Madison County public hearing draws strong opposition to proposed 5.8% property tax increase

Madison County supervisors opened a public hearing on a proposed property tax levy that county staff said could raise roughly $508,190 in additional revenue if the board adopted the maximum allowed under new state rules.

County staff (identified in the transcript as Shelly/Shannon) told the board the general services fund brings in about $5,000,894 in current tax dollars and that adopting the maximum levy would increase general-services revenue to about $6,000,316, a rise county staff described as roughly $363,915 for that fund. Combining changes in the rural fund, staff said total additional tax revenue would be about $508,190. Staff identified several budget requests driving the increase, including a potential $200,000 ambulance purchase and two new ambulance staff (with wage increases totaling about $99,162), an election equipment upgrade (year-one payment cited as $17,500), projected property-insurance increases (up to 40%, about $153,370) and other software and health-insurance adjustments.

The hearing drew more than a dozen speakers. Several residents said the proposed levy — characterized by staff and attendees as a 5.8% increase under the state cap — was unaffordable for many homeowners and would hurt local businesses and farmers. "We do not need to spend a $100,000 on new election equipment," said Jessica Hobbs, who said county taxes have risen sharply in recent years and criticized a separate assessor budget increase and a $5,000 auditor allotment. Terry Kaczynski said he would file a formal written objection and alleged a $5,000 auditor bonus is illegal under "Iowa code 3 3 1 9 0 7" as cited in his remarks.

Other speakers asked the board to consider alternatives to a one‑year charge for major purchases, including financing large items over multiple years or deferring purchases until revenue conditions improve. One resident suggested limiting employee raises to the consumer-price index (the speaker cited an inflation rate of about 3.4%) rather than the larger increases proposed for some staff. Farmers and ranchers urged attention to agricultural property impacts, warning that fixed tax increases put pressure on production and long-term viability.

Supervisors moved to open the hearing, accepted public comment, then adjourned the hearing and the meeting by voice votes; the transcript records motions, seconds and 'Aye' responses but does not record a roll-call tally for either the hearing motion or the adjournments. The board did not take a final vote adopting a levy in the session recorded in the transcript; the meeting ended after the public hearing and routine adjournment motions.

The public raised several specific requests for follow-up: provide clearer documentation of the auditor allotment and its legal basis, explain options to spread large capital costs over multiple years, and supply comparative data on compensation benchmarks used for the proposed increases. County staff confirmed notices were published as required and reported receiving one hand-delivered letter and three emails in advance of the hearing.

Next procedural steps were not specified in the transcript; the board adjourned without recording a final levy adoption vote.