Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Taxes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters urge Crawford County to revisit mill levy after steep property tax increases
Summary
During public comment, residents pressed the Crawford County Commission to recalculate the mill levy and consider departmental cuts after year-over-year property tax bills rose as much as 10–13%; staff and commissioners discussed valuation shifts, per-mill revenue and possible refunds or budget reductions.
Get email alerts on the Property Taxes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
An extended public comment period at the Crawford County Commission meeting on Dec. 12 centered on sharp increases in this year’s property tax bills and calls for the commission to reconsider the county mill levy.
An unidentified resident (Speaker 6) told commissioners that some homeowners in the county saw double-digit tax increases and described the effect on working-class and retired residents. “These folks … are absolutely tapped out,” the commenter said, arguing that the increase reflects both higher valuations and a rise in the mill that together produced a far larger tax bill than homeowners expected.
The commenter urged the commission to run the math on alternate mill levels — suggesting 44 mills as a compromise — and to examine department budgets for cuts. He said the county would bring in roughly $837,000 more in property tax revenue if current settings remain, and estimated that “every mill … is going to … about a $190,000” change in revenue.
Commissioners and staff explained the mechanics the public heard during budget-setting: valuation increases on individual parcels and a reduction in the number of taxable properties (for example, properties converted to nonprofit status or removed from rolls) changed the baseline used to calculate the mill levy. Commissioner (Speaker 2) and staff noted that the advertised mill rate and the final calculations can differ when parcels move on or off the tax rolls; staff said some properties that briefly appeared taxable (for instance, due to pending paperwork) may later be treated differently.
Officials discussed concrete examples submitted by the commenter: one home’s valuation rose 5.67% while its county tax increased about 10.3%; another rose 7% in valuation while county tax rose 11.69%. County staff said that if the mill were lowered to 46 mills (from the current advertised figure), revenue could drop by an amount in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars; staff gave one estimate of $606,260 in lost tax revenue tied to moving the levy back to an advertised historic level.
Commissioners asked staff to produce precise revenue projections for alternate mill settings and to identify feasible budget reductions that would offset any revenue loss. Several commissioners noted limits on where cuts could be made without affecting essential services such as EMS and sheriff operations.
The commission did not take a formal vote on changing the mill during the meeting. Commissioners directed staff to calculate the revenue impact of alternate mill rates, review departmental budgets for possible reductions and report back before any formal action.

