Eaton County projects $4.9 million budget gap; commissioners debate public‑safety millage and possible cuts

Eaton County officials told the Ways & Means Committee that preliminary budget requests for 2025‑26 outpace projected revenues by about $4.9 million, and commissioners spent much of the meeting reviewing where cuts would fall if additional revenues are not secured.

Connie (staff member) framed the meeting as an information step in the budget process and warned commissioners that “the cuts are coming” while more detail is gathered. Melissa (finance director) and other staff walked commissioners through an updated multi‑year projection that showed property tax revenue slightly below earlier estimates and some one‑time improvements in interest earnings.

Key revenue details offered in the presentation included:

- Property tax projection: staff reported a revised property‑tax projection of roughly $26.6 million, down from an earlier estimate of about $27.1 million. - One‑time and near‑term changes: a modest increase from industrial tax and the advent of retail marijuana licensing in Charlotte produced small new receipts; Treasurer Reyna projected roughly $600,000 more in interest earnings for the current year and about $1.3 million for the next fiscal year.

On the expenditure side, staff noted that department requests added to the gap and called attention to the difficulty of cutting positions without degrading services. Melissa laid out a department‑by‑department view of personnel and ancillary costs to give commissioners a clearer picture of where payroll makes up most of the budget.

Commissioners and staff emphasized that some services are mandated by state law or constitutional office duties and cannot be reduced without legal consequences. The sheriff repeatedly told the board that the county is required to operate the jail and provide court security; he and other law‑enforcement officials warned that the likely near‑term budget response without new revenue would be to end county road patrol and scale back other discretionary services.

“If this public‑safety millage fails, we will not be able to sustain road patrol,” Sheriff Reich said. Asked how quickly the sheriff’s office could rebuild a dissolved road patrol if voters later approved a new millage, Reich said restoring a full road patrol would be “a miracle” because recruitment and training take many months and competing agencies typically pay more.

Commissioners discussed options and mechanics for cutting costs, including:

- Reclassifying or charging external partners for services that the county currently provides without cost (for example, contract planning and zoning services provided to townships). - Reducing departmental FTEs, which staff warned would largely show up in personnel reductions and the loss of services rather than amenity cuts. - Revising outside agency funding and grants; staff said the board had requested letters of intent from external agencies to document expected funding needs.

Several commissioners and the county controller urged residents to weigh the long‑term cost of cuts against the short‑term tax impact. “You either pay for it or you don’t have the service,” Connie said, summarizing the practical choice facing the board.

Schedule and next steps: staff said they will send departments a template asking them to classify functions as mandated or discretionary and will compile results for the board. Commissioners asked that the packet be finalized and distributed to absent commissioners; staff indicated department presentations and further budget workshops are planned in late May and June so that any changes can be incorporated before adoption.