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.
Print a PDF