Commissioners debate using stabilization fund, tax increase or cuts to balance FY27 budget

Amanda, the county budget lead, told the board the preliminary FY27 plan is balanced at the current 30.6¢ tax rate and rests on conservative assumptions: 2% growth in ad valorem and sales tax, about $11.3 million in debt issuance for capital, and targeted use of one‑time revenues rather than fund balance.

"As of today, we are balanced at our current 30.6 tax rate," Amanda said, while noting staff’s recommendation includes $4.8 million of revenue stabilization fund use in the preliminary mix. Finance staff reported an unfavorable sales tax report that month, adding near-term risk to the revenue picture.

County Manager Chris framed the policy trade-offs: the board can raise the tax rate, cut services, or use one-time funds. "I am recommending revenue stabilization fund versus fund balance because it is available and will keep you within your existing policy," he told commissioners, while also cautioning that repeated reliance on one‑time reserves for recurring costs is not sustainable.

Several commissioners said they did not want to draw down the board’s general fund balance (policy floor 16.67% of expenditures) or create an expectation of repeated one-time fills. Commissioner Walker and others urged consideration of structural fixes, with Commissioner Walker noting that a modest tax increase last year might have reduced the need to borrow again now. Commissioner Reidenbach (functional label: Commissioner) and Commissioner Zappel expressed support for limited use of the revenue stabilization fund to preserve services and avoid a tax increase this year, provided the fund use is time-limited and paired with longer-term structural plans.

On priorities, staff proposed increases for K–12 operating support (about $2.3 million, roughly 2.3%), school capital ($2.8 million), and a mix of public safety and customer-facing enhancements. Staff also flagged an expiring endowment grant that funded eight assistant district attorney positions; the county is being asked to cover half-year costs in FY27 (about $400,000 net) and the full annual cost in FY28 (about $800,000 total). Amanda noted the preliminary budget assumes limited use of one-time revenue and debt issuance for capital outlay.

The board discussed alternatives including a hybrid approach (part stabilization fund, part small tax adjustment, and limited cuts) and asked staff to prepare scenario analyses showing the tax-rate impact, fund-balance consequences, and effects on credit rating and borrowing capacity (noting the county may approach the market soon if the school bond proceeds). Manager Chris reminded the board that the revenue-stabilization fund requires a supermajority vote to access and that voters will see bond-equivalency impacts if the board pursues a school bond in the coming months.

What’s next: Chair directed staff to prepare scenario comparisons and tax-rate illustrations for the next meetings and scheduled further budget work sessions to develop a consensus path before final adoption.