Chair Mike Blake told a packed hearing the county intends to raise the Iron County general‑fund property tax by $1,200,000 a year — an estimated county levy increase of about 19.5% that the county estimates would add roughly $35.60 per year to the tax bill on a median $418,000 home. The announcement opened more than two hours of public comment and questioning from residents, many of them seniors who said the increase is unaffordable.

The nut of the commission’s argument was budget pressure driven by rapid local growth and inflation. Blake and county finance staff said rising costs for personnel, health insurance, law enforcement and road maintenance — plus the need to hire additional public defenders and correct staffing shortfalls — make the increase necessary to maintain core services. County staff explained that only new growth — roughly $200,000–$245,000 this year — produces incremental revenue and that the county’s portion of property taxes is about 10% of a typical total tax bill.

At the hearing several residents questioned the timing and transparency of the process. Michael Clark told commissioners he believed the Friday evening hearing was scheduled to limit turnout, saying, “How dare you try it again,” and Anne Clark said she feared the measure was “a sneaky way to get less people here to complain.” Other speakers described steep recent increases in their tax bills and said fixed Social Security income leaves them unable to absorb additional costs. Ed Seaman said his taxes have increased far faster than his retirement income, adding, “I’m struggling.”

County staff used slides to show how levy rates work: as property values rise the levy rate typically falls so a taxing entity receives about the same dollar amount absent an intentional increase; only new growth generates added county revenue. Staff and commissioners also described a multi‑year “tax shift,” explaining that utilities and other state‑assessed properties have not grown in value at the same rate as residential property, pushing a larger share of the tax burden onto homeowners. The county said it spends money on outside counsel to contest centrally assessed property valuations but continues to face legal and legislative limits.

Commissioners stressed they had cut budgets and examined department requests in detail before settling on the 19.5% figure, which they characterized as the minimum required to sustain operations. “We sat down and crunched numbers, down to the dollar in every department,” Blake said, and commissioners repeatedly described the proposal as targeted to pay employees, maintain insurance coverage and keep up essential services rather than to create a reserve slush fund.

Residents pressed for alternatives — broader user fees, impact fees, or more aggressive pursuit of state fixes to centrally assessed values — and asked why new or wealthier arrivals could not be made to shoulder a greater share of local costs. County staff noted legal constraints on charging different property owners different rates and pointed residents to tools such as impact fees (limited by statute and largely applicable in unincorporated areas) and special improvement districts for localized projects.

No formal action was taken at the hearing. Chair Blake and staff said the commission will take up the proposal at its regularly scheduled meeting on November 25 at 10:00 a.m. at the Iron County Courthouse in Parham; the clerk’s office will accept written comments emailed to clerk.group@ironcounty.net. Residents were told about abatement and assistance programs administered through the auditor/treasurer’s office for qualified taxpayers who face difficulty paying property taxes.