3.9% Is Now on the Record
Carlton County commissioners rejected the first 9.02% levy proposal. The next number should be measured against what they said — not merely against 9.02%.
by Carlton County Watch
Carlton County taxpayers now have something increasingly valuable during budget season:
A benchmark.
At Carlton County's September 14 special budget meeting, commissioners were presented with an initial proposal that would increase the County's property-tax levy by 9.02%, from approximately $35.65 million to $38.86 million.
According to reporting by Brady Slater in the September 18 edition of the Pine Knot News, commissioners sent County administration back to the drawing board.
And at least one commissioner drew a remarkably clear line.
Commissioner Susan Zmyslony told the newspaper:
“I will not vote for an increase above 3.9 percent.”
Let’s hold her to that statement!
Zmyslony explained that residents have approached her about rising expenses and that families are finding it increasingly difficult to absorb higher costs.
Commissioner Sarah Plante Buhs also supported moving substantially below the original proposal.
“They’re feeling that crunch.”
And:
“Three point nine percent is somewhere to start.”
The Pine Knot reported that none of the other three commissioners objected to that direction, although no formal vote was taken at the special meeting.
That distinction matters.
There is not yet a Board resolution establishing 3.9% as the preliminary levy.
But there is now a publicly stated benchmark against which the next proposal can fairly be measured.
Remember Where We Started
The County administration's first proposal contemplated a 9.02% levy increase.
That would raise the County levy from approximately $35.65 million to $38.86 million, an increase of roughly $3.21 million. The overall proposed 2027 budget was approximately $93.32 million.
The Pine Knot reports that reducing the levy increase to approximately 3.9% would require the proposed budget to come down by roughly $2 million.
County Administrator Dennis Genereau acknowledged the commissioners' direction:
“I hear you saying we need to get that number down.”
Now comes the difficult part.
How far down?
Don't Let 9.02% Become the Only Measuring Stick
This is where taxpayers should pay close attention to how the next number is presented.
Suppose — purely as an illustration — County administration returned with a 6% levy increase.
Compared with 9.02%, that would certainly be a reduction.
But compared with the commissioners' publicly discussed 3.9% benchmark, it would tell a different story.
A 3.9% increase over the current levy would amount to approximately:
+$1.39 million
A 6% increase would amount to approximately:
+$2.14 million
That hypothetical 6% levy would therefore require roughly $749,000 more from taxpayers than a 3.9% increase.
Both descriptions could technically be true:
“The County reduced its original proposal substantially.”
And:
“The County still exceeded the 3.9% level commissioners told the public they wanted.”
Which comparison is used can dramatically affect how taxpayers perceive the outcome.
The Anchoring Effect
There is a well-known phenomenon in decision-making called anchoring.
The first large number introduced into a discussion can become the reference point against which subsequent numbers are judged.
In Carlton County's case, that first number is now:
9.02%
Once taxpayers have seen 9.02%, something considerably lower can understandably feel like relief.
A 7% increase is less than 9.02%.
A 6% increase is less than 9.02%.
A 5% increase is less than 9.02%.
But that's only half the comparison.
The other question is:
How does the eventual levy compare with the 3.9% benchmark commissioners themselves placed on the table?
That is the comparison Carlton County Watch intends to preserve.
There is no evidence at this point that the original 9.02% proposal was intentionally designed as an “anchor,” and it would be unfair to suggest otherwise.
But once commissioners publicly rejected that figure and identified 3.9% as their preferred direction, taxpayers gained a second reference point.
And arguably a much more meaningful one.
What Each Commissioner Actually Said
Accountability works best when the record is precise.
Commissioner Susan Zmyslony made the clearest commitment:
“I will not vote for an increase above 3.9 percent.”
Commissioner Sarah Plante Buhs supported the effort to substantially lower the levy and said:
“Three point nine percent is somewhere to start.”
According to the Pine Knot, the remaining commissioners did not object to that direction, but no formal vote occurred.
Commissioner Dan Reed also raised a broader concern: the County needs to expand its economic base.
“We’ve got to grow somehow.”
Reed argued that increasing economic development is important if Carlton County hopes to avoid continuing pressure on existing taxpayers.
Commissioner Tom Proulx, meanwhile, questioned why a special meeting had been necessary rather than simply communicating the preliminary material electronically. Genereau responded that officials wanted the budget discussion to occur publicly and explained that some cost pressures were outside county control.
Those are different positions and should not be collapsed into a claim that every commissioner personally pledged to support no more than 3.9%.
But collectively, the September 14 discussion sent administration a clear message:
Bring the number down.
“We’ve Got to Grow Somehow.” Okay — How?
Commissioner Dan Reed raised another important issue during the County's budget discussion.
“We've got to grow somehow.”
On that point, there should probably be little controversy: expanding Carlton County's economic base could create jobs, encourage private investment and broaden the property-tax base.
But saying Carlton County needs economic growth is only the beginning of the conversation.
What is the plan?
What industries is Carlton County actively trying to attract?
What sites are being prepared for commercial or industrial development?
What infrastructure investments are being prioritized?
What permitting environment does the County want prospective employers to encounter?
And what kinds of development is the County actually willing to consider?
Those questions become particularly relevant in light of the County's recent decision concerning data centers.
On August 24, commissioners adopted Interim Ordinance #42, imposing a one-year pause on the creation or expansion of data centers while the County studies potential environmental, infrastructure and land-use impacts.
The study itself may ultimately produce reasonable safeguards.
But there is another fact worth remembering:
There was no data-center proposal pending in Carlton County when commissioners began the moratorium process.
Indeed, Carlton County Economic Development Director Ryan Pervenanze publicly cautioned commissioners against effectively “slamming” the door on development opportunities that might bring private investment into local communities.
Data centers are not necessarily the answer to Carlton County's economic challenges.
They involve legitimate questions concerning electricity, water, noise, infrastructure, environmental impacts and long-term employment. Minnesota projects also demonstrate that enormous capital investments do not necessarily translate into equally enormous numbers of permanent jobs.
But that isn't really the larger point.
The larger question is this:
If the County's answer to rising property taxes is “economic growth,” where is the economic-growth strategy?
Perhaps the answer is manufacturing.
Perhaps it is technology.
Perhaps it is forest products, health care, energy, logistics, tourism, professional services, housing development or some combination of them.
Perhaps data centers belong somewhere on that list under carefully written environmental and land-use standards.
Or perhaps commissioners ultimately decide that they do not.
But “we've got to grow somehow” is a goal, not yet a strategy.
If Carlton County wants economic growth to become part of the solution to increasing pressure on taxpayers, residents deserve to know what the County intends to do to produce it.
And that conversation should probably happen before the next major development opportunity knocks on the door.
There Are Real Cost Pressures
The County's budget problem should not be reduced to a slogan either.
County officials have identified rising wages, health-insurance costs, technology, supplies and materials, new staffing requests, reductions in some social-program funding, transportation projects, body-camera technology and video-storage costs among the pressures affecting the 2027 budget.
Some uncertainties remain.
The County was still finalizing union agreements, and the health-insurance increase had not yet been settled when the Pine Knot reported on the meeting. Officials also identified grants and public-safety funding that could affect the eventual calculation.
Those facts matter.
So does another fact:
County residents face their own cost pressures.
That was precisely the point commissioners themselves raised when they rejected the initial 9.02% proposal.
September 28 Is the Next Test
The Board is expected to establish its preliminary levy on September 28.
That number has real significance under Minnesota law.
Counties must certify their proposed property-tax levy by September 30, and the eventual final levy generally cannot exceed that preliminary levy except under specified statutory circumstances. It can, however, subsequently be reduced.
The final Carlton County budget and levy are presently expected to come before the Board on December 21.
So September 28 gives taxpayers the next important number.
When it arrives, Carlton County Watch will compare it with both numbers already on the record:
Original administrative proposal:
9.02%
Commissioners' stated benchmark:
3.9%
That way, whether the next proposal is 3.9%, 4.5%, 5%, 6%, or something else entirely, readers can evaluate the result without moving the goalposts after the fact.
We'll Keep the Receipt
Budget numbers change.
Insurance estimates change.
Grant awards change.
Revenue projections change.
And elected officials sometimes change their minds.
There is nothing inherently improper about any of that — provided the public receives a clear explanation.
But public statements should not disappear simply because the budget process moves on.
Commissioner Zmyslony has said she will not vote for an increase above 3.9%.
Commissioner Plante Buhs has said 3.9% is somewhere to start.
The Board directed administration to bring the number down.
Those statements are now part of the public record.
Carlton County Watch intends to remember them.
When the next levy number arrives, we won't ask merely:
“Is it lower than 9.02%?”
We'll also ask:
“How does it compare with what commissioners told taxpayers they wanted?”
Because sometimes the most important tool in government accountability isn't a complicated investigation.
Sometimes it's simply keeping the receipt.