Trending
We agree with the idea behind Democrat Fred Larson's proposal to require the county to use $2 million from the county's surplus to decrease the county's tax levy.
The county's surplus is more than $30 million, more than the agreed upon minimum of 5% of the county's budget – or roughly $16 million. There is no set upper range for the surplus, but we've said here in the past that we'd like to see the surplus spent down, either to decrease the tax levy or to pay one-time project costs that the county wants to keep out of the yearly budget.
That's why we would urge some caution with proposals to reduce the surplus given how many times the surplus has been called upon to solve unexpected budget problems over the past couple of years – particularly when it comes to safety net assistance spending that has been a notoriously hard area to accurately predict over the past couple of years. Safety Net Assistance, according to the county, is for individuals who are not eligible for other assistance programs. It is a state- and local-funded program for: Single adults; childless couples; children living with a caretaker other than a parent; families of persons abusing drugs or alcohol; families of persons refusing drug alcohol screening, assessment, or treatment; people who have exceeded the 60-month limit on assistance; and non-citizens who are eligible for temporary assistance, but who are not eligible for federal reimbursement.
It was just a little more than a month ago that a request to use $2.8 million from the county’s reserves to pay for higher-than-budgeted Mental Hygiene and Social Services programs was pulled because case numbers had finally decreased. Dianna Songer, county deputy finance director, said county officials wanted to monitor the program further before seeking additional money. For the 2026 budget, the county had budgeted $11 million for safety net programs, up $1 million from 2025. Through June that additional $1 million didn't appear to be enough – and we're not yet sure that won't be the case as the weather turns colder. We'd rather the county be cautious with that particular line item of the budget and account for it in the budget.
It is also worth keeping in mind as legislators discuss how much to use from the county's surplus and for what purposes that money is used. Some Republican legislators have suggested using much more than the $2 million suggested by Larson, with surplus spending as high as $15 million suggested during a recent meeting. Using this money for recurring spending only hampers the county in future years when it has to replace that one-time spending. That type of spending can become a habit when local governments find themselves flush with cash. Eventually, though, the surplus runs out – and taxpayers are hit with a big bill.
Let's avoid that outcome by spending down the surplus wisely.