Ask anyone who has recently taken out a mortgage or car loan — borrowing today is expensive. Interest rates are at their highest levels in more than two decades, and those higher rates mean significantly increased borrowing costs.
Yet despite the high cost of borrowing, 56 bond proposals totaling more than $1.7 billion will be on the ballot for Iowa voters this November. Even more striking in this interest rate environment is that 19 local governments — 16 school districts, two counties, and one community college — are returning with repeat bond requests.
As the table below shows, these local entities have already made multi-million-dollar appeals to voters within the past two years and are now asking again for approval of additional spending to be funded by property taxes.
Current Proposals and Past Attempts
When Borrowing Makes Sense — and When It Doesn’t
There are valid reasons to issue bonds. For example:
In these cases, debt can be a useful tool. But it should not be a default strategy. And certainly, many of the proposed projects don’t sound controversial at first glance. There is nothing inherently wrong with bonding when the need exists, such as replacing a county jail, building a new middle school, or updating training facilities at a community college.
Right now, voters are extra cautious, though. Iowa’s historical bond approval rate hovers around 50%, but this cycle may provide a tougher test. With interest rates remaining stubbornly high, taxpayers are acutely sensitive to how much more they’ll pay in interest and fees — and their own borrowing experiences over the last few years reinforce that concern.
Yes, government bonds typically carry lower rates than consumer loans because they are tax-exempt. But even tax-exempt rates are much higher than in the past, which means taxpayers are paying significantly more to service debt than they were just five years ago.
A Pattern of Repeat Attempts
Because placing a measure on the ballot costs relatively little, local governments often disregard previous election results. At times, a familiar pattern even plays out: A government may start by asking for the maximum amount they think voters might accept, loading up a project full of “wish list” items. If the measure fails, they trim down their projects and try again until they find a proposal their voters will approve.
For example, the Dubuque and Cedar Rapids school districts have both scaled back this November’s proposal significantly from the cost and scope of their previous measures which were defeated. In a sense, taxpayers should appreciate officials who seem to be responsive to the voters’ will. But seven local boards have taken the opposite approach. Dallas and Sac Counties, and Charles City, East Marshall, Fairfield, Gladbrook-Reinbeck, and IKM-Manning school districts are all back with larger asks for similar projects voters have already turned down. They are seemingly unwilling to take “no” for an answer.
At the end of the day, Iowans aren’t rejecting every bond or every project — they’re asking for prudence. When families are tightening their belts and paying more to borrow, they expect the same discipline from their local governments. Schools, counties, and cities should make a clear case for necessities, not simply preferences, and respect the message voters send at the ballot box. Until that trust is earned with careful planning and fiscal restraint, skepticism at the polls is not obstruction — it’s accountability.
Print a PDF