Category: Counties

Repeat Offenders with Local Government Spending and Taxes

Repeat Offenders with Local Government Spending and Taxes

Posted on by Sarah Curry, DBA
  Email or print a PDF of this page. This might take 10-15 seconds.

Seventeen local governments are going back to taxpayers for more after recent election asks.

Three cities, one county, and 13 schools are going back to taxpayers asking for more money in the November 2024 election despite their other recent ballot measures that asked taxpayers for more money. Six of these local governments recently enjoyed either passage of a bond measure or renewal of a property tax levy. The remaining 11 are returning to taxpayers who recently rejected either a tax increase or a bond proposal. Either way, taxpayers are not getting a break in these 17 jurisdictions.

Déjà Vu for Voters

In some cases, taxpayers see two proposals close together because state law requires a bond request and the tax increase to pay for the bond to be put forward in separate elections. Emmetsburg Community School District (CSD) and Van Buren CSD are in this position.  The fact that these districts have back-to-back ballot questions is a procedural matter, and not indicative of an unquenchable thirst for collecting more tax dollars.

That said, given the low cost and high reward of putting questions to taxpayers, local governments often seem inclined to ignore results they don’t like when taxpayers have voiced their opinions. One example is the City of Boone, which in 2022 asked voters for a $10 million bond to build a recreational complex. When that failed, the city tried again in 2023, but community pushback limited the city council to creating a task force to study the issue, instead. Now (surprise, surprise) Boone is back in 2024, looking for a do-over of the 2022 vote.

Many public-school districts have responded to voters’ rejection with a sort of serial negotiation, scaling back projects and reducing the amounts they are requesting with their bond proposals. Lewis Central CSD is the best example of this. After failing to receive $90 million last year, the district is giving $30 million a try this year, with the deal sweetened by avoiding an immediate property tax increase.  In instances like that, maybe the system is working as the elected leaders at least seem to be taking voter input into account.

On the other side of the coin is brazen disrespect for taxpayers when a local government responds to ballot defeat by asking for more than the original proposal in a subsequent election. Lawton-Bronson CSD is guilty of this behavior during this election cycle.  That school district had a $15.5 million bond measure fail, and now they are back asking for nearly $17 million just one year later.

Spending Adds Up

At a time when a majority of Iowans favor limits on their annual property tax burdens, local voters must remember how the accumulation of numerous small proposals can add up to substantially higher property tax bills over the years. For example, multiple school districts successfully renewed their physical plant and equipment levies (PPELs) recently, but now these same districts are asking for bonds. If the bonds pass, property taxes are likely to increase to pay for the debt, as either the rate goes up or the valuation increases without an automatic reduction in the rate.

Some communities have bonds nearing expiration, and instead of allowing taxpayers to benefit from the resulting savings, officials are replacing them with new bonds while promoting the fact that tax rates will remain unchanged. This is similar to a consumer whose car loan is almost paid off. Rather than enjoying the extra savings from no longer having a monthly payment, they rush to the dealership to make a new purchase, feeling satisfied that their monthly payment hasn’t increased.

Use the menu bar at the top of this page to learn more about your community’s spending and taxing decisions before the November election.

Property Tax Increases on the Ballot in 12 Counties

Property Tax Increases on the Ballot in 12 Counties

Posted on by Sarah Curry, DBA
  Email or print a PDF of this page. This might take 10-15 seconds.

Voters will be asked to approve funding for emergency medical services (EMS), more commonly referred to as “the ambulance tax.”

Current law (federal, state, and local) allows variation in how government entities provide (or do not provide) emergency medical services (EMS), including ambulance services. Iowa’s statutes require local delivery of law enforcement and fire protection, which may deliver first-responder medical services in some instances. However, townships and city governments have historically collected the financial resources and infrastructure for Iowa’s EMS protection, with most of the actual service coming from volunteers. In more-urban areas, paid ambulance services provide reliable care, with most crews staffed at paramedic level.

Background

With voter approval, local governments can generate local funds for EMS in the form of local income surtaxes, local property taxes, or a combination of both. In 1992, the Iowa Legislature authorized the creation of EMS districts. For their support, voters may pass property tax levies of not more than $1.00 per $1,000 of assessed value on all the taxable property within the district. Later, the Legislature permitted a 1% local income surtax for counties to utilize for EMS. The tax revenue may be used to purchase or rent EMS apparatus, equipment, and material and to employ EMS and other personnel.

The first county to implement local taxes specifically to support EMS was Appanoose County, which imposed the maximum 1% surtax on its residents in 1994. The first cities to use the EMS property tax were Riceville and Sheffield.

In 2021, Iowa legislators changed the law pertaining to EMS to allow counties to seek voter approval for a local income surtax up to 1% and a property tax up to $0.75 per $1,000 of taxable valuation. The legislation still did not mandate EMS at the state level, instead maintaining local decision-making to ensure sufficient interest among residents in increasing their tax burdens for such services.

The ballot questions facing voters in 2024 reflect the most-recent EMS property tax law changes.

Counties Currently with EMS Levies

Shortly after the enactment of the 2021 law, eight counties placed referenda to introduce the new taxes on their November 2022 ballots, and five reached the required 60% threshold for passage: Jones, Kossuth, Osceola, Pocahontas, and Winnebago. Populations in the three other counties, Calhoun, Floyd, and Worth, did not.

Voters in Cedar, Benton, Ida, and Shelby Counties joined those with approved EMS property taxes in November 2023. Additional counties imposed the tax in 2024, with Louisa County voters approving the measure in March and voters in Henry and parts of Worth County doing so in September. According to the Iowa Department of Management, 12 counties currently use the EMS property tax for the 2025 fiscal year.

A Clarification of “EMS”

Iowa budget documents use the acronym, EMS, for two purposes. Emergency management services refer to all frontline response organizations and personnel who provide immediate assistance and support during emergencies. The primary objective of these agencies is to save lives, protect property, and ensure public safety during the immediate response phase of emergencies. This broader EMS includes police, fire departments, search and rescue teams, specialized response units, and emergency medical services.

Across Iowa, more than 3,000 separate entities govern and tax for emergency management services, including approximately 870 cities, 1,700 townships, several hundred emergency medical services departments, legacy benefitted fire districts and fire boards, 28E agencies,1 and non-profit corporations. Today, most fire departments list emergency medical calls as their most voluminous activity, in many cases comprising 70% or more of those departments’ annual responses. 

To learn more about how your county funds emergency management, select the county name from the menu bar at the top of this page. Ambulance services are included in the “public safety & legal services” category. 

1 28E references Iowa Code Chapter 28E, which permits the merging of two governmental entities to create a new “agency” that becomes its own governmental body with the purpose of providing a particular service, in this case fire and/or EMS protection.

New Debt Proposals Exceed $1 Billion for November Election

New Debt Proposals Exceed $1 Billion for November Election

Posted on by Sarah Curry, DBA
  Email or print a PDF of this page. This might take 10-15 seconds.

Taxpayers across 59 counties, representing 82% of the state’s population, will be asked to increase their debt burden.

The November 5, 2024, general election ballots in 59 counties will have bond questions. This potential new spending of $1.13 billion would, if enacted, directly affect 82.4% of the state’s population.

The bond questions cover a variety of local government types: Nine are for cities; one is for a community college; five are for counties; and the remaining 31 are for public school districts. The largest request is $165 million for Waterloo Community School District (CSD) to convert a middle school into a high school. The smallest request comes from the City of State Center, with a proposal to build an addition to its municipal fire station for $1,500,000.

Since Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation began tracking local bond elections, school districts (collectively) have frequently asked the most of taxpayers. This election cycle is no different, as the proposals from schools total $860 million. That amount far surpasses the debt proposals of counties ($129 million), cities ($91 million), and community colleges ($55 million).

Effect of 2023 Property Tax Law

In 2023, a wide-ranging package of property tax reforms passed through the Iowa State Capitol (HF 718), winning overwhelming bipartisan support in both legislative chambers. One of the legislation’s major provisions is the restriction of bond elections to November each year, with the goal of increasing voter turnout for issues that have a direct effect on property taxes.

Another provision of the legislation is for direct notification about bond elections. The commissioner of elections or auditor for each county conducting a bond election must mail every registered voter a notice that includes the full text of the public measure to be voted on not less than 10 days or more than 20 days prior to election day.

Voter Education

To ensure efficient, accountable government, voters in districts with bond proposals must educate themselves about public projects and spending in their communities. Use the menu bar at the top of this page to explore your community’s spending, debt, and property tax collections as you decide how to vote on these debt proposals.

Majority of Special Elections Approve Property Taxes; Low Turnout the Norm

Majority of Special Elections Approve Property Taxes; Low Turnout the Norm

Posted on by Sarah Curry, DBA
  Email or print a PDF of this page. This might take 10-15 seconds.

Voter turnout for city and county measures was 10.5%, while school measures drew only 8.5%.

On September 10, 2024, twenty-one local governments held special elections with property tax measures on the ballot. Unofficial results show most of the measures passed, adding up to nearly $14 million in property tax costs. Ten of the 13 participating school districts succeeded with their public measures, and voters in both Henry and Worth Counties approved new emergency management taxes. Meanwhile, three public measures involving property taxes failed on Tuesday.

Turnout was in the single digits for most school districts in which the measures succeeded. County and city emergency management property tax decisions generated much more engagement. Statewide, the turnout for September’s special elections for city and county issues was 10.5%, while school measures saw turnout of only 8.5%.

School Elections

Eleven school districts sought renewal of, or increases in, physical plant and equipment levies (PPELs), which generate local property tax dollars for infrastructure and equipment repairs. The ten measures that passed did so with collective support of nearly 80%.

Only Clarinda Community School District (CSD) voters said “no” to their PPEL proposal, which was for $1.34 per thousand dollars of valuation. In that Southwest Iowa community, 54% of the voters were against the tax increase. Interestingly, Clarinda voters had already rejected two bond issue referendums for building projects in 2023, while also defeating an earlier PPEL proposal in March, which was defeated by only six votes.

When it comes to debt service levies, two additional school district proposals were turned down by voters. Emmetsburg CSD and Van Buren CSD asked voters for increases ahead of a bond referendum scheduled for November. Both measures failed by strong margins. Emmetsburg CSD faced nearly 59% of voters’ saying NO, while 82% of Van Buren CSD voters rejected a property tax increase for debt service.

Voter turnout showed significantly higher engagement in districts where residents rejected the public measures than those in which the governments’ proposals were successful. Clarinda CSD (31.3%) and Van Buren CSD (37.3%) had the largest turnouts. All other districts, except for Emmetsburg CSM and Montezuma CSD, experienced single-digit turnout figures, with one as low as 3.5%, amounting to only 37 voters interested in voicing their opinions in that election. In total, school public measures produced turnout of only 8.5%, or 10,496 of the more than 123,000 registered voters.

City and County Elections

All of the city and county elections on September 10 were related to county emergency management services (EMS), and each of them were successes for the government agencies.  This will result in $850,000 in new property taxes in Henry County and Worth County. Five small cities within Worth County also solidly passed EMS-related property taxes. Overall, the support margin for these EMS public measures was almost 95%. Upon passage of an EMS tax, all generated revenue is put into a dedicated trust fund to be used solely for such services as ambulance transport.

Voter turnout was also high for these EMS public measures. More than 50% of Henry County voters weighed in, while Worth County cities and districts saw turnout range from about 22% in the West Worth County EMS district to more than 40% in the City of Grafton.

Results from September 10, 2024, Public Measures Affecting Property Taxes

Property Tax Pain Index

Property Tax Pain Index

Posted on by ITR Local
  Email or print a PDF of this page. This might take 10-15 seconds.

Iowans will spend more than $6 billion in property taxes to fund local governments next year. How much property tax pain are you and your family about to experience from the spending decisions your city council, county supervisors, and school board are making?

Five counties increased per capita property tax revenue by more than 20%. That’s unspeakable pain!

  • Ida County – 31.1%
  • Dallas County – 23.5%
  • Taylor County – 21.9%
  • Grundy County – 21.3%
  • Bremer County – 21.3%

Of the 275 cities with a population greater than 1,000, nearly 90% chose to increase the property tax pain on their residents. The five highest per capita property tax revenue percent increases are:

  • Ackley - 79.9%
  • Stuart - 61.4%
  • Wilton - 48.0%
  • Postville - 37.1%
  • Manly - 36.8%

Twenty-four school districts increased per-student property tax revenue by more than 20%. The five highest are:

  • Harris-Lake Park CSD - 56.7%
  • Hamburg CSD - 55.5%
  • Rock Valley CSD - 50.0%
  • Diagonal CSD - 46.4%
  • Durant CSD - 37.6%

How can we stop painful increases in the future? Iowa’s legislature should implement a strict 2 percent cap on the annual growth of local government property tax collections. Read more about this solution:

County Per Capita Spending

County Per Capita Spending

Posted on by ITR Local
  Email or print a PDF of this page. This might take 10-15 seconds.

When your county supervisors create a budget and decide how much to spend, they also set the rate, which determines the county’s portion of your property taxes, which is the third largest part of your total bill behind school districts and cities.

County Debt

County Debt

Posted on by ITR Local
  Email or print a PDF of this page. This might take 10-15 seconds.

Debt can crowd out other priorities from the budget. A temporary increase for a good reason is understandable, but constant, high levels of debt put the taxpayer on the hook for more interest payments in the future. County supervisors should pay off debt in a timely manner without taking on additional burdens.

The map and table below show each county’s population and a four-year history of debt per capita.

Click on a column heading to sort.

The True Cost of Property Taxes

Posted on by ITR Local
  Email or print a PDF of this page. This might take 10-15 seconds.

Many city, county, and school governments seem to disregard Iowans’ struggle to achieve when their only focus is more taxpayer money to spend on their special projects.

According to a recent WalletHub article, Iowa has one of the highest property tax burdens in the country. The 1.49 percent of their home’s value Iowans pay in property taxes yearly ranks as the 10th highest in the country.

Real-Life Impact

ITR recently heard about a woman’s journey trying to improve her life. She escaped her abusive husband, and after living in her car, under bridges with her three children, she ended up in a homeless shelter. With the shelter’s support, she got back on her feet and went back to school. She now has a degree in counseling and works full-time at the homeless shelter. Her kids are all good students, and her sons are now volunteer firefighters in the community. One of the things she is most proud of now is that she is a homeowner.

She worked hard to own a house but now is coming to grips with the property tax burden that comes with it. Her city, school, and county governments seem to disregard her struggle to achieve when their only focus is more taxpayer money to spend on their special projects.

The government needs to quit taking so much.

Property taxes were an unnecessary hurdle for her. Rent increases because landlords have no choice but to pass on that expense. Businesses struggle to afford leases because of tight profit margins. For homeowners, do they even own their own homes?

Think about your grocery bill, your gas bill, everything else. Expenses increase, and affordability decreases.

Paying 1.49 percent of your home value yearly for property taxes is simply too much. It needs to come down. Reducing our collective tax burden is better for us economically, but these things impact every Iowan at a fundamental level and change how people live their lives.

Property tax bills are determined right now.

Next year’s local government’s proposed budgets will soon be finalized. Many county supervisors have been lashing out at legislators and policies as simple as the assessment rollback. They point the finger at everyone but themselves because they have a tight budget and lose sight of the fact that Iowans don’t want to pay this much.

Local officials cannot see Iowans are overtaxed on their property taxes. Their entire paradigm is based on their local budget and what it means for them.

We’ve heard from many state legislators who are sick and tired of being lectured by city and county officials. The legislature gets it and knows how upset Iowans are because they go door to door and hear it from voters. Remember, last year’s property tax relief bill passed with only one dissenting vote.

Upset city councilmen and county supervisors try to blame and lecture those dastardly legislators of both parties who simply stood up for their citizens when their local government wouldn’t do it anymore.

The vast majority of these local governments are just flat wrong when complaining about cuts. Revenue was not cut; the legislature just limited their growth. Simply put:  Property tax revenue collected by cities and counties will continue to increase.

Only in government is slowing the growth of spending seen as a cut. Cal Thomas once said:

“It’s funny that government can never afford to cut taxes or spending, but taxpayers are never asked whether they can afford higher taxes.

When your city council, county board of supervisors, or school board chooses to increase spending and raise property taxes, they need to clearly explain why the government needs the money more than you do.

Take Action!

Use the menu at the top of this page to see how your community’s property taxes have grown compared to inflation, population, and school enrollment. Use this information to learn more about your local government budgets, share it with your neighbors, and start a conversation with your elected officials.

Keep an eye on your mailbox. Property tax public hearing notices will be mailed in March. ITR will keep you updated and provide information for you to share when you attend.

Property Tax Increases Take Center Stage on March 5th Special Election Ballots

Posted on by Sarah Curry, DBA
  Email or print a PDF of this page. This might take 10-15 seconds.

Some local governments say if you vote to renew a levy, taxes won’t go up.

But it’s like finishing paying for a car and then buying another with the same monthly payment. This hides the option of saving money instead!

The March 5, 2024, special election in 13 school districts and one county will put property tax increase questions before voters. The school districts are looking for increases in their physical plant and equipment levies (PPELs), which generate local property tax dollars for infrastructure and equipment repairs, and one district is also asking for an increase of its debt service levy (i.e., for bonds). Louisa County is asking voters for a 15-year tax increase to fund emergency medical services (EMS).

How Much Will Property Taxes Increase?

If these public measures were to pass, the total would increase next year’s property tax collections by $12.1 million. Even worse, these property tax increases are scheduled to last for 10 years or more. The total taxpayer commitment would be more than $137.4 million — and that is a conservative estimate because nobody can predict property valuation increases a decade from now.

The following table provides the details for each public measure.

What Is PPEL?

PPEL stands for “physical plant and equipment levy.” The Iowa Legislature created the tax in the early 1990s as a local funding stream to support school district facilities and equipment. One type of PPEL allows annual school board approval, while the other, including those listed above, requires public votes. Voted PPELs can be authorized for a maximum of 10 years and $1.34 per $1,000 of taxable value and are distinctive because school boards may issue bonds against them and repay the debt with interest from the revenue.

PPEL funds may only be used for maintenance projects and equipment. For the current fiscal year, 49 districts do not use this property tax levy, while 100 districts are at the maximum rate of $1.34. The statewide average tax rate is 81 cents, and it generates $206.7 million per year.

Not Telling the Whole Truth

Anytime government agencies hold a vote to increase spending or keep it the same, the burden on taxpayers increases because home values continue to go up year after year. Some districts are forthcoming about the effect on taxpayers and admit they are asking for more money; others use careful wording to convince voters the tax increase doesn’t exist.

One of the most common statements school districts will use is, “This will not cause an increase in the school district property tax rate.”

The claim is that the current tax rate includes a PPEL, and if voters agree to keep it the same, then taxes do not go up. The principle is similar to paying off a car only to run out to buy a new one at the same monthly payment. The continuing payments disguise the alternative: saving the money.

Another way to say the same thing points to a second misleading aspect, “The district believes this will not cause an increase in the school district property tax rate. This will extend the voter PPEL the district currently has for an additional 10 years. The district has had a voter PPEL since 1992.” Over time, keeping the rate the same produces inevitable increases as property values rise. Since 1992, Iowa residential property valuations have increased 274%, meaning the district has been effectively raising taxes for 30+ years.

Some districts go so far as to deploy scare tactics against voters like, “If the PPEL is not renewed, the district would need to use general fund or SAVE money to support building upkeep, transportation, and technology, delaying potential projects planned from SAVE funding.” Translation: the school would have to budget and spend money on its planned projects. State Secure an Advanced Vision for Education (SAVE) money is already earmarked for infrastructure purposes, so using it is not unreasonable.

Another common tactic is to claim, “The current PPEL rate is $0.67 per $1,000 of taxable property value. We are asking voters to consider raising that to $1.34. Despite the increase, the district is positioned financially to make changes that allow the district’s overall tax levy rate to remain flat, meaning an increase of the voted PPEL will not raise taxes.” Notice the details. The district is positioned to make changes, which doesn’t mean it will. Total spending will likely increase, meaning the burden on property owners will also increase.

Voter Resources

Click on your school or county in the table above or use the menu at the top of this page to visit your community's page to learn more about its property taxes and spending.

General Service and Rural Services Levy Rate Change

General Service and Rural Services Levy Rate Change

Posted on by ITR Local
  Email or print a PDF of this page. This might take 10-15 seconds.

The maps below show the change in the General Services (county-wide) and Rural Services (rural only) levy rates from FY 2023 to FY 2024. Blue counties increased rates, light green decreased rates, and gray counties had no change.

  • Stay updated about your community's property taxes by subscribing to the ITR Local newsletter:

    * indicates required

    About ITR Local

    ITR Local is a joint project of Iowans for Tax Relief and ITR Foundation.

    When local elected officials choose to increase spending and raise property taxes, they need to clearly explain why government needs the money more than the people they represent.

    Data on this site was pulled from one of the following sources:

    Read ITR's explanation of why reasonable property tax growth is the combined percent change of inflation and population or enrollment.

    Share these charts and tables with your neighbors and, more importantly, use them to start a conversation with the people who determine how much you pay in property taxes: your local school board, city council, and county supervisors.

    Email ITR Local

    ITR Local
    PO Box 39
    Waukee, IA 50263

    515-895-3725
    www.itrlocal.org

    • © 2024 Iowans for Tax Relief and ITR Foundation