Category: Schools

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.

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:

School District Debt

School District 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. School districts should pay off debt in a timely manner without taking on additional burdens.

The map and table below show each district’s enrollment 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.

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.

School Districts Seek $1.2 Billion Amid Declining Enrollment

School Districts Seek $1.2 Billion Amid Declining Enrollment

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

At a time when the economic environment is forcing families to budget for gasoline and groceries while property taxes keep climbing, school districts would do well to focus on projects directly related to the education of children.

On November 7, 2023, 34 school districts will ask voters to approve bond questions totaling more than $1.2 billion across 50 counties in Iowa. Many districts claim the new debt will be revenue neutral from a taxpayer perspective, or only increase the property tax a little, but most Iowans want their taxes to go down, not stay the same or increase.

Half of these districts, 17, have overseen property tax increases of more than 40% in the last decade. At the same time, 15 of the 34 districts have experienced declines in enrollment over the same period. Only 10 have seen enrollment increase by double digits, mostly in the Des Moines metro area in Dallas and Polk Counties.

While some of the proposed projects are likely necessary in districts with increasing enrollment and/or aging facilities, many are not so obviously a wise decision for taxpayers given the current economic environment. For example, it is understandable that Adel-Desoto-Minburn Community School District (CSD) is proposing a bond to build a new high school and renovate its middle school, given an enrollment increase of nearly 44%. The same goes for Van Meter CSD, where enrollment has increased nearly 55%, potentially justifying $18 million to build new classroom additions and expanded parking.

In contrast, the Beaman-Conrad-Liscomb-Union-Whitten (BCLUW) School District has seen an enrollment decline exceeding 20% over the last decade, yet is asking voters to fund additions to the elementary and high school buildings. Easton Valley CSD wants to build a new athletic fieldhouse despite a 10-year decline of over 16%.

Some districts are returning to voters asking for more money mere months after a March 7 election that included bond questions. The Irwin-Kirkman-Manilla-Manning (IKM-Manning) CSD won a bond approval in March but now is back for more despite a 5.8% enrollment decrease over the last decade. Others, including Durant CSD, North Tama CSD, West Sioux CSD, and Clarinda CSD, lost their bond requests but are trying the same questions again, as detailed in the following table.

The nature of each project is also important to consider. Especially in an economic environment forcing families to budget for gasoline and groceries while property taxes keep climbing, school districts would do well to focus on projects directly related to the education of children. While sports are a valuable component of children’s educational experience, their value is worth examining when measured against adequate classroom space or essentials like functioning HVAC, electrical, and plumbing systems.

Nonetheless, 14 of the bond questions entail building or enhancing athletic facilities. These projects range from new baseball and softball complexes to tennis and pickleball courts to expansion of wrestling practice rooms. New facilities are on the ballot for an indoor batting/hitting area, a swimming pool, and a new concession/ticket booth, among others. These may be nice amenities to have, but at a time of high interest rates and declining enrollment are they reasonable to put on the back of the taxpayers?

For worthwhile projects, communities can always look to other sources of funding than bonds. Not only do they have property taxes to pay for infrastructure, but they also receive a penny of every dollar subject to the sales tax through the Secure and Advanced Vision for Education (SAVE) fund. In fiscal year 2022, total SAVE expenditures across the state amounted to more than $880 million. These sources are in addition to Physical Plant and Equipment Levies (PPELs) school boards impose.

As the facts highlighted above illustrate, voters in these districts must educate themselves. School finance is difficult even for those who work in the public policy world, which is why the Iowans for Tax Relief Local webpage has been enhanced with new information to help voters make informed decisions when it comes to local government spending.

Visit itrlocal.org to explore your community’s spending, debt, and property tax collections.

November 7 Election Bond Questions Exceed $1.7 Billion

November 7 Election Bond Questions Exceed $1.7 Billion

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

75 percent of Iowans will see a bond question on their November 7th ballot.

The November 7, 2023, election ballots in 50 Iowa counties will have bond questions that total $1.72 billion in potential new spending statewide. A majority of the state’s people, 75%, live in counties with bond referenda next month, and these residents face their local governments saddling them with new debt. In fact, some November 7 ballots will include additional questions related to property tax increases specifically tied to the proposed debt.

The bond questions cover all variety of local governments: Six are for counties; four are for cities; and the remaining 35 are for public school districts. The largest request is Polk County’s proposal to build a new terminal at the Des Moines International Airport for $350 million. The smallest is the City of State Center’s proposal to build a municipal fire station and emergency medical service (EMS) building for $1,500,000.

School Districts Asking for Bonds… Again

For some school districts, next month’s bond questions are their second this year. A March 7 election also included bond questions, and voters in the Durant Community School District (CSD), North Tama CSD, West Sioux CSD, and Clarinda CSD all said “no.” Nonetheless, these school districts have decided to bring the same questions up for a second-chance vote, some with more money added. In the case of the Irwin-Kirkman-Manilla-Manning (IKM-Manning) CSD, voters approved a bond in March, but the district is back asking for more money anyway, despite its declining enrollment.

Effect of a New Property Tax Law

Earlier this year, a wide-ranging package of property tax reforms passed through the Iowa State Capitol (HF 718) with overwhelming bipartisan support in both legislative chambers. One of the major provisions of the legislation is the restriction of bond elections to November each year. The intent was to increase voter turnout for issues that have a direct effect on property taxes.

Another new requirement in the legislation is 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 these districts must educate themselves about public projects and spending in their communities. Public finance is difficult even for those who work in the public policy world, which is why Iowans for Tax Relief has revamped and expanded its ITR Local webpage with information to help you make an informed decision this November.

Visit itrlocal.org and explore your community’s spending, debt, and property tax collections.

  • 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