Unidentified Speaker 3, a county staff member, presented Hubbard County’s proposed 2026 budget and levy at a Truth‑in‑Taxation hearing and answered public questions. The county’s proposed budget for 2026 is about $61,000,000 and the proposed levy is $22,900,000, an increase of about 7% from last year’s $21,400,000.

According to Speaker 3, "the vast majority of levy dollars go towards public safety," with human services and highway following. The presenter laid out per‑dollar allocations, saying roughly 40¢ of every levy dollar goes to public safety, 22¢ to human services, 16¢ to highway, 13¢ to general operations, 4% to debt service, 2% to the housing and redevelopment authority (HRA) and 3% to capital reserves. He also said roughly two‑thirds of the county’s $61 million budget comes from non‑levy sources such as gas taxes, state and federal grants and fees.

Staff reviewed capital projects planned for 2026–27, including an addition and renovations at the Law Enforcement Center (garage and dispatch), ongoing courthouse renovations expected to finish around mid‑March, replacement of an original government center elevator, repairs at the Neva shop, paving at county facilities and a potential 2027 transit garage that is contingent on grant approval (funds would be available July 1, 2027 if awarded).

On staffing, Speaker 3 attributed increased payroll costs to negotiated cost‑of‑living adjustments and added positions driven by workload: higher jail population required additional jailer positions; human services demand grew, particularly adult services, prompting staff reallocations; and solid waste staffing increased to support expanded reuse‑center services. The presenter said the county budgeted about 260 full‑time equivalent employees for 2026 compared with about 200 in 2012.

Residents asked procedural questions about valuations, classifications and how to appeal. Speaker 3 advised that property values and classifications are determined by local assessors and that valuation appeals are handled at local boards of appeal in the spring; he suggested calling the property records office for parcel‑specific questions.

Several attendees raised concerns about nonprofit organizations purchasing large properties and removing them from the tax rolls. One resident (Unidentified Speaker 2) said, "That's a pretty nice bit of racket," criticizing nonprofits that acquire large buildings. Speaker 3 responded, "All nonprofits in the state of Minnesota report their financial information to the state and it is all searchable on the state website," noting that many nonprofit services are funded by federal, state and county grants and that counties often contract with nonprofits to provide services the county would otherwise deliver.

Speakers also discussed the Department of Natural Resources and land transactions, noting that DNR purchases can alter the tax base but that some purchases include payments or timber management arrangements that produce revenue for the county.

Unidentified Speaker 4 moved to adjourn at the close of the presentation and public comment; the motion received a second and the board voted in favor. The meeting was adjourned.

Notes: figures and program names are those presented at the hearing; specific parcel valuations and some debt figures were discussed in the meeting transcript and can be obtained from the county property records office or the county finance office for verification.