Polk County Commissioners spent a portion of their July 17 meeting on budget development, reviewing the road-and-bridge tax distribution formula, proposed capital purchases and two options affecting elected officials’ travel and pay, including the potential provision of a county vehicle to justices of the peace.

County staff explained the current distribution formula for the road and bridge portion of the tax rate. The formula uses a base allocation and then weights for “true miles” and the number of wooden bridges. The staff presentation recorded the following components and precinct-level shares: Precinct 1 true miles 2.7 percent, Precinct 2 true miles 3.7 percent, Precinct 3 true miles 6.57 percent and Precinct 4 true miles 7.2 percent. Wooden bridges comprise a 5 percent portion of the distribution: Precinct 2 was shown with 4 wooden bridges (0.56 percent of the bridge allocation) and Precinct 3 with 13 wooden bridges (1.81 percent). Combining the factors produced the listed distribution of road-and-bridge tax receipts: Precinct 1 — 21.45 percent; Precinct 2 — 23 percent; Precinct 3 — 27.13 percent; Precinct 4 — 28.41 percent. Staff noted that as wooden bridges are replaced (for example through the state bridge replacement program), the distribution will shift.

On capital projects, staff presented a list of proposed acquisitions and estimates included in the draft budget: a flood‑gauge system (county portion estimated at $62,500, to be matched with grant funding if available), aftermarket vehicle equipment for the sheriff and constables ($313,550), a 28‑passenger bus (cost not yet provided), computer equipment and handheld radios for the jail ($35,400 for 20 radios), and office equipment and cameras ($117,333.89 for multiple items). The budget packet also listed outstanding prior tax notes from 2019–2022 and noted the county did not issue tax notes for 2023–2025 due to available surplus interest and budgeted purchases.

The workshop included a discussion prompted by a public commenter, Pat Casey of Lakefront Drive, who urged the court to provide an “adequate level of funding to roads and bridges throughout the county,” and praised the court’s acquisition of chip-and-seal equipment as a cost-saving maintenance tool.

The court also discussed two options to address elected officials’ travel allowances and pay. Staff described Option 1 as restoring a prior travel/salary increment and providing a $5,000 increase for the district clerk, county clerk, county treasurer, tax assessor-collector and sheriff; it would also provide $1,500 increases for constables and include providing vehicles for the justices of the peace (the package was characterized in the record as increasing costs by approximately $83,000). Staff said a state formula will raise County Court-at-Law Judge Brown’s pay by $43,086.16 under state law; that increase is mandatory and reflected separately in the budget calculations.

Option 2 would be a smaller across-the-board increase (staff described a $3,000 increase for the court offices) with the same proposed $5,000 adjustments for the clerks, treasurer, assessor and sheriff and the same constable increase; staff described Option 2 as increasing overall costs by about $58,000 while leaving some travel adjustments to be documented by the JPs.

Commissioners asked for documentation and for JPs to maintain travel records if the court were to consider travel restorations; staff said Judge Rasberry was among the few who had provided travel logs in the past. Commissioners debated whether providing a county vehicle to JPs would address concerns over travel and safety; staff said any GPS‑equipped county vehicle would allow tracking and quicker response if an official broke down or needed help in a remote area.

Item 5 on the agenda — the tax assessor‑collector’s 2025 no‑new-revenue and voter‑approval tax-rate calculations and verification of the collection rate — was tabled so staff and the auditor’s office can verify figures; the motion to table until Monday was made by Commissioner Purvis and seconded by Commissioner Cassidy.

Ending: Staff will work with the auditor’s office to verify revenue and collection-rate calculations, provide requested supplemental documentation on capital-project costs and vehicle proposals, and return to the court for further action in a special meeting or the next regular session.