Residents and parents press board over proposed FY2027 property tax increase at Cedar Rapids school board hearing

The Cedar Rapids Community School District board opened a public hearing on the fiscal year 2027 proposed property tax notice at a special meeting called to order at 3:30 p.m. on March 30, 2026. Board members approved the meeting agenda by voice vote before taking public testimony.

Five residents addressed the board during the hearing, and board officials said five written letters had been received and would be placed in the formal record. Board Secretary Shelty called each speaker and served as the timekeeper; speakers were allotted up to five minutes each.

D. Anderson questioned why property taxes would increase when, the speaker said, state funding and reported per‑student spending have risen. Anderson cited an article by Bobby Kaufman and read figures recorded in the transcript as “$23,7118 per K to2 student” and “$483,698” for total students for 2023–24; those numeric figures appear garbled in the record and could not be verified from the transcript. Anderson also noted two previously failed bond measures and asked why taxes must rise despite those outcomes.

Troy Dah said he opposed another property tax increase after receiving a prior tax notice. He told the board he has lived on Hammer Drive since 2007 and complained the road to his house has not been repaired, framing his comment as a taxpayer objection to further increases.

Anita Miller urged the board to consider the burden of higher property taxes on young families and on enrollment, saying rising costs could discourage families from having children and contribute to declining school enrollment.

Ken Smith (introduced earlier in the meeting as “Keith Smith” but who self‑identified as Ken Smith) recounted removing his eighth‑grade child from the district, saying district staff and administration did not provide needed academic support. Smith said he and others have left the district — he cited “nearly 5,000 students” as an approximate figure mentioned in a presentation — and described improvements for his child after transferring to another school, including better academic accountability. Smith criticized perceived classroom disruption, lack of textbooks and insufficient support for teachers.

Peter Guerell said the district’s student population has fallen amid increased private‑school options; he mentioned a private option called “Isaac Newton,” said the district once declined an offer from that group and later sold the building to another buyer for less money, and urged the board to scrutinize spending before seeking higher taxes.

Board officials recorded the written correspondence and public comments into the meeting record. No formal vote on a property tax rate or levy occurred at the special meeting. After public comment, the board adjourned at 3:42 p.m.

The hearing and the submitted letters will be part of the district’s record as the board moves through any subsequent steps on the FY2027 property tax notice.