County staff says proposed head-count reductions and revenue adjustments produce an adoptable budget; commissioners warned not to "rest" on cuts

5021386 · June 14, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Controller's preliminary modeling — which removes Delta Township contract revenue and models previously announced personnel reductions — shows revenues exceeding expenses and an estimated projected unassigned fund balance of about $8.7 million. Staff cautioned commissioners that pay and staffing pressures remain and that the model is provisional.

Controller's office presented a preliminary budget model based on cuts the board discussed at its May 30 budget meeting and the removal of Delta Township contract revenue from the county-wide projection.

The controller told commissioners that applying the personnel reductions discussed previously (approximately $3.6 million in head-count reductions), reducing outside-agency contributions and removing the Delta Township revenue stream produced a model in which revenues exceed expenses and the projected unassigned fund balance stabilizes near $8.7 million. The controller cautioned the board that the model is a work product and that it does not include all factors such as pension-contribution scenarios or possible negotiated compensation adjustments.

Staff said the next steps are department-level presentations on June 27 and additional contract work with Delta Township legal counsel before finalizing numbers. The controller said pay increases remain on the table: staff will present pay proposals in the next packet, and the board would need to act specifically to remove any pay increase proposals.

Commissioners voiced differing views: some emphasized revisiting earlier reductions or making additional targeted changes; others urged caution and asked staff to return with clearer impacts on core services before reversing prior reductions.

Public commenters raised concerns about specific drain-assessment bills and called for the drain commissioner to address constituent concerns at a future board meeting.