[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6510489,"mediaKeyId","5375339-f575e14bb106cb7dc967c5c670a81d64","parentId",5375339,"title","Commissioners tidy line items: landfill closure transfers, fair association and special alcohol/parks allocations clarified","audioSeconds",3992,"startMs",744000,"endMs",4736000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5375339-f575e14bb106cb7dc967c5c670a81d64&start=744&end=4736","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5375339-f575e14bb106cb7dc967c5c670a81d64/thumbnail_744000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6510489/Linn-County/Kansas/Commissioners-tidy-line-items-landfill-closure-transfers-fair-association-and-special-alcoholparks-allocations-clarified","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6510489-3c64cb4b4e99695947ab9dd4d31daf92/orig.mp4?Expires=1775166472&Signature=Ko0BCtE3y77S~92wujgdGmvgbGXOD~2n9FirtF6DPjy8MUlYbGhbA1C5QcJ2eFT0Zxl~WbSXrEGRK~rvRdXiNDacx~CeQiw217vujqRpFic99ejWfj5kK30I7cbcaOI-ubg2jeHJUBz9nxmXOcAGfcUXq-rUXGRqmnEVMoT~hMSI7XmeSoydGaOC3iI0z93-f-vzasNfI9Z2dtaR9X-Tqhh8edRzdROvN8Bp8Bar6HRb4Mb4JSeOLvBzEe5h5JBNNj098PzMfzU-yF08TLDOYUhbqa1cOdZnEIDjDSLIizc8lo-VvR7pUJEeqmTvxaWZWLzgF9CjKKJTKhcubqy~NA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Linn County Kansas","date","2025-07-11T21:12:11Z","article","County staff and commissioners used the workshop to reconcile a set of department‑level line items and to clarify where several receipts and transfers should be recorded.

Landfill closure and solid waste: staff explained a previously budgeted $400,000 item recorded in the 2026 column should be reduced to a recurring $25,000 annual transfer out of the solid waste budget; the budgeter said the one‑time $3.75 million previously budgeted in 2025 had already been set aside and that moving the recurring $25,000 into the solid waste contractual line would correct how the item appears in the general fund workbook. Commissioners asked staff to update the workbook to show the 2026 column with a zero for the general‑fund contingency and instead reflect the $25,000 in the solid waste line.

Fair Association: commissioners confirmed they would keep the Fair Association as a separate fund for now rather than roll it into the general fund. The presentation showed past appropriations to the fair board and discussion noted a 2012 resolution (2012‑30) relating to prior appropriations; staff said fair premium payments and premium statutes are handled in the general fund lines and recommended labeling the line as “Fair Board (premiums)” and adding the statutory citation to the budget certificate.

Special alcohol and parks and recreation: staff read the state allocation formula aloud and noted that county receipts from alcohol excise/tax proceeds are distributed per statute (cities under 6,000 population receive a portion, the county receives a portion, and a portion goes to park and recreation). Staff identified recent disbursements: in 2024 the county sent funds to Southeast Kansas Mental Health and small amounts to cities (City of Mound City, Pleasanton and Parker) for park and recreation programs; staff said the treasurer handles the initial distribution and the clerk’s office confirms city eligibility and sends letters to ensure spending complies with statute.

Special building fund: staff located a 1983 resolution that established a special building levy “not to exceed 1 mill” for a 10‑year period beginning in tax year 1995; staff said the 10‑year period ended in 2005 and recommended the county attorney review whether the earlier resolution still constrains current levy decisions. Commissioners marked the 2026 column for the special building fund with an “x” (staff will follow up with the county attorney).

Ending: staff said they will implement the agreed changes in the workbook, circulate an updated version and correct label and statutory citations on the budget certificate before the next meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Linn County Kansas Commissioner's Budget Workshop #3 07.11.25","oneSentenceSummary","Workshop participants resolved several line‑item questions: staff will shift some landfill closure transfers into the solid‑waste budget, leave the Fair Association as a stand‑alone fund for now, and staff reviewed how special alcohol and parks and recreation distributions are allocated to cities and the county under state statute.","taxTitle","Linn County, Kansas","taxId",64338,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6510493,"Sheriff warns staffing losses if proposed changes to payroll and benefits proceed",63,10647000,10710000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5375339-f575e14bb106cb7dc967c5c670a81d64&start=10647&end=10710","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5375339-f575e14bb106cb7dc967c5c670a81d64/thumbnail_10647000.jpg","/articles/6510493/Linn-County/Kansas/Sheriff-warns-staffing-losses-if-proposed-changes-to-payroll-and-benefits-proceed","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6510493-959e13131f207e1f1db23b344e81f647/orig.mp4?Expires=1775166472&Signature=V66UtmtLa~vG5zbUA~sMcC7VUSNqBF91BmjX-3SwfHTknBpSXdHlGkn-BmHXChvWnx6Wkov3QIaTSwhq9ykzrCcPfqkxNmniAt5Z2LQ3SLwC6l1-yNJ9jUfKIc9jkaF9QjvhTKaRb6-XYMhWjusrkNxZlyJutLrV2HEvZOzAaG3sSPpZGE61Y7~oxCCSb98f4snPV4gSVY427OaqBVrhJscXfUO014NQ3yhACnPwwoZMGBNJ~NkFULfeEiUNnz97gdWTxIMZNEAjh7om23e-Q2D8hyn08FB-3u5~tb~bgKL8aEDLRz~pKRlQohw0kFsRKJ1CZpGr26skYbS1mfj1JQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Sheriff Bobby Johnson urged the commission at the end of the workshop to consider employee retention when reviewing the sheriff’s payroll and benefits lines. Johnson said deputies and staff who work county shifts are “scared to death” that proposed changes to health insurance or other benefits would prompt departures, and he recommended commissioners discuss the sheriff’s budget with him directly before a final vote.

Why it matters: the sheriff’s office ledger in the draft shows a substantial increase in payroll in the 2025/2026 middle column. Staff noted items that drove that increase: a two‑step pay increase the sheriff proposed (staff described that as about a 32¢ per hour step applied twice in the example), the addition of several positions in the sheriff’s staffing request, and higher overtime and corrections costs. Sheriff Johnson told the commission those changes reflected years of underbudgeting for paid time off and overtime and were designed to maintain staffing and service levels.

Public comment and response: during the workshop’s public comment period, Johnson (who identified himself by name and office) and another speaker urged the commission to avoid cuts that would reduce benefits or lower compensation, arguing that training and recruiting replacements would be costly and harm public safety. Commissioners acknowledged the concern and said they would review the sheriff’s detailed submission with staff and discuss options before final action.

What was not decided: the commission did not vote to alter the sheriff’s proposed payroll or benefits; staff said they will send an updated workbook incorporating late submissions and any agreed edits prior to the next meeting so commissioners can review specifics.

Ending: Johnson invited commissioners to meet after the Monday meeting to walk through the sheriff’s request in greater detail; commissioners indicated they would schedule follow‑up and recommended staff circulate the revised figures ahead of the hearing.","Sheriff Bobby Johnson told commissioners county employees are anxious about possible benefit changes; sheriff's budget shows a large payroll increase driven by step raises, staffing requests and added overtime/step adjustments.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6510498,"Linn County commissioners weigh revenue-neutral option as cash reserves fall in budget workshop",10294,138000,10432000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5375339-f575e14bb106cb7dc967c5c670a81d64&start=138&end=10432","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5375339-f575e14bb106cb7dc967c5c670a81d64/thumbnail_138000.jpg","/articles/6510498/Linn-County/Kansas/Linn-County-commissioners-weigh-revenue-neutral-option-as-cash-reserves-fall-in-budget-workshop","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6510498-00c7ce2d1219bee185019a5fbcafff25/orig.mp4?Expires=1775166472&Signature=o6Ic7ljWL~pxvZtj2bLD5CJ9lo0hAaOQg97p9oV0ACBQkmD4qhdayNwov89AsdrhNSxWdpKuHxeHl0gXlVgvWWq1qdlejkAF8c7PpE~mbRzBml4WmsAxFJhiYhsj9bDGvIufsDu17VlIv-FQVpAabsrBzJ1Q5ZUtWBd5n0YC9RtzK4t3SFlUGyYf~TssUxJC3V6BhmC8PsxVI4Lo1Mb4CN5fIRjTRyAtE6-ZhyB0yu4ax7CFEdDoYAIh7HKiTgmYTtk7aCV42AE03CqUh6SWrk9d9ixqlytT1CtVhuiWmWI5zYorHqSBoaDuUBoFr0KQl~l4-4DYSIQwjT2vTrTh0w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Linn County commissioners and staff spent the workshop reviewing the county’s draft budget and options for the 2026 levy, with the presentation showing last year’s mill levy at 38.238 and countywide receipts that staff said total about $1 million under that levy.

The county’s budget adviser said cash at the end of 2024 was about $5,000,009.50 and projected cash at the end of 2025 would be roughly $3,000,009.47 under current assumptions; that projection, he said, would leave the county below a six‑month reserve and produce a six‑month shortfall in the general fund of roughly $1,000,093 if no changes are made. Staff showed a revenue‑neutral rate of about 35.087, and explained that staying at the same mill levy as 2025 would raise additional tax dollars because assessed values had increased.

Why it matters: commissioners said the choice is essentially between reducing the levy toward the revenue‑neutral rate (which keeps tax dollars roughly level year over year), maintaining the current levy (which raises more revenue because assessed values increased), or taking some money from contingency/cash carryover. Staff described three specific cash items that were affecting projections: an approximately $332,000 adjustment on a “STARS” line, a $400,000 landfill‑closure transfer recorded in the 2026 column that staff recommended converting to a recurring $25,000 annual transfer tied to the solid waste budget, and a $3.75 million transfer that had been budgeted as a one‑time item in 2025 (staff said that $3.75 million would come out of the agency line in the current year).

Discussion and options: staff outlined three basic approaches commissioners could adopt: 1) keep the mill levy at the same rate as 2025 and accept a higher cash balance but higher tax dollars collected; 2) lower the levy to the revenue‑neutral rate to avoid raising residents’ tax bills but accept drawing down county cash and contingency; or 3) a mixed approach — reduce some expenditures, move certain sums back into contingency as lines rather than carryover, and negotiate or reexamine large budget items (health insurance, sheriff payroll requests, ARPA encumbrances) to reduce the need to use one‑time cash.

Commissioners and staff repeatedly noted that staying revenue‑neutral for multiple years risks eroding reserve balances over time; staff cited other counties that went years without adjusting levies and later faced much larger increases. Commissioners asked staff to prepare a revised set of numbers reflecting the options discussed ahead of the Monday meeting and to provide a final draft for the publication and public hearings required by state law.

What was not decided: the commission did not vote on a final mill levy at the workshop. Staff said the commission must decide whether to exceed the revenue‑neutral rate at the next meeting; if so, the motion should specify the upper limit they will not exceed so the clerk can publish the appropriate notices.

Ending: staff said they would revise the draft to reflect the discussion, circulate it by email, and be prepared to present an updated budget at the next public meeting so commissioners could set a final levy and schedule the hearing.","County staff presented budget scenarios showing cash at the end of 2024 of about $5.0 million and a projected drop to roughly $3.0 million in 2025; commissioners discussed whether to keep the same mill levy, move to the revenue‑neutral rate, or use contingency and cash carryover to cover shortfalls.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners tidy line items: landfill closure transfers, fair association and special alcohol/parks allocations clarified

Sheriff warns staffing losses if proposed changes to payroll and benefits proceed

Linn County commissioners weigh revenue-neutral option as cash reserves fall in budget workshop