$1.35M is good news, but not the whole story

Moore County’s healthy balance sheet also raises questions about unspent appropriations and budget accuracy

#Opinion • 12:14 a.m. July 21, 2026

Two things can be true at the same time.

Moore County can be in a stronger financial position than expected.

And finishing about $1.35 million above the budgeted General Fund balance can still raise questions about how the county builds – and explains – its budget.

Budget Committee Chairman Gerald Burnett offered the brighter view during Monday night’s Metro Council meeting.

Burnett, who represents District 5 and is not seeking reelection in August, said the county ended the fiscal year with about $2.3 million in the General Fund. The county’s budget projected an ending balance of $950,000.

“We significantly exceeded our budget in terms of how much money we’re leaving in reserve,” Burnett said.

That sounds like a win.

Part of it may well be.

It is better to close the year with more money than expected than to find a hole in the budget. A healthy fund balance gives the county room to handle emergencies, pay bills between major tax collections, cover surprise expenses, and avoid borrowing.

Department heads who hold down costs deserve credit. So do elected officials who say no when spending is not needed.

But finishing $1.35 million above the budgeted balance does not prove the county saved $1.35 million through great management.

It may also mean the budget missed the mark by $1.35 million.

That possibility deserves just as much attention.

The number is still preliminary

Burnett spoke Monday, July 20, less than three weeks after the 2025-26 fiscal year ended June 30. That means the $2.3 million figure appears to be an early FY26 estimate. It is not yet an audited ending balance.

The number may be right. But there is a difference between saying, “Our early estimate is $2.3 million,” and declaring that the ending balance is $2.3 million. That matters because Moore County’s recent audits have required significant accounting adjustments before the final reports were complete.

The FY24 audit, for example, required about $1.33 million in adjustments involving ambulance receivables in the General Fund. That did not mean $1.33 million vanished from a bank account. It showed that early accounting records can change before the audit is finished.

The same audit found that payroll-liability accounts had not been properly reconciled.

None of that means the current estimate should be tossed aside. It means officials should call it what it is: preliminary.

'Exceeded our budget' does a lot of work

Burnett said the county “significantly exceeded our budget.” That phrase makes the number sound more like a performance target than a budget estimate.

The county did not add $1.35 million to the General Fund during the year. It began the fiscal year with $2,257,645.02 and ended with $2,322,614.10. That is an increase of $64,969.08.

The much larger number comes from comparing the ending balance with the county’s budget, which projected the fund would fall to $950,000. Instead, the balance stayed above $2.3 million.

Put another way, the county finished roughly $1.35 million above its projected ending balance – not because it added that much money during the year, but because the large drop built into the budget never happened.

That is still a better result than expected. But it is not the same as saying the county saved $1.35 million through careful management.

A larger ending balance can come from several places.

Revenue may have been higher than expected. Departments may have spent less than they were allowed to spend. Jobs may have stayed vacant. Vehicles and equipment may not have been bought. Repairs or projects may have been pushed into the next year. Emergency money may have gone untouched. Some bills may not have arrived before June 30.

The county may also have started the year with a larger fund balance than the budget estimated.

Each of those tells a different story.

Finishing the same work for less money is a real saving. Leaving a needed job open is not always a saving.

Buying a truck for less than expected is a saving. Waiting until next year to buy the truck is a delay.

A steady increase in tax revenue can improve the county’s long-term position. A one-time grant, refund, insurance payment, or property sale may help for one year and never return.

All of those things can raise the ending balance – or keep it from falling as much as the budget predicted.

Only a full breakdown can tell taxpayers what really happened.

Burnett did not offer that breakdown.

The five-year pattern cuts both ways

Burnett was right about one important point. “And that’s been the case every year,” he said. “Every one of those funds shown there, the budget we set for fund balance was exceeded significantly from what we budgeted.”

The General Fund numbers back him up.

Moore County finished about $824,000 above its final budget estimate in FY21. It finished about $766,000 above in FY22, $645,000 above in FY23, more than $1 million above in FY24, and about $1.06 million above in audited FY25.

That is five consecutive years of better-than-budgeted results. It is also five consecutive years of estimates that did not come close to the final balances.

Burnett sees the pattern as proof that department heads, the mayor, and the Council have managed the money well. There is some truth in that. Departments repeatedly spent less than the final amount they were allowed to spend, and revenue came in stronger than expected.

But there is another fair way to read those same numbers: Moore County keeps passing budgets that predict large drops in the General Fund balance. Then those drops do not happen.

Once is a surprise. ... Five years in a row is a pattern.

A budget should be more than a worst-case guess placed on a state form. It should give taxpayers and elected officials a fair picture of what the county expects to collect, spend, and have left when the year ends.

When the county misses its ending-balance estimate by $600,000, $800,000, or more than $1 million year after year, that should not be treated only as a trophy.

It should also lead to a simple question: Why are the estimates so far from the results?

Unspent money was the bigger factor

The five-year record also shows this was not simply a revenue boom. Over the five audited years reviewed, General Fund revenue came in about $1.66 million above the county’s final estimates. During the same period, General Fund spending finished about $2.1 million below the final amount approved by the Council.

In other words, money that was approved but not spent played the larger role.

That is not always a bad thing. Departments should not rush to spend every dollar just because it is available. Nobody wants to see a shopping spree at the end of June.

But money left unspent is not always a true saving.

Some may have come from careful management. Some may have been set aside for jobs that stayed open. Some may have been meant for equipment that was not bought. Some may have covered work that was delayed. Other bills may simply show up in the next fiscal year.

The audits do not give enough detail to call every unspent dollar an efficiency.

There is another wrinkle. In several recent years, the county spent more than it had planned in the original budget. The Council added more spending authority during the year. Actual spending still finished below that larger, amended budget.

Put plainly, the Council raised the spending ceiling, then did not reach it.

Spending less than an amended ceiling is not the same as cutting costs below the plan approved at the start of the year.

'Leaving in reserve' is not quite that simple

Burnett described the $2.3 million as money the county is “leaving in reserve.” That is easy language to understand. It can also leave the wrong impression.

A General Fund balance is not always one big pile of money that the Council can spend however it wants. Some money may be restricted by law. Some may already be committed. Some may be set aside for a planned use. The rest is called unassigned fund balance.

At the end of audited FY25, Moore County had about $2.14 million in its General Fund balance. About $351,000 was restricted. Another $15,000 was committed. About $766,000 was assigned for planned uses. Roughly $1.01 million was unassigned.

Less than half of the total was unassigned.

That does not mean the assigned money can never be moved. The Council may be able to change those plans. But it does mean the full balance should not be described as though every dollar is sitting free and clear for any future use.

We will not know the final FY26 breakdown until the books are closed and audited.

'Could be attributed' was carefully chosen

Burnett continued: “I think that could be attributed to the way our department heads, our mayor, and this Council have managed the budget over the past few years.”

“Could be attributed” is careful wording. It points toward an answer without claiming that answer has been proven.

Good management likely played a role. Department heads who limit overtime, put off spending that is not needed, shop for better prices, and stay within their budgets are doing their jobs.

But the reports do not show that the full $1.35 million came from those decisions.

Officials would still need to explain how much came from stronger revenue, unspent payroll, open jobs, delayed purchases or projects, and money already restricted or marked for another use. Until then, good management may be part of the story. It is not yet the whole story.

Online does not always mean explained

Burnett also pushed back against questions about transparency. “Everything that we produce is online,” he said. “It’s on the state website. The trustee has to sign off on it, the comptroller’s office has to sign off on it – it goes all the way up to the governor’s desk.”

He said nothing was being hidden and that the county had not deceived the public about its budget, revenue, or expenses. There is no evidence that county officials made up the General Fund balance or tried to hide it.

That is not the point.

The question is whether the number has been fully explained. Posting a budget or audit online gives the public access. Real transparency goes further. It means explaining why the final number was so far from the estimate. It means showing the largest differences among departments. It means pointing out one-time money that may not return next year. It means telling taxpayers which expenses were saved and which were delayed. It means calling early numbers preliminary.

State review does not end that discussion.

County budgets are reviewed by the Tennessee Comptroller’s Division of Local Government Finance. The governor does not personally approve Moore County’s yearly budget.

The Comptroller’s review also does not mean every local estimate was correct, every approved expense was needed, or every favorable result came from strong management. In fact, state audits are where Moore County’s repeated problems have been listed.

• The FY22 audit found problems with budget operations and said significant adjustments were needed for proper financial reporting.

• The FY23 audit again found budget problems. It also said the county’s accounting records were not ready by the legal deadline.

• The FY24 audit found late records, significant General Fund adjustments, payroll-liability accounts that had not been reconciled, a purchasing system required by the charter that still had not been put in place, and continuing problems with the sheriff’s commissary records.

Those findings do not prove anyone lied. They do show why “the state reviewed it” should not end the conversation.

Be pleased, but show the work

Moore County officials have reason to be pleased. A General Fund balance of about $2.3 million is better than a deficit. It gives the county room to breathe. It may help cover emergencies, future projects, or harder years ahead.

Department heads and elected officials may have made smart decisions that helped produce that result. But county officials should not treat a repeated forecasting miss as unquestioned proof of great management.

Not without showing how it happened.

Burnett’s main point was supported by the numbers. Moore County has finished with more money in its General Fund than it budgeted for several years in a row.

The same record shows the county has underestimated its ending balance year after year. It shows that spending below the final approved amount has played a larger role than added revenue. It shows that not all of the fund balance is free to spend. It also shows that recent audits have found problems with accounting, payroll records, purchasing, and budget controls.

The public does not have to choose between being glad the money is there and asking hard questions about the budget. Both are fair.

The county should be glad it has the money, and taxpayers should still ask why the estimate was off by $1.35 million – and what created the difference.

Until that answer is laid out in plain numbers, the $2.3 million makes a strong headline.

It does not tell the whole story.