Sioux City hearing draws steady public opposition to proposed property tax levy

The Sioux City Council opened a public hearing on the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 property tax levy and heard extended public comment, with dozens of residents urging the council to cut costs rather than raise the levy.

The hearing—held as part of the council’s budget process—brought residents to the podium to describe rising bills and to press the council for alternatives. Paul Koskovich, a resident who said he had reviewed prior budget hearings, told the council, “I don’t know why we continue to raise the taxes. Why are we not looking to lean up our government here? Trim the fat.”

Why it matters: the proposed levy is the maximum the city must publish under state law; several residents said the notice they received shows a much larger “maximum” levy than what the council intends to ask. That published maximum alarms taxpayers and can shape public response even when the council plans a lower final levy.

Several speakers gave specific financial impacts. Jim Hawkins said his own property tax payments rose “almost 11%” between the September 2023 and March 2024 installments and that the combined worksheet for city, county and school taxes showed “we’re going up an average of 15 next year.” The council’s staff told residents that assessed valuations are mailed every other year and that odd-numbered years are when notices go out; those assessments are measured to January valuations and paid on the schedule described by staff.

Other themes at the hearing included: - State-level changes and “backfill” programs: multiple commenters blamed recent and pending state legislation for forcing cities to alter levies. One speaker identified Senate File 718 as affecting local calculations; another mentioned Senate File 29 and a proposed change to the homestead exemption that would convert certain exemptions to a tax credit for older homeowners. - Notices and public outreach: business owner Jeremy McLaughlin and others said they could not reach city phone lines listed on the mailed worksheet and asked for clearer, more accessible communication. A number of commenters also urged later meeting times or additional weekend hearings to allow working residents to attend in person. - Impact on housing and businesses: developers and landlords warned that recurring property tax increases make it harder to maintain affordable rental rates and to attract investment.

Council and staff responses, as reported at the hearing, stressed that the published levy number is a legal ‘‘maximum’’ the city must post and that no council member had proposed the maximum as the actual ask. Staff confirmed that the city conducts detailed budget reviews and that the council held extra departmental reviews to cut millions from the draft budget before public release.

Several speakers said legislation under consideration at the state level could reduce some residents’ tax bills if passed; staff cautioned that some statewide proposals would shift costs to local governments rather than eliminate them.

The hearing concluded after extended public comment; the council closed the hearing as part of its procedural meeting items. The council did not adopt a final levy during the session recorded in the transcript; staff and council indicated further steps remain in the formal budget adoption process.

Ending: Residents pressed the council for clearer outreach on reassessments and for alternative approaches to raise revenue or reduce costs. City staff and council members repeated that the published notice shows the legal maximum and that the final levy may be lower when the council adopts the budget.