Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Property Taxes topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Cedar Rapids school board hears public comments on FY2026 proposed property tax notice

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

The Cedar Rapids Community School District Board of Education held a public hearing on the fiscal year 2026 proposed property tax notice during a special meeting on March 31, 2025, and received comments from two residents opposed to further property-tax increases.

The Cedar Rapids Community School District Board of Education held a public hearing on the fiscal year 2026 proposed property tax notice during a special meeting on March 31, 2025, and received comments from two residents opposed to further property-tax increases.

Board Secretary asked whether any written correspondence had been received; none was. Two people signed up to speak during the hearing. Kevin Grama, a Cedar Rapids resident, told the board he is retired and lives on a fixed income and said rising property taxes are “killing retirees.” Grama referenced previous district borrowing and sales, saying: “not too long ago we passed a 1, $146,000,000 pepl. This fall there's a proposal for a $210 million bond. We sold Garfield. We to undersold Garfield to a instead of sending it selling it to a competitor at almost half the, double the price, we sold it to a, friendly individual for half the cost.”

A second commenter identifying themself as Worley of 1830 Driftwood Lane said they also are on a fixed income and that annual property-tax bills have increased even as property values fall. “Property is actually going down. But, it seems to me that the voucher program took money away from the school, and now we're expected to pay it back,” Worley said, and added they do not have children in the district.

The board did not take a formal vote on the proposed property tax notice at the hearing. The public-hearing portion of the meeting was declared closed at about 4:36 p.m. The meeting record shows routine procedural motions: a motion to approve the meeting agenda as set forth (moved, seconded, and approved by voice vote) and a motion to adjourn (moved, seconded, and approved by voice vote). No written correspondence on the hearing was received and no additional actions on the tax notice were recorded in the transcript.

The hearing provided residents an opportunity to register opposition to higher property taxes and to raise concerns about past district financial decisions; the transcript contains no staff presentation of the tax notice or any formal board direction recorded during the hearing.