MIAMI COUNTY, July 9, 2025 — Miami County commissioners told staff to prepare a notice for the county clerk that the board intends to exceed the revenue-neutral rate for the 2025 budget and agreed to hold the required public hearing on Wednesday, Aug. 20, while spending substantial time debating road-and-bridge funding, equipment needs and county mental-health and health-department services.

Lucas Mellinger, assistant county administrator, presented a set of draft budget spreadsheets and the required notice to the clerk, stressing the statutory timeline: “We have to do it by the twentieth,” he said, referring to the July 20 deadline to notify the clerk. He added, “As of today, whatever number we put on this paper, we're not allowed to go above it,” indicating the board must cap the figure on the notification but may reduce it later.

The budget discussion focused first on road and bridge funding. Commissioners and staff debated whether to restore a $500,000 line for in-house asphalt work and how much to add for mill-and-overlay contract work. Road-and-bridge staff described a hybrid approach: increase in-house spot patching, culvert work and chip-seal prep while contracting some mill-and-overlay work. Staff noted that buying a mill would be expensive — “about a $1,200,000 purchase” — and would require additional staffing and training, and that current crews are using “every last dime” of the asphalt line to reach roughly 15–16 miles of mill-and-overlay this year.

Commissioners and staff discussed short-term and longer-term trade-offs. One commissioner said trimming the asphalt request or reducing the proposed wage increase could help lower the mill levy; another warned that deferring work risks higher future costs and pointed to increased wear on roads serving new quarry traffic. Staff estimated the current changes would require asking for more road funding again next year — one exchange described “be prepared for another $750,000 ask next year.” Staff also described seeking contractor bids for additional stretches that could push this year’s miles from about 16 to roughly 17–18 miles if prices and bids align.

On personnel and wages, the group confirmed a 4% wage figure was on the current draft: “It’s 4 that’s on the document now,” Mellinger said when asked which wage increase was included. Commissioners discussed whether to reduce that amount as part of broader trimming but made no final change during the study session.

Commissioners also addressed mental-health services and the Miami County Health Department’s role. Staff and commissioners described a roughly $200,000 shortfall in revenues for a community mental-health provider that would otherwise leave expenses largely unchanged; the county is being asked to backfill part of that loss. Commissioners signaled they want to examine overlaps in services and attrition-driven staffing changes at the health department and planned follow-up meetings. One staff speaker described the Elizabeth Layton Center’s policy that it “can’t deny anyone … because they don’t have an ability to pay” and said the county’s health-department role is more referral and coordination than providing long-term therapy in-house.

To analyze duplication and gaps, commissioners agreed to meet with local participants identified in the study session: Commissioner Vaughn will explore service overlaps, and staff will convene a meeting with Christina, Paul Luce and Lacey from the University of Kansas to map services and funding sources. The aim is to identify which services the county should fund directly, which should be referred to external providers and where efficiencies or cooperation could reduce budget pressure.

On next steps, staff proposed — and commissioners agreed to add — the notification to the county clerk that the board intends to exceed the revenue-neutral rate. Mellinger displayed a draft notice that must be filed by July 20; commissioners discussed setting the public hearing and budget-adoption meeting for Wednesday, Aug. 20, at 1 p.m. as the first permissible date. The transcript records agreement to place the notification on the clerk’s calendar and to plan for the Aug. 20 hearing, but it does not record a formal roll-call vote on the notification during this study session.

The study session closed about five minutes early, with commissioners asking staff to return with refined numbers and recommended trade-offs before finalizing the notice to the clerk and before the Aug. 20 public hearing.