Email or print a PDF of this page. This might take 10-15 seconds.

For the first time in state history, local governments collected over $7 billion in property taxes.

In fiscal year 2025, Iowa property taxpayers reached an unprecedented milestone. For the first time in state history, local governments collected over $7 billion in property taxes during the fiscal year. This landmark was driven by a 6.79% increase in property tax collections compared to the previous year, marking a significant jump in the state’s tax burden.

Who Receives the Largest Share?

Iowa’s K-12 school districts have historically claimed the largest portion of property taxes among local governments. In fiscal year 2025, schools account for approximately 40% of all property tax revenue. Cities follow with 30%, and counties take 22%.

While their shares are smaller, community colleges, county hospitals, and county assessors still collect notable amounts, representing a significant impact on Iowa taxpayers. The smallest portions of property tax revenue go to townships and agricultural extensions.

How We Arrived Here

Over nearly five decades under the current property tax system, Iowa’s tax collections have surged by $6.3 billion—a staggering 643% increase from 1977 to 2025. For perspective, inflation (CPI) rose by just 421% over the same period.

Looking ahead, there’s little indication this upward trend will reverse. Historical data reveals only two instances in the last 50 years where total property tax collections in Iowa decreased from one year to the next: in 1987-1988 and again in 1996-1997.

The timeline to hit billion-dollar milestones in property tax revenue has also accelerated dramatically. It took 14 years for the state to go from $1 billion to $2 billion in collections, but more recently, these milestones are being reached in just three to four years.

Rising Property Tax Challenges

Understanding Iowa's property tax landscape is crucial, particularly for policymakers, as taxpayers face increasing financial demands to support local government operations. The rapid growth in collections—outpacing inflation over decades—raises critical questions because the current trend of tax increases is not sustainable. Lawmakers in Des Moines will need to address the challenge of balancing public needs with the financial burden on taxpayers at the local level. Continuous evaluation of spending priorities will be vital to curbing unsustainable property tax growth and safeguarding the financial well-being of future generations.

  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.

  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