Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Taxes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Marshall County supervisors over rising valuations and budget priorities at property-tax hearing
Summary
At a public hearing on the proposed Marshall County property tax levy, residents expressed concern about rising home valuations, questioned spending on projects they called "luxury," and asked who pays for damaged roads; county staff explained a 2% levy-growth cap and said no bike-trail funding is in the proposed budget.
Marshall County held a public hearing on its proposed property tax levy for fiscal year July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027, opening the hearing at 5:03 p.m. and closing it at 5:29 p.m. Residents used the forum to press the board about rising valuations, perceived "luxury" spending and the practical impact of higher taxes on retirees and residents on fixed incomes.
The hearing drew several speakers who questioned both specific line items and broader tax mechanics. "I don't believe one dime of taxpayer money should go to it," said resident Lauren Shuttleworth, referring to a bike trail she called a "superfluous luxury," and recounted that an appraisal on her farmhouse rose from $72,000 to $129,000 over four years. Shuttleworth and others said they feared increases in valuations and county spending would squeeze people on fixed incomes.
County staff responded that the $1 million bike-trail commitment is not in the current proposed budget, saying a past grant that could have triggered committed funds was not awarded. In response to questions about a mailed notice and why taxes might rise, a county staff member explained the difference between property valuation increases and tax-rate changes and said the county proposed holding levy growth to a 2% cap. The speaker said county valuation growth this year was 2.98 percent and that the 2 percent levy-growth equates to roughly $329,000 on a property-tax base of about $16.5 million.
Several residents raised concerns about the assessor's office and an outside contractor, Vanguard, that the conference board hired to assist with valuations. One commenter said hiring a contractor looked "fishy" and implied it might be intended to raise taxable values. County officials replied that the assessor's office operates under state law, has its own levy and budget separate from the Board of Supervisors, and that revaluation and review activity is driven by the Iowa Department of Revenue's requirements.
A resident asked who will pay to repair Sand Road after construction and bridge work allegedly damaged the pavement. County Engineer Alan Feldt said if a contractor caused damage the county would pursue liability and necessary repairs; he also clarified that county property taxes fund rural roads and that county government has no authority to fix streets located inside Marshalltown city limits with county road funds.
Formal business at the meeting was limited to procedural actions around the public hearing: the board approved the agenda, voted to open the public hearing by roll call and later voted to close it at 5:29 p.m. No final levy adoption or other ordinance vote occurred during the hearing. The board set the next regular session for Wednesday, April 8, at 9:00 a.m. and adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
The public hearing collected citizen concerns about valuations, local project priorities and road repairs, and county officials emphasized statutory constraints and the board's effort to limit levy growth to 2 percent as they finalize budget details.
