Good morning everyone and welcome to the Tuesday 20 September 23rd 2025 uh special board meeting of the Candyo High County Board of Commissioners. Uh uh this is a singlepurpose special meeting uh solely for the uh uh uh
purpose of discussing and approving the 2026 preliminary budget. At this time, we'll turn the uh uh meeting over to uh County Administrator Kelsey Baker. >> No, we're working today. >> All right.
>> We work all the time. >> We're diving. We're diving right into it. Eric. >> Okay. Thank you. Kelsey Baker, Candyoy County Administrator. Uh, as the board chair mentioned, today we'll be discussing the 2026 budget and, um, at
the end of today's work session meeting, um, we will be asking for a resolution to approve that preliminary budget, whatever number that is. And so, when we u, I wanted to put in kind of what we went through with our strategic plan and one of our strategies is progressive
leadership. And within um one of those outcomes is to have a forward-thinking, fiscally responsible, transparent county government. And then one of the goals is what I think we're all trying to work towards staff um and having those quarterly finance meetings uh providing more
in-depth information for the board is to strengthening fiscal responsibility and transparency by reviewing the budget process to improve efficiency, public understanding, and prudent use of taxpayer funds. And so I think by doing more of these work sessions and having
financial quarterly meetings will help the public, the commissioners and the staff understand the Kio County budget in more depth and transparency. And so the next slide just kind of shows the overall 2026 budget where the percentage of funds go. You can see the general
fund has the majority of the budget at 54.96. This also includes payroll and benefits which we have a slide on later on that kind of goes over what percent of the budget that really is. Um, as you can see, it lays out the funds that we talked about, the health and human
services fund, the road and bridge fund, and then we have capital equipment. These funds are required under government accounting as well. And so at a later date, maybe at work session, we can talk about that. But these are listed out by funds. And so we're kind
of really going to get right into the weeds right off the bat today. And so kind of to go back in time, last month in August, we had our first work session. That was a joke. Lighten up today. Um our first work session um and that
was coming in with with an 8% levy. We talked about um that budget. We went through some more changes. I met with Karen, our CFO, to kind of go over some reserves and what we feel comfortable. We worked with Road and Bridge. We worked with Health and Human uh human
services reviewing diff our different reserves, restricted, unrestricted, looking at where our reserves accounts are coming in at. Um and we did realize then after option one that we could go down a little more and that brings us to option two. This was presented in
September coming in at the 7.1. This is using the general fund reserves and our landfill reserves. Um staff do feel comfortable with the 7.1. However, I'll keep going into the
presentation. We'll discuss this a little bit further. Um but where this where we feel comfortable with this is because our our audit for 2024 will be presented to the board the second meeting in October. Um, we're using 1.15
of reserves at the 7.1. Once we get that final audit, we can then adjust if needed. Um, it's a balancing act. We have to we want we don't want to spend down all of our reserves and deplete them, but we also want to use a healthy
amount. And what does that healthy amount mean to the board? Where do where's that sweet spot? And in discussion with staff and myself, our sweet spot is using somewhere in between one or two million. Two is on the top. Two is really top, but if we come in at
option two or three, we're coming in at 1.6, possibly one, sorry, 1.1 or 1.6. And so we have some wiggle room in there, but it's what does the board feel comfortable with with the upcoming things that are happening. And so where staff is recommending option two, the
7.1 is because of the audit that's coming up in October that we would like you to hear that presentation, think about that. Then we have the final audit or the final approval in December. Um using reserves strategically and flexibly can really help us as well when
we look to the future of using our fund balances. Um, our interest income is very strong right now, but that will be adjusting in the next few years as interest rates potentially drop. Um, so
going to option three, uh, that's where we're coming in at the 5.8%, that's using the 1.6 million in reserves. So that's pulling again general fund reserves and landfill fund.
Um, this would be getting us more comfortable with how we're going to spend on our reserves using that 1.6. Um, you know, we look at long-term investments. Staff feel staff do feel
comfortable with this 5.8. However, um, we would stand by the option to just because of the audit that's coming up in October. This tacks on some more reserves. clearly the adjustment um using more
landfill reserves than the general fund. And so it's just finding that balance. So then if you keep going into the next slide, we look at our levy history and I think we have this has kind of been brought to your attention a few times so we don't have to go over this one so
much in depth. But when we go to the staffing levels and wages, this is where when we say the general fund is the major part of the bud budget, um with 445 staff, and this is a generality with the part-time and the seasonals,
um we're about 45% of the budget that goes to payroll and benefits. And that's a high percentage. And so when you look at our full-time wages for 26, it's 38 million. Um but then total 45 million for the
payroll budget. And so we have staff that are our biggest assets and we want to ensure that they are following the strategies that the board set forth in our strategic plan on providing progressive leadership by providing the right tools and resources for us to do
our job. And in return, if we can do that, we can find that sweet spot in creating efficiencies and workflows within the systems. Um, and so I just I think that's important because our staff are important and we have a lot of staff and
that's that's good. We have constituents that need these services and resources and tools and we are here to help them. But on the flip side of that, our staff are our biggest driver for the budget. So when we're looking at this levy, that is also a piece of the puzzle. And then going to the next slide, this
slide was in your uh um audit presentation last year. This is from uh the 2023 audit. So not 2423 audit numbers. And at the the the top line shows our months of coverage. Um as
discussed uh Doug Host has been here, the state auditors have been here for presentations. Um where they recommend our months of coverage is 3 to five months. And you can see um our months of coverage grew from 21
um up to 23 basically at the end of 23. Um so it increased 06 months. And then if you go to the next slide, this is the 2024 unodudited numbers. So we'll see our audit numbers October 21st
if I'm correct on that date. Then if you go to where it says fund balance as a percentage of reserves, you'll see the general fund has 64%. 77 for road and bridge, 57 for human
services, and 304% for the the building fund. These are broken down. If you go two down where it says five months of expenditures, that's where we would have the five months of expenditures is that 18
million8 96 and 725. But then if you go back up that was what that's where we would need to be for the five months. But then the total unrestricted fund balance the fourth from the top explains then where we're at.
you, Mr. Chair. >> Yes. Do >> you add those numbers together from left to right to get the total? >> Sure. >> Right. >> Okay. But the total >> in 2023 we had 66,357.
And if we add these up from left to right on uh you said the fourth line total unrestricted fund balance add them up left to right then we'd get similar number to the 66 357.
>> Correct. But the when they s the restricted those funds, they're restricted within those funds. Yes, they're county dollars altogether, right? They are the the county board directs those funds, but then they are
restricted within those funds. For instance, road and bridge, state aid, um human services fund, we get federal dollars within there. Um general fund, per government accounting, certain dollars have to go into each fund.
Mr. Chair, um so in going back to the previous year in 60 uh in 2023 that 66 million 357 um does that include or does not include some of those restricted funds. I'm trying to compare apples to apples
here. It's the unrestricted fund. So, it's restricted and unrestricted and the unrestricted fund balance increased 7.9 million which drove us to that which got us to where we were at
for the end of 23. >> Okay. And so for the unodudited number for 2024, what is that uh comparative number? >> I don't have that. I mean, we could try to get that. Isn't this I think you have it there,
don't you? >> No. >> Oh, I see what you're saying. >> Numbers and this all is on unrestricted funds. >> You'd have to add that up. See what that >> Yep. to the right. Then you >> So from left to right like I first said, >> I assume that.
>> Okay. >> Yep. >> Yep. So if we go to the levy recommendations, >> as stated earlier, the staff recommendation for the preliminary levy would be the 7.1 with a goal of lowering for the final levy in December. Um
like I said, staffing still remains one of our biggest drivers. Competitive wages are critical um when we look at recruitment and retention. we um but I will you know applaud the board and as of January 1, 2024 you you approved that work and so I do feel an admin feels
comfortable with you know staying where we're at. Um however, workforce challenges and investments do keep increasing and um staff that are coming in are um coming in differently in today's world and how do we invest in
our staff and continue moving forward to provide and continue the progressive work that KUI County has done. Um I do like I said I have the 7.1 option. I also have the 5.8 eight option if we
need to. Um the other documents that were included in the board pocket um were the tra the treasures cash and trial balance um the audits that were not included in the board pocket uh the quasi government
funds and then the net budget for each department um that has been provided before. And so I would leave it open now for questions and feedback because at the end um of this discussion I would ask
and consider approval for a resolution for today's meeting. >> Uh Kelsey, I'm going to start off with uh just one or two things here real quick. Uh if we're looking at the current slide uh and it talks about the uh use of revenues uh use of reserves,
excuse me, landfill purchase. this was because we uh did uh purchase that property. Uh my understanding was that we were maybe uh thinking that uh we probably shouldn't touch any more of those landfill reserves, but that's what
we would be doing if we went to the 5.8. Uh we would be including some of that in there. >> And so just just so everybody knows that, you know, we would be impacting those reserves a little further. And then can you uh uh talk a little bit
about this uh line that uh says uh technology upgrades because I I I I think and you mentioned this uh uh we're we need to be looking at all sorts of different efficiencies uh as opposed to maybe just adding on or piling on new
FTEEs. Um uh there's got to be a better smarter way to leverage technology to do our work. And can you uh kind of talk about that a little bit? >> Well, I think it's the investment in what the board recently approved with caseworks within human services on that
workflow. Um I think there's different avenues that we can look at workflow um within each department whether that's online imaging having a form software that we send out our onboarding packet and onboarding information because
that's staff time printing through copies. you know, disregard all of the Maxis SSIS computer issues. We cannot prevent that other than uh advocating. Uh but it's it's putting the time and effort to we don't have to reinvent the
wheel. There's AI tools out there. There's different workflow tools out there that maybe have a a front-end cost, but then your maintenance cost is not having to hire an FTE, another additional FTE. And so it's looking at those options and exploring and not
having to reinvent the wheel. What's another county doing that we we could easily get us up to speed on and the workflow would be able to be much easier and faster. Um but it's it's putting in that work. It's having staff commit
committed to wanting to review a process and looking at our work differently. And that um that's not always easy. That's hard. You know, we're we're human by nature and that's we we want to sometimes provide that longer process to
help the individual, but we have to force ourselves to look at our work differently and not all aspects of county department uh county departments, but some that we can improve on. >> And we know of course about the software
uh aged software that health and human services deals with uh uh at the state level. Uh but do we have uh other areas within the county where we have uh uh maybe the tech uh we don't have the
technology we should have in today's world >> maybe >> I mean just in general it's I'm not asking you to pinpoint specifics >> yes but I I think it can be a negative and a positive and how we look at it and
how we utilize it. It's how we utilize it, I think, is the biggest thing. Like, if we're paying for something, whether it costs 3,000 or 30,000, are we utilizing it to the best of its capability? >> Sure. >> And that's something I think we can continue to look into. We can't pay for
a software and say, "Oh, yes, we use this. This is great." But then we're not using all of it that truly does help with that efficiency piece. um I go to the board packet, you know, um for me to use the board packet from front end to
backend, I'm using it more efficiently efficiently now and how we send out the board packet with just having that conversation with staff on hey, what are you doing because this is what I'm doing and I feel like we're maybe doubling up on what we're both doing. Let's and it's as simple as that. It's having that
conversation. Um, and so I think when we sit at department head meetings and we talk with staff, that is something that we're wanting to do. We need to utilize the software we have before looking at anything differently because maybe are we we want to question oursel and make sure we're using the software to the
best of its ability. >> Thank you. Uh, any other questions for Kelsey? I'm just wondering if if uh Commissioner and Financial Officer came up with a number >> for the
>> for the unrestricted >> the unrest the unrestricted for 2024 albeit unudited. >> Look at what's on the slide. >> Yeah, Kelsey slide. >> So the 66 I'm looking at 2023 66,357607. So for 2024
Dwayne added it up it comes to 64 million55. So did it come down when we add up from left to right? So you're wondering from 22 to 23 if >> he or no the unodudited in October when
the uh audit when we'll have the audit what number will they report as they did in 2023 where we had 26 the fund balance of 20 uh 66 million 357607 >> I I don't know what their numbers will be not until we get everything from
Doug. >> Yeah, but you have a number I assume that you you give to Doug for for auditing purposes. >> No, no, there is no magic reserve total. >> Okay. >> Because that's why it goes through the
audit because we see so much of it as just it's cash to us. But yet when they go through it, they're talking about the assigned amounts, unassigned, restricted, non-restricted. They break all of that out for us
>> and more than likely it went up a little bit again. Right. >> Well, we're right on track. We were we ended the year good. >> Um we ended the 23 year around the same. >> Um I would say that was something that >> it's kind of sounding like 24 there's
not going to be a huge change. >> It stayed pretty much on target with what it has been. That's kind of how I was taking it. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Commissioner Burke. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a a couple comments and and thank you for sharing your concerns about the staff
and um and that's, you know, all about the budget. It's it's about the taxpayers and the property taxes, but it's also that we keep providing keep providing the good services with our staff provide and and we're certainly trying to do a good budget, you know,
for everybody and and the primary person of of course is uh the funding of their levy and that's really a concern. But staff is important and we're I'm I'm sure we're going to work hard that we keep our staff. We have great staff. So, I totally support you on that. And also
I want to thank you. This is one of your most important jobs you have as this is your budget that you're giving to us. And I I appreciate very much the staff is very comfortable with this going forward and had good input and they worked really hard about this. And I
know you're working hard and this is uh some of the best information we've seen uh in the last couple years about the numbers and the packet and making a decision on the budget at the board and as and so I really want to frame it in the sense we're trying to do a budget that will work for everybody and for the
taxpayers as well. And uh I think we're just doing that and I just want to just restate state all that. Um I did have a couple of questions. I'm I'm really liking the uh 5.8. I was hoping for five
uh but I I think uh at this point you know there is ways to do it and uh going through the budget and I even spent some time last night thinking about this a whole lot too as well and thinking that if we do go have to go into reserves to keep it at 5.8 That's a we have to do
that and that's what reserves are for. And you know in reference to the salaries you know just thinking of staff that you know that is really uh about the uh you know close to 7% but as we all know you know that they gener some
staff generate revenue and it's really hard to break out then what other levy dollars are we using for other things that are not going to staff then. So, you know, if we need to cut the levy, we certainly don't want to cut staff because we also cutting revenue in some
areas anyway. So, we have essential staff and non-essential staff in other aspects as well. But, uh I I'm looking at the budget and there really are a lot of different areas that that uh we we could have options and I'm not sure just
taking it out of the landfill or whatever would be an option either. uh because some of this is predicting, you know, we're predicting what funds we're going to have far as revenue coming in, say from from the jail or from the land landfill. We're we're predicting those
funds. And uh and the bottom line is we come up with a levy on the end of the year. Uh it it's not we're we're short of funds. It's going to have to come out of out of the general fund >> somewhere. And we have to do that. And I think we can do that. But I think at
this point we got a kind of set of a reasonable levy that the uh since we had a large levy last year which was a good reason we had to do that >> and we we passed that and I think we're not looking too positive about after next year what's going to be happening
and that's one reason I think we're talking about maybe the seven uh point something levy as we go forward but I think and I think at this point that we'll address that issue. I think the staff has done a good job trying to predict what the expenses would be next
year with with the state and the federal government coming at us uh with some major changes. But we most of those are coming near the end of the year and we get to that budget and we we're surprised. I I don't think we should be collecting levy for that purpose. I don't think I hear you saying that. But
I that's one of my concerns that that at that time we've got to prepare everybody next year is going to be maybe a bigger increase than we're having this year. And I want to try to keep this year's down as much as possible. >> Thank you. If I if I may and that's
where I think you bring up that good point with that 5.8 and that'd be then using that 1.6 which is still a healthy amount of reserves to use. Um, and so, you know, we, like we said, our recommendation would be that 7.1.
Um, but if you are, if you're feeling comfortable and you're hearing from your constituents, that 5.8, it's it's that's an option. I put it on there for you as an option. Um, but when we're if that's the route you go, then today, I just
want to be mindful of that. We're using that 1.6 million in reserves. um and that it can't go up then if something were to happen towards the end of the year, but we have healthy reserves. So, I appreciate um you making that comment. >> I did have one followup question if I
may. >> Yes. Um at one of the other work sessions, I believe it was, we were talking to in reference to uh uh capital uh improvements, continuing uh some of the expenditures there. And uh somehow I
had in my mind that most of those capital improvements we used to always take that out of the reserves or the money set aside for that. >> And so then if we put those on the levy as not a budget item that means say we want to repair something in one of the
buildings, we put that in the levy. That's in the levy then. And so every year after that's in that levy and that's part of their budget. Why I mean why wouldn't that stay in the levy if we have to >> it stays in the within the levy. It doesn't stay within the budget line. That budget line might adjust in the
levy. Then where' that money go then? The next year >> that if it's unspent within the building fund then it goes into those that reserve bank >> and it goes into reserves. >> Stay in the building fund >> fund. Yep. Stays within the building fund.
>> But that'll keep building then possibly every year because it's going in the levy. There's got to be some point. Am I am I I'm not sure if I'm >> If we're budgeting the line item and it's being used, that money doesn't go
into the reserves, then that's being spent. >> Yeah. Okay. So, a department has a a budget >> and uh and you and they have a need this year for that budget. If we increase
levy for that need, then that's in the levy and the taxpayer pays that every year every year forever basically and then if they have a budget then and so that's in my mind should be part of their budget then for the next year that yes you have to do these things or do
that you use that part of that levy that you had instead of oh I'm going to add it to the levy again. Am I right? So if you budget 38,000 and 38,000 in the following year, that's that same that's the same levy. What's changing and
driving that levy is the payroll changes. We didn't up I mean if you go through line items that's what I wanted to cover. >> Yes. If you go through the budget line items, there's not a lot of changes from training that's from 10,000 to 30,000.
That training stayed. There's not um I didn't increase travel. like we're not a lot of the line items are not unchanged from 25s to 26. What gets unchanged in that flow is that revenue that's in
increasing or decreasing, the reimbursement rates that we're receiving, the payroll uh step changes and cola changes that we're seeing. And so that's really what's driving then that budget >> and and and I would hope that would be
the case. Exactly. But I just wanted to clarify that. So say let's I'm just told something out just as a a hypothetical type of thing. You know, let's say we needed to put new locks on something and repair a bunch of bathrooms, $200,000 or $150,000, let's just say. So we levy for
that this year. And if we levied for for that dollars, then that's 150,000 that is in their budget. So then next year they if there's a need to do something else or fix something else that would come out of that money because it's
still part of the levy, right? >> Well, when we when you do the budget, if if you budgeted 50,000 this year and that's what you used, you wouldn't automatically have that same 50 next year. It would be adjusted as to, oh, we
need a new roof on something. It's going to be a hundred,000. But that same 50 is is there available then coming from the taxpayer again. So where does that go? I mean the levy is there. >> It's not it's not automatic though. >> Each each year's budget stands on its
own. >> But my taxes go up every year and everybody's taxes go up every year. So every time we increase the taxes >> the levy then that stays there someplace then. Well, it's driven more by the payroll changes than the one-time things
like you're talking about. Those one-time things are on that budget line for this year. If we don't need it next year, that budget line is zero. And so where you're feeling that it still goes up is because some of these other things are going up and kind of absorbing what
that is. But that same $50,000 in your example is not on the budget that year. We budgeted for it this year. We did it. Next year that budget line item is zero. It gets a little bit more complicated I would think for you to track all that for you know for to be able to say okay where are these dollars going this year
you know and because you the question was the dollars that are not going to salary what where where are those levy dollars going >> you you approve those every other week that's the warrants >> but it all isn't all so how much in which area is that you know it's really
hard to figure out >> but it is >> it is okay >> but that would be I I think where Kelsey's meeting with the department heads many times in the budget process, >> they're telling her what we've got for projects that will be coming up in 26.
>> You know, there it's anticipated it's going to be $500,000. So that's what's put in the budget. >> And then every year the same process, >> but yeah, and that's part of the budget process. It should be that.
>> Yeah. Maybe this maybe this isn't apples to apples, but we for example uh we levy for elections, but we only have elections every two years. So there are years where there's a minimal amount uh
levied and then for the election year then then then it's increased. It doesn't just automatically roll over from year to year. I think I I I I think that's always understood what you're >> Yeah. We're using those dollars then for something else to help keep the salary cost of living increases down or
whatever what you're telling me. >> And yet some of our salaries we levy for too as we go on. >> It's what I'm trying to say. It's really hard to track the dollars as we go through this increasing levy.
>> Uh Commissioner Dwayne Anderson. >> Yeah. So, I I'm I'm I want to keep the levy low if we can, but I I also want to go with what what the staff was recommending and because I I think it's a little early yet. Uh I I want to see
those audited numbers to see how that comes in and and uh knowing that we can come down and hopefully we can >> uh I I'll feel more comfortable at that point to make a different kind of adjustment >> and and I'm going uh Commissioner Dale
Anderson. Well, just piggybacking on what Dwayne said, I I actually have went out and asked a bunch of people since I got this presentation. You know, where do you guys want your levy to be at? What's we have three options. Where do you want it to be? And you know, kind of surprised that people do understand a
little bit what we do in as far as this. And and I actually have gotten a lot of people that have responded, well, don't don't squeeze it down too far now until you know what the end of the year is going to be. Um, so I I agree with Dwayne. I' I'd like to keep it probably the middle option and we can always
lower it down in November or December and I think if we can that would be great. I mean I I think that would be the best thing we could do is get it down to that 5.8. But for right now I think that's our our best option is to stay in the middle and see what happens.
There's a lot of unknowns out there. So um I think that might be the way to go. But it is interesting when I've asked people how some people do have a definitely keep track and they do understand a little bit what what's going on. So it's it's good to ask your constituents a little bit too.
Uh, I think that uh uh what I'm hearing from uh Dale and Dwayne are uh uh our are our our measured ideas uh for what we what our purpose is today which is to set a preliminary levy. Uh
you know several of us were just out in Washington DC and we had some productive meetings out there and that was great. But I don't know that anyone has an overarching sense today that everything is well with our federal government. Uh
and we also have challenges at the state level that we may or may not be able to uh uh beat back this uh in this in this next session. Um so I'm in an ideal
world, we have uh we have the 5.8 date and that's great. Uh I would be happy with the little bit of wiggle room, but that's also not a hill that I'm going to die on. I guess, you know, if uh uh if a majority of the board wants to go with
the 5.8 uh then then that's what we do. But just know that then there's not going to be a lot of uh wiggle room when we get to December. Commissioner Indeck, >> thank you. I couldn't agree with you more about the uncertainty and the the nervousness of that, but um most of
those uh cost shifts and I think that's what you were referring to uh were in health and or human services actually. So we're talking Medicaid primarily and um SNAP and both administrative costs and then penalties if you don't reach
certain goals. But I thought Caroline made it really clear uh in one meeting that we weren't preparing ourselves for that at this point. That this budget didn't have anything to do with preparing ourselves. So that means that if we have this budget today and none of
it is in preparation for those out years of 27 and 28 and a little bit in 29 and we have to raise it significantly to cover those shifts then we're we're really kind of piling on on the on the
costs and so I don't know that that's a good strategy to there was a time when I thought it was but I don't think it's a good strategy especially given and the uh not only the uncertainty with what's coming down the pike that we're facing,
but in our own personal lives. Um farmers, unless you're raising beef, are not going to make money again this year. Small businesses are worried about how tariffs are going to affect us. Um every day there's news about inflation and
buying power and cutting back. So, uh I don't think today is a good time to be raised. I would actually advocate for an even smaller than a 5.8. Yesterday at the CPT meeting, um there were 16
counties there and part of our um uh icebreaker as we open up is we ask everybody where they came in with their preliminary level levy and it ranged from under three to 10 with an average of 6
7.068. We have some non-source revenues in Kenny County that most of these counties don't have. We have two fairly large non non- tax source of revenue. Um so I think we can do far better than the
average of these counties just because of that. When we did the uh the strategic plan, one of the things we said as a group is that we really were going to work together on this thing. We'll get through it. We were talking about the
cost shifts both from the state and the federal government and we said we're going to work together on this and I think Kelsey's done a great job of having department heads come in and say look you know be mindful of of the costs and everything and I assume they did
their part. Um but yet we're still looking at a 7ome% um revenue. So there's two parts to to um to a budget. One is the expense and one is the revenue. So you can either
take in more revenue or in this case use more uh reserves or we can continue to cut expenses. I look at our total payroll. Um and I got to ask is the grand count on on staffing of 444.5.
Are those filled positions or are those positions those are filled positions? >> Are they actively filled? >> Okay. >> So they they average 101,000 per per position. So if we could get by with three four less positions that adds
up in a fairly quick uh hurry to I mean some counties Dakota for example is cutting 65 employees. They got a lot more than we do. That's that's for sure. But we we have to face the facts of what we can what we can afford here as far as
our budget our re on the revenue side. Um we got one source of revenue that is going to be significant and um I don't think we have to worry about our about it going down uh in at least not in in
the 2025 year. Um, so I would advocate for a for a uh um a levy increase close to what the low is on this range because of the uh revenue sources we have. And
that's why we have a a reserve 7 point uh or 6 point no what are the months 8 and a half months of reserve is well uh in excess of what the office uh the state auditor recommends. They recommend six months on the top end. And so we
have a very very healthy reserve. It doesn't look like it's going to change much for this year if at all. Uh 2025 uh 2025 which is a year away uh when we see an audit. Um my guess it's going to go up uh based on the revenue that we have
coming in. And so, uh, I I just very uncomfortable with at this time putting any putting any undue pressure on our on our taxpayers. >> Commissioner Burke. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I have the
same concern is, you know, that, uh, and the tough part we could have a big in increase next year in the taxpayer. And I think we got to be really clear that that could happen. not knowing what's going to happen at the federal and the state level and the impact of some of
those things that came across but that's not those increases are coming basically at the end of the year or the next year and we understand they've been budgeted for the possibility as much as we know and the the amount of levy we're looking
at of the increase that uh of what where it was a little over a million dollars to take it down to 5.8 8 out of reserves or out of something else or it may not even be an issue because by the end of the year we don't know what our revenue
is going to actually be. You know, we have estimates. We don't know where that's going to be. We don't know where uh other costs are going to be going going forward neither. So, it may not even have to come out of the reserves per se because we won't know that until we get way into that end of the year. So
just to say it would be coming out of reserves or or where it would be coming out of we have lots of options. You know with over $und00 million budget uh this is really not that big big a part to lower it down. But I also I think it's a
good idea to do it because I personally you maybe it's not a good analogy but uh as as my own individual individual finances knowing next next year there could be some great inflation taking place. I don't take out a loan now just
so I have that so it doesn't hit me real hard and I I know our levy isn't a loan because we don't pay it back but we are going to the taxpayer and that's just one part of part of our income. We have a lot of other income coming in as well. So, I don't think it's unrealistic to do
that, but I do think that I say that knowing that the levy could go up a lot and the taxpayers would feel that impact uh uh when we do the budget next year for the following year. >> Uh I'm sorry, Gail. U Dwayne Dwayne
first and then Roger. >> Okay. Thanks, Mr. Chair. So, I I don't mind using the reserves. I just don't want to use it all up in one year. And that that's that's my big concern. And we don't we have a lot of uncertainty still. We do have our unodudited uh numbers here, but that can still change
between now and what the official numbers are. I I just want to give us some time yet. And that that's why I'm I'm supporting what the staff is recommending. And they can come down. We've come down a lot and they've done a lot of great work. I mean, when we were first talking about this, we were
talking double digits and it's come down a lot. It's down to, you know, what they recommend right now is 7.1. They think they can maybe get it to 5.8, but I just want to give them some time to kind of work through it. And I I don't want to I just don't want to dig into the reserves
a lot. You know, I I want we got a couple years ahead of where we're going to be maybe digging into reserves a lot more and we could end up with a lot more uh levy budget increase and I I just would like to keep some of that for the
the outy years. So that that's why I'm I'm advocating for the 7.1. >> Roger, can I ask you to hold that thought? I've got a request for a recess. We will take a fivem minute recess. Pass up an opportunity here. Commissioners is back in session and uh
uh we left off with uh uh discussion and Commissioner Mdeck has the floor. >> Thank you. Um, so Commissioner Dwayne Anderson was talking about the um where he would
prefer to see the budget. And I'm I'm at a different number, but um he said we can always come down to that. And and that's true. Uh when we certify in December, we can go down, we can't go up. This is my 13th budget. Never seen it happen. It has never gone down from
the preliminary. Never gone up either. But by law you it can't. Uh so I I think I'd be surprised. But I want to go back to you know the opportunities I I mentioned uh staffing
but other opportunities. So by the time we get to through the first quarter in our business and certainly through the first two quarters in our business, we pretty much have a trend. We know about where we're going to end up. Last year I
was in scary. I was with within 1/ half of 1% at the end of the year where I thought we'd be uh in at the end of July or June. And so if the number is going to go down, and I know it's going to go down for us this
year because I know where we're at at the end of the half year, we start making adjustments. you know, that piece of equipment that or or a new computer that we might have considered buying or a roof that needed
ultimately needs replacing at sometime, maybe we buy another year out of it and we postpone some of those purchases into the next year. And so I mean even in the building budget um there's a lot of work that is planned in this year's budget
and I think that there's an opportunity there to to um reduce some of the costs as hard as the staff but the departments all worked to bring down costs. We really didn't bring them down if we got a 7% levy increase because last year we
had a 8 and a half. And so, um, I I just am not comfortable again with, uh, with certainly not over the 5.8, but I I'd advocate for even less than that given uh, where we're at. >> All right. Is there anyone else that uh,
wishes to weigh in on this? >> Commissioner B. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I don't like to go into reserves neither, but we do have very healthy reserves, but and I just want to say again that doesn't mean it we would end up there neither that we
have to take this on at the end of the year. You know, we are estimating a lot of costs as we go through this and uh an over hundred million dollar budget. Uh I think at this point there is some room that we could easily uh uh go to that
lower number that we talked about. It's higher than I originally wanted. Uh but I think we can do that and uh I think it'd be a a good budget we have. The staff did a great job and and I really like to emphas you put a lot of work in this. You've
given us a lot of options and this is your budget and your budget to us and that's what's important. and it's one of your most important jobs you have and I think we're having some really good conversations about all this and this is the best conversations that I I've
experienced for some time. So, thank you for everybody. But I would certainly support the lower lower amount at this point because overall it's uh it's a lot of money. Uh but I think it's important that uh we not put this on the levy at
this point if any additional if we have to. Commissioner Dale Anderson. >> Well, I want to thank staff and Kelsey. I know that you guys have done a lot of work on this and and and it is great numbers and it is nice to be able to see this and and maybe I want to be able to
prove Roger wrong that we've never lowered it, but I would really like to see what that audited number is and maybe make it a challenge for you guys to get it to that 5.8 by December. Um I I agree with them. Things are tight. Everybody is getting tighter and tighter and it's it's a big it's it's a big
concern. But I just have fears that if we shouldn't get ourselves squeezed right now, but maybe it's a challenge to get us to that five or 5.8 for December so we actually can put it at that number then I I don't argue with what anybody
is saying here that that you know maybe there's places we should cut or maybe there's things that we could do different that we could lower it more. Um, but I just my concern is we do have that ability to to lower it at the end and maybe we need to be the first year to
lower it and and do that 5.8 or 5%. So, that's kind of where I'm still at is I'd like to leave that wiggle room until we see that audited number and see what the end of the year is getting closer and and where it's at. But, but maybe it
is a challenge to try and get it to that 5.8 or or that 5% at the end. And that's my thoughts and my hope that we can get it down there. But um I know that there's already been a lot of cutting and a lot of different things done to
try and get it from, you know, at first I think I numbers I had heard way back when we first Kelsey started looking at this is 14%. So we've already cut that in half. So I think there has been a lot of work already done and and maybe if we
can find some more things that could be changed or done different or more reserves used then we could get it to that that lower number. So >> So do I hear a resolution in there somewhere? >> I could do that.
I I would I can do that. Do I have to read it like it says? >> Well, just um if I may, Mr. Mr. Chair, the resolution 202533 in the third bullet if that's going to be the case. But I do have the other
number if the 5.8's the resolution too. >> Oh, it is in there that way. >> Um, but that it would it should say whereas the county administrator is recommending a preliminary 2026 proposed property tax levy of 44,416,287, a 7.1 increase over. Um, that's the 25.
So, if we change it to option three, then we can change that resolution, whichever the numbers you want me to input in. >> Mr. Chair, I move resolution 2025-33 with the number that Kelsey just put in
there at the 7.1. Okay. >> Uh, thank you. We have a motion on resolution 2025-33. Is there a second? >> I'll second that, Mr. Chair. There's a motion and a second for the resolution setting the preliminary 2026 levy at uh
7.1% increase over the 25 levy. Discussion hearing none. Then we will take a vote. Uh all those in favor of the >> Mr. Chair, let's do a roll call vote. >> We certainly can do that.
Uh, Commissioner Mdeck, >> no. >> Commissioner Berg, >> no. >> Commissioner Dale Anderson, >> yes. >> Uh, the chair votes I and uh, Commissioner Dwayne Anderson
>> I. >> We have three eyes, two nazs. The resolution passes. Uh, that concludes our business. Yes. >> Mhm. >> All right. uh then uh since that uh that is done and we will have uh uh the
meeting in December then to set the final levy. Uh so this isn't the last word on on uh on any of this. So uh with that we will adjourn.