Public works directors warn tight budgets, staffing gaps and landfill margin squeeze as sales‑tax accounting is reviewed

Public Works Director Eric (last name not specified) and county finance staff described accounting, staffing and operational issues the Public Works Department says will affect the county’s 2026 road and landfill work.

Eric and Susan (county finance staff) told commissioners that the accounting for the county sales‑tax fund and the road and bridge mill levy has been hard to track because some reports were delayed and because transfers between funds are sometimes recorded generally rather than tied to a discrete project. "Eric tracks all of these projects," a staff member said, noting Public Works keeps detailed miles, materials and labor data; Eric said transfers were sometimes used to cover timing differences "because county distribution hadn't come in yet."

Commissioners were briefed on the department’s budget drivers: projected sales‑tax revenue for 2026 of roughly $1.32 million compared with about $1.38 million in 2025, an anticipated transfer to road operations that at one point approached $650,000 in the current year, and the practice of budgeting full anticipated sales‑tax receipts to preserve spending flexibility. Officials emphasized the need for monthly cash‑flow monitoring so the department can decide whether another mile of road can be done in a given month.

Staff and commissioners discussed whether to raise the Public Works mill levy now or hold it flat while improving accounting and pursuing other revenue options, including interlocal agreements with the city. One commissioner recommended holding the levy steady for the current budget cycle and addressing structural changes for 2027.

Eric warned of an imminent staff turnover risk in the department, saying the office may lose eight to 12 positions in the coming period and that only two people in the office currently have FEMA reimbursement experience. Commissioners stressed the importance of retaining staff who document disaster response and FEMA claims because federal reimbursements can be substantial when disasters occur.

Landfill operations drew extended questioning. Commissioners and staff discussed fees, out‑of‑county and out‑of‑state rates, and the landfill’s cost structure for processing construction and demolition material. Commissioners asked for a straight cost analysis comparing local gate rates and the closest alternatives (named during discussion as Allen County and Arcadia). One commissioner noted what was characterized as a processing loss: "we're bringing the product in for $40, but it's costing us $85 to complete that product," and said that kind of margin erosion could make the landfill unsustainable if outside gate rates rise.

Staff flagged the landfill closure/reserve requirement discussed at a recent commission meeting (cited as about $209,000) and suggested further analysis of site operations, gate‑rate competitiveness, and whether charges for out‑of‑county or out‑of‑state loads should be adjusted. Commissioners asked Public Works to work with commissioners, the landfill operator and financial staff to produce comparative rate data and a cost‑per‑ton breakdown that includes labor, equipment and benefit‑allocations.

On employee compensation, county finance staff warned health‑insurance accounting changes since leaving the state plan mean the employee benefits fund will "look completely different in '25 and '26 than it did in '24." Staff said there are large, system‑wide employee‑benefit costs (reported in the meeting as roughly $4.0 million) that interact with any proposed across‑the‑board salary increases; commissioners were told to expect pressure to keep budgets flat and to account for insurance and other fixed cost increases separately.

Commissioners set a tentative follow‑up meeting to discuss public‑safety budgets and asked that relevant staff (including finance and public‑works leads) attend the next session with the requested cost analyses.