Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Polk County supervisors hold hearing on proposed 2026–27 property-tax levy; officials say levy is being lowered
Summary
At a Polk County public hearing on the proposed 2026–27 property-tax levy, residents questioned a legislatively mandated notice that assumes large valuation increases; county officials said the board is lowering the levy and offered assessor help to explain individual statements.
Polk County supervisors heard public comment on the proposed fiscal year 2026–27 property-tax levy on a legislatively required notice that residents said implied a large tax increase.
At the hearing, a resident who gave his address in Pleasant Hill asked whether the public process sets a legal cap on how much property tax the county can raise. Chair (speaker 2) confirmed the hearing establishes the maximum levy the county may impose but said the board retains the ability to lower the levy later.
"This sets your limit as by the state of how much property tax you can raise," the Pleasant Hill resident said, asking for clarification. The Chair replied, "That is correct." The county administrator (speaker 4), speaking after the Chair invited staff to respond, said the mailed notices assume a 10% valuation increase as an illustrative example required by state law and that the board is not increasing the levy.
"That letter you received assumes a 10% valuation increase, which is not necessarily the case," the county administrator said, explaining the notice can be confusing and offering to have assessor staff walk residents through their individual statements.
Several residents spoke. John Palmer of Grimes thanked supervisors for their work and said he supported the proposed decrease in property taxes. Chris Hodge of Southeast 5th Street said he had read a notice referencing "up to a 15% tax hike," called that figure "more than just a budget adjustment," and urged officials to seek more creative solutions than repeated increases.
Chair and staff repeatedly told residents that the example figures in the mailed notice are mandated by state law and that the county itself had not raised the levy as part of this action. Chair asked that an assessor staff member meet with concerned residents after the hearing to explain valuation and statement details.
The hearing concluded without any formal change to the levy at the meeting. Chair asked for a motion to adjourn the public hearing; Clerk (speaker 1) moved, a second was recorded, and the board voted yes on the motion to adjourn.
