said the questions were fair, but the kind of analysis requested would require more time, staff and formal review than council members can produce individually.
“We don’t have time to do analysis that a whole department would do,” Cashion said. “But there has been lots of analysis, lots of questions about items in the budget.”
She said much of that work happens before the full council meeting.
“Analysis is done through the Budget Committee,” Cashion said. “It’s open to the public. We can ask any kind of question we want in that committee.”
Residents ask for more discussion
Public comment also centered on transparency and oversight.
Resident Bruce Church said he had watched recent budget meetings and believed more discussion was needed before major spending votes.
“It looks like a lot of discussion doesn’t really go into budget,” he said. “There’s got to be some discussion, and we can tear into that budget to look at it.”
He pointed specifically to the school budget and major project spending, saying businesses normally seek more than one bid on large work.
“If a company can’t get a second bid, they need to outreach to providers to do that,” he said.
Pam Church said she and her husband moved from Colorado, where they saw property taxes rise sharply, making them sensitive to local tax increases.
“This is our money, not the council’s money,” she said. “It’s not the school board’s money.”
She also asked whether Moore County has a purchasing department.
“We do not have a purchasing department, per se,” Cashion responded. “That is something that is on audit findings every year.”
The county has discussed creating a purchasing department, but doing so would cost money and has not been included in the budget.
Adcock urges accountability
Regina Adcock, a Metro Council candidate from District 5, also spoke during public comment, saying her remarks were offered “in the spirit of transparency, accountability and responsible stewardship of taxpayer resources.”
She said she was concerned that council members appeared to be discouraged from asking detailed budget questions.
“Reviewing and questioning budget items is one of the council’s most important responsibilities,” Adcock said.
She also said department heads should be allowed to answer questions about their own spending plans.
“Citizens benefit when budget discussions are open, transparent and informative,” she said. “Public confidence is strengthened when questions are welcomed, explanations are provided and elected officials demonstrate a careful review of proposed expenditures.”
Adcock asked the council to provide members more opportunity to ask questions before votes are taken and to review public comment procedures.
“My intent is not to criticize any individual, but rather to encourage a process that promotes transparency, accountability and public trust,” she said.
Project cost remains a sticking point
The jail project cost was one of the main points of disagreement.
Blackburn said her objection centered on the cost and bid process.
“I think the bid for that is too much,” she said.
When asked what she would change, Blackburn said the county should bring in a licensed CPA to handle the budget process.
“That way it would be done fairly,” she said.
Others pushed back, saying the county cannot maintain services, address aging facilities and avoid future costs by simply saying no.
“You can go years not increasing,” council member Dexter Golden said. “You can go years not fixing problems. And then at some point, you have to replace a roof. You have to replace a seat. But it’s not going to be cheaper when that happens.”
Debate moves to schools and public safety
From there, the debate moved where county budget debates usually do: schools, deputies, ambulances, fire protection and what residents expect when they call for help.
Some council members said a large share of county spending is driven by services residents expect every day.
“I believe the majority of our constituents want our schools to be great,” Burnett said. “They want our police and sheriff’s department to be supported, emergency services to work and be responsive when we call on them. That’s what we’re voting on.”
Bracewell questioned whether the county should look harder at staffing levels and long-term costs, including payroll, benefits and administration.
“You reduce the staff,” Bracewell said. “You ask more of the personnel that you’ve got, and you pay them more.”
That drew a sharp response from those who said cuts in law enforcement, ambulance service or other emergency departments would increase risk.
“You take employees away from the sheriff’s office, the ambulance service or any other, then you’re increasing the risk of that employee,” council member Shane Taylor said.
Taylor, who works for the Moore County Sheriff’s Department, said Moore County may be small, but it still faces serious calls.
“Like it or not, Moore County has the same crime as anybody around us,” Taylor said. “We may not have 50 murders a year. We have these same crimes. We fight the same demons.”
Golden, who chairs the Planning & Zoning Commission, pointed to population growth and building permits, saying the county has grown while departments have not added staff at the same pace.
“Citizens have not stopped moving here,” he said. “We’re on average right now with 60 building permits, I think, a year.”
Final amendment approved at 7:26 p.m.
After the budget passed on second reading, the council approved the appropriations resolution for the various funds.
Council members also approved the corrected tax levy resolution with the General Fund rate at 0.6689.
A separate nonprofit appropriations resolution passed, providing $22,000 total to local organizations: $2,500 for Centerstone, $12,500 for Moore County Senior Citizens and $7,000 for Friends of Animals.
Council members also handled several budget amendments, including items tied to the Jack Daniel’s World Championship Invitational Barbeque, textbook funding, retirement-related transfers and year-end adjustments.
The final budget amendment was approved at 7:26 p.m., putting the FY2026-27 budget in place before the new fiscal year.
The vote settled the budget. It did not end the questions over how Moore County explains, measures and justifies the cost of government to the people paying for it.