A number of potential expenses drive three scenarios to balance the 2013 Koochiching County budget.
County Administration Director Teresa Jaksa presented the scenarios to the county board this week.
The board is expected to consider a scenario that will be brought to a Dec. 11 public hearing. After considering comments heard at the hearing, the board is scheduled to adopt the final budget and levy Dec. 18.
In September, the board set the proposed tax levy at 1.5 percent more than was collected from property owners this year. The proposed levy may be reduced, but not increased, when it is finalized in December. The levy increase would collect about $58,500. That means that if no other changes have been made to a property, and all other taxing entities taxed the property the same as this year, many property owners would see no change caused by the county’s levy in property tax in 2013.
Potential expenses that are being considered in development of the 2013 budget include the results of a Blandin tax court case; the Carl Muggli murder case; how state lawmakers will handle a projected $1 billion budget deficit; how a budget control act before Congress intended to help balance the federal deficit will be handled; and a Minnesota Department of Corrections proposal on jail staff coverage anticipated to add $90,000 annually to the county’s budget.
The Blandin tax case involves a claim by the company that its land value has been set too high. A small amount of the property is located in Koochiching County with other property involved in Aitkin, Itasca and St. Louis counties.
The first option includes the proposed levy increase of 1.5 percent and using reserves from the county highway and community services departments, as well as reducing the county dollar allocation to those budgets. Plan A of the county Community Service budget calls for cuts of $200,000 of county dollars and Plan B adds more reserve spending if the costs of out of home placements of youth come in high for 2013.
This plan shows the tax forfeit apportionments revenues, which come from timber sales, to the county’s general revenue fund and unorganized township at the same level as received in 2012. However, Jaksa notes, weather conditions and timber market conditions could negatively impact the projection.
The second scenario considers tax forfeit apportionment coming in lower than 2012; and the third scenario counts on a good winter logging season that would bring in higher apportionment than in 2013.
Should additional money come from higher timber receipts, more money would be added to a budget contingency to ensure enough money is available for the unknown expenses, and reserve spending in the general revenue fund would be decreased.
She told the board that she would monitor the tax forfeited apportionment until December, at which time more would be known.
