The Barron County Board of Supervisors rejected a proposal last week that would have kept the county's 2009 mill rate equal to this year's. A majority of supervisors instead agreed it would be better to accept the executive committee's budget recommendations, meaning the mill rate and total levy will increase, but the county's level of services stays intact.
County Administrator Duane Hebert said that Barron County is in much better financial shape than many other counties in the state, and it's not using "gimmicks" such as wheel taxes, snow plowing fees or other charges to keep itself solvent.
Although the county had reported earlier that its 2009 budget proposal had been balanced, a recent development may result in more adjustments having to be made in order to avoid deficit spending. The executive committee had given its approval of increasing estimated returns from the county's investments by $80,000, but that anticipated boost in revenue has likely been thwarted, since interest rates recently dropped.
Hebert said that the development with interest rates likely means that the affected portion of the budget will have to be revisited.
A part of the budget that appears it won't see further revision, however, deals with the mill rate.
Debate took place on the county board floor last week about the proposed 2009 mill rate ($4.31 per $1,000 of assessed property value) and the merits of bringing it in line with the 2008 mill rate ($4.19). Supporters of the lower mill rate cited an economic downturn and taxpayer relief as their motivation for seeking the more modest figure; opponents charged that keeping the mill rate flat would actually drop the total levy from last year and bind future boards to a more restrictive budget.
One county board member looking for a way to keep the 2009 mill rate flat was Supervisor James Pannier. The supervisor said that tough economic times have led him to seek ways to better control mill rates and the overall levy, and he was curious how the county administrator would suggest keeping the mill rate constant from this year.
Hebert said that Pannier's proposition amounted to finding approximately $450,000 in the budget to cut.
"If you were to ask me what approach would I take to cut $450,000 out of this budget, I would look at the departments that did not compare as favorably in our benchmarking and identify those departments, make adjustments that could be made in order to bring us closer in line with the counties who appear to be doing better than we are. That's where I would begin."
Pannier replied that he wasn't convinced that tactic would come up with $450,000. Using the proposed 2009 budget, which was said to represent a 0.5 percent increase in operating expenses and a 2 percent jump in the overall levy, the supervisor said that county administration should present budget proposals that freeze the tax burden.
"As an objective, my message to you would be: Go to kind of a zero-based budget," he said. "That's the goal we ought to be hitting at and not salving ourselves into 'only' this much of an increase-especially given the economic times that we might anticipate . . . I for one, I guess, am more seeing the glass half empty right now than half full."
Supervisor Rick Wuorenma said he thought keeping the mill rate flat was doable for 2009.
"I'm wondering why we can't chisel $450,000 out of a $26 million budget," he said.
But just how far is administration supposed to tweak the budget before it's up to the county board to make more drastic policy changes, Hebert countered. The administrator handed out a form earlier this year that outlined some of the more significant policy changes that could be used to balance budgets, but he hasn't received any formal direction from the board yet as to what should be in his realm of consideration.
"At which point is it simply a matter of the county board saying, 'Go back to department heads and cut,' or [giving administration] direction as to what direction you'd like to go?" he asked. "Quite frankly, if we go back and we start suggesting cutting programs and services, I'll tell you right now that's not a decision that can be made at the administrative level. That's a county board level decision. That's cutting programs and services."
County board members did discuss some possible cost-saving measures that could be pursued, but they might not be popular with everyone.
Supervisor Ken Jost said that something needed to be done to get the county's union employees contributing toward more of their health insurance. Employees currently cover 10 percent of their health insurance expenses, and adding another 10 percent to their share could save the county approximately $350,000, he said.
Supervisor Larry Leff said that if county employees didn't agree to participate in a new health care option being offered, then the county could be forced to cut five positions. He said layoffs "aren't fun" but they might be necessary.
After a few more comments, Supervisor Jost made a motion that Hebert come back to the board with a formal recommendation about how to keep the 2009 budget's mill rate flat, and he wanted the recommendation presented at the Nov. 3 budget hearing.
Jeff French, finance director for Barron County, cautioned board members before the vote that the measure would actually mean the total levy would drop by about $18,000 compared to 2008.
Hebert later explained how the proposed higher mill rate in 2009 would make up for a dip in Barron County's property values.
"This will be the first year in quite some time where we see an increase in the mill rate because we had a decrease in valuation," he said. "You'll recall that valuation and the taxes levied is what determines the mill rate, and for many, many years valuation was increasing a significant amount, and you were able to reduce the mill rate because of the increase in valuation. This year, we were the only county in the state to see a decrease in valuation-0.03 percent-but that is why with an increase even at 2 percent on the levy you will see that increase of approximately 12 cents on the mill rate."
French added that by lowering the total levy in order to keep the mill rate flat in 2009, future county boards would be locked into even more severe levy caps by state law.
Jost's motion for a flat mill rate failed on a voice vote.
Then in a 18-9 vote with two members absent, supervisors indicated that they wanted to proceed with the proposed budget as recommended by the executive committee.
A Nov. 3 budget hearing is scheduled, and the final budget vote will take place Nov. 12.
In other county related news:
The board tabled the sale of a small piece county property in the Town of Cedar Lake to a neighboring landowner, hearkening objections from that district's supervisor.
In a position paper, Forest and Recreation Director Jack Nedland said that Jeffery Skar has approached the county about buying part of the public land around his property in order to 'square up' his lot. Skar had been asked in the past to remove his personal property from Barron County lands and has complied at times.
Nedland pointed out that Skar has "little to no" backyard or yard space along the side of his residence because his house sits so close to the property line. Nedland recommended remedying the situation by selling Skar approximately 0.07 acres to 'square up' the private lot and charge Skar at a rate of $7,353 per acre.
The property committee approved the sale earlier this month before sending the measure to the full county board for final approval.
Supervisor Jon Sleik, however, said that the property in question had been problematic for years, and he found it concerning that the county was considering to "reward" the neighboring property owner by selling Skar the county land he had allegedly been encroaching upon.
Sleik also questioned why the property value was placed at only approximately $7,000 per acre when it lies near the Mikana dam's waterfront. He recommended that board members reject the land sale proposal.
Supervisor Lee Romsos, who sits on the property committee, said he had visited the site and voted at the committee level to sell the land because the parcel was so small. He doubted anyone but the neighboring landowner had ever stepped on the 0.07 acres in question because it lies so close to Skar's house.
In a 21-6 vote (with two absent), county board members overwhelmingly voted to send the issue back to the property committee for further review. The full board may act on this item at its regular November meeting.
|
