Daviess County fiscal court advances draft 2025–26 budget as commissioners debate drainage funding

The Daviess County Fiscal Court agreed by consensus April 16 to prepare a final draft of the fiscal year 2025–26 budget that incorporates three staff‑proposed adjustments, while commissioners debated whether to set aside money from surplus to address chronic flooding and drainage problems.

County staff presented three nonpacket changes to the draft budget: creation of a “firefighter fundraiser” account to register private donations ($50,000 revenue and matching expense), formalizing a recurring opioid harm‑reduction grant to the ASAP board (an added $20,000 revenue and expense; the county’s ASAP line will total $40,000 to reflect both grants), and moving $55,000 from the reserve for budget transfers to cover parks entrance signs that were delayed into the next year. "The 3 changes are in addition to the revenue account firefighter fundraiser donations in the amount of $50,000," county staff read to the court during the work session.

The budget document presented for review shows a balanced set of appropriations across funds. Highlights the court discussed include a general fund appropriation of $60,204,222 (total, with offsetting revenue), a proposed transfer to the road fund of $1,750,000 (down from $2,870,000 the prior year), a transfer to the jail fund of $3,860,000 (up from $3,400,000), and total budgeted appropriations for all funds of $110,149,426. The court also noted classification as a Coal Impact County for Local Government Assistance (LGA), with $137,000 projected in LGA that must be spent on transportation categories.

Commissioner Marksberry pressed for a more aggressive approach on drainage, proposing the court place $2,000,000 from general fund reserves into next year’s budget and repeat the allocation the following year, and to reinstate a citizen drainage commission. Marksberry said, "...is the number 1 problem that we face," urging action to reduce the frequency of roads flooding in modest storms and proposing a small committee of commissioners to oversee the work. Several colleagues pushed back on immediately earmarking a multi‑million dollar amount without a clear legal and programmatic path; the judge executive and others said the county is pursuing a state‑created process to establish a sustainable revenue stream for drainage and that project details — and any necessary easements or legal authority — must be documented before committing large sums.

The court also discussed the county’s opioid settlement funds. The judge executive and other members noted those proceeds are court‑ordered and must be spent to reduce opioid harm; staff confirmed reporting requirements to the U.S. Department of Justice and the state Department for Local Government require a dedicated revenue line for those receipts. Commissioners debated whether to fund a position to coordinate the community’s drug‑response efforts; some members urged caution about staffing costs and urged programmatic spending instead of creating new permanent positions. The county reported roughly $1.3 million currently in opioid settlement funds, with the city holding a separate balance that could bring combined local resources to about $2 million.

Other budget items discussed included agency funding and one‑time grants (House Bill 202‑eligible entities), airport matching costs tied to a possible $2.5 million federal grant for airfield LED lighting (local match share about $51,706), capital project rollovers, and a $2.5 million senior center pledge that includes a $500,000 county match contingent on private fundraising. Staff emphasized the budget assumes no new debt issuance for FY 2025–26; any future debt for projects such as a jail expansion would be added by amendment once debt service is known.

The court asked staff to prepare the final budget document incorporating the three staff changes (firefighter fundraiser account, ASAP grant formalization, parks signage timing/transfer). No formal recorded roll‑call vote was taken; the county clerk recorded a consensus to move forward on the final budget. Commissioners left open the option to amend the budget later to add targeted drainage spending if a clear legal and programmatic path is identified.