Cornell County Judge and the County Commissioners met in a special budget workshop to discuss a proposed FY2026 budget that would require a 0.53824 total tax rate — above the voter-approval threshold of 0.53021 — and a 24% general-fund reserve in the draft presented to the court.

The debate matters because if the court adopts a proposed budget that exceeds the voter-approval rate, state law requires additional public-notice steps and voters could be asked to approve the higher rate. The discussion centered on whether to lower expenditures to stay under the voter-approval rate or to file the higher budget and let voters decide.

County Judge said the draft before the court included a 24% reserve and that the supporting tax rate is "0.53824," which he acknowledged exceeds the voter-approval rate. The judge told the court the choice is to "discuss reductions in expenditures, or we can submit this to the voters." The judge also said he would not file a proposed budget "that comes in, oh, just below the voter approval rate just because we can sneak it in there."

Commissioners pressed on target reserve levels. One commissioner said he believed a 17–20% reserve was a realistic goal; another said restoring the reserve to 25% was his objective. Participants agreed the three biggest budget drivers are the sheriff's office, road and bridge, and capital projects; smaller line items combined can also move the tax rate incrementally.

The court reviewed timing and procedural deadlines. The judge indicated a recommended filing date of July 31 for the proposed budget but acknowledged the statutory deadline for filing is Aug. 15. Commissioners and staff discussed that a required public hearing must be held within 25 days after the proposed budget is filed, with at least 10 days' public notice before the hearing, and that the court must act on the budget at a meeting (though action need not be taken at the first hearing).

No formal motion or vote was taken at the workshop; the court continued to seek input from commissioners, asked staff to refine line-item proposals, and discussed next steps for filing and public notice.

The court emphasized it will not assume revenue streams that are not realized when setting the budget and noted some potential upside items — FEMA reimbursements and property sales — that could later bolster reserves but were not programmed into the proposed baseline figures.

Ending: Court members agreed to continue work on decreases and rework the proposed budget for formal filing before the statutory deadline, with the understanding that choices about reserve targets will determine whether the tax rate requires voter approval or can be adopted without a public referendum.