Dunn County committee forwards contract to test priority-based budgeting tool

Dunn County’s Executive Committee voted to send a proposed contract to the County Board to license a priority-based budgeting tool and services from a team now working with Tyler Technologies, with a cost cap the committee set at $57,600 for a one-year engagement.

The vote followed a 90-minute presentation by consultants Chris Fabian and Jason Frank, who described priority-based budgeting as a method that translates line-item financial data into a program inventory, attaches costs and staffing to each program, and scores programs by alignment with local priorities. “Priority based budgeting is an approach to understanding where your dollars go,” Fabian said during the presentation.

County manager Chris introduced the guests and said the county and staff had invited the presenters to determine whether the approach could help Dunn County find options to reallocate funds or generate revenue without automatically raising taxes. During the meeting a supervisor observed that even a small percentage improvement in a roughly $110 million operating budget could yield substantial dollars for reallocation: “If they could help us find a million—find 1%—we'd have a million extra dollars to shift around,” the county manager said.

Fabian and Frank told the committee their service would produce a program inventory, program cost allocations, and “insight” reports that compare Dunn County’s programs with patterns drawn from hundreds of other jurisdictions. They cited outcomes from other counties: Washington County, Wisconsin, which the presenters said had reallocated roughly 15% of its budget over time through program redesign and new revenue, and Collier County, Florida, which the presenters said identified about 22% of its budget for reconsideration during an initial review.

Committee members pressed for details on staff burden and on whether the work would require a large time commitment. Frank estimated department-level refinement typically requires about 1–3 hours per week of staff time while the project runs, saying the current software-driven approach reduces what used to be a much larger manual lift.

Several supervisors voiced caution. One said the claimed 17–24% reallocation projections were “dubious” and preferred more conservative expectations; another raised the policy concern that shifting costs to fees or partners can amount to cost-shifting onto residents. The presenters and staff responded that the work is intended to produce options—cuts, partnerships, fee alternatives or efficiencies—rather than automatic tax or service cuts.

After discussion, the committee approved a motion to move forward with contracting for the priority-based budgeting product and services, with the spending authority capped at the quoted figure and with final contract terms to be negotiated by staff. Supervisor Calabrese seconded the motion; the committee chair called the question and the motion passed. The matter will go to the full County Board for final approval.

If the full board approves the contract, the county would receive a draft program inventory from the vendor and staff would then refine that inventory with departments. The presenters said the service can be provided as a recurring product-plus-service arrangement; counties the presenters named typically use the first year to build the data and later years to refine insights and track implementation.