De La Hunt Raises Concerns About State-Imposed Property Tax Levy Limits

In a recently released KAXE voter guide, my opponent expressed support for legislation that would place additional limits on local governments’ authority to increase property tax levies. While he did not identify a specific percentage or dollar limit, he indicated that I do not support this approach.

I believe voters should understand that imposing a rigid, state-mandated limit on county levy authority can have unintended consequences—particularly for rural counties that are responsible for providing essential services while also responding to changing state and federal funding policies.

Here are several considerations:

1. Unfunded mandates and shifting state and federal costs

County governments are increasingly being asked to absorb costs associated with programs and services that are influenced or mandated by state and federal government. These include areas such as SNAP, Medicare and Medicaid-related services, mental health services, public health, corrections and other mandated programs.

Counties are often the government of last resort when these responsibilities are not fully funded at the state or federal level. If counties face a statutory levy limit while those costs continue to increase, county boards could be forced to make difficult choices between reducing essential services, drawing down reserves, delaying capital projects or finding other sources of revenue.

I, along with many other rural county commissioners, have consistently advocated for reducing unnecessary regulations and unfunded mandates. However, until those mandates and funding responsibilities are addressed, counties need sufficient flexibility to meet their obligations to residents.

2. Economic growth can increase the demand for county services

Economic growth is generally accompanied by population growth, new businesses, additional development and increased demand for public services.

As a county grows, there can be greater demands on public safety, law enforcement, courts, social services, roads, infrastructure and other county functions. A rigid levy limit could restrict a county’s ability to respond to those changing needs, particularly during periods of rapid economic and population growth.

Responsible county leadership requires looking beyond a single year’s levy increase and considering the relationship between economic growth, tax capacity, service demands, inflation, capital needs and the long-term financial health of the county.

3. Hubbard County’s experience with Enbridge tax capacity

Hubbard County provides a good example of why flexibility in local government finance can matter.

Following the completion of the Enbridge Line 3 replacement project, Hubbard County was able to capture approximately $1.6 million in additional tax capacity. Those resources provide an opportunity to address current and long-term capital and economic development needs without requiring a corresponding increase in the tax burden on existing local taxpayers.

Had a rigid state-imposed levy limit prevented the county from utilizing increased tax capacity when it became available, the county could have lost an important opportunity to invest in its future.

These are just three examples of why the issue deserves more consideration than simply establishing a statewide percentage limit on property tax levies.

The financial health of a county is influenced by many interconnected factors: economic growth, changes in tax capacity, property values, inflation, state and federal funding, mandated services, capital needs and the county’s ability to manage its resources responsibly.

As a county commissioner, I believe our responsibility is to carefully evaluate all of those factors before making decisions that affect taxpayers and county services. That means controlling unnecessary spending, seeking outside funding when available, planning for long-term capital needs and maintaining the flexibility necessary to respond to circumstances that cannot always be predicted years in advance.

I am concerned that a one-size-fits-all levy limit imposed by the state could unnecessarily restrict the ability of locally elected county boards to make those decisions.

Hubbard County needs responsible financial management—not arbitrary restrictions that could prevent future county boards from responding appropriately to changing circumstances and opportunities. After all, a state-imposed levy limit could have much the same effect as the unfunded mandates we routinely receive from state and federal government: decisions made elsewhere that limit the ability of locally elected officials to respond to the needs and circumstances of the people they represent. Those mandates are something county commissioners have consistently opposed, and I believe we should be equally cautious about imposing additional state restrictions on local decision-making.