Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Veterans Millage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Livingston County Board OKs small veterans millage increase after debate over reserves
Summary
After a lengthy debate over fund reserves, the Livingston County Board of Commissioners voted 6–3 to raise the veterans services millage from 0.077 to 0.0918, an average increase of $2.03 per residence, authorizing an expanded FY2025 budget for the department.
The Livingston County Board of Commissioners voted 6–3 on Aug. 26 to approve a proposed veterans services millage of 0.0918, up from the current 0.077, authorizing the department’s requested $1.2 million spending plan for fiscal year 2025.
Ramon Baca, director of Livingston County Veterans Services, told the board the department faces rising costs and declining external grant support and recommended the higher millage to avoid eroding reserves. “The current millage rate of 0.077 on an average residence in Livingston County is $10.59 per year. The requested mill rate of 0.0918 on an average residence equals $12.62, a $2.03 increase,” Baca said.
The vote followed extended discussion about the department’s fund balance and the appropriate level of reserves. Several commissioners and the county’s finance staff referenced a third‑party PFM analysis and treasury guidance on operating reserves. Treasurer Nash and Chief Financial Officer Cindy Hernandez provided staff figures during the discussion, confirming a projected veterans fund balance around $1,056,000 for the end of 2024 and warning that continued budget shortfalls could reduce that balance in coming years.
Commissioner Wes Nakagiri offered an amendment to keep the millage at the current 0.077, saying the department could meet 2025 needs without raising taxes and that the amendment would preserve taxpayer funds. “I will offer an amendment to the resolution to have the millage … stay the same as it is currently at 0.077,” Nakagiri said. The amendment was seconded by Commissioner Fiani and failed on a roll call vote (Yes: Nakagiri, Dreck/Drake, Fiani — 3; No: Halzerman, Domas, Sample, Deaton, Smith, Gross — 6).
After the amendment failed, the board voted on the proposed 0.0918 rate. Roll-call votes recorded in the meeting transcript were: Hauserman (Yes), Domas (Yes), Sample (Yes), Nakagiri (No), Drake (No), Deaton (Yes), Smith (Yes), Fiani (No), Gross (Yes). The motion carried 6–3.
Supporters of the increase said the modest levy change reduces the risk of depleting the department’s reserve through repeated drawdowns and moves the budget closer to break‑even. Opponents countered that the county’s general fund practice of holding 50–60% reserves offers sufficient contingency and that raising the millage now was unnecessary.
Public commenters raised the issue during two call‑to‑the‑public periods. Eleni Keaton told commissioners they were “playing chicken” with the millage and questioned whether the timing of the debate was driven by the election cycle.
The board’s action authorizes the higher millage rate for FY2025. The director recommended adding a target fund balance to future resolutions to reduce annual disagreements about reserve levels.
