Interim County Auditor Constance presented the county’s initial FY26 budget framework and a recommended list of statutory and discretionary items that staff proposes the court consider in the coming budget cycle. Constance highlighted that FY24 year‑end balances are unaudited but that staff closed the books and showed an estimated general‑fund ending balance of about $22.57 million. She cautioned the figures are preliminary and will change when the external audit is complete.

Constance presented two tax‑rate scenarios: the “no new revenue” rate (maintaining current effective revenue) and the voter‑approval rate; the latter, staff said, would yield roughly $11.6 million in additional property‑tax revenue based on tax‑assessor worksheets. Staff recommended the county move forward using the voter‑approval rate as its planning baseline. The proposed FY26 additions listed to the court include a recommended across‑the‑board 10% cost‑of‑living adjustment for county employees (excluding law‑enforcement raises that are negotiated separately), increases for statutory items the county must fund (judicial salary supplements and district judge increases), higher health‑insurance premiums, utility and insurance increases, and some programmatic restorations such as vector control and public‑health software.

Constance warned the list of proposed additions exceeds the additional revenue available under the voter‑approval rate; after accounting for statutory increases and a 10% COLA the remaining budget headroom is limited and any further items would deplete fund balance. She reminded the court of the county’s reserve policy target: staff will seek to keep fund balance near 25% of annual appropriations and said the court should weigh any additions against that policy.

Several commissioners said their priority for FY26 is raises for current employees and told staff they would be reluctant to fund new positions or reclassifications before ensuring broad pay increases. Constance noted reclassifications themselves function as raises and that a careful review is needed before adding new ongoing costs. The auditor’s office and county staff will refine the numbers, incorporate other county funds and finalize the certified property valuation information with the tax assessor before court votes in September.

Constance said the auditor’s office will send required letters to elected officials about proposed salary adjustments and will present the court with a more detailed proposed budget for public hearings scheduled for Sept. 4 (tax‑rate hearing) and Sept. 10 (budget hearing and vote).

Ending: The court asked staff to return with refined, department‑level cost estimates; legal and payroll reviews for any reclassifications; and clear scenarios showing the margin available after the recommended 10% COLA so the court can prioritize additions.