Amherst County board directs staff to advertise budget built around 58¢ tax rate

Amherst County board members on Wednesday directed county staff to prepare and advertise a fiscal-year budget based on “Option C,” a mixed cash-and-financing plan built around a 58¢ real-estate tax rate, after a workshop in which county staff and consultants from Davenport & Company laid out trade-offs between tax levels, financing and deferred capital needs.

Tracy, a county staff member who presented the three scenarios, said each model includes a 3% employee pay increase, a 14.4% rise in health-insurance costs, a $70,000 outside funding request, approximately $1.9 million in school funding, a $42,000 voting-machine purchase spread over three years, and capital items such as a new landfill compactor and an EMS reserve fund. “Model A…comes in at a 58¢ tax rate,” Tracy said when outlining the options, and staff described which items would be deferred under a lower 55¢ option.

The workshop included a detailed financing analysis from Roland Kooch of Davenport & Company, who told the board that recurring revenues built into a 55¢ rate would generate roughly $831,000 annually for the county’s capital-improvement plan (CIP) but would leave a gap relative to identified capital needs. “Our modeling and analysis says that a 58¢ tax rate is estimated to provide roughly about $2,050,000 on a recurring basis that can be used to fund those capital expenditures,” Kooch said, adding that layering some debt with pay-as-you-go cash and dedicating approximately five pennies to CIP produces a more sustainable five‑year plan and allows the county to accelerate purchases such as fire engines into FY27.

Board members questioned the revenue assumptions behind the projections. Tracy said the county’s own sales-tax projection for FY27 was 4.6%, while the state’s projection came in at 4.9%, and that last year’s projection had been 5.1% — a gap the county did not realize in receipts. Several members warned that high fuel prices and continued sales-tax weakness could further pressure local revenues.

Members also debated timing and procurement for expensive, long‑lead items such as fire trucks. Kooch explained options including escrowed contracts that lock a manufacturer’s price but delay payment until delivery, and noted that deferring financing generally only pushes the need for a higher rate out a few years rather than eliminating it.

The board discussed whether to budget for the schools at the higher $1.9 million request or the lower $1.6 million scenario presented by school officials; members observed that reducing the school ask could approach a one‑penny reduction in the advertised rate, though timing and state funding levels could affect the final number before adoption.

By workshop’s end a board member moved to instruct the county administrator to develop and advertise the Option C budget using a 58¢ tax rate, with the caveat that staff should continue work to see whether the rate can be reduced before formal adoption. The motion passed on a 3–2 vote. Staff said public notices will run on April 2 and April 9, a public hearing is scheduled for April 21, and the board expects to adopt the budget and tax rate on May 5.

The workshop concluded without final adoption; the board’s vote directs staff to prepare the budget package to be advertised and publicly discussed at the scheduled hearing.