Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Property Taxes Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Lewis Central holds public hearing on proposed property tax levy as state aid remains uncertain

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At an April 7 public hearing, Lewis Central Community School District officials reviewed a notice showing a high possible levy increase driven by an uncertain State Supplemental Aid number and a $1 levy tied to a recent bond; residents raised concerns about rising bills.

The Lewis Central Community School District Board of Directors held a public hearing April 7, 2025, to review the district’s proposed property tax levy and to receive oral comments from residents as part of the certified budget process. The hearing — required under Iowa law — presented a tax-notice that showed a 27.04% percent change figure and explained why that number can be misleading.

District finance staff told attendees the published notice shows the maximum tax the district could adopt and that the board must publish by state deadlines even though the State Supplemental Aid (SSA) amount — a major input for school budgets — had not been finalized. “We are doing this budget without knowing one of the biggest factors of it,” a district finance staff member said at the hearing, explaining the district had to project SSA at 0% for the published notice and later modeled a more-likely 2% SSA.

That model produced a lower, more realistic outcome: using a 2% SSA assumption, the district presented a levy of $11.29743 per $1,000 of taxable valuation, which the district said would amount to about $536 in school taxes on a $100,000 assessed property (roughly a 12% increase compared with the current levy). The staff presentation also explained the difference between assessed valuation and taxable valuation and cited the district’s rollback percentage (47.43%) used to compute taxable value.

Residents questioned both the magnitude and the timing of the notices. Roger Williams, a resident who spoke during the oral comment period, said the tax notices were “a rob Peter pay Paul” for many households and asked for clarity on how the dollars would be spent. Other residents said the combined effect of higher assessed values and the proposed levy felt sudden and unaffordable for homeowners and small-business owners in the district.

District staff repeatedly stressed the district’s constrained role in the process: the district must publish the maximum levy by state deadlines, but the ultimate distribution of school funding between property-tax levies and state aid is driven by the legislature and Department of Management rules. Staff noted a 2024 bond approved by voters (a $30 million general obligation bond) and the $1-per-$1,000 levy associated with that bond as an explicit contributor to the proposed levy increase.

Board members said a second public hearing and a formal levy adoption are scheduled for April 21, 2025, at 7 p.m.; the district will adopt the FY2026 budget and then file it with the Department of Management and county auditor by April 30. The finance staff recommended continuing outreach and said the district would publish more detailed budget documents before the adoption meeting.

Ending: Board members closed the hearing after receiving oral comments and confirming the schedule for the April 21 adoption meeting.