The Jackson City Council has twice declined to formally declare what its own chief financial officer calls a deficit, leaving the city's books showing a $135 million budget against roughly $99 million in projected revenue. The gap is $36 million, and the council's majority is betting that spending restraint will close it without an official amendment.

The fight came to a head on July 28, when the council voted 3-4 against an administration order to amend the fiscal 2026-27 budget to match lower revenue projections. CFO Jillian Caldwell told the council the city had brought in $93.2 million so far and expected only about $6 million more by the end of the budget year on Sept. 30, according to WLBT.

The vote split along a familiar line. Council President Vernon Hartley, Vice President Kevin Parkinson, and Ward 6's LaShia Brown-Thomas voted to amend. Ashby Foote, Tina Clay, Kenneth Stokes, and Brian Grizzell voted against.

Foote, the Ward 1 councilman, argued the state statute only requires an amendment if the city actually runs a deficit, and that cuts already made mean it will not. The city closed an earlier $23 million shortfall in December by trimming payroll, operating transfers, and capital outlay, he said. "Because of personnel services primarily, we're not anywhere near spending $135 million, and I'm just not convinced that we've got a deficit," Foote said.

Clay, the former Finance Committee chair, agreed, crediting Chief Administrative Officer Pieter Teeuwissen with an "excellent job of keeping the expenses down." The actuals, she said, were what the council needed to see.

Parkinson read the same numbers differently. With only $93.2 million in and roughly $6 million more expected, he said the city would fall well short of the $135 million it budgeted in September. "Unless we're going to get that much more money over the next two months, I think we will not have all the revenues that we initially forecasted," he said, according to WLBT.

The two sides also disagreed about what an unamended budget means in practice. Foote argued the council could police spending by rejecting the claims docket, the monthly list of bills the city owes. "We don't have much power, but we do have the power of the purse," he said. Parkinson countered that claims are paid for goods already received, so rejecting them punishes the city after the fact.

The July 28 meeting recessed to Friday, July 31, where the amendment was withdrawn before a vote. With only four members present, deputy city attorney Ramona Williams warned that a 2-2 tie would kill the motion and bar reconsideration for a year under council rules, according to the Clarion-Ledger. Parkinson and Brown-Thomas pulled their motions rather than risk that outcome.

Caldwell had warned of the stakes. Governing authorities are required to reduce budgets when anticipated revenues decline, she said, and officials could face audit findings or personal liability if expenditures exceed available revenues. "Department heads as well as the city council could bear some personal liability guilt for expenditures they see in the budget revenue," she said.

The council's position is a bet on a specific theory: that the city can spend its way out of a projected shortfall by leaving positions unfilled and departments lean, without ever putting the shortfall on paper. Foote acknowledged the cost, saying the city is "shrinking the city, not intentionally, but what's being shrunk is its ability to serve people."

The budget hearings that open Monday will test that theory in public. The council will hear department-by-department requests for the coming year against a revenue picture its own CFO has already described as $36 million short of what was budgeted.

Jackson has been here before. The December shortfall was $23 million; the projected one is larger. The question now is whether the council's refusal to declare it makes the gap smaller, or simply moves the reckoning to an audit finding and a future budget year.