Johnson County supervisors could reverse vote for first time in 15 years

IOWA CITY - Next week the Johnson County Board of Supervisors will revisit last week's 3-2 vote against refunding a resident's taxes following an erroneous assessment over a nonexistent cellular tower.

If the supervisors vote in favor of refunding taxes to property owner Jean Fisher, it will be the first time in at least 15 years that the board has reversed a formal vote.

'Normally when we take a formal vote, that's it, it's over ... I just want to say how extraordinary it is,” Supervisor Janelle Rettig said, adding that she fears such a move diminishes the public's faith in the board as a whole.

'I'm concerned that the people then can't trust us,” she said. 'I think people should do their homework before they vote.”

After last week's vote to deny Fisher's refund over the inaccurate property assessment of a tower that was never built, some members of the public took to social media in outrage while state legislators, including Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton, demanded the board reconsider the vote.

Amid a flurry of public reaction to the vote, Supervisor Mike Carberry, who voted against the refund, requested earlier this week that the vote be reconsidered.

In order to determine the parameters of such a refund, assistant county attorney Andy Chappell has been dissecting a section of Iowa Code that pertains to refunding erroneous taxes.

According to the code, any refund on taxes can only go back two years from the point of notification, meaning Fisher will be able to get $2,848 refunded, rather than the roughly $5,000 she requested.

Fisher, who spoke at the meeting, said at this point she simply wants the discussion to reach a close.

'Let's all learn something from this craziness and work together to rectify it,” she said. 'This ugliness has to stop here.”

At next week's formal meeting, the board will hold two votes on the refund, the first to reconsider the item, and the second to vote on the requested refund.

Supervisor Terrence Neuzil said he is concerned of a precedent that might be set by granting the refund, noting the poorly written section of state code, which does not clearly define an error.

'This is not going to be the only resident that will identify an issue and go through some of the scenarios,” he said. 'An error is an error.”

However, Chappell said he doesn't anticipate an overturn of the vote to create an influx of future refund requests coming directly to the board.

'The way that code section has been interpreted by the courts is far, far more narrow than it appears,” he said. 'I don't think it's likely to happen that often.”