Email or print a PDF of this page. This might take 10-15 seconds.A tax cut avoided is still a tax increase. A tax cut avoided is still a tax increase.
Email or print a PDF of this page. This might take 10-15 seconds.Ask anyone who has recently taken out a mortgage or car loan — borrowing today is expensive. Interest rates are at their highest levels in more than two decades, and those higher rates mean significantly increased borrowing costs.
Yet despite the high cost of borrowing, 56 bond proposals totaling more than $1.7 billion will be on the ballot for Iowa voters this November. Even more striking in this interest rate environment is that 19 local governments — 16 school districts, two counties, and one community college — are returning with repeat bond requests.
As the table below shows, these local entities have already made multi-million-dollar appeals to voters within the past two years and are now asking again for approval of additional spending to be funded by property taxes.
Current Proposals and Past Attempts
When Borrowing Makes Sense — and When It Doesn’t
There are valid reasons to issue bonds. For example:
In these cases, debt can be a useful tool. But it should not be a default strategy. And certainly, many of the proposed projects don’t sound controversial at first glance. There is nothing inherently wrong with bonding when the need exists, such as replacing a county jail, building a new middle school, or updating training facilities at a community college.
Right now, voters are extra cautious, though. Iowa’s historical bond approval rate hovers around 50%, but this cycle may provide a tougher test. With interest rates remaining stubbornly high, taxpayers are acutely sensitive to how much more they’ll pay in interest and fees — and their own borrowing experiences over the last few years reinforce that concern.
Yes, government bonds typically carry lower rates than consumer loans because they are tax-exempt. But even tax-exempt rates are much higher than in the past, which means taxpayers are paying significantly more to service debt than they were just five years ago.
A Pattern of Repeat Attempts
Because placing a measure on the ballot costs relatively little, local governments often disregard previous election results. At times, a familiar pattern even plays out: A government may start by asking for the maximum amount they think voters might accept, loading up a project full of “wish list” items. If the measure fails, they trim down their projects and try again until they find a proposal their voters will approve.
For example, the Dubuque and Cedar Rapids school districts have both scaled back this November’s proposal significantly from the cost and scope of their previous measures which were defeated. In a sense, taxpayers should appreciate officials who seem to be responsive to the voters’ will. But seven local boards have taken the opposite approach. Dallas and Sac Counties, and Charles City, East Marshall, Fairfield, Gladbrook-Reinbeck, and IKM-Manning school districts are all back with larger asks for similar projects voters have already turned down. They are seemingly unwilling to take “no” for an answer.
At the end of the day, Iowans aren’t rejecting every bond or every project — they’re asking for prudence. When families are tightening their belts and paying more to borrow, they expect the same discipline from their local governments. Schools, counties, and cities should make a clear case for necessities, not simply preferences, and respect the message voters send at the ballot box. Until that trust is earned with careful planning and fiscal restraint, skepticism at the polls is not obstruction — it’s accountability.
Email or print a PDF of this page. This might take 10-15 seconds.Local officials claim these projects “won’t raise your taxes.” But that promise deserves scrutiny. It’s like paying off your car loan, immediately financing the purchase of a new one, and insisting it doesn’t cost more — just because the monthly payment stayed the same. What about the savings you could have enjoyed if you hadn’t taken on new debt at all?
This article was originally published in the Des Moines Register
Across Iowa, local officials are asking voters to approve more than $1 billion in new bond debt this November — often with the soothing assurance that these projects “won’t raise your taxes.” But that promise deserves scrutiny. It’s like paying off your car loan, immediately financing the purchase of a new one, and insisting it doesn’t cost more — just because the monthly payment stayed the same. What about the savings you could have enjoyed if you hadn’t taken on new debt at all?
When school districts and local governments claim that bond measures won’t raise taxes, what they’re really saying is that the levy rate won’t increase — not that your tax bill will stay the same. In today’s environment of rising property values, applying the same rate to a higher valuation will still result in larger tax bills for homeowners. And in most cases, the only reason a community can take on new debt without increasing the rate is because older bonds are expiring.
Rather than letting taxpayers finally enjoy lower bills, officials are simply refilling that debt service with new borrowing. That’s not a tax break. It’s a shell game.
This dynamic is present throughout our state this fall. Local officials are using the same line to justify major new borrowing in school districts including Ankeny ($130 million), Fort Dodge ($42 million), and Southeast Polk ( $51 million), as well as Iowa Western Community College ($55 million).
All are accompanied by familiar assurances: This won’t raise your taxes. But the fine print reveals the truth — these plans rely on replacing retiring debt. Some districts even admit it openly in their materials.
Here’s the reality: If bond proposals fail, property taxpayers’ bills will go down. If they pass, those savings disappear.
Bonds aren’t outstanding for only a year or two. Repayment terms can stretch to 20 years, locking taxpayers into decades of payments. Saying “no” lowers your bill. Saying “yes” keeps it higher. That is the real choice before voters.
Iowans are tired of property taxes climbing faster than their family budgets. They’re told that local governments are constrained, that budgets are tight, that there’s nowhere left to cut costs. Yet time and again, officials use carefully crafted language to keep revenue flowing, even when debt could have been retired and relief delivered.
Approving $130 million in one district and $55 million in another is not cost-free — it means higher tax bills than taxpayers would otherwise face for a generation. The fact that the rate doesn’t rise doesn’t change the essential truth: Your tax bill will.
This is bigger than a single election cycle. Until Iowa enacts real limits on local spending and borrowing, these “won’t raise your taxes” claims will continue. Transparency and accountability must replace wordplay.
If lawmakers truly want to protect taxpayers and keep Iowans in their homes, then real reform is needed: hard caps on local spending growth, stricter debt controls, and an end to the practice of using expiring debt as a permanent tax floor.
Iowans don’t expect government to cost nothing. They expect honesty. And they deserve the relief they were promised.
Email or print a PDF of this page. This might take 10-15 seconds.
Iowa’s November 2025 city and school elections are quickly approaching, and voters will see 56 bond proposals on ballots across the state. Altogether, these measures seek approval for more than $1.7 billion in new borrowing.
It’s important to remember that local governments repay debt with property taxes. While some districts claim they will “keep the rate the same,” the reality is that property taxes will still be higher than they otherwise would be without this new debt—often for the next two decades.
Where Are the Bonds Coming From?
Of the 56 proposals:
Not surprisingly, school bonds make up the majority of the total borrowing requested.
Notably, the Des Moines Independent School District is asking for $265 million—the largest school bond in Iowa’s history.
How Does This Compare to Past Elections?
Since Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation began tracking local bond elections in March 2023, this November’s ballot features the largest number of bond proposals to date.
A key reason is a change in Iowa state law (HF 718, 2023). This legislation restricted bond elections to November only, with the goal of boosting voter turnout for issues directly tied to property taxes. Prior to this change, local governments could hold bond elections on multiple dates throughout the year.
Here’s a snapshot of recent election cycles:
With even more proposals this year, voter turnout will be critical in determining how much additional borrowing—and long-term property tax obligations—are approved.
November 2025 Bond Proposals
A detailed table of the 2025 bond proposals is provided below. For more information about the local governments pursuing these measures, use the menu at the top of this page to find your city, county, or school.
