Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Levy And Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors weigh levy choices, emergency management takeover and capital funding amid a multi‑million dollar deficit
Summary
Facing a roughly $2.4M shortfall, the Dubuque County Board reviewed seven levy scenarios, debated opening a rural supplemental levy, and discussed whether to absorb PSAP/911 operations into county EMA — a move that would shift costs into the general supplemental levy and affect FY27 budgeting.
Dubuque County supervisors spent major portions of their budget work session considering levy design and whether the county should prepare to assume operation of the PSAP/911 center and other EMA responsibilities.
Stella, the county budget staff member, outlined seven levy scenarios that trade reductions and shifts among general basic, rural basic and debt‑service levies and creating or using a rural supplemental levy to preserve services without raising the county’s overall levy rate.
Stella emphasized the time pressure: final budget and levy decisions must be made this week to generate taxpayer mailings and schedule public hearings. “We need to make our decisions for final budget by Thursday… so we can get everything into Department of Management system by next Thursday,” she said.
Supervisors debated using a newly available rural supplemental levy to offset ratcheted cuts in rural basic revenue. One supervisor noted that 10¢ of rural supplemental generates much less revenue than 10¢ in general basic, which affects how much new levying power is created by shifting buckets.
Public safety funding and the PSAP were a major focus. Board members discussed the county absorbing PSAP operations to regionalize 911 services; staff estimated operations could cost between $2 million and $3 million annually and said those costs would generally flow through the general supplemental levy if the county assumed operations. “This is a major transition with a critical service that we have to get right,” one supervisor said, urging careful planning and early levy consideration.
On capital, staff outlined a long‑term capital fund (projected at about $1.5 million at FY26 end) and a list of CIP items totaling several million dollars with grant‑eligible projects highlighted. Supervisors agreed to keep grant‑funded projects in the CIP and prioritize necessary capital (e.g., elections equipment, secondary roads shop funding) while being cautious about drawing down reserves to cover recurring operating shortfalls.
What’s next: Staff will revise the levy options to reflect the Sunnycrest discussion and provide updated fund‑balance and cash‑flow analyses for Thursday’s session so the board can choose a final levy scenario and public hearing dates.
Provenance: Levy options and PSAP discussion originated in the staff packet and were discussed throughout the session (topicintro: {"block_id_start":"SEG 271","block_id_end":"SEG 396","evidence_excerpt":"I put together a memo...we need to make our decisions for final budget by Thursday" ,"reason_code":"topicintro"}); PSAP/EMA takeover debate and cost estimates appear in the EMA discussion (topfinish: {"block_id_start":"SEG 1816","block_id_end":"SEG 2070","evidence_excerpt":"If we are going to make an agreement where we are taking over operations...it will flow through the EMA budget." ,"reason_code":"topicfinish"}).
