John Gordon, a finance department official, told the Jackson County Legislature on Sept. 22 that the proposed 2025 levies were calculated from the county’s notice of assessed valuation and "will generate sufficient revenues to meet the 2025 adopted budget." He also noted a new levy for senior services.

Legislators pressed for more data and time to review. Legislator Sean Smith said he "was concerned because we had these ordinances in front of us and we hadn't been presented with what we normally get," and described independently calculating percentage changes after receiving valuation notices only earlier that day.

Smith told colleagues his spreadsheet showed the county’s general-fund property-tax billings rising about 13% from 2024 to 2025; he also reported total property-tax billings up nearly 20% and, excluding the new senior levy, a 14% increase. Finance staff cautioned those numbers reflect billed amounts and do not account for collection rates; Nick, a finance staff member, said first-year collection rates are typically about 90%.

Legislators also asked about the Hancock Amendment and how required sales-tax reductions and TIF reimbursements affected levy calculations. John Gordon explained that required sales-tax reduction calculations and changes in sales-tax revenue can affect how much levy revenue is applied to various funds and that new construction and other factors must be accounted for when comparing years.

Members of the public and service providers also spoke at the hearing in support of specific levies. Georgie McNamara of ETAS said the agency "serves over 3,000 people" and expects to set a board levy of 7.28¢; Bruce Eddy, executive director of the Community Mental Health Fund, said the fund supports 40 nonprofits serving about 22,000 county residents and asked legislators to approve a proposed mental-health levy rate of 0.969¢ per $100 of assessed valuation. Lauren Hall of Southeast Enterprises described job-placement programs funded in part by the levy.

Legislators said they needed more time and cross-jurisdictional levy data to understand taxpayer impacts, including possible rollback effects from other taxing jurisdictions. Several lawmakers asked administration staff to provide the comparative materials they typically receive to allow a complete review.

Because state law requires county levies be adopted by Oct. 1, the legislature scheduled a special meeting on Sept. 30 at 11 a.m. to consider and adopt the levies. The legislature had 8 members present for the roll call that confirmed the meeting, with 1 absent.

Why this matters: property-tax levies directly affect residents’ bills and county revenue. Legislators flagged what they said were unusually large year-over-year increases in billed property-tax revenue and asked staff for the underlying calculations and assumptions before voting to set final rates.