What explains the increase—and the amounts carried forward?

Start with the two headline calculations, then examine the repeated amounts and what the worksheets can explain.

About 9¢ of every dollar in the proposed General Fund falls within a selected group of appropriations for which C.L.O.C.K. found limited or no substantive appropriation-specific discussion in the public records reviewed. The twelve amounts total $2,440,787: $2,440,787 ÷ $26,954,270 × 100 = 9.06%. This remains a provisional, bounded finding because some meeting records and original-audio checks are outstanding. It is not a finding of waste, a claim that no discussion ever occurred, or the cause of the separate 8.18% increase. Calculation, classifications and review limits

The 8.18% increase reconciles; the discussion finding remains qualified

The department-by-department calculation produces $2,449,125 in increases, offset by $411,962 in reductions: a net $2,037,163. Four FY2026 summary figures differ from their worksheet counterparts by a combined $3,200. The summary supports 8.18%; the County should explain the baseline discrepancy before a different comparison is treated as official. Source 12

The original twelve-item group totals $2,440,787. Dividing by $26,954,270 gives 9.055288828%, or 9.06%. Ten items were briefly mentioned or carried forward; Seven Rivers had no substantive appropriation discussion located; Sanitation was briefly mentioned and has an additional reconciliation issue. Detailed locators and limits appear in the evidence matrix. Source 8

That percentage describes this selected group, not every item receiving limited discussion, not the budget increase, and not proven waste. The new financial questions expand the analysis without turning missing explanations into findings of misconduct.

Repeating last year's amount can still require an explanation

Two County worksheets propose the prior-year amount even though reported spending is already above the displayed budget:

Public Buildings is $126,881.32 above the displayed budget: $126,881.32 ÷ $653,386 × 100 = approximately 19.42%. County Services is $500,000 above: $500,000 ÷ $750,000 × 100 = approximately 66.67%. Source 11

There may be explanations. Public Buildings includes $180,085.45 in YTD capital improvements. County Services includes a $500,000 Healthcare Agreement payment against zero in the displayed budget and proposal. Those entries could involve costs that will not recur, but the worksheets do not establish that. They also do not establish the relevant amendments or the YTD cutoff for these expense pages. Source 11

The question is whether the repeated amounts reflect a realistic forecast of next year's obligations. These comparisons do not establish unauthorized spending.

Follow payments beyond the department total

The proposed Economic Development category includes $140,000 for DAAC within a $167,000 total. The Chamber’s returns report paid support services to DAAC. The second story explains what those records establish and what agreements are still needed to trace the public contribution. Source 15

Seven Rivers presents a separate question. The County proposes $95,000 in named salary and payroll-tax expenses and $100,000 in reimbursement. Its actual net cost requires a complete accounting. The third story connects that arrangement to Seven Rivers’ IRS returns and identifies the missing records. Source 3, 16

A short civics lesson: use the hearing to examine the proposal

The published replacement notice sets the budget hearing for October 1 at 5:30 p.m., Courthouse Annex, 169 Tippins Street, and consideration of adoption for October 8 at 5:30 p.m. The changed hearing date is established by the notice. The hearing and adoption decision remain future events as of this report. Source 17

The practical lesson is that being able to inspect a proposal, comment on it, and identify the later adoption decision are distinct parts of public participation. Residents can use the hearing to ask for the calculations, agreements and forecasts behind the proposed amounts. The earlier notice problem and continuity advice are covered in a separate procedural account; they do not resolve the spending questions.