Chair McCullough, chair of the Dunn County Board, opened the special budget workshop and turned the floor to staff to present the proposed 2026 budget and related planning materials.

County staff told supervisors the county faces constrained levy growth and fewer one-time federal funding sources that in recent years helped balance operations. Beata, a county finance staff member, said the county’s estimated levy for the coming year is $18,990,000 and described the county’s unassigned fund balance, debt levels and statutory levy limits.

The presentation explained how Dunn County accounts for its finances across multiple funds — the general fund, special revenue funds such as human services and register-of-deeds land modernization, capital project funds, debt service, internal service funds (including highway operations and IT equipment replacement) and enterprise funds such as transit. Staff highlighted that salary and fringe increases are the largest drivers of the proposed general fund expense increases and described tools used to balance the budget, including a wage-variance assumption and fund-balance uses for one-time capital projects.

Staff outlined several specific drivers and choices: a 2.75% pay-plan increase is included in the proposed budget; the county budget shows an insurer-recommended 18% increase assumed for health insurance premiums and a 0.25 percentage-point increase in the employer Wisconsin Retirement System contribution. Staff said a portion of 2025 salary and fringe increases came from added grant-funded positions that carry associated revenue. The county also plans a March transition to a new enterprise resource planning (ERP) system; staff proposed using about $203,000 of fund balance in 2026 to cover one-time dual-system costs.

On county roads, staff said the county has historically borrowed $3,000,000 for construction in prior years and that borrowing remains on the table as the board weighs how to balance highway needs against levy limits and fund-balance policies. As of the 2024 audit, staff reported outstanding debt of about $26.7 million and said general-obligation borrowing remains well below legal limits.

Beata and other presenters walked supervisors through the county’s fund-balance policy in the Dunn County code of ordinance, noting the ordinance’s target range (35%–50% of general-fund operating expenses) and presenting available unassigned fund balance figures. Staff reported an unassigned fund balance of about $14.5 million and an estimated approximately $12.3 million available after previously adopted commitments and planned CIP uses.

To move from discussion to action, staff described a facilitated table exercise for supervisors to rank programs by potential for levy savings. The county’s priority-based budgeting matrix lists 186 programs; the workshop addressed 92 programs that staff judged to have the greatest potential levy impact or controllable fee levers. Supervisors were split into six tables and given five-minute silent scoring sessions followed by discussion, with table leaders and department heads available to clarify program details.

Staff outlined the remaining schedule: a preliminary budget will be presented to the executive committee on September 10, supervisors will see subsequent updates on September 17, the executive committee must finalize a balanced budget on October 8, and the required public notice and budget hearing will occur in November (the county noted the hearing is set for Nov. 12 because the second Tuesday is Veterans Day this year). Staff emphasized that the executive committee will produce the final budget to be presented to the full board at the November meeting.

The meeting’s presenters cautioned that the county’s fiscal picture is more constrained than in years when federal COVID- and ARPA-related funds and other temporary sources supplemented operations, and that supervisors will need to consider fee increases, service reductions or use of fund balance — each carrying trade-offs for residents and employees. The workshop did not include formal board votes; the activity and staff follow-up are intended to inform the executive committee’s September deliberations and the formal budget process later this fall.

Less-critical details discussed included the county’s internal distinctions between the county road and bridge fund and a separate highway operations internal service fund, the use of bridge-petition levies that are not subject to levy limits, and examples of one-time capital items funded from fund balance (squad cars and parks/facilities items were cited).