Pennington County staff present provisional 2026 budget; commissioners press for clearer reserve accounting

Jordan Nabb, director of the Commission Office, opened the day’s hearings with a preliminary rollup of department requests and revenue estimates for the 2026 budget. Nabb said departments submitted roughly $128 million in total requests, a 1.8% increase over the 2025 adopted budget. Estimated county revenues for 2026 are about $126 million, a roughly 4.3% increase over 2025 driven in part, Nabb said, by higher interest income and CPI‑adjusted growth in property taxes included for planning purposes.

Nabb said personnel figures in the requests were conservative: new position requests were excluded from the roll‑up, departments did not include proposed COLA or step increases, and contingency/self‑insurance figures were carried forward as placeholders. He said the provisional budget must be approved before July 30 and noted two scheduled public meetings — July 1 and July 15 — with the possibility of a special session before July 30 if more time is needed.

Commissioners pressed Nabb and Auditor Cindy Mueller for clearer accounting of the general fund balance and the difference between “cash on hand” and unassigned/assigned reserves. Commissioner Jerry Roskinek asked for a 10‑year history of levies and outside‑agency funding so the board can evaluate whether county dollars are funding outside organizations whose revenues have grown. Commissioner Deb Hadcock asked staff to produce rollups that show how much the county funds outside agencies across all departmental budgets, asking that those amounts be consolidated into a single line so the board can evaluate total outside funding.

Nabb provided a preliminary cash balance estimate showing a May‑31, 2025 general‑fund cash position of about $36.6 million and an estimated start‑of‑year 2026 unassigned balance of about $27.7 million if 2025 expenditures and revenues occur as budgeted. That scenario produced an estimated year‑end 2026 reserve of about 30.3% of appropriations under the assumptions used. Commissioners asked Nabb to break out “actual cash applied” versus amounts that have been labeled unassigned so the board can evaluate true liquidity.

Board direction: commissioners requested (1) separate breakout of unrestricted cash versus assigned/unassigned fund balance, (2) a 10‑year levy and outside‑agency funding history, (3) a consolidated list of outside‑agency funding across all departmental budgets, and (4) more detailed personnel costing (COLA/step scenarios) for the July 15 meeting. Nabb said he will prepare the requested materials and that supplemental sessions remain available prior to the July 30 provisional‑budget deadline.

Ending — next steps: The board scheduled follow‑up reviews in July; Nabb will supply the 10‑year levy history, the consolidated outside‑agency rollup, and a personnel costing analysis. Commissioners said they will use those materials to weigh whether to reduce applied cash, change reserve accumulation policy, or identify budget trims before adopting the provisional budget.