Custer County mid‑year budget review: most funds tracking but insurance and road capital flagged

CUSTER COUNTY — Custer County finance staff told the Board of Commissioners during a mid‑year review that the general fund and most departmental budgets are generally “on track,” but they highlighted several items that will need further work, including insurance cost pressures, a large unbudgeted treasurer pass‑through, and dependence of road and bridge capital on transfers from other funds.

The presenter said the report covers the first three accounting periods (January–March) and cautioned that some April transactions were not yet included. “Nobody’s in bad shape,” the presenter said during the session, but noted there are “a few spots to watch,” and staff will return with more detailed recoding and recommended budget amendments.

Why it matters: commissioners learned that while about 20% of expected revenue is already in hand and the county’s overall expenditures are roughly where expected (presenter reported the general fund at about 31.23% of budget), some structural issues could force either reallocations or formal requests for additional funding later in the year.

Key details and follow‑up items

- Transfers and pass‑throughs: staff confirmed $571,000 in transfers out of the general fund that were executed early in the fiscal year to fund specific programs. The presenter also flagged a $219,000 treasurer’s deed/auction entry that appears to be a pass‑through (overbid/auction redemption) and committed to investigate and, if necessary, re‑code the amount or present a budget amendment.

- Insurance liabilities: commissioners heard that past settlements vary widely (presenter cited examples including a $300,000 settlement where the county paid $16,000 and a $700,000 claim where the county paid $60,000), illustrating the difficulty of forecasting claims and the need to monitor the county’s claims line and self‑insurance fund closely.

- Road and capital funding: staff explained they moved $150,000 from the general fund into the capital (50) fund to cover projected FY26 capital expenditures and avoid depleting fund balances. Presenter warned that road and bridge capital is effectively subsidized by other mill levies to the tune of about $450,000 per year and that, absent a voter‑approved mill levy increase, the road fund will continue to depend on transfers.

- Departmental variances: several departments showed front‑loaded expenses or coding issues (examples included election equipment costs in the clerk’s office, unexpected capital outlay coding in planning and zoning tied to a SIPA data grant, and higher‑than‑expected utilities and repair lines in buildings/grounds). Finance said it will reallocate professional‑service and capital charges (for example, costs initially charged to finance for Redlands Consulting will be reallocated to the appropriate projects and funds).

- Conservation Trust Fund and timing adjustments: presenter noted a CTF reimbursement related to fair board spending that should be recorded to FY25; staff will move the amount and consider a corrective budget amendment.

What’s next: staff said they will return with a more detailed breakdown after deeper transaction review and will present any required budget amendment requests. The board scheduled a mid‑year review in July and staff will invite department heads to participate and distribute spreadsheets to support department budget preparation.

Speakers quoted in this article are limited to the meeting’s presenter and commissioners as recorded in the transcript. The presenter provided most of the factual reporting and said staff will follow up on the flagged items.