I imagine a lot of people in this thread will be running for city council or county supervisor soon. Sounds like a sweet gig.
Property Tax Increase
- Thread starter spierceisu
- Start date
Lots of good information on that site. More than I can start to get through. Des Moines is much higher on that list than on the other lists I had found. Anyway, property taxes are starting to get as high as the mortgage payments and that is untenable situation.
Let's say we pick a decent value house at $225,000. That list says the property tax in Des Moines would be just about $500 / month. The 30 year mortgage @ 4% would only be $859 / month with a 20% down payment. But that goes away eventually. The property tax bill is there forever and likely to increase. You can also compare to a lower taxed area like say Dubuque and the same assessed value house is "only" $343 / month.
Another way to look at the difference is that your payment would be the same with a 4% interest rate at the Dubuque tax rate where as it would be the same as the Des Moines payment if you had a ~5.45% interest rate. Almost a 1.5% difference in interest rates. And that still goes away after it is paid off.
I also think it's very important to note that most of those cities considered the least desirable in the state are also at the top of the list. There is a bit of a chicken and the egg argument and a couple outliers.
Highest rates in the State: Lamoni, Centerville, Chariton, Keokuk, Ottumwa, Council Bluffs, and Ft. Dodge. (possible outliers of Des Moines, Albia, Red Oak?)
Lowest rates in the State (of decent size): Carroll, Le Mars, Ames, Dubuque, Cedar Falls, Bettendorf, Pella.
Highest rates in the State: Lamoni, Centerville, Chariton, Keokuk, Ottumwa, Council Bluffs, and Ft. Dodge. (possible outliers of Des Moines, Albia, Red Oak?)
Lowest rates in the State (of decent size): Carroll, Le Mars, Ames, Dubuque, Cedar Falls, Bettendorf, Pella.
These discussions always frustrate me because it is a prime example of how the development patterns since WW2 have made it very difficult for City's to maintain themselves under constantly growing financial commitments. The solution to this is to add more value to a City in a smaller area to increase the amount of return to the City compared to the amount of services required for the area.
However, time and again, the same people that complain about their taxes being too high are the same people that show up and complain about proposals to develop more densely. The fact is that large lot single family development and big box commercial development are not financially sustainable and if you want to live in an area that has that stuff, then you'd better be prepared for the realities of the taxes needed.
However, time and again, the same people that complain about their taxes being too high are the same people that show up and complain about proposals to develop more densely. The fact is that large lot single family development and big box commercial development are not financially sustainable and if you want to live in an area that has that stuff, then you'd better be prepared for the realities of the taxes needed.
D
Deleted member 8507
Guest
Here is another good website to compare your property tax to any site in U.S.
https://smartasset.com/taxes/iowa-property-tax-calculator
I am thankful I never bought over in Illinois (I considered it 27 years ago). If I had, I would be paying 44% more property tax for same value of home as I do in Muscatine. That would be an extra $2000 on my house, EVERY YEAR. Their rate as a state is 53% higher than Iowa.
https://smartasset.com/taxes/iowa-property-tax-calculator
I am thankful I never bought over in Illinois (I considered it 27 years ago). If I had, I would be paying 44% more property tax for same value of home as I do in Muscatine. That would be an extra $2000 on my house, EVERY YEAR. Their rate as a state is 53% higher than Iowa.
Sometimes the cities just do dumb stuff. Reading the local paper brought another bonehead move my town did back up. They were working to help this business build on the edge of town. Talked about the 70 jobs it would have in the community. This was going to go on new development and have to drag everything new out there and pave roads. I asked the development leads why the city didn't look at this other blight area that the city had been wanting to clean up. Right next to current industry so utility hook ups would be simple and it had paved roads on both sides.
I got the response that the owner, who was openly selling, wanted too much for the land (about 300k) and it would take another 50k to clear. I mentioned the one million dollar price tag they had to pave the road was more than the cost of the land. All I got was, but but but but from them.
Turns out new business wasn't new, it was a relocate and only about 10 of those 70 jobs were new. Whole project fell through due to cost in the end.
Just read in the paper today, that the company has purchased the land that I suggested and everything looks like it can come together on the new ground. I'm not a genius, just logical.
I think the example you gave fits with my perspective that we need to be wise about our City development and not overextend ourselves for net negative gains (ex. like you mentioned it being dumb to develop a bunch of new infrastructure for a site when there is a suitable existing site). The thing that often gets lost is that all that new infrastructure not only has the initial upfront cost, but the long-term maintenance and inevitable replacement cost. It's a huge liability to the financial sustainability of a community.
FWIW, I work in the development field and know lots of people in the field as well, and I know there are lots of people fighting the good fight. The problem is that the solutions are often met with opposition from the same people that the solution would benefit via lower financial liability in the long-term.
Most Cities financial problems stem from paying FAR more than they can afford and promising whatever just so they can grow. That and they can't plan a budget more then 6 months out because well who cares, they may not be in charge after the next election. The biggest problem is fire and police pensions. They promised huge payouts and then when someone retires they have to pay their retirement AND hire a new person.
Infrastructure is a tiny part of most city budgets. It's the people that cost so much.
The City just wanted to grow. They always want MOAR, MOAR, MOAR. The new development would have allowed them two industrial sites to tax instead of just one. Costs are not relevant to them at the time.
It's like the City here. They are looking at "growing" and want to annex land around the City. They claim there is no room to build in the City and need the development land. Which is just hilarious given there have been a grand total of about 5 new homes in the last decade in town, not to mention 100's of acres not developed already in the city limits. They simply want the higher value homes that developed outside the city limits.
Strongtowns go broke too. It has nothing to do with density (well that might help slightly) but everything to do with management.
If you need any evidence look at Europe. They easily have more dense towns than most anything here and they still have tons of communities going broke.
City's grow because its the only way to try and make a dent in the commitments from the past. It's definitely flawed but the other solution is to make sure future growth is done in a smart way that can pay for itself. Unfortunately that growth looks a lot different than the traditional suburban growth that has perpetuated the Country but a lot of time the residents (and the people they elect) don't want different style development. So then you just keep growing or stop and everything crumbles. https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme
No offense, but the fact that you think City's can't budget more that 6 months is a bunch of BS. Its not uncommon for City's to have a 5 year plans for all major capital expenses. Its also not uncommon to have long-term outlooks at staffing needs. You couldn't be more wrong on this.
You are right that staff, particularly public safety, are a big portion of City budgets. Those staffing needs are often based on preserving response times and standards. If a City uses a smarter development pattern of dense development, then 500 people can live in the same sized area as 100 people under traditional suburban development. Not only does this mean less infrastructure cost and commitment, it also makes it easier to preserve response times and provide public safety service (a huge portion of City budget) as the City grows. The end result is a smart growing City that is minimizing its financial liabilities but still growing its tax base. This allows for the City to more easily provide the services that its residents expect.
Residents don't give a darn if the fire department response time is 6 minutes or 10 minutes. They had a bad day either way.
That's a ridiculous statement. Residents might not care about the specific average time, but they do have an expectation that the City services they pay for will keep them safe. A 4 minute difference in response time can be the difference in loss of life or total loss of a structure. I'm sure they'd care if only the kitchen burnt down versus the whole house.
As far as I can tell most people only care about ONE thing from their towns. GOOD roads. And some people may state Good schools but don't know what that looks like.
Many cities, Cedar Rapids included, have gotten everyone addicted to these TIF deals to the point where it's almost expected for any developer to "require" them and any established company to request them before expanding. Coralville has been approving so many that it's affecting their investment grade.
CR just approved a 10 year TIF for a manufacturing plant to expand on land they were already purchasing and basically could not locate the expansion anywhere else. But they are picking up something like $1.4M in tax rebates. That stuff needs to stop.
CR just approved a 10 year TIF for a manufacturing plant to expand on land they were already purchasing and basically could not locate the expansion anywhere else. But they are picking up something like $1.4M in tax rebates. That stuff needs to stop.