Commissioners reviewed the draft 2026 budget and cap calculations and expressed concern over a multi-million-dollar gap between the board’s current draft spending and the levy cap. Staff presented two cap-calculation methods and identified the dollar amounts that would need to be cut to comply with the cap.

Why it matters: commissioners said the difference between the two cap-calculation methods could change required cuts by more than $1 million, and that assumed new-growth and 3% inflation/levy factors materially affect mill calculations. The chair asked staff to provide a conservative “new growth only” scenario, isolating new taxable value so the board could assess whether the proposed budget would require a tax increase or internal cuts.

County finance staff explained the two cap methods: Method 1 calculates the base using the highest of the prior three years’ levies and then excludes items not subject to the cap; Method 2 starts with the previous year’s levy, adds allowable new growth and expired exemptions, and applies an adjustment that effectively allows a 3% automatic increase. In the draft workbook the numbers produced different levy ceilings; staff computed cuts needed of about $2.6 million under one approach and roughly $1.4 million under the other.

Commissioners also discussed cash carryforward: the draft projects year-end carryforward of roughly $18 million in 2025 falling to about $12 million in 2026 under current assumptions. Several commissioners urged caution about using reserves for ongoing operating costs, and others asked staff to enumerate anticipated one-time capital needs (for example the sheriff’s building buyout option or remodels) that would reduce usable reserves.

Other questions included: how much of the draft increase is attributable to new growth versus policy decisions (COLA, steps, benefit increases), whether certain external levies (ambulance, senior mill, state-level levies and water-resource district charges) should be shown separately for taxpayer clarity, and whether the capital projects levy should incorporate projected lease and bond payments.

Directives to staff included producing a set of alternative budget scenarios (new-growth-only, new-growth plus limited other adjustments, worst-case with no state contracted-bed revenue), a six-year capital-improvement plan for review, and clearer line-item presentation of restricted funds so commissioners can see what money is dedicated to specific purposes.

No formal budget adoption occurred. Commissioners scheduled a follow-up workshop for the week ahead to finalize numbers before the board’s August meeting.

Speakers who contributed to this budget and levy discussion are listed below; quotes are taken from transcript lines cited in provenance.