Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Levy Public Hearing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ames board holds required public hearing on proposed 2025–26 property tax levy; two residents spoke
Summary
The Ames Community School District board opened and closed the required public hearing on the proposed 2025–26 property tax levy; two residents addressed the board, raising potential alternatives to property-tax increases and concerns about tax-funded private-school ESAs.
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Levy Public Hearing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Ames Community School District board opened a publicly noticed hearing on the proposed property-tax levy for the 2025–26 fiscal year and invited comments from residents. The district said notice letters will be mailed by the county auditor to taxpayers by March 20.
Two residents signed up to speak. Dr. Gholshan addressed the board briefly and offered to share alternatives he said might help “alleviate some of the financial pressure which require these property taxes,” but he said he would wait to hear other speakers before elaborating.
Resident Judy Lemish of 327 South Maple said she received the district’s tax notice and described her perspective as coming from an educator’s family. Lemish said she did not object to tax increases generally that maintain services and staff but urged the district and community to “fight harder” against tax-funded private-school education savings accounts (ESAs), which she said “are a big part of our problem here.” She added: “I don’t really have an objection to tax increases because I come from an educator’s family … but I don’t see anything coming from our community, from the school board, so maybe I’m just a blow blind.”
After public remarks, the board chair declared the hearing closed and the board adjourned the special meeting; the hearing record and any submitted written comments will be part of the levy process as required by state law.
Ending: The district said the mailed notices and the public hearing record fulfill the legal requirements for the levy notice; no formal levy vote took place at the special hearing other than closing the hearing and adjourning.

