Johnson County supervisors accept FY2026 budget framework, ask staff to clarify state property tax notice

The Johnson County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday reviewed the proposed fiscal year 2026 budget and agreed to proceed with the current budget framework while directing staff to prepare an explanatory disclosure for the state property tax notice.

The board’s concern centered on a change in the state tax-notice form: county staff said the form assumes a 10% average increase in property assessments, which can inflate the apparent percentage change in a homeowner’s county tax share. County staff also told supervisors that about 2.4% of the increase shown on the notice reflects rollback changes and roughly 4.7% reflects the county’s levy change; the remainder shown on the state form comes from the assumed assessment increase.

Why it matters: the state form’s assumption could lead mailings to show a larger percentage change in the county portion of a taxpayer’s bill than actually results from county decisions. Several supervisors said they worried that the state’s presentation will confuse residents and urged staff to explain how the form is constructed before the first public hearing on the proposed levy.

Board direction and next steps

Supervisors agreed that county staff should work with the county assessor to determine which property classes, if any, will see large assessment increases and to prepare clear explanatory language for distribution with the state form. Staff were also asked to coordinate messaging with the county communications office so the explanation can be shown in multiple formats.

County staff committed to adding visual cues to internal budget materials so the board can more easily distinguish proposed new taxing requests from funding that would carry over from the current year (for example, contracts or grant-funded items that were budgeted in the current year but will not be spent until next year). Board members said one recent decision-package appeared to them, at first glance, to request new tax money when staff later clarified it was carryover funding.

Discussion highlights

Supervisors spent most of the session debating whether the current levy and proposed capital items should be delayed or reduced. Several members said they were uncomfortable with the size of the proposed levy but did not see sufficient agreement on cuts large enough to materially change the levy percentage. Supervisors specifically noted courthouse renovation phases (staff referenced a $2,300,000 figure for courthouse work) and other capital needs as items that are difficult to defer. One supervisor said the jail project would require a public vote if it proceeds.

The board accepted the “decision pending” list as presented and, by consensus, moved the budget process forward toward the formal public hearing on the property tax levy. Staff (Dana and Adam, as identified in the session) said they will follow up with supervisors about improving budget presentation and forecasting tools for next year.

Process clarifications recorded in the session

- The county’s staff said unspent general fund dollars typically flow back to the general fund unless the board has specifically earmarked or contracted those funds for a particular purpose. Staff noted that contracted obligations can constrain how a carryover is treated. - Planning and Development Services (PDS) previously submitted a request for a housing assessment study; supervisors said that request had been misunderstood in an earlier round of voting and that the current presentation shows the item as carryover rather than a new tax increase.

What’s next

Staff will prepare the disclosure language for the state tax notice, meet with the county assessor to confirm assessment-change details, and coordinate with communications on distribution. The board’s next formal meeting is scheduled for 9 a.m. on March 6 in the same meeting room, when the public hearing process on the levy will continue.