Taylor County commissioners review $3.3 million shortfall and propose cuts to constitutional offices

Taylor County commissioners on Wednesday reviewed a preliminary plan to close a projected $3.1 million to $3.4 million shortfall in the fiscal year 2025 budget, discussing across-the-board percentage cuts for constitutional officers, constraints on using a 1¢ sales-tax capital fund for operating costs, and potential next steps on health-insurance procurement.

The proposal presented to the board summarized current line-item budgets for several constitutional officers and recommended percentage reductions: a proposed 15% cut to the sheriff’s budget and 10% cuts to the supervisor of elections, tax collector, property appraiser and clerk. The presenter said the sheriff’s current budget stood at $9,253,000 and proposed reductions across offices that were calculated by the presenter into dollar amounts during the discussion.

Why it matters: county leaders said they are seeking options to avoid raising ad valorem taxes while balancing a legally required budget. Commissioners repeatedly emphasized that reserve draws and tax increases would be last resorts, and they asked staff and the county attorney to provide legal guidance and a clearer accounting of offsetting revenue sources before final decisions.

The discussion threaded three persistent practical constraints. First, the 1¢ local-option sales-tax revenue is currently earmarked for capital improvements; converting any portion to operating funds would require legal review. Second, some departmental budgets — notably the sheriff’s — receive reimbursements and pass-through revenues (for example, school resource officer salary reimbursements and dispatch reimbursements), which reduce their net cost to the county but complicate headline comparisons of “approved budget” figures. Third, health-insurance expenses are large and politically sensitive: several commissioners favored re-bidding the county’s plan to seek lower rates rather than shifting more cost to employees.

“The bottom line is we have to balance the budget,” one commissioner said during the meeting. Board members took no final policy vote on cuts during the session but directed staff to deliver follow-up information: a legal opinion on whether the 1¢ sales-tax earmark can be repurposed, an itemized accounting of reimbursements and offsets that lower some departmental net costs, and quotes or proposals to re-bid the county’s health-insurance plan by May so results would be available before final budget adoption.

Budget figures discussed and clarifications - Sheriff: presenter cited an approved budget of $9,253,000 and proposed a 15% reduction; during debate other commissioners and staff noted the sheriff receives reimbursements (the presenter and another speaker described roughly $565,000 from the school board and additional reimbursements that reduce the sheriff’s net cost). The meeting transcript records both the larger gross figures and the existence of reimbursements; commissioners asked staff to compile the net figures. - Supervisor of elections: presenter cited a current budget of $7,733,578 and suggested a 10% reduction. - Tax collector: cited at $413,680 with a recommended 10% reduction. - Property appraiser: cited at $1,076,081 (spoken as “a million $76.08 15” in the transcript) with a 10% reduction proposed. - Clerk: cited at about $1,121,664 with 10% proposed. - The presenter calculated the proposed reductions into a combined total the board would need to find; figures cited during the meeting varied as participants discussed whether to use the 1¢ fund and how reimbursements affect net budgets.

Commissioners repeatedly cautioned against prematurely exhausting county reserves, saying doing so could create multi-year budget pressure if local economic development and new tax receipts do not materialize quickly. Several commissioners urged staff to identify non-personnel reductions first (travel, contracted services) before recommending personnel reductions.

On health insurance and employee impacts Some commissioners raised concern about increasing employee premiums as a first option. One commissioner asked staff to solicit bids for alternate insurance plans beginning May 1, with a one-month turnaround to present rate comparisons in June, arguing that re-bidding could yield savings without worsening employee participation or long-term loss ratios.

Next steps and direction The board directed staff to: - Ask the county attorney for a written opinion on whether the 1¢ capital fund may be reallocated for operating costs and, if so, the legal process required. - Produce an itemized accounting showing gross departmental budgets and the reimbursements/off-sets that reduce net county cost, particularly for the sheriff’s office. - Begin a formal insurance bid process (if the board confirms timing) so alternative plan costs are available before the July budget deadline.

No formal vote was taken on cuts during the session; the board scheduled continued budget work sessions in March to receive the requested follow-up information and to discuss concrete reduction scenarios.

Ending: Board members concluded the session stressing the county must present clear options — and their likely service impacts — to the public before making decisions on taxes, reserves or workforce reductions.