Commissioners say county budget proposal becomes default as nursing‑home funding faces cuts

Chair outlined how the county budget process works and warned that recent state actions are squeezing local services.

"The default budget usually is the budget of the prior year. Under the statute, it's the county commissioner's proposed budget, for the calendar year," the Chair said, explaining why the commissioners' proposal, not last year's budget, becomes effective when the delegation does not adopt a budget. He said the county had adjusted revenues and expenses to reflect grant applications but had not altered the tax rate.

The discussion turned to nursing‑home funding after state budget changes. A commissioner warned that a provision that would have distributed roughly $3,000,000 to nursing homes was removed at the state level. "The estimate is $3,000,000," the commissioner said, adding that "if it's rolled into rates for the subsequent year, it'll be then be matched by the federal government," roughly doubling the dollars' effect on rates.

Commissioners described concrete local impacts: several private nursing homes are financially distressed, and one local facility, Merriman Homes (about 60 beds), has closed. The Chair said counties are increasingly asked to cover nonfederal shares of Medicaid and that reliance on property tax to fill those gaps is "troublesome at best." He noted Medicaid participation ratios in recent months were in the low‑to‑mid 30s percent.

No formal vote on budget policy was recorded in the public portion of the meeting; later in the session the board moved to a nonpublic session to discuss personnel and contract negotiation.

Why it matters: County officials say reduced state support for nursing‑home reimbursement could shift costs to counties and property taxpayers while local providers face closures, potentially affecting continuity of long‑term care services for older residents.

What happens next: Commissioners did not adopt any new formal budget action at this meeting; they indicated continued monitoring and engagement with state leaders would be necessary to resolve funding implications.