Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Property Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews budget scenarios after $67,000 distribution discovery; coalesces around option to lower tax askings
Summary
County staff told the Board of Supervisors that a previously unrecorded $67,000 distribution to the county improves the three-year average and allows the board to consider modest use of fund balance to lower property-tax askings. Supervisors discussed multiple scenarios and a preferred "Option 8" that mixes reserves and a small rural levy.
The Black Hawk County Board of Supervisors on March 17 considered revised budget scenarios after county staff reported a $67,000 correction to a 2025 distribution that raises the county’s three-year average.
Michelle, the county finance staff member who presented the budget materials, told the board the treasurer’s office had notified staff that “we are receiving a substantial payment,” and she had added that amount to the draft adjustments to the tax-asking worksheet.
Why it matters: the added revenue changes the county’s calculations for fund-balance use and allowed the staff to present several fund-balance and levy-mix options that would lower total tax-collection increases for taxpayers. Michelle said the county’s current tax-asking position, after adjustments made so far, shows a 2.9% increase in total tax collections when debt service is included and noted that individual property classes would see different effects — “a residential urban property would have a 4.17% increase,” she said.
Board discussion focused on trade-offs between using fund balance now and preserving capacity for future years if the state imposes a cap on collections. Michelle presented multiple options showing how using $100,000–$390,000 of general supplemental fund balance (and varying amounts of the rural supplemental levy) would change projected percentage increases for urban and rural residential taxpayers. She highlighted an option she labeled “8” that mixes $390,000 of general-supplemental fund balance with a small rural supplemental levy reduction to bring the county’s total tax collections down materially while leaving a modest rural tool available for future years. “I’m gonna call it 8,” Michelle said when asked which package staff recommended.
Supervisors asked for more detail on scenarios for individual taxpayers and the timing of state actions that could affect local choices; staff said they will wait until nearer to the publication deadlines and legislative outcomes before finalizing the published hearing notice. The board did not take a final adoption vote at the meeting; staff said the first public hearing for the budget process will be scheduled in the coming weeks and the board will set the final hearing date after confirming the numbers to be published.
What’s next: staff will refine the published notice and numbers (including the chosen option) and bring the data-hearing date back to the board. The county’s budget-adoption timeline will follow statutorily required publication and hearing windows.
Sources: County budget presentation and Q&A presented at the March 17 Board of Supervisors meeting; direct quotes from Michelle during the budget discussion.
