Commissioners debate mill‑levy scenarios, VOTA settlement risk and budget adjustments

Seward County commissioners spent the budget work session reviewing multiple options to cover potential taxpayer liability and related financing risks stemming from ongoing valuation appeals and a pending judicial decision. Staff and commissioners modeled scenarios that would raise the county’s mill levy to build reserves for a possible Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) and district court payback; one scenario discussed in detail would increase the levy by roughly 11.802–13.384 mills (figures presented as modeled scenarios) to generate a reserve in the $2.0–2.5 million range for initial years of possible payback.

Why it matters: Commissioners said they must decide whether to raise the mill levy now and create a reserve to cover a potential adverse ruling (or to stagger increases over several years), or to find recurring savings and other revenue that would reduce or postpone the need for a full mill‑levy increase. Speakers also discussed employee benefits, insurance renewals, and the possibility of hiring a consultant or a CFO‑type role to find operational efficiencies and reduce long‑term costs.

Highlights from the discussion

• Settlement and valuation risk: County staff outlined modeled scenarios using different valuations and interest assumptions. In the staff scenario labeled as a “realistic” working number, covering three initial years of potential payback with interest produced a required reserve near $2,050,000—figures that drove discussion about a roughly 11.8–13.4 mill increase as a possible response. Staff noted that actual liability depends on judicial discretion, interest compounding and the date the ruling takes effect.

• Staggering increases and alternatives: Commissioners discussed staggering mill increases over multiple years (for example, spreading an 11–13 mill increase across three years at roughly 4 mills per year) to reduce immediate taxpayer impact while building a reserve. Staff advised that if courts require immediate payment covering the first three years, a higher initial increase could be needed to ensure liquidity.

• Cost containment proposals: Commissioner and staff proposals to reduce spending included a cross‑department 3% operating reduction (estimated as a rough, county‑wide exercise producing a notable dollar effect), elimination or reduction of some commission benefits, more aggressive pursuit of delinquent taxes (for example, oil and gas production accounts), and internal reorganizations. One commissioner offered a page‑by‑page proposed set of cuts intended to avoid or reduce a mill‑levy increase, but acknowledged the measures would be politically difficult.

• Employee benefits and insurance: Staff reported the county is soliciting bids for employee health insurance and expected upward pressure on premiums (past guidance discussed 10–15% increases as a plausible range). Commissioners discussed the possibility of coordinating a multi‑employer pooled plan with the city, college and school district to increase purchasing scale and reduce rates over time.

• Efficiency review vs. full‑time CFO: Commissioners debated hiring a full‑time chief financial officer (or an external consultant) to identify operational efficiencies. Some commissioners favored a consultant or limited term engagement to perform targeted process and efficiency reviews; others argued for using existing staff and internal talent to implement changes without adding permanent headcount.

Next steps and decision points

Staff recommended commissioners select a mill‑levy scenario (or a staging plan) for the public budget hearing and to continue implementing efficiency and delinquent tax collection efforts. Commissioners signaled urgency in resolving the decision ahead of the budget hearing schedule but differed over the scale and timing of any levy increase.

Sources and provenance

This article draws on the Seward County Commission budget work session transcript and the staff budget workbook presentation (topic introduction and finish spans below).