Des Moines County supervisors review budget, levy shifts and bond requests ahead of late‑February vote

Des Moines County supervisors met in a work session to review the county’s non‑departmental projected budget and to set priorities ahead of the statutory levy‑setting deadline.

The budget director said the county’s current net property tax levy shows “a decrease of almost 7¢” and reported the levy as “0.06919,” noting that the state’s formula requires that calculation. She said the levy shift results in about $183,696 of additional dollars for next fiscal year’s general basic and that the change reflects how the state apportions levy amounts across funds. “So we moved that almost 7¢ to general supplemental,” the budget director said.

The supervisors discussed revenue assumptions across several lines. Staff proposed a local option sales tax estimate of about $250,000 for next year (last year posted ~$247,421 and the county had received ~$153,500 so far), and projected homestead replacement at roughly $198,000 and a 2‑tier replacement credit near $162,700. The budget director also flagged a phase‑out of a commercial/industrial credit that would reduce revenue by about $17,006 next year.

On the spending side, the board reviewed non‑departmental expense lines, including a 5.84% increase to the GIS transfer, secondary road transfers (down because of valuation changes), and various outside‑services and supply accounts. Supervisors debated trimming the central supplies line (previously $10,000) and agreed on a reduced figure for next year after noting recent spending has been far lower than budgeted.

Several bondable capital requests drew attention. Staff distributed a list of requested bond projects and marked required items; supervisors said they were inclined to keep required IT and public‑safety items but questioned optional items such as a mobile immunization clinic and building facade work. A parking lot bid for the sheriff’s office was discussed; staff and supervisors talked about preserving spending authority by classifying some work as bondable so the county can borrow for it without driving the levy sharply higher.

Supervisors also reviewed personnel‑related assumptions in the budget director’s line: staff discussed a retirement/payout timing that would charge roughly 55% of the director’s salary to that line and estimated budgeted amounts for an interim or replacement. The board scheduled a closed session to meet about contract employee compensation and related contract employees before the public vote.

The board agreed to take more time to vet some line items and to confirm vendor/pricing changes (for example, publication/legal‑notice costs after local newspaper consolidation). Staff committed to researching whether the state or Veterans Affairs now pays for certain veterans’ grave care before removing the $4,600 line from the budget.

The supervisors set a tentative timeline: the board will revisit the proposed numbers and, barring substantive changes, planned to consider a public vote on the budget items on Feb. 24. Staff warned that pending state legislation — including changes to how sheriff salaries are compared and calculated — could require adjustments after the board acts.

The work session closed with direction to staff to refine figures, verify publication and service contracts, and return with recommended final numbers for formal action at the scheduled meeting.