Washington County presents FY26 draft budget totaling $326.8 million; schools and public safety largest shares

Kelsey Mace, Washington County chief financial officer, told the Board of County Commissioners on March 25 that Draft 2 of the FY2026 general fund is balanced and remains at $326,805,540.

Draft 2 increases several operating elements while leaving revenue estimates unchanged; Mace said property and income taxes fund about 91% of the general fund. Major line items remain Washington County Public Schools (36% of the general fund), and public-safety related services including fire, EMS, police and 911 (28%). The draft budgets include targeted personnel changes, adjustments to transfers between funds, and rate-based revenue updates for water and sewer operations.

The draft raises the retiree cost-of-living adjustment from 0.25% to 1.0% and proposes a classification change for the director of emergency management and communications (from grade 17 to grade 18). The county also proposed replacing an intended chief information officer (grade 20) with a network security engineer (grade 16). Mace said the county added part-time wages for the election board and increased operating budgets for contracted website services in IT and consulting support for emergency management’s operations plan. The Commission on Aging request was fully funded, she said.

At the fund level, Mace provided additional numbers for the water-quality group of funds. The water fund shows an operational shortage that requires a general fund subsidy of $176,480. The sewer fund increased by $1,789,040, mainly from debt service, and will use $597,970 from fund balance to bridge a shortfall (down from roughly $1.1 million the prior year). The pretreatment fund, previously privatized under a long-term lease, carries debt service of $443,560 and receives a lease payment of $345,000; the remainder of its obligations draws down fund balance.

Andrew Ashleman, director of public works, and Zane Rall, deputy director of highways, reviewed the highway fund. They said highway-user revenues from state levies now account for a much smaller share of the fund than in years past. The county’s general-fund contribution to highways was cited around $10.7 million in the current-year budget; the county’s share of state-distributed highway-user revenue is about 3.5% and yields roughly $3.4 million in the current budget. Staff warned that a temporary increase in the distribution formula expires after FY2027 and the county’s share would drop to 1.5% in FY2028 unless state action occurs.

Highway department line items with notable percentage increases include snow-removal contract services (up about 26.6%, roughly $42,000), storm-damage (requested increase to $50,000 from $6,000), traffic-control contracting (about $31,000 increase), and fleet machinery/equipment tied to upgrades at county fueling sites (about $35,000). Line-painting and chip-seal programs were described in operational terms: staff said they typically target about 30 miles per year for line painting and a similar order of magnitude for chip seal work; overlay mileage is lower and more expensive.

Commissioners asked for follow-up on assumptions and scope. Questions included the drivers of water and sewer cost increases (staff said most large unfunded mandates and treatment upgrades appear in the capital improvement program, with some operational chemical costs in the operating budget), and the process by which pavement condition and treatment priorities are determined (engineering-provided pavement condition index plus physical inspections and coordination with highway crews).

County staff did not propose additional revenue changes in Draft 2 and said most changes were made on the expenditure side and by rebalancing transfers to capital reserves. Staff took questions and no final votes on the draft budget were taken during the presentation; commissioners directed staff to continue review and provide required follow-ups and detail for future hearings.

Ending: County staff indicated Draft 2 will remain subject to further revision in the public budget process and commissioners signaled interest in follow-up detail on capital mandates, water/sewer subsidies, and pavement-program assumptions.