Kossuth County holds public hearing on proposed 2025–26 property tax levy

The Kossuth County Board of Supervisors opened a public hearing March 25 on the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 property tax levy and invited residents to comment on the county—s proposed budget and tax request.

County staff read the notice and a series of taxable valuation and levy figures supplied by the Iowa Department of Management, and explained the change in the county—s tax asking and assumptions used in the required public materials.

Why it matters: The hearing presented the county—s proposed tax asking, comparisons to the current year and example tax impacts for typical urban and rural properties. Residents used the hearing to press the board on spending choices, fund balances and whether new revenue from wind-turbine development and TIF (tax increment financing) areas would reduce property taxes.

County figures and staff explanation

County staff read the Department of Management valuations and the county—s proposed tax request for FY2025–26. The materials shown at the hearing included these key figures: requested countywide tax dollars (excluding debt service) of $10,057,041 and an effective tax-dollar figure of $9,603,670; a proposed countywide tax rate of about 5.913535 with an effective rate of about 5.64869. Staff told residents the sheet included an example 10% valuation increase because the state requires a valuation-comparison illustration when publishing the notice. County staff also said the county—s total requested tax dollars represent roughly a $460,000 increase over the prior year.

Public comment: taxes, spending and services

Dozens of residents spoke at the hearing. Common themes were concern about rising bills, requests for more budget transparency and questions about whether new revenues (notably from wind turbines placed in urban renewal/TIF areas) would be used to lower taxes.

- Richard Miller (resident) criticized discretionary spending and surplus use, saying, "you guys are like a teenager with a credit card and no job. You spend and then you expect these taxpayers to bail you out, which it seems every year." He urged the board to stop giving out what he called "feel-good money."

- Thomas Sink (resident) said, "the budget was a fiasco," and held the board to earlier promises to correct increases, saying he had attended previous meetings and would hold supervisors to their commitments.

- Mary Reid (resident) asked, "My land value is going down. How come my taxes are going up?" County staff explained valuations and rollback factors vary by parcel and that the state-mandated example in the notice assumes a 10% valuation change, so individual impacts differ.

- John Nash (resident) noted a long-term shift of mental-health funding from a county levy to state funding and urged the board to consider that change when explaining why taxes have risen despite some services being taken over by the state.

Residents also pressed the board on: equipment and machinery spending at the secondary roads department; contracts and contractor penalties; the county—s wage and benefits costs (staff received a 4% raise this year and the county increased its contribution toward health insurance); and whether the board would revisit current budget choices.

TIF, wind turbines and targeted revenues

Several speakers and supervisors discussed tax increment financing and wind-turbine valuations. County staff explained TIF/urban renewal proceeds are handled separately from the county's general levy and are tied to debt or projects authorized in an urban renewal plan. Staff noted that revenue from new tax base such as turbines is often placed into urban renewal accounts and may be restricted to listed projects (for Kossuth County officials the listed projects included roads, bridges and the fair grandstand).

Board commitments and budget choices

A supervisor said the board has committed $50,000 from the general fund to the fair grandstand project in this fiscal year and a total of $250,000 over five years toward that project. County leaders also repeatedly emphasized that some increases in the levy structure derive from changes in state law (House File 718 was cited) and from rising county costs such as health insurance and tort liability.

Will the board change the proposed asking? Board members said they had considered many of the concerns raised during budget sessions earlier in the year. Several supervisors said last year—s budget process and this year's health-insurance and wage decisions had been discussed at length; one supervisor said he would review specific items if a majority of the board wished to reopen budget decisions, but that, based on the board—s prior actions and the timing, the published asking is likely to stand for the coming year.

Formal actions at the hearing

The board took procedural votes to open and close the public hearing and recorded roll-call votes. No final levy adoption vote occurred at the hearing; the levy will be acted on at the later budget hearing the board announced (tentatively scheduled for April 22 at 8:30 a.m.).

What happens next

County staff said the county will publish the formal budget notice and hold the FY2025–26 budget hearing at a later date. Staff also offered to provide residents with current fund-balance figures and a Department of Management online calculator residents can use to estimate individual tax impacts. The board asked county staff to provide requested fund-balance numbers at the next meeting and noted any changes to the proposed budget would require majority board action.

Ending

The public hearing closed by unanimous roll-call vote following additional public comment; the board adjourned after routine motions. Residents who asked for fund-balance information were told the county would supply the February month-end figures and that the treasurer's office can provide account-level checking balances if requested.