County staff presents three budget scenarios; board schedules follow‑up meetings and a special budget session

Madison County staff presented the county’s proposed FY26 administrative budget and three scenarios to address a projected gap between revenues and capital needs; the Board of Supervisors discussed tradeoffs between tax increases, debt financing and capital deferrals and scheduled follow‑up meetings to refine priorities.

Staff laid out three scenarios: Scenario 1 would impose a 3¢ real‑estate tax increase in FY26 and delay additional debt until FY27; Scenario 2 would impose a 2¢ tax increase and authorize up to $6,000,000 in additional debt funding to be deposited in the county’s SNAP account for two‑year capital needs; Scenario 3 would impose a 2¢ increase and no additional debt, which staff said would require roughly $300,000 in additional operational cuts to meet the county’s 18% unassigned fund balance policy.

Staff reported cuts that reduced the proposed budget increase from roughly 12% to about 5.4%. Notable items in the capital planning discussion: county capital requests were reduced from $1.9 million to $861,000 for FY26; the county now expects a new radio‑tower maintenance expense of $297,477 per year after the radio project completion; school capital needs include a remaining large item (Waverly Elementary air handlers and BAS controls) estimated at $1,752,000. Staff said re‑prioritization with the schools reduced some near‑term school capital request totals and that the school revised a prior position to reflect roughly a 5.5‑position reduction based on board feedback.

Financial details staff provided included the opening balance appropriation under Scenario 1 of $3,245,266 with an unassigned fund balance target that would be at or near the county policy minimum of 18% (approximately $8.86 million). Under Scenario 2, taking on $6 million of interim debt would reduce the opening balance appropriation need to approximately $723,208 because a portion of the capital would be covered by the interim financing; staff noted that interest income from holding debt proceeds in SNAP could roughly offset near‑term debt payments and that the county could borrow only the amount needed for the two‑year capital window.

Board members debated the tradeoffs. Some expressed reluctance to borrow, others favored Scenario 2 to preserve fund balance and earn interest on the SNAP account while using proceeds for capital. The board agreed to additional work: a CIP committee meeting with school CIP representatives to narrow two‑year capital priorities, a special budget workshop (board approved a special meeting for April 17 at 3:00 p.m.), and a separate advertised public hearing schedule related to administrative fee items. Staff said bond counsel and Davenport (financial advisor) input had been used and would continue to inform timing and structure if the board opts for debt financing. No final decision on tax rate or debt issuance was made; staff will return with refined capital lists and more detailed numbers before adoption.