Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Warren County hears hours of public comment as supervisors present proposed FY26 levy and tighter budget
Summary
At an April 1 public hearing, Warren County staff and supervisors outlined proposed fiscal year 2026 levy rates, explained a state-funded rollback that limits taxable growth and described budget cuts that avoid dipping reserves. Dozens of residents spoke about sharp reassessments and how higher valuations may affect homeowners and farmland.
Warren County supervisors held a public hearing April 1 on the proposed fiscal year 2026 property tax levy and presented the draft county budget, telling residents the county’s levy rates are lower than last year even as many homeowners reported large assessment increases.
County staff member Megan opened the hearing with an explanation of how state rules limit taxable growth after reassessment: “The State actually limits the taxable growth due to reevaluation or reassessment to 3% … For residential property, the rollback is about 47%,” she said. She also explained that the county’s proposed maximum urban levy would be 5.84267 and the rural maximum 8.62307 for FY26.
Why it matters: Residents at the hearing tied recent large assessment notices to sudden increases in individual tax bills, and several urged the board to explain the reassessment process and offer help disputing values. Supervisors and staff stressed that the county’s proposed levy is lower this year, that state law (House File 718) restricts how much counties can grow levies, and that levy notices use the prior-year taxable values, not the new assessments residents recently received.
Most of the county’s taxable valuation remains residential, Megan said, and the state-set rollback reduces the share of assessed value that is actually taxed. Megan presented county projections showing the county would receive roughly $655,000 less in general basic levy revenue in FY26 under current statutory limits compared with prior maximums.
Public comments dominated the hearing. Skip Phillips of Bronx Street described his assessment appeal to the state and called rising taxes “the biggest expense I have,” saying rejected comps left him frustrated. Jessie Johnson, whose 6.57-acre parcel was reassessed $325,000 higher, asked the board for a plain-language meeting: “I have no problem paying my fair share…But I need an explanation,” she said.
Other residents blamed Vanguard, the contractor that carried out a countywide reassessment. Eric Kidderman, a Somerset resident, said the firm’s valuations had “purposely rigged” comparables in ways he intends to challenge. Several speakers urged residents to file formal protests with the assessor’s office; county staff reiterated that protests open the appeals process starting the next day and are heard by an independent board of review in May.
Board response and budget decisions: Supervisors said the county is not collecting a windfall even when assessed values rise because House File 718 caps taxable growth (the “rollback”) and because the county reduced spending in its FY26 draft. A supervisor said the current proposed budget would spend zero dollars from general fund reserves in FY26, reversing a planned $1.4 million drawdown in FY25. The board also noted a projected modest replenishment of reserves (roughly $75,000 to $200,000) if the budget is adopted as drafted.
Supervisors described earlier years’ decisions that affected the debt-service levy for the local Justice Center and said those payments are declining as bonds are paid down: one supervisor noted the blended debt rate has fallen from near voters’ original estimate and is now about $0.62 per $1,000 of taxable valuation for the Justice Center portion and roughly $0.81 per $1,000 overall for debt service.
Several supervisors urged residents who believe their assessments are incorrect to file formal protests immediately with the assessor’s office. County staff said the assessor’s office has an online portal and that the assessor’s board of review will consider protests in May. Officials also said the assessor is appointed by a conference board that includes supervisors, mayors and school boards, and the assessor position will be subject to replacement in the coming year.
Next steps and follow-up: The board agreed to schedule an evening work session in April so staff and the assessor can explain the reassessment, the rollback and how the state’s notice translates into an actual tax bill. Supervisors emphasized that much of each property tax bill goes to school districts and cities, not just the county. The FY26 levy-setting process will include additional hearings and final votes; the board closed the public hearing that day by roll call and planned further public meetings on the budget and levy.
