Published September 26, 2026 · Evidence cutoff September 25, 2026

C.L.O.C.K. FY2027 arithmetic reconciliation

Formatted C.L.O.C.K. research notes, not an official source. Underlying records and limitations are identified below. Personal contact details are withheld in this reading copy.

C.L.O.C.K. FY2027 arithmetic reconciliation

Source: B1: Official FY2027 proposed General Fund summary. Values compare the document’s FY2026 budget column with its FY2027 proposed column; they are not actual spending or an adopted FY2027 budget.

$26,954,270 − $24,917,107 = $2,037,163.

$2,037,163 ÷ $24,917,107 × 100 = 8.175760533%, rounded to 8.18%.

The 37 expenditure rows sum exactly to each stated total. Gross increases of $2,449,125, less decreases of $411,962, yield $2,037,163. The six largest positive changes—Recreation, Sheriff, Jail, Rural Fire, Roads, Ambulance/Rescue—sum to $2,094,581, exceeding the net increase because other rows decrease. These are arithmetic contributions, not a causal explanation or a claim that each reflects added service.

Revenue bridge

The 13 revenue rows independently sum to the same two totals. Do not count the M&O subtotal again.

Limits on interpreting the increase

• The 8.18% General Fund change is not the millage-rate change and does not establish any individual property-tax bill’s change.
• The $1.3 million capital list is $400,000 + $400,000 + $500,000. $26,954,270 − $1,300,000 = $25,654,270, matching the unlabeled figure on the full packet summary. The arithmetic alone does not establish recurring-cost growth or fund treatment.
• The separately presented $658,550 landfill schedule must not be silently included in the $26,954,270 denominator, or added without eliminating any interfund transfers.
• Rescue reclassification and payroll annualization mean a department-to-department comparison is not necessarily a like-for-like service expansion.
• Public Defender: $188,000 − $181,789 = $6,211. The regular-meeting captions indicate a contract amount of $187,942.32, which would leave $57.68 between contract and proposed appropriation. Those caption figures require contract/original-audio confirmation; they are not a verified repair of the minutes.

Worksheet reconciliation added after all 42 pages were read

Every FY2027 departmental total in the 37-row summary agrees with its corresponding worksheet total. Four FY2026 totals differ. The published-summary arithmetic remains correct on its own terms; the underlying baseline is not fully reconciled.

Illustration only: replacing those four summary figures with worksheet totals would give $24,917,107 − $3,200 = $24,913,907; $26,954,270 − $24,913,907 = $2,040,363; $2,040,363 ÷ $24,913,907 × 100 = 8.189654878%, or 8.19%. This is not an authorized correction. The adopted/amended FY2026 baseline and source workbook are needed. This discrepancy does not establish missing money.

Subtracting the full $1.3 million annotation from FY2027 alone is not a valid recurring-cost growth calculation: prior-year capital already exists, and the road annotation remains unreconciled. No additional $1.3 million should be added to the General Fund total.

Why repeat last year's appropriation when YTD spending is higher?

Two verified worksheets make this a concrete budget-development question. These are comparisons with the displayed FY2026 budget, not findings that spending exceeded an amended legal appropriation. The worksheet pages do not establish the YTD cutoff date or supply the amendment history.

Sources: Public Buildings, part 1 PDF p. 10 / printed p. 5; County Services, part 2 PDF p. 11 / printed p. 26. Calculations: ($780,267.32 − $653,386) ÷ $653,386 × 100 ≈ 19.41904%; ($1,250,000 − $750,000) ÷ $750,000 × 100 ≈ 66.66667%.

Confirmed document facts: Public Buildings includes $180,085.45 YTD capital improvements against a displayed $0 budget and a blank FY2027 proposed cell. It also shows equipment rental of $43,138 against $1,000 budget/proposal, and liability insurance of $50,000 against $20,000 budget/proposal. County Services shows $500,000 YTD on the Appling Healthcare Agreement line against $0 in both the FY2026 budget and FY2027 proposal; its other two YTD lines total $750,000.

Inference to test: one-time spending could explain some of the mismatch. For Public Buildings, simply subtracting the capital-improvements amount gives $600,181.87, below the displayed $653,386 total. That subtraction is an illustration, not proof the remaining costs will stay within budget through year-end. Equipment rental and insurance still warrant their own explanations. For County Services, the $500,000 agreement payment exactly accounts for the displayed total excess, but its future obligation is not established by the worksheet.

Open question: What evidence supports repeating the prior appropriation? The County should identify the YTD cutoff, adopted and amended budget, projected year-end spending, recurring versus one-time costs, any transfers/reimbursements, and the reason each FY2027 estimate remains adequate. I cannot confirm from these worksheets whether the higher spending was one-time, authorized by amendments, or expected to recur.

The limited-discussion finding therefore concerns more than whether a total was read aloud: did the public record explain why the repeated amount remained realistic in light of actual spending? Public Buildings remains in the original 12-item group; County Services is an additional issue outside that group. These two examples are not an exhaustive YTD-variance audit.