Residents press for transparency, question 10% valuation assumption at Davenport property-tax hearing

Davenport City residents used a special council hearing Wednesday to press elected officials for clearer budget information and to challenge a staff assumption that property valuations will rise 10% in the coming fiscal year.

John D. Blackman, a Davenport resident, told the council he would like any additional revenue from a proposed tax increase to be distributed more evenly to schools rather than to cities or the county. "If the proposed tax increase goes into effect, I would like to see allocations more evenly distributed to the schools rather than the cities and, and the county," he said.

Emrick Shoimos of Ward 6 said he reviewed the mailed notice and budget materials and said he was troubled by what he described as an assumption of a 10% increase in property valuation embedded in the proposal. "It's basically assuming a 10% increase in property valuation," Shoimos said, adding that local real-estate professionals have reported annual increases closer to 1.1–1.9 percent. He asked council members whether they had reviewed the full budget packet — a document he said spans 473 pages — and urged the council to be "more responsive" about how taxpayer dollars are spent.

Marilyn Laymon, a resident of the 7th Ward, called the projected valuation increase "exorbitant," noting that Social Security payments recently rose by about 2.8 percent. "I think it's exorbitant that you are anticipating a rise in our property tax values by 10%," Laymon said. She said the budget figures "do not make sense" and asked the council to explain where new tax revenue would be spent, citing deteriorating local streets as an example of unmet needs.

Council members did not engage in a detailed back-and-forth with residents during the special hearing; the presiding official explained the session was a public hearing and that council was listening. After public comment concluded, a motion to close the hearing was offered and approved by voice vote. The council then adjourned the special meeting and reminded attendees that the regular council meeting would begin at 5:30 p.m.

The hearing generated repeated calls for greater transparency in the budget materials and for staff to explain the basis of the valuation and revenue assumptions. No formal votes were taken on the levy amount during the special hearing; the session was limited to receiving public comment and formally closing the hearing.

Next steps: the council proceeded to its regularly scheduled meeting at 5:30 p.m.; any action on the FY2027 levy rate or related ordinance would require subsequent formal consideration by the council.