Davenport schools hear public concerns at FY2026 property tax levy hearing

The Davenport Community School District held a public hearing on its proposed fiscal year 2026 property tax levy, which was published in the Quad-City Times on March 10, 2025, and solicited written or oral public comment prior to the district's upcoming budget adoption.

The hearing drew several residents who questioned the figures in a notice mailed to property owners and the transparency of the district's budget process. Henry Crane of 313 East Central Park said the notice appeared “really confusing,” noting the document’s front-page “effective rate” showed about a 1% increase while a back-page example showed a 13.7% increase for Davenport schools based on a hypothetical $110,000 appraisal. “That kind of bothered me,” Crane said. Crane also cited state limits on taxable-value growth and said the legislature is debating lower growth caps.

Why it matters: the public hearing is a required step in the certified budget process that precedes the school district’s formal budget adoption. The levy level affects what property owners ultimately pay and factors into the district’s revenue used to cover staffing, operations and capital needs.

Residents reported personal financial concerns. Marilyn Layman, 1724 E. 301st St., asked for more notice and clearer calculations after reviewing the mailed form; she said property values in the district have risen since she bought her home and cited a reported loss of 231 students this year, which she said increased per‑pupil spending. “We don't have blank checks…you’re forgetting a higher and higher retiree population here,” Layman said. Wendy Peterson said she is on a fixed income and opposed a large increase, and Greg Dunbar said recent local valuation increases — which he estimated at 25–30% over three years — already raise homeowner taxes. Kenneth Myers suggested the district consider school consolidations or alternative revenue sources such as automated traffic‑camera revenue. Several speakers asked whether the district’s budget should be revised before asking taxpayers for higher levies.

Board process and follow-up: Board President Klein Jerome and other board members did not engage in back-and-forth debate during the hearing; the board reiterated that formal responses on the record are not given during the public comment period. President Klein Jerome directed residents with technical or tax questions to Kevin, the district’s chief financial officer, and said staff would meet with speakers in the hallway after the hearing to provide additional details. At one point a district representative said the notice’s headline percentage likely overstates the levy that will be adopted and that statutory caps (discussed by residents) limit growth, but the board did not adopt any levy during the hearing.

Timing: the notice read during the hearing described the levy as part of the district’s certified budget to be adopted by April 30; a separate remark later in the meeting said the board will approve the budget at its April 20 meeting. The district did not resolve that scheduling detail on the record during the hearing; staff said final budget adoption will occur at a future board meeting.

The hearing closed with no action taken; board members moved on to the regular agenda and invited residents to speak with CFO Kevin in the hallway for clarifying information.

Ending: With the public hearing closed, district staff and the CFO will follow up with several residents who requested more detail. The district’s formal budget and any levy the board adopts will be reflected in the certified budget at a future meeting.