Campbell supervisors direct advertisement of FY‑26 budget after agreeing to assessment‑ratio and tax adjustments, add funds for parks

The Campbell County Board of Supervisors directed staff to advertise the recommended fiscal 2026 budget for public hearing after a work session in which county staff reviewed revenue assumptions and proposed spending priorities.

County staff presented a balanced FY‑26 proposal that relies on revised personal‑property assumptions, a 3% across‑the‑board compensation increase for county employees and a set of one‑time adjustments to the capital improvement program (CIP). After discussion among supervisors, the board gave direction to advertise the budget for public hearing with three main modifications: restore the personal‑property assessment ratio to 100% (from 80%), reduce the personal‑property tax rate by a set amount, and allocate a portion of one‑time funds into parks and the CIP.

The presentation, delivered by a county staff member responsible for the budget, summarized revenues and major cost drivers for FY‑26. Staff said the recommended total budget is about $100.1 million for FY‑26 and that the proposed plan shows an increase of $3,896,394 over the adopted FY‑25 budget. Staff emphasized the sensitivity of the plan to the personal‑property assessment ratio and warned that reversing the 80% assessment practice would reduce a revenue shortfall estimated earlier in the process but also change individual taxpayers’ bills.

Why it matters: the assessment ratio and tax‑rate combination determines how much individuals pay on vehicle and similar personal property. Staff said the FY‑26 numbers include an assumption that the assessment ratio will return to 100%; if the board did not take that step, staff said the budgeted revenues would need to be reduced by roughly $2.5 million and spending would need to be adjusted to match. The budget package also includes a 3% compensation increase tied to the state’s projected increase for state‑funded positions and a one‑time injection of funds into parks development if the board so directs.

Major revenue assumptions and changes discussed

- Personal property: Staff reviewed FY‑25 personal‑property results and noted the county had level‑funded the line at about $12.0 million in FY‑25 versus a budget scenario that had assumed roughly $14.05 million. Staff said moving the assessment ratio back to 100% is “baked into” the proposed numbers and that not doing so would require walking revenues back by about $2.5 million. (At the work session staff used the FY‑25 actual and proposed figures cited above.)

- Sales and meals taxes: Sales tax projections were reduced modestly from an earlier FY‑25 assumption; staff proposed $8.7 million for sales tax rather than the higher prior projection. Meals‑tax receipts continue to be earmarked to debt service, and staff urged the board that practice be preserved to show transparency to voters who approved the tax.

- Interest and miscellaneous revenues: Staff cautioned that interest earnings were unusually high in FY‑24 (noting roughly $3.3 million above budget that year) and said they did not want to rely on similar windfalls going forward when building the FY‑26 operating budget.

Major expenditure drivers discussed

- Compensation: The recommended budget includes a 3% general increase across county employees (about $810,000 at that rate). The state budget includes a separate 1.5% bonus for state‑funded positions; staff said the proposed non‑departmental allowance and timing language would cover the county share of any state actions affecting state‑supported posts.

- Public safety and EMS: The packet includes pay and equipment increases in public safety, and staff noted added costs for EMS supplies, vehicle maintenance for a 15‑vehicle EMS fleet and dispatch center staffing increases. Several supervisors raised concerns about volunteer fire/rescue recruitment and facility maintenance needs; staff said some one‑time dollars would be needed for facility repairs and that volunteer shortages are a statewide trend.

- Solid waste: The recommended budget includes an increase to the solid‑waste fund to partially offset anticipated higher tipping fees from the regional landfill operator; the exact per‑ton fee was not finalized at the time of the work session.

- Health insurance: Staff flagged rising health‑insurance costs and said the county has used year‑end balances historically to smooth employer contributions; staff warned the health‑insurance fund will require more sustained funding over coming years if claim costs continue to rise.

One‑time funds and fund balance

Staff walked through the county’s unassigned and assigned fund balances and described several “cookie jar” allocations—economic development incentives, school maintenance, an animal shelter commitment, and a community/economic investment pot. Staff told the board the county had roughly $10.66 million in assigned/unassigned one‑time funds after those allocations. In the budget balancing exercise staff said $500,000 of available one‑time funds could be redirected for parks development if the board wished.

Board direction

After extended discussion, supervisors instructed staff to proceed with advertising the FY‑26 budget for public hearing with the modifications discussed on the record: restore the personal‑property assessment ratio to 100% (reversing the 80% practice), reduce the personal‑property tax rate by a fixed amount, and allocate a portion of one‑time funds into parks and the CIP. The board’s instruction to advertise was recorded at the end of the work session; supervisors did not take a formal recorded roll‑call vote during the meeting transcript provided. Staff said that, with those directions, the board would not need an additional Thursday night meeting and that the advertising schedule requires running notice ahead of a March public hearing and an April 1 adoption meeting.

What’s next

Staff will prepare the legal advertisement and the revised advertized rates and post the budget for public hearing. The board’s stated timeline in the meeting was to run ads in early March, hold a public hearing on March 25, and consider adoption on April 1. Staff also said it would circulate updated line‑item materials and answer follow‑up questions from supervisors about FTE placements, specific contract escalators, and solid‑waste tipping‑fee estimates.

Ending note: supervisors and staff framed the discussions as a balancing act between keeping the county’s tax rates competitive and preserving one‑time resources for capital and parks work. Several supervisors urged caution on relying on unusually high interest earnings and stressed the need to maintain maintenance and public‑safety readiness as volunteer recruitment and facility needs evolve.