Clark County staff ask council to direct 2.5% budget cuts, weigh 1% levy and one-time fixes to shore up general fund

Emily Switzik, Clark County budget director, told the council that the finance team’s plan is to address the general fund’s structural deficit through “a deliberate and sustainable approach that focuses on bending the curve over time.” She framed the recommendation as a multi‑year effort rather than a single‑year fix and emphasized that personnel costs continue to drive the county’s structural imbalance.

The presentation to the council outlined a mix of one‑time and ongoing strategies to improve the county’s fiscal outlook for 2027 and beyond. Staff said one‑time measures and stronger-than-expected revenue performance have raised the projected beginning fund balance for 2026 and that those savings — roughly $10 million in operating savings plus deferred capital — are available to smooth the near term. Switzik told the council the budget office also recommends transferring about $7 million of approved general‑fund capital projects into REIT 2 as a one‑time action.

On ongoing measures, staff proposed recognizing an estimated $1.5 million per year of probation fee revenue and noted sales‑tax receipts are trending about $1 million above the current budget if mid‑year patterns continue. The forecast the finance team built in part under discussion also models the effect of House Bill 2442, which staff said would allow subordinate levies to be pulled out of the general fund and be assessed separately, increasing general fund revenue by roughly $2.7 million under current rates.

Because those steps do not eliminate the structural gap, the finance team recommended a 2.5% across‑the‑board reduction scenario for general fund departments — a smoothed approach staff said would yield about $5.6 million in recurring reductions. “We still recommend even with the 1% that we implement the 2.5% cuts,” Switzik said, noting the 1% property tax option is a council decision and that the forecasters included a 1% assumption in some scenarios for illustrative purposes.

Council members repeatedly pressed staff about where cuts would fall and the risks of applying a flat percentage to every department. One councilor asked whether small departments would be disproportionately harmed; staff responded that smaller offices could face larger proportional impacts and that departmental submissions will show specific tradeoffs. Staff also described the county’s practice of fully budgeting authorized positions, explained how vacancy savings historically expand year‑end fund balance, and warned of the risks of pre‑assuming vacancy savings across multiple years.

Finance staff said they are auditing roughly $14 million a year in recurring transfers and subsidies out of the general fund to other funds to determine which transfers are policy obligations that cannot be cut and which could be adjusted. The presentation showed the combined effect of proposed strategies would produce roughly $20 million of additional one‑time available fund balance in 2027, improving the near‑term outlook but leaving a structural deficit in later years.

Several council members voiced conditional support for the staff recommendation to direct departments to submit full needs for all funds and to include a 2.5% reduction scenario for general‑fund budgets. Councilors also asked staff to present the percentage and dollar amount of cuts that would be required to eliminate the modeled deficits if no new revenues were available; staff said they would return with those calculations and a vacancy analysis.

The meeting closed with staff asking for direction to proceed with the budget process under the requested assumptions and with council members indicating support for moving forward while requesting more detail on public impacts, project‑position conversions, and which transfers might be changed.

Switzik said the finance team will return with department‑level impacts, clarifying details, and updated forecasts during the regular budget adoption process.