Kootenai County opens FY27 budget talks as staff warns health insurance, steps outpace revenue

Kootenai County commissioners opened FY27 budget deliberations on June 5, 2026, and county staff presented an analysis showing that health-insurance cost increases and step-pay adjustments have already consumed most of the county’s available revenue under multiple tax scenarios.

Brandy, a county staff member leading the presentation, told the board she allocated FY26 totals across elected offices and applied those percentages to FY27 revenue estimates under 0%, 1%, 2% and 3% tax-increase scenarios. She said the spreadsheet separates ongoing operating allocations from capital so that capital requests do not distort operating shares.

“The new base personnel budget plus the health-insurance increase and the cost of steps are already eating up our allotted budget increase,” Brandy said, explaining that many elected officials’ baseline budgets are rising before accounting for new requests.

Using the sheriff’s office as an example — which Brandy said constitutes roughly half of the county budget — she showed that even if the sheriff cut all new requests, the reductions would not close the projected gap under lower tax scenarios. At a 3% tax-increase scenario, she said the sheriff would still need to cut roughly $4 million given personnel step increases and health-plan cost allocations.

Brandy provided summary numbers from her analysis: the delta between the FY26 and FY27 A-budget baseline is $1,668,639, and she stated that, if there are no additional budget requests, next year’s base would rise by $3,351,689. She cautioned that these figures assume the budgeted health‑insurance and step numbers remain as presented.

On forecasting health costs, Brandy said the county’s vendor, Alliant, uses quarterly claims data and could provide an updated estimate in July. “The health insurance increases are set,” she said, but added the board could change the employee contribution split or alter plan design — for example, deductibles and co‑pays — and that she planned to meet with the HR director next week to review the financial and retention implications.

Board members discussed that medical claims can be cyclical and that insurance costs might decline or increase; they also discussed the existing employee/ employer contribution split (discussed in the presentation as approximately 7% employee / 93% employer) and asked staff to bring options for adjusting contributions or plan design.

Brandy said she would distribute a template summarizing each elected official’s requests and that Jessica (a staff member referenced in the discussion) is compiling a list of departments that do not want to make cuts. Commissioners asked that the analysis be shared with elected officials before department-head recommendations for cuts are considered so executives can explain specific needs rather than be held strictly to last year’s percentage allocations.

No votes or formal actions were taken at the June 5 session; the board recessed after confirming next steps and adjourned at 10:15 a.m.