Yankton County commissioners review preliminary 2026 budget, weigh program cuts and capital requests

YANKTON, S.D. — The Yankton County Board of Commissioners gathered July 7 for a provisional review of the 2026 budget, spending the meeting discussing department requests, contingency strategies and line‑by‑line reductions rather than taking final action.

Chair opened the meeting and Patty, the county treasurer, provided a topline revenue figure described in meeting materials as "11,000,000 and change," which commissioners contrasted with higher requested spending in the draft budgets. Commissioners emphasized that the session was for discussion only and that final approval would come later.

Why it matters: Commissioners said much of the county budget is legally or contractually constrained, leaving a relatively small set of discretionary lines to trim. Several speakers warned that across‑the‑board percentage cuts would not necessarily translate dollar‑for‑dollar into lower property taxes because roughly 80% of the county budget was characterized as state‑mandated.

Key personnel and wage policy: Commissioners discussed a proposed wage framework of a 3% increase with no step increases for most county employees. One commissioner summarized the approach: "We're setting the wages budget at 3% ... then why don't we just take 4% off of every other line item and call it a day?" That suggestion drew opposition from members who argued for a targeted, line‑by‑line review rather than blunt cuts.

Nonprofit and program funding under review: The board debated several community grants and donations. The Boys & Girls Club allocation, which had been raised to $35,000 in years when a diversion grant allowed pass‑through funding, drew sustained discussion. Proposals ranged from restoring funding toward historical levels ($5,000–$10,000) to keeping a larger commitment; the board signaled a compromise toward a lower amount pending final review. Commissioners also debated county support for Yankton transit services and a request from Gayville for after‑school program funding.

Elections and auditing lines: Commissioners agreed to increase elections supplies to account for a longer, wider ballot in 2026, with Patty recommending $35,000 for supplies and related election equipment such as iPads.

State's Attorney and diversion program: Tyler, representing the State's Attorney's office, explained staffing and budget requests, including plans for a potential fourth attorney contingent on hiring. The board questioned the large year‑to‑year jump in salary lines and sought clarification on how prior allocations were reallocated when positions were unfilled. Tyler said a diversion program previously funded by grants and bond forfeitures funds some transportation and child‑reengagement work and that it has been largely self‑sustaining but that future state support remained uncertain.

Ambulance capital requests: Commissioners pressed for detail on a machinery and auto equipment line exceeding $40,000 for the ambulance budget, asking whether the item represented a new vehicle, a lease payment or equipment such as power lifts. A June 23 vendor quote for a remount of roughly $194,663 and an additional $31,490 for a lift assist were cited, and several members proposed moving some costs to the county accumulation fund or setting a reduced placeholder until precise quotes and amortization proposals were provided.

Facilities and extension/4‑H: With the county extension agent leaving next month, commissioners considered operating with one full‑time extension employee instead of 1.5 FTE, transferring the extension office into county space to save $20,000–$25,000 annually, or moving to a model of county support via grant/donation rather than direct staffing. Several commissioners pressed for a concrete decision and timeline before the next budget finalization.

Other social services and human‑services funding: The board reviewed Pathways (homeless services), Ability Building Services (ABS), Lewis & Clark mental health funding and historical preservation distributions. Several allocations were proposed for reduction or reallocation; in many cases commissioners requested more detailed historical spending to determine appropriate provisional amounts.

Next steps and process: No final budget votes occurred at the meeting; commissioners asked staff to provide clarified spreadsheets and historical actuals and indicated they would receive the revised packet electronically before a scheduled Tuesday provisional approval session. The meeting concluded with a formal motion and vote to adjourn.

At the meeting: commissioners present included Dan, Don, Wanda, Bridal and Sean; Patty (treasurer) and Tyler (State's Attorney) were among county staff who presented budget lines. The board repeatedly emphasized that some lines are mandated and that contingency and accumulation funds may be used to smooth timing differences ahead of final adoption.

The board is scheduled to consider final or provisional adoption at a follow‑up meeting once staff provide requested clarifications and updated totals.