Just as individuals prioritize essential expenses in their personal budgets, local governments must focus their spending on these critical needs.
When policymakers discuss taxes and how public revenue should be allocated, the phrases “core government services” and “essential services” often come up. But what do these terms really mean, and why are they so significant?
What Are Core or Essential Services?
Core government services are the foundational functions that citizens expect their government to prioritize. These are services vital to a community’s safety, health, and infrastructure.
Common examples include law enforcement, fire protection, emergency medical services (EMS), road maintenance, traffic management, and election administration. In urban areas, core services may also encompass utilities, like water and sewer management, garbage collection, and measures to address frequent natural disasters, such as flood control.
One way to think of the distinction is to contrast “needs” and “wants.” Every community requires police and fire protection as necessities, whereas amenities like splash pads, tourism campaigns, and affordable housing programs might fall under “wants.” Just as individuals prioritize essential expenses in their personal budgets, local governments must focus their spending on these critical needs before considering additional projects.
Another way to define core services is by examining what Iowa state law mandates. For instance, the state requires counties to provide and maintain facilities that support the justice system and serve as workplaces for State employees in the courts. Cities are obligated to offer fire and police services, while school districts must provide free education to all residents from kindergarten through 12th grade, up to age 21.
Despite these legal requirements, the definition of core services is not always clear-cut. To address this ambiguity, we often prioritize services based on their essential nature and assess them in relation to taxpayers’ ability to fund them. For example, school districts are responsible for ensuring access to education, not building state-of-the-art athletic facilities. Similarly, counties should focus on delivering fundamental public infrastructure rather than pursuing extravagant projects like the world’s largest all-weather Snowflex turf hill.
Arguments
For decades, the persistent debate has assumed citizens desire quality government services and are willing to pay for them. The association of high taxes with tangible benefits is becoming increasingly tenuous, however. Local governments often rely on emotional rhetoric and non-scientific polls to justify plans that cater to vocal minorities demanding narrow services under the guise of communitywide benefit. Meanwhile, Iowans express growing frustration with the mismatched value of the services they receive and the taxes they pay.
Consider the findings of ITR Foundation’s statewide scientific polls:
Situation
Amid high inflation and stagnant personal income growth, property taxes in Iowa are rising at an unsustainable rate. Over just one year:
This trend highlights the need for Iowa’s local governments to reassess their priorities. Without a clear focus on core services, local governments risk budget crises, declining service quality, frustrated taxpayers, and even population loss — problems that only exacerbate financial instability. Just as private businesses must adhere to their core missions and respond to customer complaints about prices, local governments must concentrate on essential community needs. Trying to serve every demand dilutes resources and effectiveness, leaving no one fully satisfied and creating long-term challenges.
City of Des Moines Example
The recent budget challenges in the City of Des Moines illustrate the consequences of funding non-core services. Facing a $17 million budget shortfall, the city was forced to make tough decisions. Among them was the closure of the department overseeing the city’s sustainability plan and the termination of two employees.
Regardless of one’s stance on climate change, sustainability efforts can certainly be considered non-core services, particularly during a financial crisis. This example underscores the need for local governments to prioritize their spending on fundamental services like public safety and infrastructure.
Solution
The Iowa State Legislature is poised to address burdensome property taxes, and local governments have the opportunity to act. During fiscal year 2026 budget negotiations, local leaders must prioritize core government services over non-essential projects.
While cutting services and reducing spending is challenging, elected officials are entrusted to make these tough decisions. Ensuring fire, police, road maintenance, and similar essential services are prioritized will give residents confidence in local government. Discretionary programs and “nice-to-have” initiatives must take a backseat. Iowans have long called for property tax relief, and the need is greater now than ever. By spending less and allowing taxpayers to keep more of their hard-earned money, Iowa’s local governments can help alleviate financial burdens and restore trust in their fiscal management.
Print a PDF