County staff outline preliminary 2026 levy showing double‑digit increase before policy adjustments

Clay County administrators presented a first look at the county’s 2026 preliminary levy on Tuesday, warning commissioners that current projections show a double‑digit increase before policy choices and revenue decisions. Staff said the main drivers of the preliminary figures are employee step increases and cost‑of‑living adjustments, the cost of new paid‑medical‑leave obligations (the county modeled a 0.44% employer share), health‑insurance uncertainty, and several departmental internal‑service and capital requests. The presentation named specific pressures: an assistant‑administrator position added to the budget this year; a $100,000 internal‑service increase request in the sheriff’s department for vehicles and equipment; an IT cybersecurity and software package request near $120,000; and debt‑service principal and interest on prior bonds and DMV‑facility financing (combined items in the presentation roughly $525,000–$554,000 depending on line interpretation). Road‑and‑bridge project requests were listed at $5.8 million in proposed projects for the year; the library asked for $362,690, a 9.05% increase. County staff stressed that the packet presented on Tuesday is an early snapshot. The presentation modeled one scenario with a 3% COLA and another placeholder showing how each 1% change in COLA affects the levy. Staff included a $300,000 placeholder for anticipated health‑insurance cost increases and a $250,000 contingency set aside this year while the board considers future insurance approach options (including potential self‑insurance). The initial numbers produced a proposed levy increase above 10% in the staff packet; adding a 1% COLA in a second scenario increased that to roughly a 12.56% net levy change on the preliminary worksheet. Staff also reported modest new construction growth (about 1.04%) that would slightly dilute the levy increase across the tax base. Several commissioners told staff the board will need to identify reductions and prioritize mandates and partnerships; multiple commissioners said this year’s budget cycle may need to emphasize cuts and shared service negotiations with cities and townships rather than new spending. Commissioners also raised the county’s historical use of county program aid and the timing of state program‑aid notices (statutory allocation expected Aug. 1) in final levy calculations. County staff said department heads had already trimmed some discretionary requests and that staff will return with refined options during the balance of the summer and ahead of the statutory deadlines for the preliminary levy. No levy resolution was adopted at Tuesday’s meeting; staff asked commissioners for guidance on priorities and signaled they will bring consolidated facility and departmental comparisons, a refined fund‑balance view and specific recommendations before the board sets the preliminary levy in September.