Lee County supervisors hear draft budget showing roughly $4.8 million gap; school costs could add about $2 million

The Lee County Board of Supervisors met April 25 for a recessed budget workshop and heard that the first draft of the county budget includes requests that would leave roughly a $4.8 million shortfall if left unchanged. The presenter, who led the session, said the draft consolidates departmental requests and that some trimming is possible but that a worst‑case school budget scenario could add about $2 million in local matching obligations.

The presenter told the board the printed "blue bar" budget packet lists three years of actual expenditures, the adopted and amended FY24 budgets, current FY24 actuals and each department’s request for the next year. "This first draft... includes all the requests for funding. It has expenditures that total almost $4.8 million more than revenues," the presenter said. He advised supervisors that some reductions — including cutting duplicate vehicle requests and trimming discretionary line items — could remove several hundred thousand dollars from the total.

Why it matters: the board must adopt a budget and tax rate by June 30; state actions still in play and an upcoming special session mean the county cannot finalize salary calculations until the state budget is settled. The presenter said the state’s unsettled budget and the school system’s worst‑case estimate together create the largest uncertainty for the county’s bottom line.

Key details and numbers discussed included about $1.4 million of remaining American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds (roughly $400,000 of which is already committed to known water projects), an expected August casino‑revenue payment of about $675,000, and the possibility of trimming $125,000–$350,000 from departmental requests. "You could just revert [unused ARPA] to the general fund and apply it to budget expenditures," the presenter said.

Board members pressed on vehicle and personnel requests. Supervisors questioned sheriff's office entries that listed four new cruisers, while the presenter said the sheriff told him the department intended to request only two; removing excess vehicle requests could save roughly $130,000 in one example discussed. The board also debated whether litter‑control staff should take county trucks home while on call; one supervisor said, "I just can't see that," arguing for on‑call rotations to limit take‑home vehicles.

On compensation, the presenter said the state’s incomplete budget makes it hard to set exact raises. He explained a past practice of matching the compensation board’s raises for county employees but noted the county’s formal pay ranges date to 2013 and have been adjusted informally to keep pace with minimum‑wage changes.

Process and next steps: supervisors agreed to schedule interviews with department representatives to drill into specific requests. The board set interviews for May 2 at 5:30 p.m. and, after a motion and second, voted to recess the workshop until May 30. The motion to recess passed with an affirmative vote recorded by supervisors at the meeting.

The workshop covered multiple possible balancing tools — reserve draws, targeted cuts and one‑time ARPA spending — but supervisors repeatedly returned to the school budget risk as the largest near‑term pressure. The board will reconvene to review trimmed proposals and hear department interviews before finalizing a proposed budget for public hearing and eventual adoption.