Current Date

The Conservative Reader:
Iowa

What You Need To Know In The Upcoming Commercial Property Tax Battle

What You Need To Know In The Upcoming Commercial Property Tax Battle

One of the top three priorities for the upcoming legislative session will be finally putting something on the books to bring Iowa’s commercial property tax rate in line with the rest of the nation.  After much angling by both sides last year, ultimately no adjustments were made to the tax code.

Below you will find a very brief recap and analysis of the three plans that were on the table last year.  They are important to know since past will certainly be prologue in this debate.  Both sides are essentially pushing the same proposed solutions as they did a year ago—and one way or another the law will reflect whichever side wins on the issue.

 

Governor Branstad’s Plan (House Study Bill 519)

This plan would reduce the taxable value of Commercial and Industrial property by 5% a year for 8 consecutive years.  The taxable value for these properties is currently at 100%, so in 8 years the plan would allow the State to collect on 60% of the valuation instead of the current 100%.

  • The cap for increasing valuations on Residential and Ag properties would be lowered from the current 4% a year to 2% a year.
  • The first 3 years of the 5% reduction in valuation would be guaranteed, with the additional 5 years of the 5% reduction being subject to the value of commercial property rising in its assessed value.
  • To offset the lower revenue being brought in by local governments the State would pay cities money every year.  $50 million in year one, $100 million in year two, $150 million in year three.  After the third year the amount would be raised an additional $30 million per year until it got to a $240 million backfill.  This backfill would then remain on the State’s books every year going forward.
  • The proposed money to local governments would be administered in different amounts based on how much a local government was affected by the revenue loss.

Analysis—This, much like the Governor’s education reform, would essentially be an increase in power and control at the State government level.  The positive is that, in theory, the local governments would be forced to cut spending as the backfilled money that they receive is projected to be less than the revenue loss experienced by the local governments.  In the prior incarnation of this plan the “administered based on need” language was not included, so it is quite possible that the backfill sent to the local governments would in fact not require them to actually cut their budgets—it really would just depend on how different the property valuations were from city to city.

The House Republican Plan (House Study Bill 500)

In many ways this plan has a lot of the same principals as the Governor’s plan.  One major differences is that it implements in 14 years instead of 8 (interestingly the House’s prior proposal called for the 8 years that the Governor has now adopted).

  • The biggest difference is that instead of paying local governments to offset the revenue loss, this plan would eliminate the 12.5% “2nd effort levy” (and I believe the $5.40 per $1,000 taxable valuation known as the “uniform levy”) and instead, by the year 2019, would have the State fund 100% of the per-pupil cost of K-12 education.  Note: Right now the uniform levy is taken from property owners statewide and the State pays to take that amount up to 87.5% of each years determined per-pupil cost—the remaining 12.5% is paid by local property taxes taken from inside each district.

Analysis—There are smaller components to this that I did not investigate fully, but in many ways this approach is the same as the Governor’s in that it limits the local governments taxing authority.  While the Governor’s plan would take general fund money and give it to the locals, the House plan just takes the responsibility of paying for things that the locals would otherwise have to spend on with local property tax funds (mainly education).  Also, like the Governor’s plan, it would not fully offset the drop in local government revenues and theoretically would force local entities to cut the size of their budgets.

Though “local control” is usually a Republican battle cry, in this case it is largely a Democrat argument against the Republican plans. I happen to find the criticism valid—but for different reasons.  The Democrats oppose the taking of local control because it would limit the amount that taxes can be raised, I see it more as limiting the decision making of local communities to pursue what their residents think is best (within the broader State law).  One of the unresolved issues I have here is how the State paying all of the education funds would play out in terms of funding each school district.  I believe the current formula allows a discrepancy range of a $175 per-student from district to district but, given the fact that the State would fund 100% of the burden, the questions exist—would this remain and how so?.

The Senate Plan (SF 522)

This bill passed the Senate last year 46-4.  The only 4 to vote against it were Republicans Chelgren, Dix, Whitver, and Sorenson.

  • It would tax the first $30,000 of commercial property at the same rate of residential property.  This would result in an estimated $555 to $714 reduction for typical Commercial taxpayers (this small amount is one of the reasons that the four Republicans listed above voted against it).
  • The plan would top out at a reduction of $6,856 (paltry when you consider that large retailers routinely pay over $500,000 a year in property taxes).
  • The biggest distinction from the other plans is that the savings contained in the bill would not be concrete, but instead would be tied to the total revenue amount brought in by the State.  Tax relief would only fully materialize as long as the States revenue increased.
  • The plan basically offers a $50 million reduction in Commercial property taxes per year, as long as the States revenue increased 4% in that year.

Analysis—In many ways this last bullet point means that it is not really a significant cut in taxes or spending at all, and frankly it’s shocking that only four Republicans voted against it. It has some other provisions that make it, more or less, a way to stop the impending increase in property taxes faced by everyone.  The positive here is that it does not affect the local government’s revenue stream or sovereignty (nor does it backfill anything with other State funds).  The flip-side is that it does not allow for any reduction in government spending.  It basically says that as long as the economy is good and values of property increase we will agree to give you a tax credit to soften the burden of your taxes rising along with the value of your Commercial property.

Stating the obvious here—this proposal is totally insufficient to deal with the size of the problem.  What makes this plan ridiculous is that one of the major advantages in a tax reform plan is that businesses will know that lower rates are solidly in place for future spending and hiring.  By having a bulk of the tax savings tied to the amount the State brings in in a given year, you are in essence not able to tell a business owner what his rate will be going forward—and clearly uncertainty is a killer for business owners

Overview & Summary

All these plans seems somewhat flawed and I don’t endorse any of them on their merit.  Since Democrat votes are needed to pass something, if I had to I would support the House plan.  My strong belief is that all three are unnecessarily over-complicated.  More than anything they are just moving money around and telling local governments that they can’t raise taxes beyond a certain point—how much you want to bet that this doesn’t stop the same legislature from mandating that the same municipalities do more things every year?

Ultimately my skepticism comes from the fact that these proposals are all about people paying less taxes without putting forth a dollar of specific spending cuts…funny how that works.

 

 

 

 

 

How the Iowa Senate Was Lost: Part 1 of 2

How the Iowa Senate Was Lost: Part 1 of 2

The way TCR: Iowa set the table for the Iowa Senate’s 22 contested races was as follows: 9 races we predicted heavily favored one Party or the other, 8 races we predicted as leaning one way or the other, and 5 were deemed toss-ups.

The reason I was personally so bullish on a Senate takeover by Republicans was that if these predictions held Democrats would have had to run the table of the 5 toss-up races to keep control of the chamber.  In the end, and impressively I might add, this is pretty much what they did.  While most of my prognosticating here was accurate, they won victories in 4 of the 5 I deemed toss-ups and managed to flip one seat I had leaning Republican, the end result was not.

Looking For Answers

The best way to fix the problem the GOP had on Tuesday is to dissect what happened.  We will have much more on this next week, when I will post a data chart, but for now let’s take the birds-eye view of the facts in the 4 toss-up contests Republicans lost and the one race where a “lean” Republican incumbent was upset.

The spending numbers below represent the cumulative amounts of money that were spent in each race by each side in the last 3 ½ months of the campaigns (July 19 to November 2nd).  This includes the money the candidate raised and spent added to the number the Party spent for each ‘in-kind”.  Since it is common practice for both sides to have the candidate donate large portions of their funds to their Parties, to spend both on their individual behalf and on other candidates the leadership feels could use it, I have gone through all the reports to subtract out this number. The result gives an accurate view of the actual dollars spent on the race (trust me it wasn’t a barrel of fun).  Looking at the dollar amounts and the timing of ad buys for each side is very telling and we will break this down further later this week.  For now here is the general overview.

SD 49— Naeve (R) defeated by Hart (D)

This race was an open seat due to no incumbent residing in the newly drawn district.  It was a very tough district for Republicans but they had a great candidate who ran strong and should be commended.

Bottom Line= Naeve (R) was outspent by $84,000, faced a (D+3,721) registration deficit, and lost by 2,907 votes.  Despite being outspent he cut into the registration advantage by 800—he was the only Republican in this list to beat the numbers.

SD 46— Hamerlinck (R) defeated by Chris Brase (D)

This was an incumbent Republican seat that I wrongly had projected to lean Republican.  Republican Hamerlinck’s final report was not filed for some reason, but in the first filing he showed spending $30,000 on his own while the Party spent $30,000 for him.  On the other side Brase (D) spent $330,000 on the effort.  Very telling here is that of this total $259,000 in assistance came directly from the Democrat Party.

Bottom Line= It’s hard to say much on the Republican side without the last report filed, but on the Democrat side the story is a lot of money poured in to facilitate this upset.  Between July 19th and October 19th Democrats spent $167,000 before throwing in an additional $157,000 in the final few weeks.  The result in ballots cast ended up being a D+409 advantage turned into a 1,954 Democratic victory.  Something tells me this ends up being a story of an incumbent hugely outspent and not being backed up with enough dollars from the Party.

SD 36— Jech (R) defeated by Sodders (D)

This was an uphill fight from the jump for Republicans, which many say started when Jech defeated former Senator Larry McKibben in the primary.  The conventional wisdom was the Tea Party candidate Jech, who had already lost two runs at a House seat, was a far less formidable candidate than the Branstad backed McKibben.  In the final 3 ½ months Jech impressively raised over a $100,000, but the GOP only threw in $46,000 total, including a miniscule $14,000 for the final push.  Conversely, Democrats did not take Jech lightly, giving Sodders $358,000 in the final months.

Bottom Line= In the end Jech was outspent by $206,000 in an R+121 district, and she lost by 2,263 votes.  There is a ton of interesting stuff going on here.  At first glance you could explain away the GOP only giving Jech $46,000 by assuming she was polling poorly.  The only problem with that is if she was there’s no way Democrats pump $224,000 to Sodders in the final two weeks.  Clearly one Party had a bad read on this race, and it’s likely it was the Democrats.  Since Sodders won by 2,263 votes it’s hard to believe he needed the near quarter-million dollars at the end.  I tend to agree with the establishment that this race became too heavy of a lift with Jech as a candidate—even though she was badly outspent, it is still pretty amazing to have a 121 voter registration advantage going in and lose the election by well over 2000 votes.

Part 2 Upcoming

Later this week we will look at the other two painful Senate loses (SD 30 and SD 26), document some trends occurring in these five races, and then, finally, make some judgements on what could have been done differently   The ultimate goal here is not to call any particular person or organization out—the goal here is to identify the shortcomings so they can be corrected.  Ironically it appears that two years from now Senate Republicans will be in the exact same spot of needing to flip two seats for control.

If a better effort and strategy are not employed—the brutal result will surely be the same.

((To Go Straight To Part 2 Click Here))

 

 

TCR’s Live Iowa Senate Tracker

TCR’s Live Iowa Senate Tracker

**Secretary Of State website is having technical issues and therefore the results we are waiting on coming in slowly. Senate Control still in the balance….most recent info in blue below**

Sec. of State site still not posting full results (only at 97.57%)…As of 1:30 am here is where we stand.  The count is Democrats with 24 seats and Republicans with 22 seats.  Still yet to come in is SD 42, SD 4 (likely Republican), and SD 30.  These numbers will add up to 49 when they come in pending the SD 22 Pat Ward special election.

As the results come in we will update the chart below untill control of the chamber is determined.

Iowa Senate Tracker

Keeping in mind Republicans hold a 13 to 11 advantage in holdover seats as the evening began, and that there are 4 Republican seats going unnopposed, we are tracking 22 races in total.  They are in three categories, 1) heavily favored by one party or the other, 2) seats leaning tp one Party or the other, and 3) the 5 crucial toss-ups.

TCR’s Heavily Favored Projections

Republicans                                                                                      Democrats

SD 40 - Projection holds, Repub. wins                                         SD 50 -  Projection holds, Dem. wins.

SD 28  -  Projection holds, Repub. wins                                       SD 34 -  Projection holds, Dem. wins

SD 6    - Projection holds, Repub. wins                                         SD 32 -  Projection holds, Dem. wins

SD 4    - Projection holds, Repub. wins.                                        SD 18 -  Projection holds, Dem. wins

——————————————–                                            SD 16 -Projection holds, Dem. wins.

TCR Leaners Projections

Republicans                                                                                  Democrats

SD 46 -  Projection wrong, Dem. Brase Wins                        SD 44 -  Projection holds, Courtney wins.

SD 38 -  Projection holds, Repub. wins .                                SD 42 -  Projection wrong, Rep. Kruse wins.

SD 24  -  Projection holds, Repub. wins.                                SD 8 -  Projection holds, Gronstal wins.

SD 22 -  (Pending Special Election)

SD 14 – Projection holds, Repub. wins.

TCR’s 5 Critical Toss-ups

SD 49 -  Democrat Hart wins.

SD 48 -  Republican Dan Zumbach wins.

SD 36 -  Democrat Sodders wins.

SD 30 -  Democrat Danielson wins.

SD 26 -  Democrat Mary Jo Wilhelm wins (120 vote margin-recount likely).

If TCR Iowa’s Projections of likely and leaner seat above are correct, Republicans will need just 2 of the 5 toss-ups.

 

Final Thoughts, What To Watch For, and Predictions

Final Thoughts, What To Watch For, and Predictions

Final Thoughts

Setting The Senate Table– Here is the link to our Iowa Senate overview.  Remember that as tonight starts Democrats already have 13 seats to the Republicans 11.  Factoring in uncontested races and races heavily favored to one party or the other the tally is R’s-19 and D’s 18.  Further adding in the 8 seats I see leaning one way or another leaves the count at R’s-24 and D’s21–with 5 seats as complete toss-ups.

A Blown Opportunity—The Republican Party of Iowa has done a great job this cycle by getting a candidate on the ballot in every Senate district statewide.  That said, regardless of how things turn out tonight, if they fail to take the majority a big lost opportunity will be in Senate District 34.  It is fair to note the Party really had nothing to do with this debacle and nobody could have predicted Randi Shannon’s melt down, which was the most embarassing episode in Iowa politcs in the last 10 years.  However you feel about the Ron Paul movement afoot here in Iowa, the Liberty PAC endorsed and supported Shannon and must take a ton of blame here.  This type of scenario playing out is absolutely unacceptable—if Republicans fall one seat short…this will prove haunting.

Differing Campaign Strategies—As we have discussed here before, one of the interesting things about the hotly contested Iowa Senate races is the opposite ways in which the two Parties have distributed money and resources.

While the Republican Party chose to spread their money around relatively evenly, the Democrats have staked out three races that they deem unacceptable to lose.  In these three races, combining the October 19th and the just released November 2nd reports, the Democrats have spent $1.01 million dollars.  The numbers are $381,000 in SD 26, $358,000 in SD 36, and $277,000 in SD 48.

If they don’t win these three seats, and lose a few other close ones they chose not to invest heavily in, this strategy will have been a disaster.

Time For RPI To Deliver—With the changing face of the RPI and the well documented upheavals along the way, perhaps no one has more on the line here in Iowa than the new leadership.  Many of these new folks have heavy Ron Paul ties and have impressive political accomplishments in the past—these include Ron Paul finishing a very close 3rd in the Iowa Caucuses and winning numerous Straw Polls in several states.  Winning elections is far different.

If Republican candidates do well this group can cement themselves, if they do not the battle to remove them will begin in earnest.  I for one am pulling for them to succeed—a leadership that knows how to win elections is never a bad thing.  If it turns out they can win elections, something tells me that compromising on both sides and co-existing is a real possibility.

What To Watch For

• If Ben Lange beats Bruce Braley or even runs within a few points of him, I believe there is over an 80% chance Republicans take the majority in the Iowa Senate.

• If Tom Latham is able to carry Polk County—and Romney is able to put up a good showing here—even if Romney loses Iowa I predict he will win the Presidency.

• If Tom Latham carries Polk County, 90% chance Dan Charleston is the new sheriff in town.

• Any of the following candidates winning will be the sign of a major Republican wave in Iowa—and likely nationally.  The following are all great candidates and good people who are running in heavily Democratic districts:  Dave Edwards (SD 16), Vicki Stogdill (SD 18), and Patti Branco (HD 34).

Predictions

President—  Mitt Romney wins.  Besides the enthusiam advantage, this prediction is based on the fact that no president in the history of our Country has been re-elected with economic numbers this bad and a set of “accomplishments” this unpopular.  If he wins tonight then a shift has occured in America where results and actual achievements do not matter–I am cynical in general…but don’t believe we’ve reached this point yet.

Iowa Senate—  Republicans win majority.  Final count R’s-27 and D’s-23 (Note=this is counting Pat Ward’s Senate 22 seat as a Republican eventuality)

Iowa House—  Republicans hold majority.  R’s-57 and D’s-43

Iowa Congressional Delegation—  Victors= King, Latham, Loebsack, and in an upset Lange just beats Braley in the state’s closest contest.  Lange has a 25,000 voter registration deficit to make up here, but the district has seen him run both now and in 2010 and I think this history gets him over the hump this time.  25,000 is a big number to make up for sure, but keep in mind that he has a pool of 187,000 active Non-party voters to make it up in.

 

Thanks for following us in the lead-up to tonight, and be sure to check back in the following days for the breakdown of what happened here in Iowa and what it all means for the future of our great state!

 

 

 

 

 

Iowa Votes 2012: Preview of Coverage

Iowa Votes 2012: Preview of Coverage

Over the past several weeks we have taken an in-depth look at each of the 8 Iowa Senate races TCR: Iowa has deemed as leaning either Republican or Democrat.  From now untill election day we are moving on to take a closer look at the 5 Senate races we feel will determine control of the Iowa Senate–and hence control of the Iowa Legislature for the next two years.  These races crucial for control are SD 49, SD 48, SD 36, SD 30, and SD 26.

In addition to looking at these 5 races, on November 4th we will look at the districts where Republicans blew major oppurtunities and therefore are not competetive, and on November 5th we will provide a guide for what to watch for on election night.

Here is a compilation of links to the 8 Senate Leaners we have covered:

Senate District 14 – Amy Sinclair (R)  vs.  Dick Schrad (D)

Senate District 22 – Pat Ward (R)  vs.  Desmund Adams (D)

Senate District 8 – Mike Gronstal (D)  vs.  Al Ringenneberg (R)

Seante District 42 – Rich Taylor (D)  vs.  Larry Kruse (R)

Senate District 38 – Tim Kapucian (R)  vs.  Shelley Parbs (D)

Senate District 24 – Jerry Behn (R)  vs.  Shelly Stotts (D)

Senate District 44 -  Tom Courtney (D)  vs.  Bradley Bourn (R)

Senate District 46 -  Shawn Hamerlinck (R)  vs.  Chris Brase (D)

    Log in