MARLBORO COUNTY — Marlboro County officials and council members heard from Marlboro County Finance Director Wesley Parks during a May 6 budget meeting to review a proposed $17,182,270 budget for fiscal year 2026-27. The project amount reflects a 4.18% increase over the prior year’s $16,492,894 budget, an increase largely due, according to Parks, to rising personnel, insurance, utility and technology costs continuing to outpace revenue growth in the county.
Parks explained that revenues have increased because of property tax reassessments and fee-in-lieu income but cautioned that the increase is not enough to match expenditure growth.
He said, “Revenues in this budget have increased but not at the rate of the expenditures.” Parks clarified that the budget assumes the use of $262,000 in fund balance, offset by $200,000 in bond funding, leaving a net impact of $62,000.
“Salaries and benefits remain the largest share of spending,” says Parks, adding,
“Salaries make up about 65% of the cost, retirement and fringe the other 20-22%, and then health insurance about 13%.”
The 2026-27 budget proposal includes a 2% cost-of-living adjustment for all employees at a total cost of $205,000. Officials said the increase applies across the board, with no added provision for salary increases beyond that adjustment. The $205,000 allocation is an $89,000 increase over the prior year’s budgeted amount of $116,000,” Parks explained.
Parks also named several major non-departmental, or “big ticket,” expenditures like a $205,000 cost-of-living increase, $400,000 for general insurance, $235,000 for utilities, $160,000 for workman’s comp, $100,000 for retiree health premiums, a $60,000 year-end Christmas bonus and a $50,000 401k match.
Among departmental issues, Parks said the aquatic center is being handled through a proprietary fund rather than the general fund.
His words led Councilman Damien Johnson to say, “Whatever we do from the aquatic center will be combined with what we’re doing with the golf course… so it’s not going to impact our general fund.”
Regarding public works, council members discussed staffing needs and the merits of hiring part-time versus full-time employees when it comes to examining more cost-effective options. Members pointed out cuts to the budget cannot be made while staff is being adding at the same time but said they could “make those recommendations depending upon budget considerations.”
Also included in the discussion was the possible use of comp time or flex time to address future employee overtime and scheduling concerns.
Another focus of the meeting for council was information technology.
Parks said security costs are rising because of stricter requirements for county information systems, particularly in law enforcement, and because many services have moved from one-time purchases to subscription-based models.
He cited the county’s use of the subscription service SpyGlass under a $2,000 annual contract to monitor cell phones and tablets, as an example. Parks explained that the service identifies cases in which the county is still being billed for legacy services after replacements have been installed, and that the monitoring recently led to the cancellation of about $2,600 in unused services.
Transparency and compliance concerns related to employee bonuses were also discussed by council and it was confirmed that when it comes to personnel and year-end bonuses, Parks said legal counsel will be consulted to ensure the county remains in compliance with how bonuses are to be distributed.
Officials said the 4.18% increase in the budget is driven largely by departmental costs and specific funding requirements, including a $50,000 increase in state funding for the Marian Wright Edelman Public Library and a $205,000 cost-of-living adjustment for employees.
Parks added that the overall rate of increase would be lower if the $200,000 allocated for sheriff’s vehicles were to be excluded because that cost is being currently addressed through separate bond funding.
The library budget includes a $50,000 increase because of a higher allocation of state funding.
The sheriff’s vehicle fleet is funded through several financial avenues, including the General Obligation bond funding for capital needs such as the $200,000 vehicle request, and the county also has the capacity to issue roughly $1 million in GEO bond debt for those needs without increasing the debt service millage, should it deem doing so necessary.
The 2026-27 budget also includes lease payments for vehicles, which have the potential to decline as portions of the fleet are paid off, while ongoing operations and maintenance costs will need to remain in the sheriff’s department budget.
Outside the sheriff’s office, other department-level changes also drew attention.
Parks said the detention center budget shows an overall increase of $87,000, which is driven by a $20,000 increase in salaries and overtime, a $28,000 increase in retirement and fringe benefits, a $20,000 increase in general costs including food service, and $40,000 in capital outlay.
Changes to the Clerk of Court budget reportedly occurred in response to organizational restructuring rather than simple increases.
Parks explained that because the Clerk of Court office is now also covered by Family Court, there is no longer a need for a separate $200,000 transfer to the Family Court fund. As a result, what first appeared to be a $217,000 increase is more accurately going to be about a $17,000 increase once the transfer is removed from the comparison.
County Council are continuing to iron out the 2026-27 budget, with plans for an upcoming public hearing on the budget scheduled for Thursday, June 25, 2026, at 6 p.m. at the Economic Development Partnership Building.