Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Residents ask for clearer notices as Indianola opens public hearing on proposed tax levy
Loading...
Summary
At a required public hearing on the proposed FY27 property tax levy, residents pressed the council for clearer mailed notice examples and questioned whether later borrowing decisions would affect future levies; staff explained the maximum levy being set and the state-mandated notice assumptions.
The City of Indianola opened a statutorily required public hearing on its proposed FY27 property tax levy on April 6. City staff described the proposed maximum levy and the state’s hypothetical example used on mailed notices; several residents told council the notices and agenda labels were confusing and urged clearer public outreach.
Clerk Jackie Rafferty explained the numbers and the state’s instructions for the notice, noting the proposed maximum levy of $13.43 and a projected revenue figure presented in staff materials. "The effective tax rate is the amount that the city would be if we were to get the same tax dollars in our next fiscal year," Rafferty said during her presentation, explaining why the packet included an example valuation change that may not match every individual property.
Residents weigh in: Jamie Hanson, a Somerset Place resident, said the agenda and the mailed example made it intimidating for some residents to know when and how to comment: "It would be nice if they were maybe more together or if that was more explained to the public," she said, and asked whether borrowing discussed later in the evening could push levy costs higher in FY28. Joni Estes, a local health insurance agent, criticized the use of a 10% hypothetical valuation increase in the notice, saying it can be misleading to homeowners and stressing a desire for comparable‑city data.
Staff response and procedure: Staff clarified that the notice uses a state‑mandated hypothetical example (10% assessed valuation change and rollback adjustments) and reminded residents that the city sets a maximum that it may later lower at budget adoption. The council noted that individual property assessments and the state rollback formula — both beyond the city's control — influence the final tax bills and advised residents who disagree with an assessed valuation to appeal to the county assessor.
Outcome and next steps: After public comments and the statutorily required 15‑minute open period, council closed the hearing and scheduled further budget adoption hearings and the FY27 budget adoption for April 20. Staff said the levy being set now is the maximum the council can adopt later and that further adjustments may occur before final adoption.
