Lincoln County Commissioners receive first look at 2027 County budget

The Lincoln County Board of Commissioners met Tuesday, June 9. Auditor Sheri Lund was present for the Auditor’s 2027 budget presentation to County Commission. 

“The budget is not a staff budget or an auditor’s budget, it is the county’s commission budget. The public expects its elected officials to make the difficult choices required to  balance community needs, statutory obligations, contractual obligations, and taxpayer resources. The responsibility cannot be delegated, avoided, or postponed through opposition alone. The responsibility for adopting a balanced and sustainable county budget rests solely with the county commission. While staff can provide recommendations, analysis, and operational expertise, the final decision regarding priorities, expenditures, and tax impacts belong to the elected commissioners. Leadership requires more than identifying challenges or expressing concerns, it requires making difficult decisions, weighing competing priorities, and accepting responsibility for the outcomes. If an individual commissioner has an issue with the budget, please do not simply vote no, offer commission solutions to the budgetary obligations facing the county. Today’s presentation is the provisional calendar year 2027 county commission budget prepared by the Lincoln County Auditor’s Office. The purpose is to give the commission a high level view of expected revenues, proposed expenditures, and key cost drivers, debt obligations, and items that may need commission directed before final adoption. This is a provisional budget so it should be viewed as a working document for commission review,” said Lund.  

The final budget will depend on commission priorities, legal requirements, updated estimates, and any adjustments made through the public budget process. The budget process is grounded in South Dakota law. The commission is responsible for preparing and adopting the annual county budget and the provisional budget must identify anticipated revenues, proposed appropriations, fund balances, debts, liabilities, and the matters that will be considered to the public budget meeting. The report also reminds us that once the provisional budget is filed, notice must be filed, and the commission must provide an opportunity for interested persons to hear and discuss the budget items,” she said. 

The main message of the report is the county continues to fund core operations, public safety, roads, emergency communications, rural services, airport needs and long-term debt obligations. 

“The FY2027 shows pressure to two major areas, the general fund and the road and bridge fund. The general fund remains the county’s primary operating fund, but the report shows expenditures growing faster than revenues. The road and bridge fund is the area requiring the most attention because the revenues are declining while expenditures are increasing materially,” she said. 

Lund gave the commission the full calendar of budget meetings and public dates with the end goal of a public hearing on September 1 and adoption on September 22. 

Commissioner Joel Arends asked Lund if she would provide the fund balance and asked how much is being drawn down out of it to cover the gap and when does the Human Resources office expect that the salary study would be released. Human Resources Director, Kari Elling reported to the council that the results of the study will be shared with the department heads in two weeks. 

Chairwoman Tiffani Landeen asked for public opinion on the topic. 

Sara Steever expressed her views. 

“On page six it was noted that it has yet to be established by the governing board. What will that look like?” she asked. 

“We’ve had discussions and are trying to get a game plan together on who is going to do it with us, how much its going to cost, where it’s going to take place, and none of those things have been solidified as of yet, so I’m hoping moving forward we can do that,” Chairwoman Landeen said. 

With no action needed on the presentation, the commission thanked Lund and the public for their participation on the item.

Chairwoman Landeen asked the commission to consider a motion to move the Regular Board of Commissioners meeting from Tuesday, June 23, 2026 to Tuesday, June 30, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. 

“There’s not going to be a quorum present on the 23rd, Commissioner [Jim] Schmidt and I are going to be at South Dakota Association of County Commissioners meetings. With Commissioner [Betty] Otten out, there would only be potentially two commissioners available on the 23rd,” she said. 

With no public input, motion was made to move the meeting by Schmidt, seconded by Arends, motion carried unanimously.

Chairwoman Landeen also asked the commission to consider a motion to move the Regular Board of Commissioners meeting from Tuesday, July 28, 2026, to Thursday, July 30, 2026 and schedule the County canvass of the governor’s runoff election. 

Motion to approve by Schmidt, seconded by Arends for discussion. 

“The only discussion point I have is I will be gone on the 30th so if you need to take that into consideration for the purposes of a quorum,” Arends said. 

“For the purposes of a canvas, I will need you to appoint somebody to sit in your place,” Auditor Lund said. 

Motion carried unanimously.

Chairwoman Landeen asked the commission to consider a  motion to approve revised designs and quote for signage at the Lincoln County Justice Center. 

“The overall budget for signage at the Justice Center was $75,000. We have a quote in your packet and the amount was just north of $68,000,” she said. 

Signage will be placed throughout the building indicating offices, courtrooms, and restroom facilities with a monument sign at the entrance of the Justice Center and road signs will be placed on West Street. 

“We will need to talk about a sign on Highway 18 directing traffic to the Justice Center at some point,” said Chief Civil Deputy State’s Attorney, Drew DeGroot. 

Chairwoman Landeen asked for public comment, Linda Montgomery stood to speak. 

“I’m a little confused about the signage that goes from the Justice Center to Lincoln County government campus. I’ve never heard that before. The sign that Drew just had up and is in your packets I’ve never heard this mentioned, only the Justice Center. I also just want to clarify that the $67,800 plus taxes and permits, is that already in the budget for the Justice Center?” she asked. 

“Yes,” Chairwoman Landeen said, “it was budgeted for $75,000 so it was under that. We are calling it the campus so if other buildings are put out there eventually, probably not in my time or your time, so it won’t have to be ripped out.” 

Motion to approve by Schmidt, seconded by Arends, motion. 

Commissioner Arends told the commission he would only vote yes on the motion if the name returned back to the Justice Center and not the government campus as it would be ‘inappropriate at this time’.

“I’ll amend this motion, but I think it’s nearsighted to do that,” Schmidt said. 

“It is,” Landeen agreed. 

“You’re not looking at the future at all. How does anybody ever change their signage because it happens all the time. But in this case, it’s not rare for this council to want to do that, so I’ll amend my motion to the Lincoln County Justice Center,” Schmidt said, being seconded by Arends, motion carried 3-1 with Putnam being the nay vote. 

Planning Director Toby Brown asked the commission to consider a motion to remand an ordinance amending the zoning ordinance text for building eligibility transfers to the Planning Commission. 

“The second referral this morning is a request from the planning commission to remand a draft ordinance back to them so that they can conduct a public hearing and send it back to you,” Brown said. 

The Planning Commission had come up with some ideas and taken public input on it and are requesting it be remanded back to them for a formal public hearing process. Chairwoman Landeen asked for public input, Rodney Miles stood to speak. 

“I look at the two options and go through the positives and the negatives. If you look at option number two it doesn’t affect the schools, they will remain getting their tax money as far as ag eligibilities, and basically its an advantage to the school if these are able to be transferred within the townships. All these eligibilities that are basically landlocked now to four adjoining parcels could be moved within the township and they would have the ability to pick up tax revenue and keep that revenue in the township,” he said. 

Motion to remand was made by Arends, seconded by Schmidt, motion 3-1 with Putnam being the nay vote.