Letter to State Legislators - Property Tax Reform
.
.
.
City Manager's Office
50 West 13th Street
Dubuque, Iowa 52001-4864
(319) 589-4110
(319) 589-4149 FAX
D{;B~JE
~<k~
September 14, 2000
The Honorable Paul Scherrman
House Chamber
State Capitol Building
Des Moines, IA 50319
()
C)
C")
(/)
; '-1
-u
o~;:
c
:0
ill
/")
.n
.0:;:::
......
m
o
Dear Representative Scherrman:
......
v
'_C)
):.':a ::~"? ~.
c)
It is my understanding that the Farm Bureau Federation has distributed informa<fton t&:
candidates for the state legislature urging their support for enactment of a property tax
limitation on cities and counties. The proposed limitation combines most city non-voted
levy rates into one, and limits the total revenue currently generated to an annual
inflationary increase. Local officials would lose what little flexibility currently exists in the
property tax system to fund local priorities.
Although the City of Dubuque does not support new mandates regarding City's taxing
authority, we strongly agree that the property tax system needs reform and support an
interim property tax study to develop meaningful changes that would address concerns of
all interested parties.
The Farm Bureau approach proposes further complicating an already complex property tax
system and fixes none of the flaws that currently exist. One of the primary reasons the
Farm Bureau gives for proposing the property tax limitation is to reduce county ending fund
balances or reserves. Their proposal would cause immeasurable harm to cities and
counties who may have to borrow funds in the future.
Last years effort to pass a property tax limitation included a formula that provided a
negative adjustment to cities taxing authority based on the differential or growth in General
city balances between FY 1997 and FY 2000. The problem this presents the City of
Dubuque is that we receive 50% of the annual profits from the Dubuque Racing
Association gaming operations in January of each year. The City Council through their
budget deliberations in February and early March determine how these funds will be used
through the capital improvement budgeting process for the coming July 1. In other words,
the funds are in our fund balance at fiscal year end but are committed to fund projects after
July 1. This approach is consistent with the Fiscal Guidelines adopted by City Council
each year which require programming these funds through the annual capital improvement
budgeting process and after the actual amounts are known.
The City of Dubuque has had this fiscal policy since gaming began. When Moody's
reviewed our financial condition for our bond rating, they wanted to made sure that
Service
People
Integrity
Responsibility
Innovation
Teamwork
.
.
.
uncertain revenue streams were not being used in the operating budget. Our fiscal policy
regarding gaming revenues was considered a sound approach since the City and definitely
Moodys considered this funding source as uncertain and subject to considerable fluctuation
due to economic times and the competitive environment of the gaming industry.
Because of this fiscal policy, the balance on June 30, 1997 for the General Fund
contained $2,430,000 of Dubuque Racing Association (ORA) distribution programmed for
FY 1998 capital projects. The fund balance for June 30, 2000 contained $4,396,000 of
ORA distribution programmed for FY 2001 capital improvements. The calculation proposed
in the tax limitation legislation would deduct the difference between these divided by 3
which results in a reduction of our taxing authority by $655,333 for FY 2002. Even
though these funds are committed to support the capital budget and not the operating
budget due to their uncertainty, the City's operating budget resources or taxing authority
would be reduced $655,333 per the proposed legislation. Our choice would be to
drastically cut our General Fund operating budget or begin to use gaming profits in the
operating budget and more than likely lose our Aa Bond rating.
Many cities accumulate land sales revenue or other uncertain or non-recurring revenues for
support of upcoming capital improvements. This policy of "pay as you go" financing for
capital projects versus using borrowed funds has long been considered a sound fiscal
practice by local governments. To deny them this ability or penalize them by reducing their
taxing authority will have a significant impact on future capital improvements. It will
discourage and may even prevent cities from doing pay-as-you-go financing of capital
improvements through non-recurring revenue sources.
I strongly recommend that you not support the proposed property tax limitation, but rather
support a much more comprehensive approach via an interim study committee. This is a
complex issue and one that can have a devastating effect on city and county fiscal
conditions and our ability to provide the services our citizens have learned to expect and
demand. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, I would be pleased
to meet with you at your convenience.
Sincerel~
Michael C. Van Milligen
City Manager
.
.
.
City Manager's Office
50 West 13th Street
Dubuque, Iowa 52001-4864
(319) 589-4110
(319) 589-4149 FAX
D7;B~E
~<k~
September 14, 2000
The Honorable Pat Murphy
House Chamber
State Capitol Building
Des Moines, IA 5031 9
Dear Representative Murphy:
It is my understanding that the Farm Bureau Federation has distributed information to
candidates for the state legislature urging their support for enactment of a property tax
limitation on cities and counties. The proposed limitation combines most city non-voted
levy rates into one, and limits the total revenue currently generated to an annual
inflationary increase. Local officials would lose what little flexibility currently exists in the
property tax system to fund local priorities.
Although the City of Dubuque does not support new mandates regarding City's taxing
authority, we strongly agree that the property tax system needs reform and support an
interim property tax study to develop meaningful changes that would address concerns of
all interested parties.
The Farm Bureau approach proposes further complicating an already complex property tax
system and fixes none of the flaws that currently exist. One of the primary reasons the
Farm Bureau gives for proposing the property tax limitation is to reduce county ending fund
balances or reserves. Their proposal would cause immeasurable harm to cities and
counties who may have to borrow funds in the future.
Last years effort to pass a property tax limitation included a formula that provided a
negative adjustment to cities taxing authority based on the differential or growth in General
city balances between FY 1997 and FY 2000. The problem this presents the City of
Dubuque is that we receive 50% of the annual profits from the Dubuque Racing
Association gaming operations in January of each year. The City Council through their
budget deliberations in February and early March determine how these funds will be used
through the capital improvement budgeting process for the coming July 1. In other words,
the funds are in our fund balance at fiscal year end but are committed to fund projects after
July 1. This approach is consistent with the Fiscal Guidelines adopted by City Council
each year which require programming these funds through the annual capital improvement
budgeting process and after the actual amounts are known.
The City of Dubuque has had this fiscal policy since gaming began. When Moody's
reviewed our financial condition for our bond rating, they wanted to made sure that
Service
People
Integrity
Responsibility
Innovation
Teamwork
.
.
.
uncertain revenue streams were not being used in the operating budget. Our fiscal policy
regarding gaming revenues was considered a sound approach since the City and definitely
Moodys considered this funding source as uncertain and subject to considerable fluctuation
due to economic times and the competitive environment of the gaming industry.
Because of this fiscal policy, the balance on June 30, 1997 for the General Fund
contained $2,430,000 of Dubuque Racing Association (ORA) distribution programmed for
FY 1998 capital projects. The fund balance for June 30, 2000 contained $4,396,000 of
ORA distribution programmed for FY 2001 capital improvements. The calculation proposed
in the tax limitation legislation would deduct the difference between these divided by 3
which results in a reduction of our taxing authority by $655,333 for FY 2002. Even
though these funds are committed to support the capital budget and not the operating
budget due to their uncertainty, the City's operating budget resources or taxing authority
would be reduced $655,333 per the proposed legislation. Our choice would be to
drastically cut our General Fund operating budget or begin to use gaming profits in the
operating budget and more than likely lose our Aa Bond rating.
Many cities accumulate land sales revenue or other uncertain or non-recurring revenues for
support of upcoming capital improvements. This policy of "pay as you go" financing for
capital projects versus using borrowed funds has long been considered a sound fiscal
practice by local governments. To deny them this ability or penalize them by reducing their
taxing authority will have a significant impact on future capital improvements. It will
discourage and may even prevent cities from doing pay-as-you-go financing of capital
improvements through non-recurring revenue sources.
I strongly recommend that you not support the proposed property tax limitation, but rather
support a much more comprehensive approach via an interim study committee. This is a
complex issue and one that can have a devastating effect on city and county fiscal
conditions and our ability to provide the services our citizens have learned to expect and
demand. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, I would be pleased
to meet with you at your convenience.
Sincerel~
Michael C. Van Milligen
City Manager
.
City Manager's Office
50 West 13th Street
Dubuque, Iowa 52001-4864
(319) 589-4110
(319) 589-4149 FAX
D{;B~E
~~~
September 14, 2000
The Honorable Robert Osterhaus
House Chamber
State Capitol Building
Des Moines, IA 50319
Dear Representative Osterhaus:
It is my understanding that the Farm Bureau Federation has distributed information to
candidates for the state legislature urging their support for enactment of a property tax
limitation on cities and counties. The proposed limitation combines most city non-voted
levy rates into one, and limits the total revenue currently generated to an annual
inflationary increase. Local officials would lose what little flexibility currently exists in the
property tax system to fund local priorities.
. Although the City of Dubuque does not support new mandates regarding City's taxing
authority, we strongly agree that the property tax system needs reform and support an
interim property tax study to develop meaningful changes that would address concerns of
all interested parties.
The Farm Bureau approach proposes further complicating an already complex property tax
system and fixes none of the flaws that currently exist. One of the primary reasons the
Farm Bureau gives for proposing the property tax limitation is to reduce county ending fund
balances or reserves. Their proposal would cause immeasurable harm to cities and
counties who may have to borrow funds in the future.
Last years effort to pass a property tax limitation included a formula that provided a
negative adjustment to cities taxing authority based on the differential or growth in General
city balances between FY 1997 and FY 2000. The problem this presents the City of
Dubuque is that we receive 50% of the annual profits from the Dubuque Racing
Association gaming operations in January of each year. The City Council through their
budget deliberations in February and early March determine how these funds will be used
through the capital improvement budgeting process for the coming July 1. In other words,
the funds are in our fund balance at fiscal year end but are committed to fund projects after
July 1. This approach is consistent with the Fiscal Guidelines adopted by City Council
each year which require programming these funds through the annual capital improvement
budgeting process and after the actual amounts are known.
.
The City of Dubuque has had this fiscal policy since gaming began. When Moody's
reviewed our financial condition for our bond rating, they wanted to made sure that
Service
People
Integrity
Responsibility
Innovation
Teamwork
.
uncertain revenue streams were not being used in the operating budget. Our fiscal policy
regarding gaming revenues was considered a sound approach since the City and definitely
Moodys considered this funding source as uncertain and subject to considerable fluctuation
due to economic times and the competitive environment of the gaming industry.
Because of this fiscal policy, the balance on June 30, 1997 for the General Fund
contained $2,430,000 of Dubuque Racing Association (ORA) distribution programmed for
FY 1998 capital projects. The fund balance for June 30, 2000 contained $4,396,000 of
ORA distribution programmed for FY 2001 capital improvements. The calculation proposed
in the tax limitation legislation would deduct the difference between these divided by 3
which results in a reduction of our taxing authority by $655,333 for FY 2002. Even
though these funds are committed to support the capital budget and not the operating
budget due to their uncertainty, the City's operating budget resources or taxing authority
would be reduced $655,333 per the proposed legislation. Our choice would be to
drastically cut our General Fund operating budget or begin to use gaming profits in the
operating budget and more than likely lose our Aa Bond rating.
Many cities accumulate land sales revenue or other uncertain or non-recurring revenues for
support of upcoming capital improvements. This policy of "pay as you go" financing for
capital projects versus using borrowed funds has long been considered a sound fiscal
practice by local governments. To deny them this ability or penalize them by reducing their
taxing authority will have a significant impact on future capital improvements. It will
discourage and may even prevent cities from doing pay-as-you-go financing of capital
improvements through non-recurring revenue sources.
. I strongly recommend that you not support the proposed property tax limitation, but rather
support a much more comprehensive approach via an interim study committee. This is a
complex issue and one that can have a devastating effect on city and county fiscal
conditions and our ability to provide the services our citizens have learned to expect and
demand. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, I would be pleased
to meet with you at your convenience.
Sincere~
Michael C. Van Milligen
City Manager
.
.
City Manager's Office
50 West 13th Street
Dubuque, Iowa 52001-4864
(319) 589-4110
(319) 589-4149 FAX
D{;B~JE
~ck~
September 14, 2000
The Honorable Pam Jochum
House Chamber
State Capitol Building
Des Moines, IA 50319
Dear Representative Jochum:
It is my understanding that the Farm Bureau Federation has distributed information to
candidates for the state legislature urging their support for enactment of a property tax
limitation on cities and counties. The proposed limitation combines most city non-voted
levy rates into one, and limits the total revenue currently generated to an annual
inflationary increase. Local officials would lose what little flexibility currently exists in the
property tax system to fund local priorities.
. Although the City of Dubuque does not support new mandates regarding City's taxing
authority, we strongly agree that the property tax system needs reform and support an
interim property tax study to develop meaningful changes that would address concerns of
all interested parties.
The Farm Bureau approach proposes further complicating an already complex property tax
system and fixes none of the flaws that currently exist. One of the primary reasons the
Farm Bureau gives for proposing the property tax limitation is to reduce county ending fund
balances or reserves. Their proposal would cause immeasurable harm to cities and
counties who may have to borrow funds in the future.
Last years effort to pass a property tax limitation included a formula that provided a
negative adjustment to cities taxing authority based on the differential or growth in General
city balances between FY 1997 and FY 2000. The problem this presents the City of
Dubuque is that we receive 50% of the annual profits from the Dubuque Racing
Association gaming operations in January of each year. The City Council through their
budget deliberations in February and early March determine how these funds will be used
through the capital improvement budgeting process for the coming July 1. In other words,
the funds are in our fund balance at fiscal year end but are committed to fund projects after
July 1. This approach is consistent with the Fiscal Guidelines adopted by City Council
each year which require programming these funds through the annual capital improvement
budgeting process and after the actual amounts are known.
.
The City of Dubuque has had this fiscal policy since gaming began. When Moody's
reviewed our financial condition for our bond rating, they wanted to made sure that
Service
People
Integrity
Responsibility
Innovation
Teamwork
.
.
.
uncertain revenue streams were not being used in the operating budget. Our fiscal policy
regarding gaming revenues was considered a sound approach since the City and definitely
Moodys considered this funding source as uncertain and subject to considerable fluctuation
due to economic times and the competitive environment of the gaming industry.
Because of this fiscal policy, the balance on June 30, 1997 for the General Fund
contained $2,430,000 of Dubuque Racing Association (ORA) distribution programmed for
FY 1998 capital projects. The fund balance for June 30, 2000 contained $4,396,000 of
ORA distribution programmed for FY 2001 capital improvements. The calculation proposed
in the tax limitation legislation would deduct the difference between these divided by 3
which results in a reduction of our taxing authority by $655,333 for FY 2002. Even
though these funds are committed to support the capital budget and not the operating
budget due to their uncertainty, the City's operating budget resources or taxing authority
would be reduced $655,333 per the proposed legislation. Our choice would be to
drastically cut our General Fund operating budget or begin to use gaming profits in the
operating budget and more than likely lose our Aa Bond rating.
Many cities accumulate land sales revenue or other uncertain or non-recurring revenues for
support of upcoming capital improvements. This policy of "pay as you go" financing for
capital projects versus using borrowed funds has long been considered a sound fiscal
practice by local governments. To deny them this ability or penalize them by reducing their
taxing authority will have a significant impact on future capital improvements. It will
discourage and may even prevent cities from doing pay-as-you-go financing of capital
improvements through non-recurring revenue sources.
I strongly recommend that you not support the proposed property tax limitation, but rather
support a much more comprehensive approach via an interim study committee. This is a
complex issue and one that can have a devastating effect on city and county fiscal
conditions and our ability to provide the services our citizens have learned to expect and
demand. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, I would be pleased
to meet with you at your convenience.
Sincerely,
/M;
Michael C. Van Milligen
City Manager
G
~,~r.fl
IOWA
LEAGUE
Qf CITIES
COpy
September 6, 2000
Dear Candidate:
You recently received a mailing from the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation asking you to support a
property tax limitation on local government during the 2001 legislative session. As a candidate for
public office, you have a right to evaluate all sides of an issue before being expected to commit to a
drastic change in public policy. As president of the Iowa League of Cities, I urge you to consider "the
rest of the story" before pledging support.
Here's the Rest of the Story...
The Farm Bureau tried to enact legislation during the 2000 legislative session that would have
imposed a property tax limitation on counties and cities. Lawmakers had such concern over the
proposal that the legislation failed to reach the floor of either chamber for debate. Although only
vaguely alluded to in the August 30 letter (through the use of the term "local governments"), this
year's Farm Bureau limitation initiative will also apply to cities as well as counties. The group that
comprises the largest piece of the property tax pie at 50 percent of the statewide property tax asking is
schools. Schools, however, will not fall under theIr property tax limitation. The predominant reason
the Farm Bureau gives for proposing the property tax limitation is to reduce county ending fund
balances or reserves. The reason why some counties have high ending fund balances is because they
adopt a pay-as-you-go approach to funding projects. rather than incurring debt to fund projects.
These counties should be applauded for adopting such fiscally responsible budgeting practices, not
penalized.
The Farm Bureau asserts this legislation is necessary to combat the rampant tax and spending
practices of local government. The facts do not support this assertion. An Iowa State University
economist has researched both state and local tax demands and the data proves local government is
the considerably more frugal of the two. Property taxes, as a percentage of income, have actually
declined since 1987 from 4.5 percent to 3.7 percent. Over the past several years, the property tax has
experienced the"'Slowest gr9wth of any major stp-te revenue source. A~ a locally elected official, I
know that the public lets us 1a1ow immediately if our spending is extravagant. The fact of the matter
is, only three of 949 city budgets were even protested last year. None of the three protests were
upheld by the state appeals board.
Also not mentioned in the distributed information is that cities and counties are already subject to
property tax limits through levy rate limitations and valuation limitations. Further limitations are
unnecessary aii'd will only reduce the ability of local government to provide services citizens demand.
What the Farm Bureau proposal will accomplish is to further shift the burden of property taxes to
commercial property tax payers. At a time when Iowa is trying to encourage economic development
by getting business to invest in Iowa communities, their proposal takes us a step backward by
increasing the taxes on those very same companies. For communities that have held
-OVER-
317 SIXTH AVENUE 0 SUITE 1<100 0 DES MOINES. IOWA 50309-<1111
(51512<14-7282 ' FAX (515) 244-0740 : WEB SITE: www,iowoleague,org
Serving iowa 'j c:'t,es
.3inC2 : 5':;8
Pres!denr
DaVid L Alcr:cg8
l\;\oyor. Ne\'....rcn
?reslcenr-e/ec
Chris rlens:ev
Council iv\emter
Des !\.~cines
Pasr Presicienr
George F. Movbee
/V\ayor. Bcone
Executive Diree'er
Themes G 3redeweg
Candidate Letter
September 6, 2000
Page 2
the line on ta,<es and are not at the $8.10/$1,000 general fund levy limit, their reward is to lose this
saved ta,< capacity. Many growth communities are not at the $8.10 levy limit. Rather than encourage
growth in these communities, which ultimately will benefit the whole state, adoption of this proposal
will stifle that growth.
There is one concept upon which the League and the Farm Bureau are in complete agreement. The
existing property ta,< system is broken and must be reformed. The League supported the
establishment of an interim study committee to take on this task, but the Farm Bureau did not want a
discussion that was not based on their property ta,< proposal. Only through a discussion among all
interested parties can true property ta,< reform result. The League will continue to work toward that
end. It is my hope that the Farm Bureau will join city officials in opposing state mandates that
require additional spending of taxpayer money at the local level. Only when mandates are reduced
will the ta,<payers benefit through reduced ta,<es. Limiting local government revenues makes an
attractive political target but does nothing more than direct local spending towards state priorities
instead of those designated as most important to the citizens at home.
As someone who has run for elective office several times, I understand the temptation to lend support
to an issue because, at face value, it may appeal to voters. It is time that we take a stand against
interest groups that solicit a pledge on such a substantial policy decision without producing draft
legislation to spell out the specitics. This same tactic was applied on an issue two years ago and
lawmakers had to come back and fix the legislation just a year later because the law was so inherently
flawed. The time has come to send a message to groups that engage in extracting pledges that in your
role as a policy maker. it is irresponsible to be asked to lend support when the fine print has not been
produced.
I hope you will join us in seeking a more comprehensive approach to reforming the property ta,<
system. It is an issue that merits more than the political gamesmanship it is currently receiving.
Sincerely.
M~
Dav.id Aldridge
Mayor
Newton
Action Call
Property Tax Limitation Pledge
Although it is unusual to issue an action call four months prior to the start of the
legislative session, this campaign season demands action. The Iowa Farm Bureau
Federation has distributed the enclosed information to candidates for the state legislature.
The Bureau's top priority for next session is to accomplish what city officials prevented
them from accomplishing last year: enactment of a property tax limitation on cities and
counties. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been raised to bulldoze a substantial
policy change through the legislature with few specifics on the content. The Farm
Bureau is asking candidates to sign a pledge of support for a proposed property tax
limitation, sight unseen. In exchange for the declaration of support, the Farm Bureau will
submit an ad to the candidate's local newspaper publicizing his or her support.
Why is the Farm Bureau resorting to such tactics? The answer is simple. The proposal
cannot withstand close scrutiny and objective analysis. Lawmakers from both parties
soundly rejected the limitation after careful study throughout the past legislative session.
The Bureau's proposal complicates an already complex property tax system, fixes none
of the flaws that currently exist and creates more problems. The limitation combines
most city non voted levy rates into one, and limits the total revenue currently generated to
an annual inflationary increase. Local officials will lose what little flexibility currently
exists in the property tax system to fund local priorities.
The League agrees that the property tax system must be reformed. To reach that end, the
League supported an interim property tax study to develop meaningful changes that
would address the concern of all interested parties, including the Farm Bureau. The Farm
Bureau's response to the establishment of the study was to prevent it from happening. It
was their proposal or no proposal. The League will continue to push for constructive
reform, based on merit not politics. As you know, city officials strive to hold the line on
government costs. The Farm Bureau should join us in that effort by opposing state.
mandates that increase costs to local government. Under their proposal, only revenue
would be limited, not services that the state requires local government to perform. As a
result, state-required programs would receive the limited revenue, diverting funds from
meeting needs of local citizens.
Please contact your candidates for the legislature immediately and urge them not to
commit to a property tax limitation. By September 15, candidates must indicate their
support to the Farm Bureau. Your action is needed today! Only one on one
communication with your candidates can effectively dilute the impact of the Bureau's
political blitzkrieg. We need to send a message that in Iowa, the substance of the policy
still outweighs political tactics. Remember, the Bureau solicited pledges of support for
the condemnation bill two years ago. Their effort was successful and a law was adopted
with so many problems that changes had to be made to the law the very next year.
Included for your review is the letter to candidates from the League, a property tax fact
sheet and the Bureau's materials. Please contact Tracy Kasson, director of governmental
affairs, at (515) 244-7282 if you have questions.
Property Tax Limitation
Myth: Imposing a property tax limitation is beneficial for cities because it will make the
tax base predictable.
Fact: Predictability means that cities would not experience growth in revenue but could
expect to maintain the same level of revenue that they receive now into the future.
Drawing a conclusion that this is beneficial to cities is analogous to making the
same wage throughout a working life, but knowing what the amount is. A
property tax limitation does nothing to accommodate the dynamic needs of cities
to provide necessary services.
Myth: A property tax limitation must be instituted to prevent the runaway spending of
local government.
Fact: Over the last several years, the property tax has experienced the slowest growth of
any major state revenue source. During the last year, only three of 949 city
budgets were protested and none were upheld by the state budget appeals board.
Myth: Reducing property taxes will reduce city expenses.
Fact: There is nothing in the proposed property tax limitation that prohibits the state
from legislating unfunded mandates for cities. Limiting the revenue with which
to pay for these mandates only diverts spending frem local funding priorities.
Myth: The rollback will no longer be a problem for cities if a property tax limitation is
instituted.
Fact: This proposal does nothing to mitigate the impact of the rollback. It exacerbates
the problem. Nothing in the proposal changes the calculation of the rollback. As
it continues to fall, this proposal will allow an increase in levy rates to
compensate. Commercial property owners, paying taxes on nearly 100 percent of
the value of their property, will pay these increased levy rates. The shift of the
property tax burden to commercial property owners will accelerate as a result,
hurting local economic development efforts.
Myth: Non growth cities that are at the $8.10 general fund levy limit will benefit from
the property tax limitation.
Fact: While it is true that growing cities would experience problems immediately as a
result of the limitation, non growing cities will also be adversely impacted in the
long run. For growing communities that are not at the $8.10 limit, the capacity to
reach the $8.10 if needed is no longer possible under a limitation. Non growth
communities at the $8.10 limit rely on increased valuation of existing property,
rather than new construction, to capture additional revenue. A limitation will not
allow revenue increases resulting from revaluation of existing property.
,..:;......';<, '"
"
..
..
Iowa Farm BUffI"U peele, lilt/an
5400 Uniltertlt, Avenue. Wr.;t ~ Moines. !awe 5026&-5997/ (S15) 225-s.oo
August 30.2000
Dear Candidate
Elections should be about issues. That', why the Iowa Farm Bureau works to educate
candidates and voters about issues we believe are important for Iowa and a,riculture.
As you may know, Farm Bureau baa been working hard to educllte Iowans for the need to
control the srowth of property taxes.
Unfortunately, county govermncnt spendin, statewide has increued 23% since the
prOperty tax freeze ended in 1998 - eVeD though inflation has only'incrcucd ~IA. This is
having an adverse impact on property taxes.
That" s why the Farm Bureau created the Property Tax Growth Limitation Initiative. It
provides county supervisors with flexibility while protecting lUpayers against
unreasoPJdble property tax increases.
In the six weeks leading up to ~'1f.: election, Faxm Bureau v.iU be ed.u~ni Iowa voterll
aboUT this proposed legislation to control property taX increases. To do this, Farm Bureau.
will:
. Place an ad in the Farm Bureau Spokemum
. Advertise statewide on radio
. Send a mailer to retirl;~s and property OWners in cities and rural areas across the state
. Place a larg~ ad the Monday prior to the elcc:;tion in the newspapers across Iowa
The purpose of this advertising is to educate Iowans about high property taXes and to let
them know who supports the Property Tax Growth Limitation IDitiativc. We have
included a copy o!tbc: "Property lax Growth Limitation Initiative" that will be the basis
of the legislation.
We want to include your name in a newspaper ad and in the mailer to retirees and
property OWllCr$ across the state as a supponer of the property tax initiative.
As a candidate for tile state legislature' the newspaper ad and mailer will indicate that
you will support the property taX growth limitation law that will be considered during the
next legislative session.
If you woulcltike to be listed as a supporter of the Property Tu Growth Limitation
Jnitiative, please sign the enclosed document and return it to us no later than September
15th. If you have any questions concerning the proposed legislation, please feel free to
contact us at 515-225-5534.
(over)
The \foic;. of Agr;culture
t'
We have attached a moc;kup of the ad without candidate names. Let us emphasize that
we want to include all candidates for the state legislature in this ad. If all candidates in a
particular race retum the fonn statini their support, then all will have their names
mentioned. If only on~ in a rac~ retUms the fonn stating their support, then only that
candidate's name will appear. The purpose of the ads is to educate Iowa voters.
Let ~ also emphasize that we wi 11 not be telllni vOlers who to suppon in this ad. We
will let voters know how dire the situation is with county government spending and then
list the candidates who support the proposed Propeny Tax Growth Limitation.
Please let Iowa voters know where you stand on this issue today. Thanks for your time
and we look forward to hearing from you-
Sincerely.
IVlil\tIo La.v~f\ Po'dhwy
Mindy Larsen Poldbcra
Lobbyist.
Legislative Affairs
&~
Don Petersen
Director, Public Affairs
"Property Tax Growth Limitation Initiative"
L ne lrowth of property tile. DiU be Jimlted to protect lowa tap.y.... Why?
A. County govl!UllDent spendina ba, inc:rcaed. 23% statewide siDce 1998, and property
taxes are inmasinl as a n:sult.
B. TWenty counties have shifted expcodiuarcs, suc;h as law cnforcc:ln= , out of the
genenl fund and into 1he rural fund. Shifting cxpe:oditutes frees up pncral fund
dollars, so the gcnetal fund rate cap can be avoided.
C. In 1999, 72% of cities were at their tlte cap, and nearly 70010 of eounties were at thm
Jencral fimd cap.
D. Currently loopholes exist to allow the rate limitatiOll1D k ~cd, ISO long as there
is IIIJ ~'Unusua1 need" far either a new program or the continuance of an existing
proptm1..
E. County eash reserves continue to pow. FY 1999 B.Ctual county reservCl statewide
were 5656 ~ilJion. FY 1999 total county property taxes levied statewide were 5570
million.
II. The solQdon: Property Tax Growth LilDltatioD, Reu.r throuP Rd'orm.
A. The Property Tax Growth Limitation (PTGL) pro~~ts taxpayers by providing a tax
limitation, wi~h enough flexibilily for local govetnmemts to p:ovir1e services to their
residents. .
B. Provides a mechanism to ensure that state property tax relief1\mds to local
aovtmments zre tetim1ed to tupeyers.
c. Establishes I base: level of spendin: calc\llated from actual history.
D. Adjusted annually for inflation. new ~on, and c:hangt in pJIlIPhic ar-:a.
E. The limitation can be exceeded by 1fotcr approval.
F. Allo\\'S local governments to prepare for "cmerpn~ies" without having to have
taxpayer money in the bank: by including an "\lnl\Scd authority" that may be carried
forward into future years.
Limi~ the cro'Nth of property taXes is of great importance to the members of the Iowa Farm
Bureau organization. We are asking you 'to help us comll:~ the inequities that exist.
We have included a copy of a newspaper ad we plan to run across the state the last week in
Octoba'. We will also be airing statewide radio ads duriIlg the month of October. The radio ads
will be desisned to Rise the awareness ofIo\\o'all& on this issue.
We would like to incllJde your name in the new~ ad and in the mailer to retirees and
propctty owners across the state as a supporter ...:rne property tax initiative.
If you would like to be listed as a supporter of the concept laid out in the "Property Tax Orowth
Limitation Initiative". pluse sian tbe enclosed document and return it to US no later than
September ISIll. Our newspaper ads will include the names of all candidates who choose to join
uS in the effort to limit the 1fO\Wl ofpl'OJ)UlY taxes for the residents onowa.
.\
""
"
COl. lov8rolOI0I Spending has increlsld 23% 11118
wide since the end of the proP8rIJ IIxhezll119BB.
Has vour lallilv budget increased that lOueh;'
Ills Time for Reasonable Controls!
In the next legislative session, legislators will consider a new law to constrain the growth of
property taxes. It doesn't say that property taxes will never go up. but it will prevent uncon-
trolled property tax increases. The bottom line is simple: the new law will foree those who
spend properly tax dollars to spend our money carefully.
ThISI stall aDd COUDlV candidates SUP PIn I newl8W to CliIstraJn OIl
growth of prllenv taxes.
Paid for by the Iowa Fann Bureau Federation.
..
"
o
Please list me as a supporter of the "Prop~rty Tax Growth Limitation
Initiative. ,.,
I would like my name to appear in the newspaper ad. as follows:
(please print)
o
No, I do, not want to be i=lu.ded as a supporter of the "Property Tax
Growth Limitation Initiative" '
SignatUre
House/Senate District
This fonn must be rctUI'nai to the Iowa Fmn Bureau Fcdel"lton no later than September
15'" to be included in any advertising.
Mailte;
Public Affairs Division
Iowa Farm. Bureau Federation
5400 University Avenue
West Des Moines. Iowa 50266
OR
Fax to:
Public Affairs Division
Iowa Farro Bureau Feden.tion
515..225-5419