Beaufort County officials have responded to Beaufort Insider’s questions regarding the $24.8 million carry over added to the FY26 budget—an amount that is more than five times larger than last year’s $4.5 million carry over and increases the overall county budget by nearly 10% after it was already approved.
While County staff say the increase is due to a new policy of carrying forward purchase orders across all funds, not just the Capital Projects Fund, that explanation still leaves the most critical question unanswered: why this year’s total ballooned to nearly $25 million.
County Points to Accounting Change
In their written response, County officials said that in prior years, only open purchase orders from the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Fund were carried over to the new budget year. For FY26, that practice was expanded to include purchase orders from every fund—General, Special Revenue, and Capital Projects—a shift they say was made to prevent project delays.
Finance Director Sandra Novak noted during the August 18 Finance Committee meeting that “these orders impact the general fund, special revenue funds, and the capital project funds.” Councilman York Glover questioned why the total amount was so high, but his inquiry never received a clear, quantified answer. Councilman Joe Passiment reiterated that the policy had changed, but neither he nor staff addressed how that policy shift alone resulted in such a dramatic increase of more than $20 million.
Timing and Transparency Remain Points of Concern
Beaufort Insider also asked why the carry over was not presented at the same time as the FY26 budget, as was done in some past cycles. County officials said time constraints made it impossible, though they acknowledged that simultaneous presentation would have been “ideal.” They added that similar post-budget carry overs occurred in FY22 and FY23.
County leaders also emphasized that the carry over was presented publicly—through the Finance Committee agenda packet, which listed each purchase order by number, vendor, fund, and balance. The packet was available online, and the meeting was broadcast for public viewing. However, there was no public discussion at the two subsequent Council readings, which both passed unanimously.
“Proper Accounting” Clarified but Context Missing
County Administrator Michael Moore’s August comment that the new CFO was “following proper accounting procedures” prompted questions about whether prior methods were improper. Officials clarified that there was nothing wrong with the former process, but that CFO Lori Harriott believes it is more efficient to carry forward all open purchase orders rather than reissue them.
That clarification addresses the process—but not the scale of the FY26 carryover.
Taxpayers Still Deserve a Straight Answer
County officials stressed that the entire budget process is public and pointed to the County’s online budget book as a tool for transparency. Yet the underlying question remains.
The answer taxpayers deserve is not simply that the County changed its policy—it’s why that change produced a $24.8 million impact and whether that level of unspent funds indicates broader issues with project management, procurement, or budgeting efficiency.
Beaufort Insider will continue pressing for those answers, because transparency is not just about posting documents—it’s about explaining decisions that move tens of millions of taxpayer dollars.
Here are the questions posed to Beaufort County officials and Council members by email. In response Beaufort Insider one email with all recipients copied. These are questions and complete answers from County:
1. Why was this year’s budget carry over more than five times larger than last year’s ($24.8M vs. $4.5M)? What changed in the County’s operations or accounting to create such a dramatic increase?
“As your article mentioned, it is standard practice to carry over open purchase orders into a new budget year when funds were already committed in the prior year. Previously, Beaufort County only carried forward Purchase Orders for the CIP Fund (Fund 1040). All other Purchase Orders open at the end of the year were closed, and new POs were issued.”
” For this Fiscal Year, it was decided to carry them forward to avoid stalls in projects. Simply put, we did carryforwards for all funds, not just the CIP fund, thus the increase. At the meeting on the 18th of August Finance Director Sandra Novak shares, ‘these orders impact the general fund, special revenue funds, and the capital project funds.’ Mr. Glover does raise a question on the amount, and his question is answered as part of the discussion where Mr. Passiment reiterates this answer.”
2. Why was the carry over not presented and voted on at the same time as the FY26 budget, as was done in previous budget cycles?
“While it would have been ideal to prepare the carry forward list simultaneously with the FY26 budget, there were time constraints on the budget process that did not make it possible. Historically, it is not uncommon to bring forward carryovers after the budget has passed: Council did so in FY22 (September 2021) as well as FY23 (October 2022). As part of this year’s budget process, Ms. Harriott shared with Council that she would need to bring forward a carryover list.”
3. How does this mid-year increase of nearly 10% to the total budget align with the County’s stated commitment to budget transparency and accountability?
“The Carryover List was presented to the public via the Agenda Packet and at the public Finance Committee meeting (broadcast for those unable to attend in person). It detailed every single open Purchase Order that was requested to carry over. These details included the purchase order number, vendor, associated balance and fund. The Committee had open discussion on the list, wherein they asked questions and received answers, as you mentioned above and in your article . The Ordinance required three public readings, which it received.”
4. What steps will be taken in future budget cycles to ensure that carry overs are discussed more openly, with explanations provided to both Council members and the public before approval?
“Carryover POs are not a new feature to governmental accounting. The entire budget process has been and will continue to be a publicly involved process. We have public hearings, open meetings, packets, and information so that the public and Council may address any concerns they have. We also launched a transparent budget book so taxpayers can see where everything is in the County’s budget across all funds. Now that the Carryovers have passed, we will be updating the budget book.”
5. County Administrator Moore stated that the new CFO is now following proper accounting procedures. What was improper about what was done in the past and how does the current carry over process correct those previous errors?“There was nothing improper about the previous CFO’s method of closing all open POs other than the CIP fund. The current CFO, Ms. Harriot, believes it more efficient to carry over POs across all funds as Council has already approved the funding. Mr. Moore’s comment was related to the process of bringing forward Carryover POs.”
