Tax hearing draws complaints about Floyd County’s rates, spending

By Bob Steenson, bsteenson@charlescitypress.com

A room full of Floyd County property owners included several who told the Board of Supervisors on Monday morning to stop property tax increases by reducing the county budget, including cutting staff or services if necessary.

The supervisors were holding a state-mandated hearing on a notice that had been published several weeks ago, showing up to 12% possible county property tax increases.

Those figures were based on assumptions that the state requires to be included in the notice formula, but county officials said the state formula is not realistic and taxes are not going up anywhere near that amount.

More than two dozen people attended the hearing, which lasted just over an hour and a half.

The meeting started off with county officials explaining the budget process and other aspects of the budget and of the required state notifications.

Floyd County Assessor Brandi Schmidt said the state required the public notice regarding the hearing to include a 10% increase in assessed valuation on the property example, but this isn’t even a year where the Assessor’s Office does market-based assessment changes.

Based on one set of figures on the amount the county proposed to collect, it would be a 2% or 3% increase in total property taxes collected.

Several people at the hearing talked about the need for the county to “live within their means.”

“We go without. There’s weeks I have to eat ramen, and then there’s weeks I get to gorge on a steak,” one man said, adding that the county government should follow the actions of the Trump administration in cutting staff and cutting departments.

The supervisors talked during the hearing about changes in state law that on the one hand are requiring that they spend more money on some things such as the sheriff’s salary, but on the other hand are restricting the county’s options on how it can collect money.

One person at the meeting asked what the repercussions would be of “just saying no” and not following the state mandates.

“We have to follow state code,” said Supervisor Gloria Carr.

Supervisor Chair Dennis Keifer said, “We’re looking for efficiencies wherever we can find them. We’re asking the departments to at least look at a 1% reduction” in their proposed budgets, “and if they all did that it would amount to quite a bit of money.”

Supervisor Boyd Campbell said, “When you look at salaries we’re just trying to be fair.”

Supervisors said county wages have to be competitive or they won’t be able to get employees.

Supervisor Carr, who is a new supervisor but who spent the previous 20 years as the county auditor, said after the meeting, “I get everyone’s frustration, when people say live within your means. I think we brought out a lot of things today that are out of our control that we’re doing our best trying to find a balance there.

“That will aggravate people when they see that 12% increase in there. It’s a misleading number that does give people some anxiety,” she said, but the board’s goal from the beginning was to cut early budget and tax estimates.

“Our intent when we did all that was to bring it down, and I think we’ve done a pretty good job with that. I think we’re in a much better place today,” Carr said about the latest budget figures.

Those figures, discussed by the supervisors at their regular meeting after the public hearing was closed, show small decreases in the property tax levy in all accounts – in the total countywide levy that all property owners pay, and in the additional Rural Services levy that people who own property outside of city limits pay.

Initial budget figures early in the budget process had shown the county collecting almost $280,000 more in property taxes in the 2025-26 fiscal year that begins July 1. That figure as of Monday morning stood at $126,731, although other changes were discussed during the meeting.

The tax levy rate per $1,000 of taxable valuation would decrease slightly in every category, dropping 14 cents per thousand in the total levy that people living in incorporated cities pay, and dropping 18 cents per $1,000 in the total amount people who own property in rural areas of the county pay.

Total tax collected would still increase because of an increase in the county’s total taxable valuation.

Carr said after the meeting that she thinks the board is getting very close to being finished with the budget work. They are still talking about changes in some individual wages and they need to account for potential new revenue in the county attorney’s office from an agreement for another county to help Floyd County collect unpaid court fines and fees.

Once that proposed budget is finalized it will need to be published and another public hearing will be scheduled. The entire process has to be finished and turned into the state by the end of April.

Regarding the court fees and fines, the board again discussed a situation where Cerro Gordo County says Floyd County owes it $65,000.

The then-members of the Board of Supervisors had in April 2022 signed an agreement with the Cerro Gordo County Attorney’s Office for that office to work to collect Floyd County’s unpaid court fees and fines. Cerro Gordo would keep 90% of the funds collected and Floyd County would get 10%.

At that time, the supervisors agreed that 10% would be more than Floyd County was then receiving, because the Floyd County Attorney’s Office didn’t have the time or the staff to try and collect those debts.

Now, however, Cerro County County is saying that those collected fines and fees came directly to Floyd County rather than going through Cerro Gordo County, and the amount that Floyd County was overpaid was $65,000.

Supervisor Carr said receipts show the money was coded through the County Attorney’s Office and went into the general fund, and now the County Attorney’s Office is working to audit the receipts to track everything.

If Floyd County agrees to pay Cerro Gordo the $65,000 this fiscal year it would need to amend the current year’s budget to allow the payment.