Pulaski County Comptroller Hutch told the Quorum Court on Thursday that preliminary 2026 budget projections are stable but flagged several items that justices must address, including a one‑time payroll timing issue, changes in grant revenue and possible costs tied to a recent state law change.

Hutch said the county renegotiated an insurance rebate, giving up an approximately $450,000 rebate in exchange for a $1,600,000 rebate, producing a net improvement of about $1,100,000 that he said will be applied to the county's health insurance fund. He also warned of a separate revenue impact from a state law change that he estimated could cost the county about $1,200,000 a year, which he said would largely offset the rebate gain.

The comptroller told justices the county will face 27 payrolls in the calendar year because of how pay dates fall, not the usual 26, and said he will bring an appropriation ordinance to cover the payroll timing, noting much of the money will return as carryover the following week. He also reported that the county's contingency balance is about $5,063,017 and that the proposed total budget is just over $105,000,000.

The meeting included an extended discussion about whether to restore spousal health coverage. Hutch said broker estimates place the potential annual cost between about $1,200,000 (low participation) and $5,000,000 (high participation), and reminded the court that the county previously covered spouses until about 2016 at an estimated cost of $1,000,000 per year. Justice McCoy said he opposed reinstating spousal coverage on fairness grounds, saying he did not “consider it patently fair for the other 90 to 95% of county employees to have to have their premiums increase for that 1 or 2% that chooses to take out spousal coverage.” Hutch said he would ask brokers for additional scenarios and a median estimate to inform the court.

Hutch recommended that the court “batch” and approve grant funds now, then review a handful of departments with highlighted increases in subsequent meetings. He identified sanitation — citing an increase tied to a Waste Management contract — and the Election Commission (next year is an election year) as exceptions needing closer review. Hutch said many other increases reflected true‑ups for last year’s pay increases or insurance matching rather than new program requests.

On formal actions, justices moved and seconded a motion to approve the grant items and send them to the full court for final approval; the roll call recorded seven ayes, zero nays. Later, the court approved a motion to forward a long list of county general and other‑fund budget lines that were budget neutral or decreased to the full court with a "due pass" recommendation; that motion also passed on a roll call of seven ayes, zero nays.

During the discussion justices asked for clarifications on which increases could be covered from contingency, which increases reflected contracts or benefits (and thus could not be absorbed by contingency), and which line items were simply accounting true‑ups. Hutch said sheriff detention food contracts and some vendor contracts could not be paid from contingency, while some software or one‑time human resources items might be.

The court agreed to meet again on Thursday the 16th at 6:00 p.m. to review any departments justices pull from the batched approvals and to consider remaining budget questions. Hutch said he will continue refining revenue projections and produce additional estimates for the court before final votes.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to approve all grant items and forward them to the full court for final approval: Passed by roll call 7–0 (ayes: Miss Davis; Miss Capps; Miss Massey; Mister Keith; Mister McCoy; Mister Stowers; Miss Midlock). The motion was recorded as moved and seconded; mover/second not specified in the transcript.

- Motion to forward identified county general and other‑fund budget lines that were budget neutral or decreased to the full court with a "due pass" recommendation: Passed by roll call 7–0 (ayes: Miss Davis; Miss Capps; Miss Massey; Mister Keith; Mister McCoy; Mister Stowers; Miss Midlock). Mover identified in discussion as Justice McCoy; the transcript shows a second but does not record names for mover/second consistently.

Context and next steps

Hutch asked justices to identify which departments they want pulled from the batched approvals so staff can invite those department heads to the next meeting rather than bringing every department before the court. He also said he would ask the benefit broker to run additional scenarios about spousal coverage participation and to produce a median employee cost estimate. The appropriation ordinance to handle the 27th payroll will be drafted and presented to the court; Hutch said most of that appropriation will return as carryover shortly after year‑end.