Missouri Valley Complex committee removes Phase 3 from operating budget, seeks legal guidance on sales-tax swap and 3% levy cap

The Missouri Valley Complex Committee on Wednesday removed a proposed Phase 3 design line from its draft operating budget and directed staff to pursue using reserve funds for planning costs while the county seeks legal guidance on how a new dedicated sales tax interacts with the state27s 3% levy cap.

Committee members said they will leave nonrecurring planning and capital work out of the operational levy-funded budget where possible and ask the Burleigh County attorney and, if necessary, the state attorney general for written opinions about how levies will be calculated if sales tax replaces some levied dollars.

The committee27s action came after extended discussion about how to fund grading, snow removal and asphalt maintenance for the Missouri Valley Complex, and whether upfront planning and design costs should come from operating revenues or from a county reserve. Commissioner Munson said past phases of planning came from reserve funds; members agreed Phase 3 planning should be removed from the operational budget and pursued as a reserve-funded planning item.

Why it matters: Committee members said the way the county treats sales-tax revenue versus property-tax levy dollars could change the 3% cap on levied revenue and therefore the county27s future budget flexibility. The group wants a written legal interpretation before committing levy dollars to large capital items.

Most important facts - Committee removed the Phase 3 line item from the draft operating budget and indicated planning/design work should come from reserve funds rather than the general operating levy. - Committee members said last year27s operating baseline for the complex was small (committee discussion referenced figures in the low hundreds of thousands); a cited reserve balance of about $5,000,000 was discussed as available for one-time capital or planning costs. - Members asked for a formal opinion from the county27s state27s-attorney office and said they likely will seek an opinion from the state attorney general about whether the 3% levy cap applies to levied dollars only or to the broader budget when sales tax replaces some levied dollars. - Snow removal, crack sealing and chip sealing remain budgeted-operational items to be reimbursed to the county highway department rather than absorbed by the department.

Budget and levy details discussed Committee members said last year27s county budget was about $40,000,000 but levied dollars were lower ("30 something" million was discussed), and that if a dedicated sales tax lowers the amount the county levies in future years (for example to a hypothetical $15,000,000), the legal interpretation of the 3% cap could reduce the board27s allowed levy growth. Members repeatedly urged getting a legal interpretation before adopting or committing levy-funded capital.

On routine operations, members confirmed routine site work (grading, snow removal and asphalt maintenance) will remain reimbursed to the county highway department from the complex27s operating budget. Members said those recurring maintenance items should not be shifted to reserve funds.

Process and next steps Committee members asked staff to: (1) remove Phase 3 from the operational draft and treat it as a reserve-funded planning item; (2) request a written opinion from the county state27s-attorney office and, if necessary, from the state attorney general about the 3% calculation and the effect of the dedicated sales tax; and (3) present a revised budget and a recommendation about which items are one-time (reserve) versus ongoing (operational) at the committee27s next meeting.

Votes at a glance - Motion to approve minutes of the May 21 meeting: moved and seconded during the meeting and approved as distributed. (Motion text: "I move to approve the minutes." Mover and seconder not specified in the transcript record; outcome: approved.)

Ending Committee members agreed to revisit the revised budget at the next meeting after legal guidance and after staff clarifies which costs are one-time capital and which are recurring maintenance. The committee left planning and construction-phase funding decisions contingent on the legal opinions requested.