Yankton County approves 10% cut to operating expenses as commissioners wrestle with $4M shortfall

YANKTON, S.D. — Yankton County commissioners on Tuesday voted to require a 10% reduction in operating expenses for every county department as part of efforts to close a multi‑million‑dollar shortfall in the provisional 2026 budget.

The move, approved after days of review and several hours of debate during the Sept. 16 meeting, applies to operating-line items only and does not automatically cut wages, commissioners clarified during discussion. Chair John, who introduced a cost‑saving proposal earlier in the meeting, framed the decision as a difficult but necessary step to avoid depleting reserves. “If we do a 10% cut across the board, not affecting wages…we’re going to do a 2.7% wage increase with the cost‑of‑living increase,” he said during debate.

Why it matters: County staff presented a provisional budget showing roughly $11 million in projected revenue against about $15 million in proposed expenses. Commissioners and the county’s state adviser warned that without reductions, the county risked using nearly all reserve funds within a year or two. The county is already planning transfers from the general fund to the highway fund totaling millions of dollars for road and bridge work.

What was decided: The motion that carried requires each department to produce a plan showing how it will achieve a 10% reduction in operating expenditures. Commissioners said department heads retain discretion over which operating items to cut, and they discussed possible incentives or recognition for departments that meet targets without harming essential services. The board retained a $500,000 contingency in the budget and left open the possibility of further amendments before the final Oct. 1 deadline.

Key arguments: Supporters described the action as urgent and unavoidable. Commissioner Don said the county must “take our medicine now” to avoid a worse fiscal outcome later. Commissioner Brian urged caution and noted that the county’s cash‑applied practice has, at times, kept it near historical reserve levels: “We applied $3.4 million to an $11.2 million general fund in 2018 — we’re kind of where we were before COVID,” he said, urging measured cuts.

Opponents and concerns: Several department heads and commissioners stressed the difficulty of trimming 10% from departments that are labor‑intensive or subject to statutory obligations, especially law enforcement and jail operations. The sheriff outlined that many budgets are driven by mandatory staffing and program requirements and warned that short notice would make it hard to implement cuts without affecting services. Public commenters called for swift action but warned that road maintenance should not be further reduced.

Next steps: Departments must return proposed operating reductions for the commission’s review; the commission plans one or more focused budget meetings before the final budget is adopted. Commissioners also discussed longer‑term options such as targeted levies or other revenue measures, acknowledging that state property‑tax reform could alter revenue calculations.

Provenance: This article is based on the commission’s Sept. 16 discussion and vote on the budget and operating cuts (meeting transcript segments beginning with the provisional budget discussion at SEG 1050 and concluding with the carried motion and roll call at SEG 2388–SEG 2438).