Todd County outlines 2026 budget, recommends against dipping into reserves as residents complain of steep tax hikes

Auditor-Treasurer Denise Guide presented the Todd County proposed budget for 2026 at a public truth-in-taxation hearing and told the county board the finance committee recommended not using cash reserves to smooth the levy.

The presentation, which explained the difference between the county’s budget (a forecast of revenues and expenditures) and the levy (property tax dollars collected to support operations), showed that about 41.6% of the proposed 2026 budget would be supported by the county taxpayer levy. Denise said the net levy to support the budget was listed in the materials as $21,000,007.35 and the proposed total levy as $19,717,468. She told the board she and the finance committee recommended against using reserves in 2026 because state funding cuts are expected to worsen and interest income has declined.

Why it matters: The proposed levy and budget determine how much property owners will pay next year and which county services receive funding. At the hearing, local property and business owners pressed the board to explain why assessments and resulting tax bills have jumped.

During the public comment period Becky Hensley, a local property owner, said her property taxes on an income-producing building rose by 93% this year, from $7,000 to $14,000, and urged the board to reconsider. "My property taxes went up 93% this year, from 7,000 to $14,000 on a building that I make 0 revenue on," Hensley said.

Business representative Tim Blasek, speaking for Minnesota Fresh, pressed county staff on how assessment values and levy calculations interact and asked what efficiencies were demanded of departments. Denise and staff said assessments are finalized by the county assessor before the budget process and that the budget team then forecasts departmental expenses and turns that into a levy after accounting for state aids and department-generated revenues. Denise described multiple rounds of departmental review that produced additional cuts, noting she identified more than $50,000 in reductions in her own office and that the county motor pool would not receive a planned vehicle this year.

County staff highlighted the drivers behind recent valuation and tax changes. Chris Aden, identified in the transcript as a county associate involved in valuations, explained assessors use three approaches—sales comparison, cost, and income—to value property, and said commercial valuations in Todd County rely heavily on the cost approach because there are few sales. He also said construction-cost spikes in 2021 contributed to unusually large assessment increases for some properties. "We use cost data, sales data and income data—the cost approach is relied on for many businesses because there are few sales," Aden said.

Denise showed historical tax-rate figures and noted Todd County’s tax rate fell from roughly 63.488 in 2021 to about 44.065 in the most recent calculation; she cautioned that a lower county tax rate does not necessarily mean an individual property’s tax bill will fall because assessments and other taxing authorities also affect total tax bills. She also noted the county used $300,000 in reserves the prior year but the finance committee recommended not using reserves for 2026.

Denise outlined three routes the board could take before final adoption: (1) adopt the certified preliminary levy (certified on 09/02/2025) as final, (2) seek deeper cuts to departmental budgets (with attendant service impacts), or (3) use cash reserves to lower the levy. The finance committee recommended option (1) or further cuts rather than drawing down reserves.

Next steps: Denise said the final budget will be presented to the county board in December for approval and then submitted to the state. The public hearing portion of the meeting closed after multiple residents and business representatives spoke about assessment and tax concerns.

(Reporting note: speaker names and roles are taken from the meeting transcript and public statements made at the hearing. A name inconsistency in the transcript appears for the auditor-treasurer; the speaker self-identified verbally during the presentation and is reported here by that name.)