Commissioners probe mismatches between approved budgets and tax-levy extensions

County commissioners spent the largest portion of their Sept. 23 meeting reviewing discrepancies between amounts entities requested in December levy submissions and what the county later distributed. County staff said the column of figures that comes from the levy letters (column C on the staff spreadsheet) mirrors what entities requested, but those numbers did not always match the figures shown in the board-approved budget or the final amounts paid.

The discussion matters because several local entities — including the county health department and other levied bodies — expected higher distributions than they received. County staff explained that levies are submitted in December as extension requests for the following tax year, and that later adjustments for overlapping taxing districts, property tax exemptions and other credits can reduce the amounts actually collected and distributed.

A county staff member said the maximum amounts county staff could pay are determined by the extension and by collection performance through the tax cycle. “If you add the [extension] plus the other lines, you don't even come up with 400,000,” the staff member said when comparing a health fund's requested $400,000 to the amounts appearing in the levy worksheets. Commissioners asked repeatedly why some line-item budget amounts and the levy-submitted figures did not reconcile and whether entities were notified when their levy requests were reduced. County staff said entities generally receive the final checks but are not routinely sent interim notice showing reductions between their request and the final distribution.

Commissioners and staff identified several likely causes: (1) some levies incorporate separate lines for IMRF (retirement), Social Security/FICA and insurance that are recorded separately in the tax system; (2) overlapping taxing districts and tax increment financing (TIF) adjustments reduce net distributions; and (3) revenue recapture and assessor adjustments during the tax cycle change the amounts ultimately available. Staff described a revenue-recapture line that captures shortfalls from prior cycles and is allowed under state law to be settled in later cycles.

Because the county must submit final extension inputs to the tax system by Thursday, staff said the practical fix was to make targeted changes on that worksheet now and reconcile the structural questions later. Commissioners agreed to sign the submitted extension form so the filing deadline would be met and directed staff to prepare a reconciliation showing how the levy-submitted numbers map to the board-approved budget and to final distributions. The county auditor and staff said they would re-run the spreadsheet in the county tax system (DevNet) and work with Janice to adjust line items so that one identified municipal lease-related item meets its minimum payment requirement.

The board asked staff to return with a clear worksheet and, as part of the upcoming budget cycle, a reconciliation that shows which budget lines correspond to which levy lines and how IMRF, Social Security and insurance components are being handled. The staff member said Baker Tilly would be asked for additional review but that there was not enough time before Thursday to complete a full audit. Commissioners flagged this as a priority issue for the next budget session.

Ending: Staff will adjust the one required line and file the extension by Thursday to meet the statutory deadline, and the board directed staff to prepare a full reconciliation for review during the upcoming budget process.