Black Hawk County staff outline levy, reserve and spending options as FY2027 work session begins
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
County staff previewed FY2027 budget timing and options Feb. 17, telling supervisors they must upload a proposed maximum levy by March 5 and suggesting use of reserves, targeted levy adjustments and staff requests to close budget gaps. No final tax decisions were made; supervisors asked for wage and department-level detail ahead of the next session.
Black Hawk County officials presented a preliminary FY2027 budget and options for the property-tax levy during a Feb. 17 work session, urging supervisors to provide direction ahead of a March 5 deadline to submit a proposed maximum levy to the Iowa Department of Management.
Michelle (county staff) and others reviewed a draft that applies a $1,000,000 ‘‘turnover pool’’ reduction to the tax asking (an assumption that some budgeted positions will remain vacant during the year) and shifts some capital equipment requests to reserves rather than the tax levy. Staff noted the county currently has healthy reserves but cautioned that reserves are a limited, one-time resource and that sustained operational costs should not be covered solely with reserves.
Staff outlined the calendar: the proposed maximum levy must be uploaded by March 5; the earliest public hearing on the levy would be March 24 to allow time for statutorily required notices and publication; and budget adoption would likely fall in mid-April.
The auditor reported examples of large expense lines in the claims report presented earlier: an indigent defense payment of $205,208 and Peters Construction invoice of $127,304.55 for public‑health renovations. The board also received a county engineer update on bridge grant status and heard a bid opening for FY26 pavement markings (four bids received; staff to review and return with recommendation).
Supervisors asked for additional detail before making policy choices: a breakdown of how much of the projected revenue shortfall is wage-related, year‑by‑year wage totals, and department-level options for additional revenue or expense reductions. Staff said they would provide salary information for elected officials and department heads and follow up with departments to identify possible adjustments.
Board members discussed options including shifting personnel costs between general and rural funds, increasing a rural supplemental levy, using reserves for capital but limiting the pace at which reserves are drawn down, and deferring some capital projects. Staff flagged several large future projects — an elections equipment request of about $1,000,000 for optical ballot-scanning machines, potential public-safety radio-system costs, and ongoing building and facility improvements — and noted the county also faces an 8-year phaseout of a property-tax replacement tied to commercial rollback that reduces revenue by roughly $118,000 per year.
No final levy decision was taken at the session; supervisors directed staff to return with wage totals and targeted department detail for the next meeting. The board is expected to continue the work-session sequence before setting a formal levy request for publication.