Black Hawk County reviews proposed FY2026 budget; residents protest state tax mailer

BLACK HAWK COUNTY — The Black Hawk County Board of Supervisors on April 1 held a public hearing on the proposed fiscal 2026 county budget and heard more than two hours of public comment, with persistent concerns about a state-required tax notice that many attendees said overstated likely tax increases.

Finance staff presented the budget’s headline figures and spending priorities. The presentation listed a countywide tax levy “about” $5.60 (presenter: “$5 and 60 almost $5.64”) and projected county property-tax collections of $34,958,098 for FY2026. The presentation said total county taxes across countywide and rural levies would be roughly $36.9 million — an increase of nearly $1.8 million from the prior year, according to the materials shown at the hearing.

The budget presentation emphasized that nearly half the county’s revenue is property tax, and that most spending is for salaries and benefits (presenter: about 50% of county spending). Staff outlined limited borrowing plans and a capital improvements program of roughly $6.6 million in department equipment requests over the next six years and proposed using a portion of unassigned fund balance to pay for equipment the county cannot finance with bonds under current state rules. The presenter said unassigned fund balance was about 62% of expenditures as of June 2024 and that using reserves for planned purchases would reduce that balance but leave the county with significant reserves.

The presentation also reviewed recent and imminent state law changes affecting local tax computations, including a referenced enactment (House File 718) that changed business property tax credits to exemptions and adjusted homestead and military exemptions; presenters said some of those changes have resulted in replacement revenue from the state for now but that limits on levy growth had already reduced Black Hawk County’s allowable general basic levy for FY2026 because taxable value growth exceeded the statutory threshold.

Public comments at the hearing were lengthy and largely critical of the statutorily required taxpayer mailing sent to property owners. Several residents said the mailer used a 10% assessed-value increase across the board and therefore overstated potential tax increases for many county residents. Presenter Michelle Weidner (finance) told the room, “The state was making an effort to make it simpler. So they arbitrarily decided that we'll just use a 10% assessed value … it is inaccurate here.”

Residents urged the board to use reserves to blunt levy increases and to communicate clearer “best case/worst case” scenarios to taxpayers. Several speakers described financial stress (particularly among seniors) and asked the board to pursue greater efficiency. One commenter offered a broad critique of taxation and government spending; the board allowed that viewpoint in public comment but did not adopt any policy based on it.

Board staff and department leaders answered technical questions. Amanda Pesner, Human Resources director, said negotiated wage increases were built into the proposed FY2026 budget and summarized contract increases by sector: “They range, this year from law enforcement being around 4% and across the board down to some in conservation being 2 and a half.” Conservation director Mike Henderson described a separate project funded with ARPA and state recreation-trail dollars: “By the middle of summer we will be finishing a $6,400,000 renovation of the Cedar Valley Nature Trail,” he said, and noted the county partnered with Linn County and used state and federal grant programs for trail work rather than property-tax funds.

Supervisors and staff repeatedly described the county’s choice to rely on reserves for some capital needs as intentional: staff proposed using reserves to avoid adding levy pressure while paying for equipment that is not bond-eligible under current state law. The presentation noted that some bond rules require a public vote when project costs exceed statutory thresholds and that equipment is not bond-eligible under a recent statutory change.

The hearing included two procedural motions recorded on the agenda. The board voted to receive and place on file proof of publication of the notice of the public hearing (newspapers and dates stated in the agenda) and later voted to close the hearing and receive written and oral comments. Both motions carried on voice votes; the minutes record that the motions were adopted after unanimous “aye” responses but do not show a roll-call tally for each supervisor.

The board set the second, final budget hearing/adoption for April 21, 2025, giving taxing entities time to hold their own hearings and certify rates. Staff repeatedly noted the state’s mailer is a required, statutorily prescribed disclosure that can be misleading in areas where assessed-value changes do not match the statewide assumptions used by the state’s notice.

Ending: The hearing provided detailed staff figures and drew sustained public attention to the state tax mailer and to county choices about using reserves, paying for capital equipment, and limiting levy growth. The board will revisit the proposal at the April 21 adoption hearing, at which supervisors may set a final levy within statutory constraints and after other taxing jurisdictions finalize their budgets.