County releases preliminary 2026 budget snapshot showing double‑digit levy pressure
Loading...
Summary
Clay County administrators presented a preliminary look at the 2026 levy and budget on July 15, showing a proposed levy that would produce a substantial increase without adjustments and highlighting key drivers such as salary steps, medical leave, and uncertain insurance costs.
Administrator Steve Larson presented an initial, countywide view of the 2026 budget and levy to the Clay County Board of Commissioners on July 15 and urged the board to provide direction on priorities before staff refines requests.
Why it matters: The preliminary package shows a steep increase over 2025 if no changes are made: a 10.10% proposed general fund levy and a combined spread levy increase that would exceed 12% before any board action. Larson said that the board’s prior guidance and future decisions on employee compensation, insurance strategy and county program aid will determine the final levy the board must adopt by the statutory deadlines.
Key drivers and context - Personnel costs: Larson said the largest single driver is employee compensation—step increases for existing employees and the need to budget for a cost‑of‑living adjustment. A 1% change in COLA was shown to cost roughly $421,855 to the levy in the staff’s model. - Paid family/medical leave: staff included a placeholder for the county’s share of the paid medical leave program (a $187,000 placeholder tied to the 0.44% employer share discussed in prior meetings). - Health insurance: staff noted uncertainty about the county’s 2026 health insurance contract; the preliminary materials include placeholders of roughly $300,000–$350,000 to reflect possible premium increases. - Department requests: several departments submitted budget increases summarized in the packet. Non-county entity and program asks (libraries, ambulance partnership, etc.) were listed separately and will be considered in upcoming meetings.
Larson told commissioners the packet represented the first “data dump” and that staff had intentionally brought the numbers earlier this year because of the unusually high uncertainty in state and federal budgets that feed into local costs. He asked for direction on whether to prioritize maintaining current service levels, pursue imperatives such as public safety staffing or curb levy increases for 2026.
Board reaction and next steps Commissioners raised questions about fund‑balance assumptions, the treatment of the detox facility and enterprise funds, and whether the board should reduce or defer nonessential external requests to limit levy growth. Several commissioners said they expect to prioritize cuts or ask local partners (cities, townships) for greater cost sharing where feasible.
Larson said staff will return with consolidated facility and department cost comparisons, clearer COLA scenarios once negotiations conclude, and refined levy numbers before the September preliminary levy adoption deadline.
