Category: Get Out & Vote!

March 4th, 2025, Special Election: What’s on the Ballot?

March 4th, 2025, Special Election: What’s on the Ballot?

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

36 Ballot Questions, 29 Tax Proposals, 46 Counties, $240 Million at Stake

On March 4, voters in 46 Iowa counties will go to the polls.  In front of them there will be measures from 25 school boards, five city councils, and three county boards. Iowa law allows local governments to propose public measures for taxpayer approval in special elections, typically held in March and September.

While not all measures will immediately impact taxpayers, each will influence local government spending and taxation. Of the 36 ballot questions, 29 involve taxes or a fee. The remaining seven include decisions on municipal utilities, the dissolution of a school district, and the allocation of school district sales tax revenue through the Secure an Advanced Vision for Education (SAVE) program.

Financial Impact of the Election

The proposed measures collectively represent over $18 million in potential new spending for the upcoming year. Some, such as emergency medical service (EMS) district funding, the City of Robins’ property tax rate, and Marshall County’s local-option sales tax, will continue indefinitely unless repealed. Others have fixed terms, such as a 10-year Physical Plant and Equipment Levy (PPEL) for schools or the City of Burlington’s 25-year, 3% franchise fee.

While it is difficult to determine the full financial impact of these proposals due to various factors, estimates suggest this election could ultimately cost taxpayers around $240 million over time.

Some ballot measures propose renewing existing property tax rates, meaning taxes will not increase but will also not decrease. If voters reject these renewals, they could see significant reductions in their property tax bills. However, approving them means the tax burden remains unchanged for years.

Non-Tax Public Measures

While not directly asking for tax increases, the remaining public measures will significantly affect residents. For example, a Revenue Purpose Statement (RPS) outlines how a school district will allocate sales tax revenue from the state-funded SAVE program. By law, these funds must be used for property tax relief or school infrastructure improvements. If a district wants to use SAVE funds for infrastructure projects or issue bonds against this revenue, voters must approve an RPS allowing the district to prioritize infrastructure over tax relief.

Make Your Voice Heard

Many Iowans are less aware of special elections than they are of general elections in November. However, these decisions are still important.  They have a direct impact on the local taxes and spending that affect residents' daily financial lives. To learn more about the local governments in your co

Local Governments Return to Voters for Tax Increases

Local Governments Return to Voters for Tax Increases

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

Ten local governments are once again seeking voter approval for public measures, many involving property tax increases, after recent ballot attempts.

As local governments across Iowa prepare for upcoming special elections, many are once again asking voters to approve tax measures—some of which have been rejected in previous elections. With school districts, cities, and counties revisiting these proposals, taxpayers must stay informed about how these decisions could impact their financial future.

Eight school districts, one city, and one county are revisiting voters after previous efforts to pass these measures. Notably, only two of these governments, the City of Burlington and North Polk Community School District (CSD) are returning after securing voter approval in November 2023. Burlington is now requesting a franchise fee increase, while North Polk CSD seeks a renewal in an existing property tax levy.

The remaining local governments are reintroducing tax proposals that voters have previously rejected—some with opposition exceeding 60% in prior elections.

Déjà Vu for Voters

Given the low cost and potential high reward of placing measures on ballots, local governments often seem willing to disregard previous election results. For example, Hinton CSD has attempted to pass two bonds, a property tax increase, and a debt service tax proposal—all of which failed within 18 months. Similarly, Emmetsburg CSD is again presenting a measure that voters rejected just six months ago.

In response to voter pushback, some school districts have adjusted their proposals by scaling back projects or reducing funding requests. However, the pattern of repeatedly bringing the same proposals to voters until they pass raises concerns about local governments’ respect for taxpayer decisions.

Spending Adds Up

At a time when most Iowans favor limits on property tax increases, voters must recognize how multiple small proposals can accumulate into substantially higher tax bills over time.

For instance, several school districts are seeking to renew their Physical Plant and Equipment Levies (PPELs). While these renewals do not increase tax rates, they also prevent taxpayer savings that would occur if the levies were allowed to expire. This situation is akin to a consumer who has nearly paid off their car loan but immediately finances another vehicle—keeping their monthly payment unchanged rather than enjoying the financial relief.

Why Voter Turnout Matters

Data from ITR Foundation suggests that higher voter turnout increases the likelihood of tax proposals failing. Additionally, local governments that repeatedly present failed proposals tend to see similar rejection rates.

For example:

  • Hinton CSD saw 36% voter turnout for a bond proposal in November 2023, followed by 21% turnout for a PPEL and debt service tax levy in March 2024. All failed.
  • During the November 2024 presidential election, voter turnout surged to 77%, and Hinton’s bond proposal failed again.

Stay Informed and Vote

Ensuring that voters understand these proposals is crucial. Engaged taxpayers participating in local elections can help a community make the best decision for their situation.

Visit https://itrlocal.org/ to learn more about your community’s spending and tax proposals before the March 2025 election. Your vote can make a difference!

November 2024 Local Bond Election Results

November 2024 Local Bond Election Results

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

A total of 48 bonds were on the ballot across the state, and 20 passed, resulting in $623.8 million in new spending.

Iowa taxpayers made their voices heard on the potential new $1.1 billion in spending proposed by local governments on November 5, 2024. Ballots in 59 counties, directly affecting 82.4% of the state’s population, included new spending that would ultimately increase or keep their property tax burden high. Out of the 48 different proposals, 20 passed.

Voter turnout across the bond proposals averaged 70.9%. The highest turnout was seen in the City of Polk City where 83.7% of registered voters chose to vote on the bond question. The lowest voter turnout was for Earlham CSD, where only 56.6% chose to voice their opinion on the bond question.

Results

A total of 48 bonds were on the ballots for nine cities, one community college, five counties, and 31 public school districts. Required to meet a 60% threshold to pass, 19 of the bonds succeeded, while one bond succeeded in meeting its 50% threshold. As shown in the following tables, these results translate to $623.8 million in new spending, while the remaining $572.8 million was rejected by voters.

Twenty-five proposals received majority support but failed to achieve the supermajority of 60% to pass.

Many of the school districts whose bond proposals failed have experienced declining enrollment over the last 10 years. However, some with declining enrollment still found a way to win over taxpayers: GMG CSD, Highland CSD, Marshalltown CSD, Martensdale-St. Mary’s CSD, Monticello CSD, and Waterloo CSD.

Overall, the proposal with the strongest support was Johnson County’s bond, garnering a 77.8% support margin, while the bond with the least support was Van Buren CSD’s, with only 21.1% support.

Unique Circumstance

Voters responsible for Waterloo Community School District (CSD) had a slightly different situation from the rest of the state. In July, the proposal to issue $165 million in revenue bonds to build a new high school passed the school board by a 5-2 vote. The district was not required to put the issue in front of voters because revenue bonds and not paid with additional property tax dollars.

Residents felt this decision was too large to be made by the school board alone and 2,400 people signed a petition to place it on the November 5 ballot. This public measure only requires a 50% threshold, which was met during this general election. The revenue bonds will be repaid with revenue from the School Infrastructure Sales, Service and Use Tax fund, otherwise known as Secure an Advanced Vision for Education, or SAVE, instead of increasing property taxes.

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.

What Is a Revenue Purpose Statement?

What Is a Revenue Purpose Statement?

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

Simply put, if the voters of your district do not approve of a Revenue Purpose Statement (RPS), your property taxes will be lower. If they approve an RPS, your school district can spend more money and keep taxes higher. All school districts receive the corresponding funds from the state regardless of RPS status; the question is where the money goes.

Details

A Revenue Purpose Statement (RPS) is a ballot measure describing how a school district will spend sales tax funds the State of Iowa has dedicated to public schools through a program called Secure an Advanced Vision for Education (SAVE). State law mandates that all SAVE money must be used to pay for local property tax relief or school infrastructure needs. If a district wants to utilize its SAVE funds on infrastructure projects by spending that money or bonding against it, officials must ask voters to approve an RPS allowing them to forgo property tax relief.

Importance

Simply put, if the voters of your district do not approve of a Revenue Purpose Statement (RPS), your property taxes will be lower. If they approve an RPS, your school district can spend more money and keep taxes higher. All school districts receive the corresponding funds from the state regardless of RPS status; the question is where the money goes.

How Property Taxes Are Lowered

If a school district does not have an RPS, the SAVE revenue generated from the sales tax must be used to reduce specific local property tax levies. The only exception is if voters previously approved an RPS and the district used it for revenue bonding, then that debt must be paid off before SAVE revenue can be directed towards tax relief. The district must apply the money in the following order:

  1. To any debt service levy for general obligation bonds until it is reduced to zero. The maximum rate is $4.05 per $1,000 of taxable valuation.
  2. To any board-imposed physical plant and equipment levy (PPEL) until it is reduced to zero.
    The maximum rate is $0.33.
  3. To any voter-approved physical plant and equipment levy (PPEL) and income surtax until it is reduced to zero. The maximum rate is $1.34 and income surtax is 20%.
  4. To any public educational and recreational levy (PERL) until it is reduced to zero. The maximum rate is $0.135.
  5. To any authorized school infrastructure purpose.

Use the menu at the top of this page to see how much your district is spending.

RPS on the Ballot

Every March and September a handful of districts submit RPSs to voters. Voters should pay attention to why a district wants an RPS and what it intends to do with the proceeds.

Glenwood CSD, for example, failed to win approval of a general obligation bond in November, and officials have been very open about their plan to leverage SAVE money to build some of the facilities voters turned down last fall.  By using SAVE dollars this time around, they can bypass voter approval. Woodward-Granger CSD simply wants to extend its RPS because the current one is expiring. Meanwhile, Williamsburg CSD has listed examples of its past SAVE spending to imply how it will use funds moving forward.

The following table puts the seven pending RPS questions in context of whether the district placed a bond initiative on the November 2023 ballot as well as the growth (or decline) of local property taxes and student enrollment.

Misleading Comments by School Districts

Leading up to an election, school district officials attempt to make the case for their intentions, but their statements can sometimes be misleading.

The most common example is that “renewal of the district’s RPS will not lead to a property tax increase and will not extend an existing tax.” This is disingenuous because absent an RPS, the district’s property taxes would be decreased if all revenue bonds have been paid off. By enacting an RPS, the district extends its current property tax burden into the future. Variations on this misleading statement are that the RPS is “not endorsing a new tax burden” or that “the revenue generated has been used to meet our evolving needs while minimizing the burden on local taxpayers.”

Another misconception is that failure to approve an RPS means the district cannot access the SAVE funds. One example: “[we] ask voters to approve our Revenue Purpose Statement, a resolution necessary for districts to access sales tax revenue for a variety of purposes.” Districts receive SAVE funds with and without RPSs, it is only the use of those SAVE dollars that might be limited.

Revenue Purpose Statement Expiration

Legislation in 2019 set all RPSs voted on before July 1, 2019, to expire on January 1, 2031. For districts to continue spending SAVE funds as they wish, each must secure new RPSs approved by voters. Any new RPS will stay in effect through December 31, 2050, unless amended or repealed. For more information on the use of SAVE funds and Revenue Purpose Statements, click here.

  • 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