Polk County supervisors propose roughly $365 million budget, cut levy by $0.10 and warn of multi-year pressures from House File 718

Polk County administrators on Tuesday presented the Board of Supervisors with a recommended budget of approximately $365,000,000 that they say balances service levels and employee pay while cutting the countywide property tax levy by $0.10.

The recommended plan — presented by Frank Marasco to Chairman McCoy and the board — preserves current service levels, avoids layoffs and includes pay and insurance increases for county employees, who Marasco called “our number one asset.” The budget includes roughly $41,000,000 in debt service, about $23,500,000 in capital spending (half of which Marasco said is a conservation bond), and roughly $9,000,000 in expenses for the airport and the Metro Waste Authority that the county expects to be reimbursed for.

Marasco told the board that operating expenses are driven by staffing: “the bulk of that is our personal services expense,” he said, and added the county received more than $6,000,000 in decision‑package requests above base targets but is recommending only about $1,000,000 in ongoing new spending due to fiscal constraints.

Why it matters: Board members said the plan shows stewardship of taxpayer money but stressed the county faces increasing pressure from state changes and past staffing growth. Marasco said House File 718 — state legislation that caps allowable local growth for operational expenses — reduced the county’s capacity this year by about $7,200,000 and will have cumulative effects in subsequent years. Several supervisors pressed for multi‑year workforce planning to avoid future layoffs as revenue growth is constrained.

Most important details - Recommended total budget: approximately $365,000,000. - Debt service: about $41,000,000. - Capital spending: about $23,500,000 (Marasco said half tied to a conservation bond). - Reimbursable items: roughly $9,000,000 for Airport and Metro Waste Authority projects. - Decision package requests above base: over $6,000,000; recommended ongoing additions: about $1,000,000. - House File 718 estimated impact this year: about $7,200,000.

Board discussion and tradeoffs Marasco described his prioritizing: maintain services, avoid layoffs, provide cost‑of‑living and insurance adjustments for staff, and reduce the property tax levy. To meet those aims he said budget staff focused on one‑time expenditures where possible and denied many ongoing requests. He said IT subscriptions rose about $300,000 but that staff identified other subscriptions to cut to offset those costs. He also described $750,000 for a jail camera system as a necessary capital expense and flagged FEMA and insurance reimbursements expected for conservation storm cleanup costs that were paid up front.

Supervisors asked for follow‑up analyses in several areas. The Treasurer’s Office requested additional staffing that Marasco recommended as a time‑limited adjustment with a six‑month training/onboarding plan; Marasco said the Treasurer expects roughly $1,600,000 in additional revenue that could offset the expense and suggested reassessing the positions after a year. Supervisors also pressed about vehicle and capital funds and whether underspent vehicle‑replacement money could be reallocated to pay for decision packages; Marasco said he would review options globally.

Staffing and longer‑term constraints Board members and staff discussed long‑term staffing trends. Marasco said county staff levels grew about 25 full‑time equivalents per year during the ARPA and other stimulus periods, and that many positions added then have persisted while federal stimulus dollars have ended. He said his office is working with HR on a multi‑year plan that uses attrition to reduce the workforce in a measured way to avoid layoffs if revenue weakens further.

What’s next The board moved to continue discussion through the public hearing process and certification deadlines in March and April. Marasco and Budget and Finance Director Deb Anderson said the budget materials and revised explanatory slides would be posted online and staff will be available to answer taxpayer questions as required by state deadlines.

Ending note Marasco described the recommendations as the product of difficult tradeoffs: “It shouldn’t be easy,” he said, “we’re public servants.” The board signaled more hearings and staff follow‑up on specific decision packages before final certification.