Daviess County Fiscal Court voted 3-1 Thursday to approve a $110.2 million balanced budget for the 2025-26 fiscal year, holding tax rates steady and avoiding new debt. Commissioner Janie Marksberry cast the lone dissenting vote, primarily citing her continued issue with the absence of designated funds for flood mitigation efforts.
The budget spans nine funds, including major appropriations for general operations, road maintenance, solid waste management, the county jail, and economic development.
Key appropriations include:
- General Fund: $60.27 million
- Road Fund: $6.28 million
- Detention Center Fund: $11.55 million
- Solid Waste Funds: $26.77 million
- Economic Development Fund: $1.77 million
- Bond Fund (Debt Service): $3.07 million
The budget document also includes $137,500 in the Local Government Economic Assistance Fund and $381,000 for capital projects via the County Clerk’s Permanent Storage Fees Fund.
Treasurer Jordan Johnson said the budget is fully balanced, with revenues matching appropriations in every fund. He noted retirement contribution rates were calculated using a 2.9% increase recommended by the Kentucky Public Pensions Authority.
No amendments were proposed during Thursday’s meeting, but underlying disagreements from previous discussions — including during the first reading of the budget nearly a month ago — resurfaced as Marksberry explained her no vote.
“This budget is drastically higher than previous years,” she said, referencing a list of major projects she believed to be included. “Some of the projects we’re voting on today — $40 million for a jail upgrade, $18 million for a new public safety facility, $2.4 million for parks upgrades— that is nearly $65 million, folks. This isn’t chump change.”
Marksberry reiterated her frustration that a $500,000 placeholder for drainage maintenance — a line item proposal that she motioned during the budget’s first reading but that was ultimately voted down — was not added despite repeated flooding in the county. She said past budgets have included placeholders for items like the senior center and questioned why a similar approach couldn’t be used.
Commissioner Chris Castlen said drainage remains a top priority, but without a specific plan or cost estimates, a placeholder would be premature.
“There’s likely going to be enough money in our budget for drainage,” Castlen said Thursday. “Once we have our plan, we’ll put the available money where it needs to be. We’re committed to addressing the drainage concerns of our citizens … but putting an arbitrary line item in the budget isn’t the way to do it.”
Commissioner Larry Conder, who had previously seconded Marksberry’s motion to add a $500,000 drainage line item, sought clarification from Johnson during Thursday’s meeting to confirm the major projects Marksberry referenced were not in the budget.
He specifically asked if there was $30-$40 million in the budget for the jail, along with additional funds for the proposed public safety facility, and Johnson clarified there was not.
Judge/Executive Charlie Castlen also pushed back on Marksberry’s claims, both about the contents of the budget and about the communication of drainage-related documents.
Castlen corrected a previous claim from Marksberry that she had not received materials from a meeting on drainage until she asked for them. He said the documents were emailed to both Marksberry and Conder and urged commissioners to ensure their public comments were factually accurate.
At that point, Castlen shut down discussion of the budget and moved on to the next agenda item.
During the commissioners’ regular dedicated time for comments, which is always the final agenda item of their meetings, Marksberry revisited the issue. She read an email from Johnson, saying she believed it indicated the two major projects were in the budget.
Johnson again clarified that those items are not in the adopted budget, though they were discussed during the planning process.
He said the Detention Center renovation and the public safety facility will likely be bonded out. Because of that, they are not introduced into the current budget; they would be included later through a budget amendment once the Court decides how much to bond or if the Court receives funding from the state.
Despite the disagreements, Fiscal Court members indicated that the drainage issue remains a priority and could be addressed in future budget amendments once a formal plan is in place.
