Property taxes are driven largely by decisions made at the local level, yet the public rarely hears from the officials who have worked inside those systems. In his article below, former Muscatine County Attorney and ITR Contributing Scholar, Richard Phillips, reflects on his experience as a county department head responsible for preparing and defending an annual budget. His perspective offers a candid look at the dynamics that are present in local government budgeting—and how those dynamics can contribute to rising property taxes.
Most county budgets get spent in full because of the mentality to “spend it or lose it.” The system should be changed so that it begins working more efficiently.
As an attorney with a financial background and entrepreneurial experience, I became concerned about the direction my county was heading. I ran for and was elected County Attorney of Muscatine County, a position I held for 10 years. At the time I was elected, Muscatine was the 14th largest county in Iowa, and the ever-increasing burden of property taxes was on the minds of many voters.
One of my first objectives was to consolidate expenses within the county government where possible. One attempt was as simple as ordering office supplies in bulk to achieve a reduced cost. I worked with an international corporation that was headquartered in Muscatine. They agreed to help the county purchase copier paper in bulk at a significantly reduced price. I asked the County Auditor, Recorder, and Treasurer to meet with me and a senior vice president from the corporation to discuss the idea. The meeting seemed positive. However, the moment it ended and we returned to the courthouse, the three elected officials made it clear they were unwilling to give up what they considered their “right” to manage their own offices and purchasing decisions—regardless of potential savings.
I remember thinking to myself: It’s copy paper.
During my time in office, I practiced zero-based budgeting and, for many years, did not request increases to my budget other than for personnel expenses. Of course, major criminal prosecutions can require additional resources such as transcripts, document production, and expert witnesses, but even with those uncertainties, I worked to operate a lean office without cutting corners. We continued to provide effective services while carefully managing costs.
The long tradition of electing local officials was intended to keep government more closely aligned with the citizens they serve. However, that tradition may not be as necessary today. With the growth of online services and modern administrative systems, consolidating offices and reducing staffing duplication would likely do more to lower property taxes than growing the number of elected officials.
I believe the Auditor, Recorder, and Treasurer want to serve the public. But their current structure creates limitations. These roles could instead be professional administrative positions—employees rather than elected officials—who focus on fiscal responsibility and efficient service delivery. For example, does anyone argue that the County Engineer should be an elected position? Of course not. The role is primarily administrative, ensuring that roads remain safe and maintained.
Remove the legal requirement that these offices be elected, eliminating barriers to consolidation and efficiency. Expand the practice of sharing services between counties, such as county attorneys or engineers serving multiple counties, particularly in areas with small or declining populations. These changes would give counties greater flexibility to organize services in the most cost-effective way while maintaining accountability to taxpayers.
The inherent bias in the budgeting process should be addressed.
1. Zero-based budgeting should become the norm, rather than simply asking, “What did we spend last year?” and increasing it for inflation or growth before moving on.
2. Residents should challenge the Board of Supervisors during public budget hearings, asking why spending increases are occurring when they are not related to personnel costs.
3. Departments should justify increases. Imagine if instead of assuming an increase every year, each department began with a 10 percent reduction and had to demonstrate why any funding beyond that was truly necessary rather than simply desired.
Finally, consider the role of paid lobbyists representing county governments in Iowa. These organizations are funded by taxpayer dollars (your property taxes) yet they often advocate for policies that increase government revenue rather than reduce the tax burden. That seems counterproductive: paying taxes to fund lobbying efforts that ultimately justify higher taxes. Government spending habits rarely change without pressure from the people paying the bills. If property taxes are going to come down, taxpayers must demand a different approach. Iowans, it’s your money. Start acting like it.
Print a PDF