Winnebago County opens public hearing on proposed tax notice; residents raise concerns about valuations and mailed notice

Winnebago County opened a public hearing on the county—s proposed tax notice during its meeting, where staff explained the levy rates and several residents raised objections about recent property valuations and the clarity of the mailed notice.

County staff member Carla said the county kept the levy rate the same for 2026 but that taxable dollar collections are projected to fall because valuations fell. "This is the levy rate for '25 and then this is the levy rate for '26. So we kept the levy rate the same. The dollars are gonna go down because our valuations went down," Carla said.

The public hearing is the formal opportunity for any resident or taxpayer to object to or argue in favor of any part of the proposed budget and related tax notice, county officials said. Carla walked through the notice, saying it shows a revenue growth of negative 2.46% and a taxable growth of negative 2.46% and lists separate levies including a voted emergency-management rate, debt service for the county jail, and general and rural basic and supplemental levies. "At the very bottom on line 29 is the grand total for the property taxes that we levy for Winnebago County," she said, noting some levies apply only to rural parcels.

Several residents said the mailed notice and the calculations it contains were confusing. One resident, speaking during public comment, said, "I'm on Social Security. I'm on a fixed income, but my taxes go up 40%, and then my property taxes go up 60%." That commenter said they had discussed the reassessment with the assessor—s office and were told state rules limit how much taxes can move in some circumstances.

Other speakers pressed staff on why some individual valuations had risen sharply while countywide values fell. Carla and other staff pointed listeners to the assessor—s office for appeals and noted timing and statutory processes for valuation challenges. One resident said the mailed letter was "a waste of taxpayer dollars because nobody understands them." County staff acknowledged the notices are required by state law and the legislature and that the county must republish notices and hold a final hearing before adopting the tax levy.

Board member Derby moved to open the public hearing; the motion was seconded by Genshold and carried with all present voting in favor. Derby later moved to close the public hearing; the motion was seconded by Jen Spole and carried. The board then voted to set a follow-up public hearing for April 15 at 9 a.m.; the motion to set that date was moved by Derby and seconded by Jen Schulz, and board members present voted in favor.

Members of the public and several county residents used the hearing to seek clarity about appeal windows, which county staff said are handled through the assessor—s office and often have deadlines tied to the state assessment calendar. Carla advised residents with valuation questions to contact the assessor—s office directly and said staff at the meeting could help point residents to the appropriate forms.

The hearing record shows county staff explained how the tax notice aggregates multiple levy lines, why some levies apply only to rural parcels and how total tax dollars can fall if valuations fall even when levy rates stay the same. Several residents said they would pursue appeals or seek further explanation from the assessor—s office.

No tax levy was adopted at the hearing; the board kept the record open, set the next public hearing, and said required newspaper republication and final notice steps will follow.