Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ottumwa council holds hearing on modest city property tax levy decrease, details impact on homeowners
Summary
Finance Officer O'Donnell presented a proposed FY2026–27 city property tax levy that slightly lowers the total city levy while increasing revenue due to rising valuations; examples show modest city‑portion increases for residential and commercial owners. The public hearing closed after council Q&A and no council changes.
The Ottumwa City Council held a public hearing on the proposed FY2026–27 property tax levy and heard a detailed levy presentation from Finance Officer O'Donnell.
O'Donnell told the council that taxable property valuations rose by about 4.86 percent year over year, and that state law and an automatic adjustment limited the consolidated general fund levy. Under the proposal, the consolidated general fund levy would fall from 8.51942 to 8.35237 and the city's total proposed levy would drop slightly from 20.99396 to 20.95044, a 0.21 percent reduction. Because valuations increased, staff estimates the change would produce roughly $739,519 in additional tax revenue (a 4.99 percent revenue increase).
O'Donnell walked through levy line items: the employee benefits levy would increase slightly (from 7.61617 to 7.65162) with an estimated revenue increase of $289,434; the risk management levy would rise to 0.88558 (an 11.59 percent increase); and debt service figures were adjusted to reflect transfers and reimbursement plans. He also noted some of the increases reflect higher property and liability insurance valuations after updated appraisals and a 12.8 percent projected rise in health insurance premiums.
To illustrate the homeowner impact, O'Donnell said a home with a market value of $100,000 would see the city's portion of the annual property tax rise by about $8.27 (about $0.69 per month). For a $300,000 residence the annual city‑portion increase was given as $20.80 (about $2.07 per month); council members identified a misstatement in the reading and confirmed the correct figure for an example used in discussion was $2,480 (city portion numbers were clarified on the record).
Council members questioned staff on how the city phased in certain benefit levies rather than moving immediately to 100 percent funding; O'Donnell described using reserves to smooth the levy increase over several years. He also confirmed the city's portion of the property bill is only one part of an owner’s total tax bill and that other taxing jurisdictions also affect totals.
After public questions and council discussion, the public hearing was closed by roll call and no amendments to the proposed levy were made at the meeting. The council adjourned the special hearing and resumed the regular council meeting at 6:00 p.m.
