Pennington County staff present preliminary 2026 budget framework, urge guidance on reserves and outside agencies

Jordan Nebb, director of the commission office, briefed the Pennington County Board of Commissioners on initial 2026 budget requests, telling the board the total of department requests rounded to about $128 million and that preliminary revenues were about $126 million, a difference Nebb said planners will refine before the July provisional budget deadline.

Nebb said the revenue estimate includes conservative interest income increases tied to county bond investments and a calculation that uses the county’s maximum tax rate — a figure he said can be backed out if the board directs. He told commissioners the general fund cash balance as of May 31, 2025, was about $36.6 million and that, if 2025 collections and expenditures run as budgeted, staff project an estimated general fund balance of about $27.7 million on Jan. 1, 2026.

Commissioners asked for more detail on how much of the general fund balance is actually cash versus assigned or restricted amounts. Nebb said staff would provide a more thorough cash-balance analysis and a 10‑year levy history requested by commissioners; several commissioners also asked for a consolidated, single-line list of outside agencies the county funds and the amounts each receives so the board can see how county support is distributed across levies and department budgets.

Several commissioners said they want to evaluate outside-agency funding more closely in light of personnel and operating pressures. Commissioner Jerry Ross asked for a one-page roll-up that shows outside agencies funded in 2025 and the county contribution for each; Commissioner Yuri Drews asked that agencies seeking county funds provide their budgets and audited financials with future requests.

Nebb said personnel figures in the initial roll-up were calculated at a flat rate (no COLA or step increases included) and that new position requests were presented separately by department heads. He noted contingency and self-insurance were carried in the draft as placeholders, copied from 2025, and that department heads had excluded new FTE costs from the roll-up so those requests could be discussed in department hearings. Nebb reminded commissioners the provisional budget must be approved before July 30 and that there are scheduled meetings on July 1 and July 15, with the option to schedule another special session if needed.

Commissioners also discussed reserve policy: how to define the target general-fund reserve (examples given included 20–30 percent), whether to continue formal reserve accumulations assigned to departments, or to hold more contingency centrally so the board can transfer funds without supplement hearings. Several commissioners favored simpler presentation of reserves — separating “cash on hand,” “assigned” and “unassigned” balances — so the public can track where funds are held and how they are used.

Nebb said he will return with more granular personnel and reserve analyses, a 10‑year levy history, a single roll-up of outside agencies and their county support, and personnel-cost scenarios showing the effect of COLA/step options. He also asked commissioners to consider policy decisions on funding philosophy for outside agencies (flat funding, inflationary adjustments, performance criteria) and whether the board wants to continue directed reserve accumulations or rely more on contingency transfers.

Ending: The board did not take formal action; commissioners asked staff for the additional data and analysis Nebb promised and scheduled follow-ups at forthcoming July budget hearings.