T-R PHOTO BY ROBERT MAHARRY — From left to right, Assistant Marshall County Auditor/Recorder Maria Vargas Gonzalez, Supervisors Jarret Heil, Carol Hibbs and Kevin Goodman and Auditor/Recorder Nan Benson look on during a standalone hearing on the property tax rate held at the courthouse Monday morning.

As required by state law since the passage of House File 718 two years ago, the Marshall County Board of Supervisors convened at the courthouse for a special standalone property tax public hearing on Monday morning, and three residents shared their thoughts on the proposal for the upcoming fiscal year.

Board Chairwoman Carol Hibbs described the work on the budget process as “very detailed” and said the supervisors engaged in extensive conversations with department heads to determine the county’s needs and what should be prioritized.

“We had some significant challenges, as I know most people do when they’re taking a look at what their personal finances are, so we’ll talk a little bit about what some of those challenges are,” she said.

Auditor/Recorder Nan Benson said she did not receive any written comments on the tax rate, and Supervisor Jarret Heil then offered a more detailed breakdown. The proposed county budget for FY2026 is $41.18 million — a 1.1 percent decrease from last year — with a tax rate of $9.35777 per $1,000 of valuation, an increase from the current rate of $9.30025.

Revenues are up 3.2 percent overall with a 2.78 percent growth in valuations, and $16.2 million of the proposed total budget would come from property taxes, a 3.9 percent increase from the current year. Last year, the levy rate was decreased due to a large jump in assessments, and Heil noted that while the general basic and rural basic levies would decrease, the general supplemental levy will go up five percent due largely to increased insurance costs.

“That’s the status of our levies, and how we got here is, really, our insurance costs are up $200,000, about a 26 (to) 24 percent increase. Health insurance is up as well,” Heil said. “There are no more federal ARPA funds, which we used on some of our operations, moreso at the sheriff’s office.”

Recent union negotiations with law enforcement and a three percent pay increase for staff also went into the change, he added. Heil said the county’s ending fund balances were holding strong in the 20 percent range as some other county governments dip further into their reserves and consider raising taxes more dramatically to make ends meet.

Supervisor Kevin Goodman, who is in his first year in office, described the budget process as “overwhelming” with a lot of numbers and meetings, but he felt he was gaining a better understanding and credited Heil and Hibbs with helping him learn.

The first public commenter to step forward was Mike Hargrave of rural Marshalltown, who remarked on the recent increase in assessments and a subsequent tax hike as a result.

“Can you tell me where that money, how was it used? I mean, did that cover… It seems like we have a big increase in our taxes that we’re paying, and then there’s another increase. And I just don’t understand,” he said. “The extra taxes that were collected, did they not cover some of these expenses that are now part of the budget?”

Heil responded that the levy rate was dropped by two percent last year to at least partially offset the assessment increase, which Hargrave felt “softened” the blow, and the supervisor added that the overall tax askings still went up by 1.9 percent.

“It was still a blow, a fairly major blow, at least for me personally and others,” Hargrave said.

Hargrave also asked about the process for finalizing the levy rate and whether it went to a public vote, and Hibbs said the board of supervisors ultimately approved it. Noting the fact that there were no written submitted comments, Hargrave was surprised at the apparent lack of public interest in the process.

“Now, I understand the one for the school, I mean, Miller (Middle School), with the (bond issue), I understand that. And expenses are going up. It just, it seems like a double whammy to property owners,” he said.

The next commenter, Lweche Mwenebatu of Marshalltown, asked if there was any way taxes could be decreased, and Benson and the supervisors offered to meet with him individually to explain the state-mandated letters mailed out to property owners and some of the confusion surrounding them as they laid out several hypothetical tax increases on the back side, not the one the county is actually proposing.

“This year, the legislature required us to have a 10 percent increase in your levy for the example that’s provided there, which then gives you where it appears that we are raising taxes 14 percent on residential and 15 percent on commercial, and that is not even remotely close to the truth of what’s going on here,” Heil said. “Now, part of it could be that it’s all political, that the legislature wants to get their (property tax reform) bill passed, and actually, I’m in favor of them getting their bill passed. But, when we’re looking at a consolidated 2.78 percent increase — excuse me, 2.78 growth increase — it would’ve been much more favorable for the legislature to require us to do what our growth amount is tied to that formula. And when you do that, we’re at 3.9 percent, not at 14 percent.”

Heil said every property is different, and Hibbs reiterated that the goal was to keep the increases as small as possible. Benson also offered Mwenebatu the opportunity to set up an individual appointment with someone from her office.

Like Hargrave, the third and final commenter, Harold Lanning of rural Marshalltown, expressed frustration with the lack of attendance along with the fact that the aforementioned mailer cost the county $11,000, blaming the state legislature for the mandate.

“I think people don’t show up because they are so frustrated. They figure, well, it doesn’t do any good, nobody’s gonna listen to them and so forth, and I share those feelings somewhat too. But I’m still gonna come up here and voice my opinion whether you like it or whether you don’t,” he said. “My comment is this: The way sometimes you spend your money — and I was here at the last supervisor meeting and voiced my objections to some of your spending that you’re spending for frivolous things and so forth — so let’s spend the dollars on roads, bridges and the essentials that keep county government working and so forth and so on.”

He also asked about the tax hearings for area school districts like GMG, which he resides within, and Benson told him they were separate meetings with other moving parts like state funding for school districts still pending.

Lanning wondered if a lack of state funding for school districts might result in the county taxpayers being asked to pick up the tab, and the supervisors assured him they were separate levies. Heil also explained a legislative proposal that would substantially reduce school levies almost in half and shift the formula from property taxes to income or sales taxes.

“Until things pass, it’s just so unknown,” Benson said.

In response to another question from Lanning, Heil told him the property tax structure was built on the idea of growth to keep rates low and avoid asking the same taxpayers for more money during every budget cycle.

“When I look at this budget, I would say it’s good but not great in my mind because the growth was 2.78 percent. We’re going above that to 3.9 percent. Now, we’ve got a variety of issues we can talk about, but the main thing is our insurance costs going up 27 percent,” Heil said. “When you have that, how do you take on those blows while staying within that growth model? We’re close. I mean, I’d say it’s good, but that’s why I say it’s good but not great.”

Once motions to close the public hearing and adjourn had been carried by unanimous votes, almost 25 minutes had passed, and the budget will now go before the board for formal approval at a future meeting.