Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the County Budget Levy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Auditor: FY26 levy limits set; House File 718 will affect rural basic fund calculations

2229625 · February 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County auditor presented FY26 levy calculations showing incorporated general basic growth below limits and rural basic fund growth above limits; board discussed constraints from recent state legislation (House File 718) and publication deadlines for maximum tax ask.

The Woodbury County auditor summarized fiscal year 2026 levy calculations on the county’s budget review hearing, telling supervisors the county’s incorporated general basic fund growth was 1.64% while unincorporated (rural) growth was 4.38%, triggering statutory limits on rural levy rates.

The auditor said the county can retain last year’s general basic levy rate of 3.8172 and use $21,615,700 for the general basic fund for FY26 because growth in incorporated areas is below the statutory cap. In contrast the rural basic fund exceeded the 2.5% threshold and the county will be held to a 2% limitation for that fund, allowing a rural basic levy rate of 2.36559 and estimated maximum rural tax dollars of $3,827,629.

Auditor staff reminded supervisors that capital improvement projects (CIPs) are not being debated during these FY26 budget hearings because CIP debt affects FY27 debt service levies; CIPs will be discussed later in the budget cycle. The auditor also noted the board must publish a “maximum possible levy” notice under state deadlines and recommended the board treat submitted improvement requests as part of the maximum asking to avoid missing the March 5 certification window.

Members discussed the practical effect of House File 718 and the compressed deadline to publish maximum asks. One supervisor observed that the new deadline effectively forces inclusion of improvement requests in the “maximum” number unless the board explicitly rules items out within two weeks, limiting the board’s traditional ability to add requests late in the process.

The auditor said final calculations, including union-negotiation impacts and departmental staffing changes, were still pending and that staff expected updated figures the following week. No formal budget adoption occurred during the hearing; the board received the documents for review and will consider final adoption later in the cycle.