LEE COUNTY – A bill in front of the state legislator just got a big dose of Lee County infused in it, and in a way that may not go over well, according to past efforts.
Following a meeting of the Senate Ways and Means Committee in Des Moines on Monday, an amendment has been added to a bill that would cap property tax levies for county general funds at $3.50/$1,000.
The amendment offered by sponsor State Rep. Dan Dawson (R-Council Bluffs) allows a county with multiple county seats to consolidate to one county seat by a vote of the county’s board of supervisors.
Lee County is the only county in the state with more than one county seat and one county courthouse.
Lee County Supervisor Garry Seyb said he was surprised by Dawson's amendment, when he was informed via multiple texts on Monday. He said he then logged into the meeting online and listened to the rest.
Lee County voters rejected the idea of one courthouse in 2016 when a public measure for an $8.5 million bond was put in front of voters.
That measure failed by about 58%.
Seyb went to Des Moines and talked with legislators, including Dawson and House Speaker Pat Grassley, about Senate Study Bill 1124. He was accompanied by fellow supervisor Tom Schulz and Lee County Sheriff Stacy Weber.
“I talked to him about the bills we have that come out of our general fund and the funding of the courts and I don’t know that he was aware, at the time, that we have to fund two courthouses,” Seyb said.
As a matter of code, the county funds the maintenance and facility costs of the courthouses, but does not fund wages for court personnel, other than Lee County Sheriff deputies on site.
“It would cause cost savings to the county if we were able to go to one courthouse,” Seyb said.
“But we’re going to have to have conversations on all bills that we got coming out of the general fund, if for nothing more than to streamline taxes for the taxpayer.
“There’s not a lot of fat out there to cut. I’ve got them pulling numbers right now as to what costs we have for the courthouses. Right now they’re skewed because of the one-time costs we’ve incurred for a new roof and a tuck pointing.”
He said he believes the state judiciary will have to address the county’s two judicial systems and that isn’t something supervisors will be able to change through a vote.
“I expressed concern that the judiciary’s going to have to weigh in because there are two county seats, and I believe the constitution of Iowa addresses that. There’s going to have to be something done at the state level that will allow us to have a single county seat and court.”
Seyb said people who’ve been contacting him keep pointing to the wage increases last year as the reason for the county’s issues.
“We did have a nice increase last year but that was to make up for some of the very low wage increases we had seen in the years before that, and to keep some employees. We needed to make that adjustment,” Seyb said.
Schulz said the Iowa House doesn’t currently have a corresponding bill, but is focusing on assessment limits and not general fund property tax levies.
Seyb said state counties are looking at 15%-18% increases in assessed values.
Lee County Auditor Denise Fraise said if the state passes a $3.50 cap on the property tax levies for the county’s general fund, the county will not be able to function.
“If we have to stay at that, I’m just going to be totally up front here, there is no way we can survive – no way,” Fraise said.
Supervisor Matt Pflug asked where Lee County’s legislators including State Sen. Jeff Reichman (R-Montrose), State Rep. Martin Graber (R-Ft Madison) and State Rep. Matt Rinker (R-Burlington), stood on the issue.
"They should be out in front of this waving a flag," Pflug said.
Schulz said they are aware of Lee County’s issues, but haven't taken a position yet. Seyb said they are pushing the issue and helped coordinate conversation around Lee County's struggles.
“They understand the concerns. They haven’t come out with a position for or against it that I’m aware of, but Rep. Graber got us in to see the Speaker,” Seyb said.
He said caps on supervisors in any of the state’s counties inhibits the local government from governing.
“You’re governing those that govern. It’s an attempt by the state to force local governments to do something, or to cap their ability to do something, instead of we the people of our county being able to affect local government through the vote.”
The bill would need to be approved by the full Senate and then moved to the House where there is opposition to caps. Schulz said there may be resistance to the bill in the House, but if the bill dies anywhere along the line, the amendment dies with it.
The bill was approved by the Ways and Means Committee on Monday.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here