While Iowa lawmakers continue to work on crafting property tax legislation that puts the taxpayer first, it is worth remembering that the frustration with property taxes is not unique to Iowa. Taxpayers across the nation are frustrated with unaffordable property tax bills, and that dynamic surpasses political partisanship. Last November, voters in Austin, Texas of all places rejected a property tax increase that would have allowed the city to raise more than $100 million in new revenue for government spending.
The city of Austin is not a bastion of conservatism. Nevertheless, an overwhelming majority (63%) of voters there rejected Proposition Q. “Austin voters made their decision, and they did so clearly. I trust their decision. And I hear them,” stated Mayor Kirk Watson in response to the failure of Proposition Q.
Mayor Watson went on to note:
Voters prioritized affordability. They’re worried about their finances, their grocery and utility bills, their property taxes, and more. They’re concerned about the stability of all levels of government, including city government. We need to give voters reason to trust us—to trust that we will strike the right balance between services and the funding needed to provide those services.
Mayor Watson said the vote was a clear signal that taxpayers expect greater fiscal discipline. He emphasized focusing on core services, controlling costs, and running a more transparent, efficient budget process to maintain public trust. In fact, rather than pursuing the tax increase, Austin is now considering a citywide independent efficiency audit.
The objective of the audit is to review all departments and programs and ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent efficiently and effectively. The efficiency audit is also “intended to show Austinites, many of whom are forced to budget because of the high cost of living, that the city is exercising similar restraint.”
An efficiency audit evaluates how well a city operates by reviewing its programs, spending, contracts, and performance, while identifying opportunities to improve services, reduce costs, and benchmark results against peers. Mark Funkerhouse, who served as a former mayor and city auditor, and now heads a firm that conducts financial audits for local governments, argues that independent efficiency reviews are important, and they can be cost effective.
An independent efficiency audit “should pay for itself many times over,” noted Funkerhouse. Further, he argues that “a well-done review like this can produce ongoing operational savings of 5% or more of the total budget, which for a city like Austin, would be a lot of money.”
These are exactly the types of questions and reforms that sit at the heart of Governor Kim Reynolds’ Local Government DOGE taskforce. The purpose of that effort is straightforward: identify inefficiencies, scrutinize how local governments operate, and propose structural changes that can deliver better services at a lower cost to taxpayers.
These examinations are something Governor Reynolds has been encouraging local governments to undertake themselves. She has stressed that meaningful property tax relief will require not only addressing spending levels but also reforming how local governments operate. That includes consolidation, modernization, and taking an honest look at performance.
Iowa’s governor has led by example. In recent years, she ushered through two significant state government reform measures that reduced, realigned, and consolidated agencies within the executive branch, while also modernizing systems and improving operations. It was the first major overhaul of state government in 40 years.
As the governor stated, outside expertise played a key role in that effort: “Given our limited staff, and the vast scope of the initiative, we partnered with an outside firm. We also brought agency directors and their staff into the discussion early, and together, we asked the hard questions that bring accountability and change.”
Those hard questions are instructive for local governments, and they should be echoed across Iowa: What is the core mission of each department? How is it funded? Are its programs working? Where is there duplication or misalignment? What can be cut?
These are basic, but essential, questions that guided Iowa’s state-level reforms, helping to reduce costs while improving accountability and service delivery.
Yet when it comes to property taxes, Iowa taxpayers are often told a very different story at the local level. City, county, and school officials frequently claim their budgets are already “bare bones,” even as tax bills continue to rise. Taxpayers who raise concerns are too often dismissed or challenged with a sarcastic, “Where would you cut?”
But claiming efficiency is not the same as proving it.
An independent efficiency audit provides a credible, third-party way to answer those questions, identifying opportunities to streamline services, eliminate duplication, and prioritize core functions.
That’s exactly the step Austin, Texas is now taking. After voters rejected a property tax increase, city leaders acknowledged the need to take a harder look at how government operates. Launching an independent efficiency audit is a recognition that trust must be earned through transparency, discipline, and results.
If a large, progressive city like Austin can take that step, local governments in Iowa can, and should, do the same. A third-party efficiency audit isn’t a political exercise. It’s a simple taxpayer protection and a necessary starting point for any serious conversation about property tax relief.
Print a PDF