Mills County residents press supervisors to curb spending as board presents lower proposed levy

The Mills County Board of Supervisors opened a public hearing on its proposed property tax levy at 6:01 p.m., presented updated levy estimates and listened to timed public comments before closing the hearing at 6:14 p.m.

A board official told attendees that materials mailed to property owners showed preliminary estimates and that a detailed budget review led the board to lower its proposed levy; distributed "green" sheets at the meeting contained the updated figures. Meeting materials presented at the hearing listed updated rates of 5.89833 for urban properties and 9.84833 for rural properties, which the board said are lower than earlier estimates. Later in the public comment period, a resident summarized numbers on the green sheet as an urban rate of 7.25 and described a 7.5% decrease on the urban side and a 5.3% decrease on the rural side, saying the county's actual tax asking is lower than last year. The hearing was structured as a public-comment opportunity only; the board did not take questions or make a final decision on the levy at the meeting.

Residents used the hearing to challenge the board's spending choices. "It's not right that something that is for the benefit of the entire county ... be paying to have no apparent access to those services," said Johnny Hackley, who described retired property owners struggling to afford higher tax bills. Hackley said increases in assessments and other costs have forced some retirees back to part-time work.

Dan Stanley criticized recent spending increases and pointed to personnel decisions, saying supervisors Lonnie Mayberry and Richard Crouch "are treating our property tax dollars like Halloween candy." Stanley cited a county engineer salary of $165,000 and compared that figure to pay in larger Iowa counties while urging the board to seek efficiencies: "Every department, in my opinion, should be ordered to propose a 20% reduction," he said, and he suggested creation of a citizen budget advisory committee.

Annette O'Brien asked whether the board conducts job evaluations before awarding large raises and referenced a $25,000 raise for the county engineer and a subsequent raise for the assessor, who O'Brien said was later fired. "How do you come up with these raises? How do you justify that?" she asked.

Amy Sharon urged caution about increasing the overall budget while many residents face inflation and higher living costs. "Transparency and accountability are critical," she said, asking the board to prioritize needs and improve efficiency rather than increase the tax burden.

An unnamed attendee encouraged people to consult the green-sheet materials distributed at the hearing and noted the differences between those figures and the mailed estimates.

Procedurally, the board moved to open the hearing at 6:01 p.m. and closed it at 6:14 p.m.; both motions were made, seconded and carried by voice vote. No formal vote adopting the levy occurred during the meeting. The board indicated it welcomes public input as part of the levy process and that comments at this hearing were limited to three minutes per speaker.

The board did not respond with extended factual discussions to the specific criticisms aired during the public-comment period; any formal action on the levy or on personnel decisions would be taken in future public sessions or through the board's standard agenda process.