Neighbors,

We have been receiving a lot of input about the county budget, and I welcome and continue to invite your advocacy over the next several days. Note that the Board will begin, and perhaps conclude, our votes on the budget this week Wednesday.

In particular, there is a lot of interest in staffing for the Dane County Sheriff’s Office (DCSO) so will share more details. I chair the committee where this has been a topic of discussion for months, and am happy to discuss via phone if any constituents are interested. Our budget process started with amendments to eliminate 28 vacant positions and use that funding to offset a 4% cut to Purchase of Service (POS) agencies that provide human services, along with investments in housing and other services. I did propose a compromise solution in committee but that failed by 1 vote. Instead, the budget proposal before the Board now has a different compromise which doesn't eliminate a single deputy position, but essentially freezes 20 of the 30+ current vacancies in 2026. I think that is a reasonable and fair path forward, though we'll need to continue to assess the whole picture. I fully recognize the need for law enforcement and the essential services deputies provide. We will always need public safety officers, and should appreciate how challenging their responsibilities are. We are fortunate to have a reform-minded Sheriff who recognizes the value of community policing, deploying mental health deputies, upstream interventions, trauma-informed care, and is leading the agency in that direction. And I know that the vast majority of interactions with DCSO from community members are filled with compassion, professionalism, and empathy.

At the same time, we must also invest in the programs and services that address the root causes of crime, namely, poverty and lack of affordable and safe housing. These strategies will mitigate the need for law enforcement over time by making sure core needs are met.

For reference, this is the amendment list we will be voting on, which has been significantly revised in the last week after Committee actions: Sub 1 Amendment List (“Sub 1”).

A few points of consideration on the issue of staffing in DCSO:

• This budget keeps every last current law enforcement officer in their essential roles serving Dane County, maintaining public safety from rural corners of our community to the jail. It also recognizes that the current level of overtime used by deputies is not sustainable from a financial perspective, but more importantly the impact on deputies and their families is too heavy, and wearing on our peacekeepers. We spent $5M over the allocated budget for overtime in 2024.
• The budget recognizes that historically, there are consistently at least 20 vacancies for deputies and up to 65 in the last 5 years since I took office, and that the Sheriff and his team are making progress on resolving those vacancies with qualified personnel, which I applaud. However, this will continue to be a multi-year endeavor. The budget proposal I support freezes 20 of the existing vacancies in 2026, while also allowing the Sheriff to fill existing vacancies and new ones that arise from retirements in an effort to reduce overtime, improve work/life balance for officers, and use savings from those positions to fund necessary services, including many that will address the root causes of crime. This memo (https://dane.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=14879918&GUID=1987C1DE-9C62-4505-86A0-FD8379631DC6) outlines the number of deputy hires and separations in DCSO over the last 5 years. There was a big bump recently due to a lateral hire program, but that has since sunset.
• The Finance Committee's proposal also restores needed funding in other areas of the justice system, providing appropriate staffing for the Deferred Prosecution Program which serves clients through a restorative approach to justice and avoiding criminal convictions, along with 2 clerks needed to ensure a timely and efficient functioning of our judicial branch.  

This budget reflects the ideals I believe we must model - creativity and compromise. We will have many challenging decisions ahead, and will serve the Dane County community best when everyone has a seat at the table and embraces a shared responsibility in finding solutions. I embrace that challenge head-on.

Sub 1 is not about choosing between human services and public safety. It’s about maximizing the services we can provide to meet the critical needs of all Dane County residents (housing, food, safety, and stability) with the limited resources we have.

Sub 1 represents a fiscally responsible, values-driven compromise that allows us to focus on community needs and ensures public safety operations remain funded and sustainable.  

Federal cuts and dysfunction are straining our local social safety net, and it will get worse. We are seeing this play out right now with the expected lapse in SNAP funding. In this environment, the most vulnerable members of our community will continue to rely on the county and our POS agencies. These are the organizations on the front lines, helping people stay housed, fed, and safe.

Sub 1 is about managing limited resources thoughtfully, equitably, and recognizing that a safe community depends not only on law enforcement, but on shelter, treatment, and prevention. It’s about making tough decisions guided by Dane County’s values.

More background on the budget:

For reference, the 2025 budget authorizes total expenditures of $813.7 million for operations, which are financed by $415.6 million of program and outside revenues, $87.2 million of county sales taxes, $260.5 million of county property tax levy funds, and $50.4 million in fund balance. The separate Capital Budget includes $112.5 million for capital spending in 2025; you can see all the details from the current budget here. Over one-third of the county budget depends on intergovernmental revenue (such as Medicaid $ from the feds to the state) and those are largely not flexible dollars – just passthrough. The operational shortfall is primarily driven by the combination of increasing health insurance costs for the 2000+ county employees, slowing sales tax growth, inflation, and state-set levy limits.

One of the frequent issues that comes up is why is the county doing so much building (like the jail project or purchasing land) when we have an operational deficit. In short, those dollars between capital and operating are separate and can’t be comingled. We have a cap on our operating dollars but not on the capital. Even borrowing on the capital is separate from our operations levy limit, so reducing our capital expenses won’t help resolve the deficit. I’ve attached a slide deck that shares the data we’re working with relative to costs, expenses, and budgeting. Please let me know if you have questions.

Deep Dive on Renewable Energy, Federal Changes, and Revenue for the Dane County Landfill

The County Board recently visited the Dane County landfill and Director John Welch shared some information that I know many environmentally-minded residents may find interesting. Note that the landfill is an “enterprise fund” – meaning it can only spend what it generates in revenue, and does not rely on tax levy. Learn more about the landfill including services and sign up for a tour (10/10 recommendation from me!): https://landfill.danecounty.gov/services/landfill. Essentially, we anticipate seeing reduced revenue based on changes in the renewable energy market, and below is the summary from John on this complex issue for anyone that wants to “nerd out.”  

The Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) is a program that was created several years ago by Congress to financially incentivize renewable fuels.  This program (run by the EPA) covers several type of renewable fuels, including ethanol, renewable natural gas (RNG), and others. It requires fuel refinery companies to have a certain amount of their fuel come from renewable sources. In order to accurately track everything, a set volume of renewable fuel is assigned a Renewable Identification Number (RIN).  So, as an RNG facility produces renewable fuel, they record this into EPA’s tracking system, and the fuel is assigned a certain number of RINs, based on the volume of renewable fuel produced. These RINs are renewable credits or tokens, and they can be bought and sold on the open market.  Many fuel refineries do not want to own dozens of renewable fuel production facilities to meet their obligations.  Instead, they purchase RIN credits from the renewable fuel developers who develop and operate RNG production facilities, like our RNG Plant at the landfill.

While the price of RINs is dictated by the open market, this market is highly influenced by the EPA and its impact on supply and demand. Every 1-3 years, the EPA sets the quota for the amount of renewable fuel that refineries have to meet in future years.  This quota is called the Renewable Volume Obligation (RVO).  If the EPA sets the RVO too high, there would not be enough RNG to meet the goal, and the cost of RINs would skyrocket.  If they set the RVO too low, it creates less demand for RINs, and the price drops.  The overall goal of the program is to incentivize increased growth of renewable fuel production.  So, the RVO goal should be set at a level that will incentivize the development of new RNG production facilities.

Now, to our current RINs market.  There are a few factors that are negatively affecting RINs prices right now:

1. Growth in RNG production is starting to exceed growth in CNG vehicle adoption. Over the long term, this will create a situation where there is more supply of RNG fuel than demand for fuel use in CNG vehicles.  This could be at least partially offset by expanded use of RNG for building heat and to displace other natural gas uses.  This would likely require policy changes at the federal or state level.
2. EPA set the RVO target low. The EPA just issued its proposed RVO target for next year, and it is much lower than the RNG industry was hoping.  This had the effect of immediately lowering RIN prices.  The EPA used item #1 above as its justification for the lower RVO target for future years.  The industry is suing the EPA, stating that this methodology violates the law that created the RFS program.
3. Small refinery exemptions. The RFS law allows the EPA to issue waivers or exemptions to small refineries if the small refineries can prove that meeting their portion of the RINs quota would create an economic hardship.  There were some court rulings during the first Trump administration which essentially ended all small refinery exemptions.  Despite this, the current EPA administration has approved numerous exemptions, which means those refineries do not need to purchase any RINs.  In theory, those RINs should be reallocated to all of the non-exempted refineries, but the EPA has some latitude to simple eliminate those RINs from the RVO quota.  This hasn’t been confirmed, but sources indicate that the EPA intends to only reallocate half or less of the exempted RINs.  If true, this would further erode RIN prices.

In the landfill budget, the department is forecasting a reduction in budgeted RINs revenue from $10,300,000 in 2025 to $6,700,000 in 2026. So, we are forecasting a $3,600,000 reduction in RINs revenue. This is all subject to change based on actual market conditions, but this is our best forecast, based on current RINs prices and market forecasts from our consultants.

This fall, as you hold neighborhood gatherings or community meetings, I am available and excited to join you and share more news about county programs/services and the results of our annual budget and implications for district residents.

In service,

Richelle Andrae

Dane County Board Supervisor District 11

Andrae.richelle@countyofdane.com