50-State Property Tax Comparison Study

50-State Property Tax

Comparison Study

FOR TAXES PAID IN 2017

APRIL 2018

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence

This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission from Lincoln Institute of

Land Policy and Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence

For information contact:

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

Department of Valuation and Taxation

113 Brattle Street

Cambridge, MA 02138

617-661-3016

Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence

85 East 7th Place, Suite 250

Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101

651-224-7477

Cover image: © iStockphoto/kropic

Acknowledgements

This report would not have been possible with the cooperation and assistance of many

individuals. Research, calculations, and drafting were done by Aaron Twait

2

and Adam H.

Langley

1

. The report benefited greatly from feedback provided by Anthony Flint

1

, Mark

Haveman

2

, Will Jason

1

, Daphne A. Kenyon

1

, George W. McCarthy

1

, Emily McKeigue

1

, Semida

Munteanu

1

, Andrew Reschovsky

1

, and Joan M. Youngman

1

.

1

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

2

Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence

About the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy seeks to improve quality of life through the effective use,

taxation, and stewardship of land. A nonprofit private operating foundation whose origins date to

1946, the Lincoln Institute researches and recommends creative approaches to land as a solution

to economic, social, and environmental challenges. Through education, training, publications,

and events, we integrate theory and practice to inform public policy decisions worldwide. With

locations in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., Phoenix, and Beijing, we organize

our work in seven major areas: Planning and Urban Form, Valuation and Taxation, International

and Institute-Wide Initiatives, Latin America and the Caribbean, People's Republic of China,

the Babbitt Center for Land and Water Policy, and the Center for Community Investment.

About the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence

The Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence was founded in 1926 to promote sound tax policy,

efficient spending, and accountable government.

We pursue this mission by

 educating and informing Minnesotans about sound fiscal policy;

 providing state and local policy makers with objective, non-partisan research about the

impacts of tax and spending policies

 advocating for the adoption of policies reflecting principles of fiscal excellence.

MCFE generally defers from taking positions on levels of government taxation and spending

believing that citizens, through their elected officials, are responsible for determining the level of

government they are willing to support with their tax dollars. Instead, MCFE seeks to ensure that

revenues raised to support government adhere to good tax policy principles and that the spending

supported by these revenues accomplishes its purpose in an efficient, transparent, and

accountable manner.

The Center is a non-profit, non-partisan group supported by membership dues. For information

about membership, call (651) 224-7477, or visit our web site at www.fiscalexcellence.org.

50-State Property Tax Comparison Study

For Taxes Paid in 2017

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................6

Why Property Tax Rates Vary Across Cities ...............................................................................9

Homestead Property Taxes ........................................................................................................ 14

Commercial Property Taxes ...................................................................................................... 19

Industrial Property Taxes .......................................................................................................... 24

Apartment Property Taxes ......................................................................................................... 29

Classification and Preferential Treatment of Homestead Properties ........................................... 33

Property Tax Assessment Limits ............................................................................................... 40

Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 43

Appendix Tables

1. Why Property Tax Rates Vary Across Cities

1a. Factors Correlated with Homestead Property Tax Rates in Large U.S. Cities ................ 50

1b. Factors Correlated with Commercial Property Tax Rates in Large U.S. Cities .............. 53

1c. Correlates of Cities’ Effective Tax Rates on Homestead Properties............................... 56

1d. Correlates of Cities’ Effective Tax Rates on Commercial Properties ............................. 57

2. Homestead Property Taxes

2a. Largest City in Each State: Median Valued Homes ....................................................... 58

2b. Largest City in Each State: Median Valued Homes, with Assessment Limits ................ 60

2c. Largest City in Each State: Homes worth $150,000 and $300,000 ................................ 62

2d. Largest Fifty U.S. Cities: Median Valued Homes ......................................................... 64

2e. Largest Fifty U.S. Cities: Median Valued Homes, with Assessment Limits................... 66

2f. Largest Fifty U.S. Cities: Homes worth $150,000 and $300,000 ................................... 68

2g. Selected Rural Municipalities: Median Valued Homes ................................................. 70

2h. Selected Rural Municipalities: Homes worth $150,000 and $300,000 ........................... 72

3. Commercial Property Taxes

3a. Largest City in Each State ............................................................................................ 74

3b. Largest Fifty U.S. Cities ............................................................................................... 76

3c. Selected Rural Municipalities ....................................................................................... 78

4. Industrial Property Taxes

4a. Largest City in Each State (Personal Property = 50% of Total Parcel Value) ................ 80

4b. Largest City in Each State (Personal Property = 60% of Total Parcel Value) ................ 82

4c. Largest Fifty U.S. Cities (Personal Property = 50% of Total Parcel Value) ................... 84

4d. Largest Fifty U.S. Cities (Personal Property = 60% of Total Parcel Value) ................... 86

4e. Selected Rural Municipalities (Personal Property = 50% of Total Parcel Value) ........... 88

4f. Selected Rural Municipalities (Personal Property = 60% of Total Parcel Value) ........... 90

4g. Preferential Treatment of Personal Property, Largest City in Each State ....................... 92

5. Apartment Property Taxes

5a. Largest City in Each State ............................................................................................ 94

5b. Largest Fifty U.S. Cities ............................................................................................... 96

5c. Selected Rural Municipalities ....................................................................................... 98

6. Classification and Preferential Treatment of Homestead Properties

6a. Commercial-Homestead Classification Ratio for Largest City in Each State ............... 100

6b. Apartment-Homestead Classification Ratio for Largest City in Each State ................. 102

7. Impact of Assessment Limits ............................................................................................... 104

1

Executive Summary

As the largest source of revenue raised by local governments, a well-functioning property tax

system is critical for promoting municipal fiscal health. This report documents the wide range of

property tax rates in more than 100 U.S. cities and helps explain why they vary so widely. This

context is important because high property tax rates usually reflect some combination of heavy

property tax reliance with low sales and income taxes, low home values that drive up the tax rate

needed to raise enough revenue, or higher local government spending and better public services.

In addition, some cities use property tax classification, which can result in considerably higher

tax rates on business and apartment properties than on homesteads.

This report provides the most meaningful data available to compare cities’ property taxes by

calculating the effective tax rate: the tax bill as a percent of a property’s market value. Data are

available for 73 large U.S. cities and a rural municipality in each state, with information on four

different property types (homestead, commercial, industrial, and apartment properties), and

statistics on both net tax bills (i.e. $3,000) and effective tax rates (i.e. 1.5 percent). These data

have important implications for cities because the property tax is a key part of the package of

taxes and public services that affects cities’ competitiveness and quality of life.

Why Property Tax Rates Vary Across Cities

To understand why property tax rates are high or low in a particular city, it is critical to know

why property taxes vary so much across cities. This report uses statistical analysis to identify

four key factors that explain most of the variation in property tax rates.

Property tax reliance is one of the main reasons why tax rates vary across cities. While some

cities raise most of their revenue from property taxes, others rely more on alternative revenue

sources. Cities with high local sales or income taxes do not need to raise as much revenue from

the property tax, and thus have lower property tax rates on average. For example, this report

shows that Bridgeport (CT) has one of the highest effective tax rates on a median valued home,

while Birmingham (AL) has one of the lowest rates. However, in Bridgeport city residents pay

no local sales or income taxes, whereas Birmingham residents pay both sales and income taxes to

local governments. Consequently, despite the fact that Bridgeport has much higher property

taxes, total local taxes are considerably higher in Birmingham ($2,695 vs. $2,068 per capita).

Property values are the other crucial factor explaining differences in property tax rates. Cities

with high property values can impose a lower tax rate and still raise at least as much property tax

revenue as a city with low property values. For example, consider San Francisco and Detroit,

which have the highest and lowest median home values in this study. After accounting for

assessment limits, the average property tax bill on a median valued home for the large cities in

this report is $2,992. To raise that amount from a median valued home, the effective tax rate

would need to be 24 times higher in Detroit than in San Francisco—6.88 percent versus 0.29

percent.

Two additional factors that help explain variation in tax rates are the level of local government

spending and whether cities tax homesteads at lower rates than other types of property (referred

to as “classification”). Holding all else equal, cities with higher spending will need to have

2

higher property tax rates. Classification imposes lower property taxes on homesteads, but higher

property taxes on business and apartment properties.

Homestead Property Taxes

There are wide variations across the country in property taxes on owner-occupied primary

residences, otherwise known as homesteads. An analysis of the largest city in each state shows

that the average effective tax rate on a median-valued homestead was 1.49 percent in 2017 for

this group of 53 cities.

1

At that rate, a home worth $200,000 would owe $2,980 in property taxes

(1.50% x $200,000). On the high end, there are three cities with effective tax rates that are

roughly 2.5 times higher than the average – Bridgeport, Aurora (IL), and Detroit. Conversely,

there are seven cities where tax rates are less than half of the study average – Honolulu,

Charleston (SC), Boston, Cheyenne (WY), Denver, Birmingham (AL), and Washington DC.

Highest and Lowest Effective Property Tax Rates on a Median Valued Home (2017)

Highest Property Tax Rates Lowest Property Tax Rates

1 Bridgeport (CT) 3.81%

Why: High property tax reliance 49

Denver (CO) 0.66%

Why: Low property tax reliance,

high home values, classification

2 Aurora (IL) 3.76%

Why: High property tax reliance 50

Cheyenne (WY) 0.65%

Why: Low property tax reliance

3 Detroit (MI) 3.63%

Why: Low property values 51

Boston (MA) 0.51%

Why: High home values,

Classification shifts tax to business

4 Newark (NJ) 3.16%

Why: High property tax reliance 52

Charleston (SC) 0.50%

Why: Classification shifts tax to

business

5 Milwaukee (WI) 2.57%

Why: Low property values,

high property tax reliance

53

Honolulu (HI) 0.31%

Why: High home values, low local

gov’t spending, classification

Note: Data for all cities: Figure 2 (page 18), Appendix Table 1a (page 50), and Appendix Table 2a (page 58).

The average tax rate for these cities fell very slightly between 2016 and 2017, from 1.497 percent

to 1.495 percent, with increases in 24 cities, decreases in 27, and no change in 1 city.

2

The

largest increase was in Sioux Falls (SD), where the effective rate rose by about 11 percent, which

drove the city’s ranking up from 23

rd

to 20

th

highest. The next largest increases were in

Burlington (VT), Chicago, Billings (MT), Fargo (ND), and Portland (OR). The largest decrease

was in Boston, which had a 15.9 percent decline in its effective tax rate. The next largest declines

were in Charlotte (NC), Louisville, Portland (ME), and Detroit.

Note that differences in property values across cities mean that some cities with high tax rates

can still have low tax bills on a median valued home if they have low home values, and vice

versa. For example, Louisville and Los Angeles have similar tax rates on a median valued home,

but because the median valued home is worth so much more in Los Angeles ($594k vs. $151k),

the tax bill is far higher in Los Angeles (3

rd

highest) than in Louisville (43

rd

highest).

Effective tax rates rise with home values in about half of the cities (27 of 53), and this pattern has

a progressive impact on the property tax distribution. Usually, this relationship occurs because of

1

The largest cities in each state includes 53 cities, because it includes Washington (DC) plus two cities in Illinois

and New York since property taxes in Chicago and New York City are so different than the rest of the state.

2

The largest city in South Carolina changed from Columbia in 2016 to Charleston in 2017, so the report provides

year-to-year changes for only 52 of the 53 “largest cities in each state”.

3

homestead exemptions that are set to a fixed dollar amount. For example, a $20,000 exemption

provides a 20 percent tax cut on a $100,000 home, a 10 percent cut on a $200,000 home, and a 5

percent cut on a $400,000 home. The increase in effective tax rates with home values is steepest

in Boston, Atlanta, Honolulu, Washington (DC), and New Orleans.

Commercial Property Taxes

There are also significant variations across cities in commercial property taxes, which include

taxes on office buildings and similar properties. In 2017, the effective tax rate on a commercial

property worth $1 million averaged 2.05 percent across the largest cities in each state. The

highest rates were in Detroit, New York City, Bridgeport (CT), Chicago, and Providence (RI), all

of which had effective tax rates that were at least three-quarters higher than the average for these

cities. On the other hand, rates were less than half of the average in Fargo (ND), Virginia Beach,

Honolulu, Seattle, and Cheyenne (WY).

Highest and Lowest Effective Property Tax Rates on $1-Million Commercial Property

Highest Property Tax Rates Lowest Property Tax Rates

1 Detroit (MI) 4.24%

Why: Low property values 49

Fargo (ND) 1.01%

Why: Low local gov’t spending,

Low property tax reliance

2 New York (NY)

3.90%

Why: High local gov’t spending,

Classification shifts tax to business

50

Virginia Beach (VA) 0.96%

Why: High property values,

Low local gov’t spending

3 Bridgeport (CT) 3.81%

Why: High property tax reliance 51

Honolulu (HI) 0.91%

Why: High property values,

Low local gov’t spending

4 Chicago (IL) 3.78%

Why: High local gov’t spending,

Classification shifts tax to business

52

Seattle (WA) 0.89%

Why: High property values,

Low property tax reliance

5 Providence (RI) 3.68%

Why: High property tax reliance 53

Cheyenne (WY) 0.66%

Why: Low property tax reliance

Note: Analysis includes an additional $200k in fixtures (office equipment, etc.)

Data for all cities: Figure 3 (page 23), Appendix Table 1b (page 53), and Appendix Table 3a (page 74).

The cities with the largest drops in their effective tax rates from 2016 to 2017 were Indianapolis,

whose rate fell by 14 percent and ranking dropped from 11

th

to 16

th

, and Virginia Beach where

the effective tax rate fell by 9 percent and whose ranking dropped from 48

th

to 50

th

. Salt Lake

City is the only other city with a significant decline in its ranking. The largest increase was in

Columbus (OH), where the effective tax rate increased by 25 percent, which drove the city’s

ranking up from 30

th

to 23

rd

highest. In Baltimore, the ranking rose five places (from 16

th

to 11

th

),

while in three other cities (Jackson, MS; Portland, ME; and Sioux Falls, SD), commercial

property tax burdens climbed three places.

Preferential Treatment for Homeowners

Many cities have preferences built into their property tax systems that result in lower effective

tax rates for certain classes of property, with these features usually designed to benefit

homeowners. The “classification ratio” describes these preferences by comparing the effective

tax rate on land and buildings for two types of property. For example, if a city has a 3.0%

effective tax rate on commercial properties and a 1.5% effective tax rate on homestead

properties, then the commercial-homestead classification ratio is 2.0 (3.0% divided by 1.5%).

4

An analysis of the largest cities in each state shows an average commercial-homestead

classification ratio of 1.64, meaning that on average commercial properties experience an

effective tax rate that is 64% higher than homesteads. Roughly a fourth of the cities (14 of 53)

have classification ratios above 2.0, meaning that commercial properties face an effective tax

rate that is at least double that for homesteads.

Preferential Treatment of Homeowners: Ratio of Effective Tax Rate on

Commercial and Apartment Properties to the Rate on Homestead Properties (2017)

Commercial vs. Homestead Ratio Apartment vs. Homestead Ratio

1

Boston (MA) 4.24 1

New York (NY) 4.80

2

New York (NY) 3.97 2

Charleston (SC) 3.10

3

Honolulu (HI 3.56 3

Indianapolis (IN) 2.35

4

Denver (CO) 3.50 4

Charleston (WV) 2.26

5

Charleston (SC) 3.10 5

Birmingham (AL) 2.18

Note: Commercial-homestead ratio compares rate on $1 million commercial building to median valued home.

Apartment-homestead ratio compares rate on $600k apartment building to median valued home.

Data for all cities: Figures 6a and 6b (Page 37-38), and Appendix 6 (Page 100).

The average apartment-homestead classification ratio is significantly lower (1.33), with

apartments facing an effective tax rate that is 33% higher than homesteads on average. There are

five cities where apartments face an effective tax rate that is at least double that for homesteads,

with New York City being a major outlier since the rate on apartments is almost five times

higher than the rate on a median valued home. It is important to note that while renters do not

pay property tax bills directly, they do pay property taxes indirectly since landlords are able to

pass through some or all of their property taxes in the form of higher rents.

There are three types of statutory preferences built into property tax systems that can lead to

lower effective tax rates on homesteads than other property types: the assessment ratio, the

nominal tax rate, and exemptions and credits. In total, 40 of the 53 cities favor homesteads over

commercial properties. 19 of these 40 cities benefit homeowners using at least two of these three

statutory preferences. In 13 cities preferential treatment for homeowners is delivered through

exemptions or credits alone, while in 8 cities preferences are delivered exclusively through

differences in assessment ratios or nominal tax rates. Similarly, 36 cities have statutory

preferences favoring homesteads relative to apartments, but only 10 offer more than one

preference. Five cities have preferential assessment ratios and/or nominal tax rates only, while

20 cities offer homestead exemptions or credits alone.

Property Tax Assessment Limits

Since the late 1970s, an increasing number of states have adopted property tax limits, including

constraints on tax rates, tax levies, and assessed values. This report accounts for the impact of

limits on tax rates and levies implicitly, because of how these laws impact cities’ tax rates, but it

is necessary to use an explicit modeling strategy to account for assessment limits.

Assessment limits typically restrict growth in the assessed value for individual parcels and then

reset the taxable value of properties when they are sold. Therefore, the level of tax savings

provided from assessment limits largely depends on two factors: how long a homeowner has

5

owned her home and appreciation of the home’s market value relative to the allowable growth of

its assessed value. As a result, assessment limits can lead to major differences in property tax

bills between owners of nearly identical homes based on how long they have owned their home.

This report estimates the impact of assessment limits by calculating the difference in taxes

between newly purchased homes and homes that have been owned for the average duration in

each city, for median valued homes. For example, in Los Angeles the average home has been

owned for 14 years and the median home value is $593,500. Because of the state’s assessment

limit, someone who has owned their home for 14 years would pay 44 percent less in property

taxes than the owner of a newly-purchased home, even though both homes are worth $593,500.

The largest discrepancy is in New York City, which has an assessment limit that has capped

growth in assessed values for residential properties since 1981, and unlike most assessment

limits does not reset when the property is sold. As a result, the owner of a median valued home

in New York City ($569,700) built prior to 1981 would face less than half the effective tax rate

than the owner of a newly-built median valued home despite them having identical values.

Assessment limits have the largest impacts (i.e., taxes reduced by 30% or more) in New York

City; seven of the eight California cities studied; the two Florida cities studied; and Portland,

Oregon. Of the 29 cities in this report that are affected by parcel-specific assessment limits, new

homeowners face higher property tax bills than existing homeowners in 25 cities. All four cities

where no home value was sheltered were in Texas: Austin, El Paso, Houston, and San Antonio.

Conclusion

Property taxes range widely across cities in the United States. This report not only shows which

cities have high or low effective property tax rates, but also explains why. Cities will tend to

have higher property tax rates if they have high property tax reliance, low property values, or

high local government expenditures. In addition, some cities use property tax classification,

which can result in considerably higher tax rates on business and apartment properties than on

homesteads. By calculating the effective property tax rate, this report provides the most

meaningful data available to compare cities’ property tax burdens. These data have important

implications for cities because the property tax is a key part of the package of taxes and public

services that affects cities’ competitiveness and quality of life.

6

Introduction

The property tax is one of the largest taxes paid by American households and businesses and

funds many essential public services, including K-12 education, police and fire protection, and a

wide range of critical infrastructure. Yet it is surprisingly difficult to get good data on property

taxes that are comparable across cities. This report provides the necessary data by accounting for

several key features of major cities’ property tax systems and then calculating the effective tax

rate: the tax bill as a percent of a property’s market value.

High or low effective property tax rates do not in themselves indicate that tax systems are “good”

or “bad.” Evaluating a property tax system requires a broader understanding of the pros and cons

of the property tax, the implications of high or low property tax rates, and the method by which

property tax rates are set. These key issues are outlined below.

The property tax has key strengths as a revenue instrument for local governments: it is the

most stable tax source, it is more progressive than alternative revenue options, and it promotes

local autonomy. Property taxes are more stable over the business cycle than sales and especially

income taxes, so greater property tax reliance helps local governments avoid major revenue

shortfalls during recessions. It also helps localities maintain revenue stability in the face of

fluctuating state and federal aid.

3

In addition, the property tax is relatively progressive compared

to the sales tax, which is the other main source of tax revenue for local governments. Whereas

the property tax is largely neutral, the sales tax is highly regressive.

4

The property tax is particularly appropriate for local governments because it is imposed on an

immobile tax base. While it is often easy to cross borders in search of a lower sales tax rate,

those who wish to live or locate their business in a particular location cannot avoid paying the

property tax. Thus, local governments have limited ability to charge different sales tax rates than

their neighbors, but have greater control over setting their property tax rate.

A drawback of any local tax is that the tax base can vary widely across communities, but these

disparities can be offset with state aid to local governments. For example, there are significant

differences in property values across communities, just as there are wide disparities in retail sales

and incomes across localities. State government grants to local governments can help offset these

differences to ensure everyone has access to necessary services at affordable tax prices

regardless of where they live. In addition, state-funded circuit breaker programs can help

households whose property taxes are particularly high relative to their income.

5

Property taxes are one part of the package of taxes and public services that affects

competitiveness and quality of life. This report shows that many of the cities with high property

tax rates have relatively low sales and income taxes for local governments, so the total local tax

3

Ronald C. Fisher. 2009. “What Policy Makers Should Know About Property Taxes.” Land Lines. Cambridge, MA:

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

4

Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. 2015. “Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All

50 States.”

5

Bowman, John H., Daphne A. Kenyon, Adam Langley, and Bethany P. Paquin. 2009. “Property Tax Circuit

Breakers: Fair and Cost-Effective Relief for Taxpayers.” Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

7

burden for residents and business could still be attractive. Furthermore, state aid may reduce

local property taxes, but this reduction may be offset by higher state taxes.

Similarly, if higher property taxes are used to pay for better public services, then high property

tax rates may not affect competitiveness or quality of life. Many homeowners are willing to pay

higher property taxes to have better public schools and safer neighborhoods. The bottom line is

that it is the total state-local tax burden relative to the quality of public services that determines

competitiveness and quality of life.

Property tax rates are set differently than other tax rates and reflect decisions about local

government spending. Income and sales tax rates usually do not vary much from year-to-year,

which leads to significant revenue fluctuations over the business cycle. In contrast, property tax

rates are usually established after the local government budget is determined by elected officials

and/or voters and the rate is then set to raise the targeted revenue level. However, flexibility in

setting property tax rates can be constrained by state tax limits or political concerns about

property tax burdens. The process for determining property tax rates varies across jurisdictions.

This report allows for meaningful comparisons of cities’ property taxes by calculating the

effective property tax rate—the tax bill as a percent of a property’s market value. For most

taxpayers, the effective tax rate will be significantly different from the nominal or official tax

rate that appears on their tax bill. There are several reasons for this difference. First, many states

only tax a certain percentage of a property’s market value. For example, New Mexico assesses

all property at 33.3 percent of market value for tax purposes, which means that a $300,000 home

would be taxed as if it were worth $100,000. In addition, many states and cities use exemptions

and/or credits to reduce property taxes. For example, a $50,000 homestead exemption would

mean a $200,000 home would be taxed as if it were worth $150,000. Cities also vary in the

accuracy of their assessments of property values for tax purposes. Finally, an analysis of property

tax burdens requires consideration of property taxes paid to all local governments, including

overlying counties and school districts, rather than simply comparing municipal tax rates. This

report accounts for all of these differences in cities’ property tax systems, which is essential for

meaningful comparisons of their tax rates.

This study calculates effective tax rates by analyzing several key features of each city’s

property tax system; it is not a parcel-level analysis of property tax liabilities. The Methodology

section of this report provides details on how effective tax rates are calculated. First, data are

collected for the key elements of property tax systems that determine effective tax rates:

 Total local property tax rate: The nominal tax rate that is most prevalent in the city for

each class of property (a.k.a. statutory tax rate), including taxes paid to the state, city or

township, county, school district, and special taxing districts.

 Assessment ratio (a.k.a. classification rate): The percentage of market value used to

establish a property’s assessed value. For example, a 60 percent assessment ratio means a

$100,000 home would be taxed as if it were worth $60,000.

 Sales ratio: The sales ratio measures the accuracy of assessments by comparing assessed

values to actual sales prices. For example, a 98 percent sales ratio means a $100,000

home would be “on the books” as if it were worth $98,000. This study uses a median or

average sales ratio for all properties in each class in each city. The data come primarily

8

from sales ratio studies and sometimes from state equalization studies. Those studies are

performed either by state government agencies or by contractors on behalf of state

agencies, and are usually publicly available.

 Exemptions: This study accounts for exemptions that reduce the amount of property value

subject to taxation for the majority of properties in a class for each city. For example, a

$20,000 exemption means a $100,000 home would be taxed as if it were worth $80,000.

 Credits: This study accounts for credits that reduce the tax bill for the majority of

properties in a class for each city. For example, Arkansas has a $350 credit that reduces

the tax bill by $350 for all homesteads in the state. The report also accounts for early

payment discounts that can reduce tax bills in some cities.

With this information, it is possible to calculate typical tax bills in each city for four classes of

property (residential, commercial, industrial, apartments) and several different market values:

Net Tax Bill =

{[(

Market Value x Sales Ratio

)

− Exemptions

]

x Assessment Ratio x Tax Rate

}

− Credits

First the taxable value is determined, with the market value of the property adjusted using the

sales ratio, then exemptions are subtracted, and then the assessment ratio is applied.

6

Next that

taxable value is multiplied by the total property tax rate, and any credits are subtracted. Finally,

the effective tax rate is calculated by dividing the net tax bill by the market value of the property.

It is important to note that this study provides typical effective tax rates, assuming that the

median or average sales ratio represents a typical value for all properties in each class. In

practice, the accuracy of assessments varies across properties, so some parcels will have higher

effective tax rates than reported in this study and some will have lower tax rates. In addition, this

study does not account for exemptions or credits that are available for a minority of taxpayers in

a city, such as exemptions available solely for seniors or veterans, or tax incentives available to

just some businesses or homeowners.

6

Note that exemptions based on assessed valued are subtracted after the assessment ratio is applied.

9

Why Property Tax Rates Vary Across Cities

This report demonstrates that effective property tax rates vary widely across U.S. cities. This

section explores why some cities have relatively high property tax rates while others have much

lower rates. Statistical analysis shows that four key factors explain nearly three-quarters of the

variation in property tax rates. The two most important reasons why tax rates vary across cities

are the extent to which cities rely on the property tax as opposed to other revenue sources, and

the level of property values in each jurisdiction. Two additional factors that help explain

variation in tax rates are the level of local government spending and whether cities tax

homesteads at lower rates than other types of property (referred to as “classification”).

Figure 1: Key Factors Explaining Differences in Property Tax Rates

Appendix 1 shows how these variables affect tax rates on homestead and commercial properties

for each large city included in this report and details the methodology used for this analysis. This

section focuses on homestead property taxes, but our analysis shows that tax rates on business

and apartment properties are driven by the same four key factors.

Property Tax Reliance

One of the main reasons why tax rates vary across cities is that some cities raise most of their

revenue from the property tax, while others rely more on alternative revenue sources.

7

Cities

with high local sales or income taxes do not need to raise as much revenue from the property tax,

and thus have lower property tax rates on average. Figure 1 shows that a 1 percent increase in the

7

One way to measure the “importance” of each factor is to look at squared semi-partial correlations, which are

analogous to estimating the R-square between the effective tax rate on a median valued home and each factor,

controlling for the effect of the other factors. For the first regression of Appendix Table 1c, 26% of the variation in

effective tax rates is explained by property tax reliance, 38% is explained by median home values, 6% by local

government spending, 6% by the commercial-homestead classification ratio, and 4% by the apartment-homestead

classification ratios.

0.82%

0.56%

-0.67%

-0.40%

-0.49%

Property Tax

Reliance

Local Gov't

Spending

Percent Change in Effective Tax Rate on Median Valued Home

from 1 Percent Increase in Each Variable

Median

Home Value

Commercial

Classification

Ratio

Apartment

Classification

Ratio

10

share of revenue raised by local governments that comes from the property tax is associated with

a 0.82 percent increase in the effective tax rate on a median valued home.

To see how property tax reliance impacts tax rates, compare Bridgeport (CT) and Birmingham

(AL). Bridgeport has the highest effective tax rate on a median valued home in large part

because it has the highest property tax reliance of any large city included in this report. So while

Bridgeport has high property taxes ($2,030 per capita), city residents pay no local sales or

income taxes. In contrast, Birmingham has the 11

th

lowest effective tax rate on a median valued

home, but also has the fourth lowest reliance on the property tax. As a result, Birmingham

residents have low property taxes ($789 per capita), but also pay a host of other taxes to local

governments, including sales taxes ($989 per capita), income taxes ($382 per capita), and other

local taxes ($535 per capita).

8

Consequently, total local taxes are considerably higher in

Birmingham despite the fact that it has much lower property taxes than Bridgeport ($2,695 per

capita vs. $2,068 per capita).

It is important to note that the ability of local governments to tap alternative revenue sources that

would reduce property tax reliance is normally constrained by state law. State governments

usually determine which taxes local governments are authorized to use and set the maximum tax

rate localities are allowed to impose.

9

The data on property tax reliance and local government spending that is used for this analysis is

for fiscally standardized cities (FiSCs) rather than for city municipal governments alone. FiSCs

provide estimates of revenues raised from city residents and businesses and spending on their

behalf, whether done by the city government or by overlying county governments, independent

school districts, or special purpose districts. This approach is similar to the methodology used in

this report, which includes property taxes paid to the city government, county government, and

the largest independent school district in each city. The FiSC database is available on the website

of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

10

Property Values

Home values are the other crucial factor explaining differences in property tax rates. Cities with

high property values can impose a lower tax rate and still raise at least as much property tax

revenue as a city with low property values. For example, Figure 1 shows that a 1 percent increase

in the median home value is associated with a 0.67 percent decrease in the effective tax rate on a

median valued home.

For example, consider San Francisco and Detroit, which have the highest and lowest median

home values in this study—$1,024,000 and $43,500 respectively. After accounting for

assessment limits, the average property tax bill on a median valued home in the 73 large cities in

this report is $2,992. To raise that amount from a median valued home, the effective tax rate

8

Data on per capita tax collections in 2015 is from the Lincoln Institute’s Fiscally Standardized Cities database.

9

Michael A. Pagano and Christopher W. Hoene. 2010. “States and the Fiscal Policy Space of Cities.” In The

Property Tax and Local Autonomy, ed. Michael E. Bell, David Brunori, and Joan Youngman, 243-277. Cambridge,

MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

10

http://datatoolkits.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/fiscally-standardized-cities

11

would need to be 24 times higher in Detroit than in San Francisco—6.88 percent versus 0.29

percent. The effective tax rate on a median valued home is actually just 4.2 times higher in

Detroit than San Francisco (2.74% vs. 0.65%), which means San Francisco collects more than

five times more in property taxes from a median valued home ($6,612 vs. $1,194). This is

typical—higher property values usually lead cities to have both lower tax rates and to raise more

revenue for public services. While the difference between San Francisco and Detroit is extreme,

it is common for there to be dramatic differences in property wealth across communities within a

state or region. State government grants to local governments can be used to offset these

differences to help ensure everyone has access to necessary services at affordable property tax

prices regardless of where they live.

This analysis uses the median home value in each city, but no one measure fully captures all

differences in cities’ property wealth. For example, even with identical tax rates on homes and

businesses, cities with larger business tax bases will be able to have lower residential property

tax rates since it usually costs more to provide public services to households than to businesses.

11

In addition, the median does not provide any information about the distribution of home values.

Cities with larger concentrations of high value homes (relative to the median in that city) will be

able to have lower tax rates on a median valued home for any given level of public expenditures.

Local Government Spending

The level of local government spending is another reason why property tax rates vary across

cities, although its effect is considerably less than property tax reliance or home values. Holding

all else equal, cities with higher spending will need to have higher property tax rates. For

example, Figure 1 shows that a 1 percent increase in local government spending per capita is

associated with a 0.56 percent increase in the effective tax rate on a median valued home.

Just as property tax rates are driven by a number of key variables, there are several factors that

influence local government spending. In particular, spending is driven by needs, revenue

capacity, costs, and preferences. For example, expenditure needs are higher in cities with larger

shares of school age children or higher crime rates, because local governments in those cities will

need to spend more on K-12 education and police protection to provide the same quality of

education and public safety as cities with fewer children or lower crime. Spending will often be

higher in cities with greater revenue capacity since cities with larger tax bases can raise more

revenue without needing higher tax rates, as discussed above in the section on property values.

Costs also play a role, because cities with higher costs of living and higher private sector wages

will need to pay higher salaries to attract qualified teachers, police, and other local government

employees. Finally, residents in some cities have a higher preference for public spending—which

also means higher taxes—than in other cities.

12

11

Ernst & Young LLP and Council on State Taxation. 2017. “Total State and Local Business Taxes: State-by-State

Estimates for Fiscal Year 2016.” Pg. 15-18.

12

For an analysis that looks at the factors that drive differences in spending and revenue across states, see

“Assessing Fiscal Capacities of States: A Representative Revenue System-Representative Expenditure System

Approach, Fiscal Year 2012” by Tracy Gordon, Richard C. Auxier, and John Iselin published by the Urban Institute

(March 8, 2016). For an analysis that looks at cities, see “The Fiscal Health of U.S. Cities” by Howard Chernick and

Andrew Reschovsky in Is Your City Healthy? Measuring Urban Fiscal Health published by the Institute on

Municipal Finance and Governance.

12

Classification and Preferential Treatment of Homestead Properties

Classification is the fourth factor that helps to explain differences across cities in property tax

rates on homesteads. Under classified property tax systems, states and cities build preferences

into their tax systems that result in lower effective tax rates for certain classes of property, with

these features usually designed to benefit homeowners.

The “classification ratio” describes these preferences by comparing the effective tax rate for two

types of property. For example, if a city has a 3.0% effective tax rate on commercial properties

and a 1.5% effective tax rate on homestead properties, then the commercial-homestead

classification ratio is 2.0 (3.0% divided by 1.5%). An increase in the classification ratio will be

associated with a decrease in the tax rate on homestead properties, because it means that

homeowners are collectively bearing a smaller share of the property tax burden while businesses

and/or renters pay more. For example, Figure 1 shows that a 1 percent increase in the

commercial-homestead classification ratio is associated with a 0.40 percent decrease in the

effective tax rate on a median valued home, and a 1 percent increase in the apartment-homestead

classification ratio is associated with a 0.49 percent decrease.

New York City has the highest classification ratio for apartment buildings relative to

homesteads, and the fifth highest commercial-homestead classification ratio. This means that

commercial buildings and apartments are taxed at a dramatically higher percentage of market

value than owner-occupied residences. In New York, a $1 million commercial property faces an

effective tax rate that is 3.3 times higher than a median valued home, while a $600,000

apartment building has an effective tax rate that is 4.8 times higher. As a result, among the

largest cities in each state, New York City has the 4

th

lowest tax rate on a median valued home,

but the highest tax rate on apartments and the 2

nd

highest rate on commercial properties.

13

In

New York, homeowners are heavily subsidized at the expense of renters and businesses.

14

The New York City example shows the other side of the classification equation: favoring

homeowners by definition means higher property taxes on businesses and apartment buildings.

Regression analysis shows that a 1 percent increase in the commercial-homestead classification

ratio is associated with a 0.49 percent increase in the commercial property tax rate, and a 1

percent increase in the apartment-homestead classification ratio is associated with a 0.41 percent

increase in the apartment tax rate.

15

Note that while renters do not pay property tax bills directly, they do pay property taxes

indirectly since landlords are able to pass through some of their property taxes by increasing

rents.

16

Since renters have lower incomes than homeowners on average, preferences given to

homesteads relative to apartment buildings will tend to make the property tax system more

regressive.

13

Appendix tables 2b, 5a, and 3a.

14

Josh Barro. 2013. “If You Live in New York and You Rent, You're Paying A Huge Tax You Don't Even Know

About.” Business Insider. June 28.

15

Results for commercial properties are shown in Appendix Table 1d. The analysis with effective tax rates on

apartments as the dependent variable uses the same set of explanatory variables; each variable has the same level of

statistical significance as in Appendix table 1d and the R-square is very similar (0.667).

16

Bowman, John H., Daphne A. Kenyon, Adam Langley, and Bethany P. Paquin. 2009. “Property Tax Circuit

Breakers: Fair and Cost-Effective Relief for Taxpayers.” Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Pg. 32.

13

Other Factors

The four key factors described above explain nearly three-quarters of the variation in cities’

effective tax rates on median valued homes, and are thus the most important causes of

differences in tax rates across cities. However, there are other factors that also play a role. For

example, two variables that could affect property tax rates are the level of state and federal aid

and local governments’ share of total state and local government spending in each state.

However, the impact of these variables will depend on how exactly the state government

structures aid or takes on service responsibilities otherwise provided by local governments.

It is reasonable to expect that higher state aid will allow local governments to reduce their

reliance on property taxes and thus lead to lower property tax rates. But in fact, research shows

that the impact of state aid on local property taxes is ambiguous, and depends on how state aid is

structured. Some state aid formulas can limit local spending, in which case state aid is likely to

reduce property taxes. However, other aid formulas like matching grants can encourage higher

local spending, and thus state aid may not reduce property taxes in those cases.

17

Similarly, if the state government bears a larger share of state and local government

expenditures, it makes sense that local government spending and the need for property taxes

might decline. That would be the case if the state assumes responsibility for public services that

would otherwise be provided by local governments, such as in Hawaii where there is a single

statewide school district and thus no local expenditures on K-12 education. But it is also possible

that state expenditures are higher because the state government spends more on traditional state

responsibilities, like higher education or public welfare, in which case higher state spending

would not lead to lower local government expenditures.

The regression analysis used for this section considered these two other variables, but they were

not found to be related with effective tax rates at a statistically significant level. This finding is

not surprising since the expected impact of these variables depends on institutional details that

are not captured by a single measure of state aid or state expenditures.

17

Kenyon, Daphne A. 2007. The Property Tax-School Funding Dilemma. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of

Land Policy. Page 50.

14

Homestead Property Taxes

Figure 2 shows property taxes on a median valued home for the largest city in each state. The

analysis looks at homesteads, which are owner-occupied primary residences. The average

effective tax rate on median-valued homesteads for the 53 cities in Figure 2 is 1.495 percent. At

that rate, a home worth $200,000 would owe $2,990 in property taxes (1.495% x $200,000).

Tax rates vary widely across the 53 cities. The three cities at the top of the chart – Bridgeport

(CT), Aurora (IL), and Detroit – have effective tax rates that are roughly 2.5 times higher than

the average for the 53 cities. In six other cities, the effective property tax rate on a median valued

home is 1.5 to about 2 times the average. Conversely, the bottom seven cities – Honolulu,

Charleston (SC), Boston, Cheyenne (WY), Denver, Birmingham (AL), and Washington (DC) –

all have effective tax rates that are less than half of the study average.

Overall, the average effective tax rate for all cities fell slightly between 2016 and 2017, from

1.497 percent of value to 1.495 percent. The effective tax rate on the median-valued homestead

climbed in 24 cities, fell in 27, and remained unchanged in 1 city.

18

The largest increase was in

Sioux Falls (SD), where the effective rate rose by 11%, due to changes in assessment quality that

eliminated underassessment of homes relative to market values, with a corresponding increase in

rank from 23

rd

to 20

th

highest. Other cities where effective tax rates climbed by at least 5 percent

include: Burlington (VT), Chicago, Billings (MT), Fargo (ND), Phoenix, Portland (OR), and

Denver (listed from largest increase to the smallest).

Effective rates on median-valued homesteads fell the farthest in Boston, which had a 15.9

percent decline, from 0.612 percent of value to 0.515 percent. Other cities with declines of at

least 5 percent include: Charlotte (NC), Louisville (KY), Portland (ME), and Detroit (listed from

largest decrease to the smallest).

Note that in addition to effective tax rates, Figure 2 also reports the tax bill on a median valued

home for each city. Because of significant variations in home values across these cities, some

cities with modest tax rates can still have high tax bills on a median valued home relative to

other cities, and vice versa. For example, Louisville and Los Angeles have similar tax rates on a

median valued home, but because the median valued home is worth so much more in Los

Angeles ($594k vs. $151k), the tax bill is far higher in Los Angeles (3

rd

highest) than in

Louisville (43

rd

highest). In general, cities with high home values can raise considerable property

tax revenue from a median valued home despite modest tax rates, whereas cities with low home

values may have fairly low tax bills even with high tax rates.

The table on the next page shows cities with the largest differences in their ranking in terms of

effective tax rates versus tax bills on a median valued home. Note that most of this report uses

fixed home values (i.e., $300k home in all cities) to estimate effective tax rates, which forces the

ordering of cities in terms of tax rates to match the order for tax bills.

18

Note: This totals 52 cities: since the South Carolina city is not consistent between this report and the payable 2016

report, measuring changes between the two years would provide misleading information.

15

Cities with Largest Differences in Ranking on Effective Tax Rate vs. Tax Bill,

for a Median Valued Home (2017)

High Home Values

Cities with high tax bills despite

low tax rates

Low Home Values

Cities with low tax bills despite high tax rates

City Tax Rate Tax Bill City Tax Rate Tax Bill

Washington (DC) 47 12 Detroit (MI) 3 46

Seattle (WA) 43 9 Buffalo (NY) 13 45

Los Angeles (CA) 31 3 Jackson (MS) 19 49

Boston (MA) 51 26 Memphis (TN) 15 42

New York (NY) 30 6 Wichita (KS) 28 48

Appendix Table 2b is similar to Table 2a except that it accounts for the effect of assessment

limits, which restrict growth in the assessed value of individual parcels for property tax purposes.

These limits reduce estimates of homestead property taxes for 11 of the 53 cities, with the largest

impacts on New York City, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Overall, accounting for assessment

limits reduces the average property tax bill for the 53 cities by 7 percent. For more details on the

impact of assessment limits, see that section of this report.

Appendix Table 2c shows how effective tax rates on homestead properties vary based on their

value, showing tax rates for properties worth $150,000 and $300,000 for the largest city in each

state. As the table notes, effective tax rates vary with property value about half of the time (27 of

53 cities). Usually, effective tax rates rise with homestead value because of homestead

exemptions and property tax credits that are set to a fixed dollar amount. Under these programs,

the percentage reduction in property taxes falls as home values rise. For example, a $20,000

exemption provides a 20 percent tax cut on a $100,000 home, a 10 percent cut on a $200,000

home, and a 5 percent cut on a $400,000 home.

19

However, other design elements can create the

same effect. For example, Minnesota uses a tiered assessment system, where 1% of a home’s

market value is taxable up through $500,000 of value, while 1.5% of value above that is taxable.

Value-driven differences in effective tax rates make the biggest difference in Boston, which in

2016 offered a homestead exemption equal to the lesser of $229,737 or 90 percent of a

property’s market value. This results in an ultra-low effective tax rate of 0.101% on a $150,000

home, which is roughly half of the effective rate on a $300,000 home (0.195%). The other two

cities with the largest differentials in the effective rates between a $150,000-valued home and a

$300,000-valued home also offer substantial homestead exemptions: Honolulu ($80,000

exemption) and Atlanta (which effectively exempts $75,000 of market value).

Other cities where effective tax rates are considerably lower on a $150,000 home than a

$300,000 home due to fixed dollar credits, exemptions, or other policies, include:

 Philadelphia – seven place difference (35

th

highest for $150k, 28

th

highest for $300k)

 New Orleans – six place difference (43

rd

highest for $150k, 37

th

highest for $300k)

 Jacksonville – four place difference (26

th

highest for $150k, 22

nd

highest for $300k)

19

For information on homestead exemptions in each state, see “How Do States Spell Relief: A National Study of

Homestead Exemptions and Property Tax Credits” by Adam H. Langley in Land Lines (April 2015).

16

Readers should use some caution when interpreting the results in Appendix Tables 2c, 2f, and

2h; see the box on comparing property taxes calculated with fixed property values (page 22).

Appendix Tables 2d through 2f show effective tax rates on homestead properties for a different

set of cities. Whereas Tables 2a through 2c focus on the largest city for each state, Tables 2d

through 2f show the 50 largest cities in the country regardless of their state. There is considerable

overlap between the two groups of cities, but some significant differences as well. In this set of

tables, California has eight cities, Texas has seven, Arizona has three, and five states have two

cities each (CO, FL, NC, OK, and TN). There are 21 states without any cities in the top 50. As

with the tables for the largest city in each state, there are two sets of tables for median-valued

homes; one before and one after accounting for the effects of assessment limitations (Tables 2d

and 2e respectively).

The average effective tax rates for homesteads are generally about 4 to 5 percent lower for the 50

largest cities than for the largest city in each state. The exception is when comparing median-

valued homes after accounting for assessment limitations. For those cities, the discrepancy is

bigger (a 10.2% difference), largely because the share of top 50 cities with assessment limits in

effect is much larger than the share on a nationwide basis.

Effective tax rates can be rather homogenous across large cities in a single state. For example,

consider the effective rates on median-valued homes in the two largest states shown in Table 2d:

 In the eight California cities, the highest effective tax rate is Oakland (20

th

highest) and

the lowest is Sacramento (36

th

). However, California accounts for six of the 11 cities

ranked between 26

th

and 36

th

, with effective tax rates clustering in the 1.1 to 1.2 percent

range due to the effect of California’s Proposition 13 limitations on tax rates.

 In the seven Texas cities, the highest effective tax rate is El Paso (2

nd

highest) and the

lowest is Houston (14

th

), with Texas accounting for five of the eight cities ranked

between 2

nd

and 9

th

. It is more difficult to point to a single feature of Texas’ property tax

system to explain this clustering. However, it likely reflects the fact that local

governments in these six Texas cities have relatively high reliance on property taxes and

that Texas has a uniform property tax system that does not allow for different tax rates or

assessment ratios on different types of property.

However, in other cases there can be considerable differences in effective tax rates between

cities within the same state. For example, Table 2d shows some noticeable differences in

effective tax rates and rankings for median-valued homes between these sets of same-state cities:

 In Tennessee: Memphis has the 13

th

highest tax rate (1.845%), while Nashville has the

46

th

highest (0.996%) – a 33 place differential.

 In Arizona: Phoenix has the 24

th

highest tax rate (1.257%) and Tucson has the 25

th

highest tax rate (1.230%), while Mesa has the 44

th

highest (0.853%) – a 20 place

differential between the neighboring cities of Phoenix and Mesa.

Appendix Tables 2g and 2h provide additional information about how effective property tax

rates vary across states by looking at a rural community in each state. The rural analysis includes

county seats with populations between 2,500 and 10,000 located in nonmetropolitan counties.

17

The average effective tax rate on median-valued homes in the 50 rural communities in this report

is 1.340% for taxes paid in 2017. As with large cities, the rates for rural municipalities vary

considerably around that average. In three municipalities – Warsaw (NY), Ridgway (PA), and

Lancaster (NH) – the effective tax rates on median-valued homes are at least 2 times the average.

In contrast, nine municipalities feature effective tax rates of less than half of the average, with

the lowest rates in Kauai (HI), Pocahontas (AR), Natchitoches (LA), Monroeville (AL), and

Elkins (WV).

Comparing Tables 2a and 2g shows that effective tax rates on median-valued homesteads are

around 10 percent lower in rural municipalities than in large cities on average. There are two

major reasons why rates are lower in rural communities: lower nominal tax rates and homestead

exemptions that apply to a fixed amount of value across the state and therefore exempt higher

proportions of homestead value from taxation in rural areas, where home values are generally

much lower than in large cities.

In 31 states, the effective tax rate on the median-valued home is higher in the largest city

20

than

in the rural municipality. Arkansas has the biggest difference; the 1.112% rate in Little Rock is

3.7 times the 0.236% rate in Pocahontas. In four other states the tax rate in the largest city is at

least two times higher than in the rural community: Delaware, Louisiana, Oregon, and Tennessee

(listed alphabetically).

On the other hand, in 19 states the effective tax rate on median-valued homes is higher in the

rural municipality than in the largest city in the state. The biggest difference is in Massachusetts,

where the effective tax rate in Adams is over 4 times higher than the rate in Boston (2.12% vs.

0.51%), largely because of Boston’s unique (within Massachusetts) homestead exemption. Other

states where the tax rate in the rural community is at least 1.5 times higher than the largest city

are Kansas, New York, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina (listed alphabetically).

Some readers may want to use findings on effective tax rates from one specific table to reach

conclusions on property taxes throughout an entire state. The small differences in tax rates across

cities in California and Texas (Appendix Tables 2d-2f) show that the largest city in each state

can serve as a proxy for property tax rates throughout an entire state. However, the large

differences between the two largest cities in Tennessee and Arizona show that caution is needed

when extrapolating findings for a single city to an entire state.

Readers wishing to determine whether taxes in a state are high, low, or somewhere in between

are best served by comparing the rankings for urban and rural municipalities. For example, in

five states (Illinois

21

, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Vermont, and Wisconsin) the effective tax

rate on the median-valued home is among the ten highest in both a rural and an urban setting –

suggesting that these states are most likely to have the highest homestead property taxes.

Alabama, Colorado, Hawaii, West Virginia, and Wyoming are the five states where effective tax

rates on median-valued homes are among the ten lowest in both urban and rural settings –

suggesting that these states are most likely to have the lowest homestead property taxes.

20

When averaging Chicago and Aurora, IL; and Buffalo and New York City, NY.

21

Aurora only.

18

Figure 2: Property Taxes on Median Valued Home for Largest City in Each State (2017)

0.31%

0.50%

0.51%

0.65%

0.66%

0.67%

0.72%

0.76%

0.79%

0.83%

0.84%

0.90%

0.95%

1.00%

1.03%

1.04%

1.06%

1.08%

1.10%

1.11%

1.14%

1.17%

1.18%

1.19%

1.26%

1.27%

1.34%

1.35%

1.46%

1.51%

1.55%

1.56%

1.64%

1.69%

1.79%

1.85%

1.89%

1.93%

2.01%

2.07%

2.26%

2.37%

2.42%

2.57%

3.16%

3.63%

3.76%

3.81%

0 1,401 2,802 4,203 5,604 7,005

0.00% 0.75% 1.50% 2.24% 2.99% 3.74% 4.49%

HI: Honolulu (53, 37)

SC: Charleston (52, 47)

MA: Boston (51, 26)

WY: Cheyenne (50, 50)

CO: Denver (49, 29)

AL: Birmingham (48, 53)

DC: Washington (47, 12)

WV: Charleston (46, 52)

UT: Salt Lake City (45, 30)

ID: Boise (44, 40)

WA: Seattle (43, 9)

VA: Virginia Beach (42, 27)

MT: Billings (41, 36)

LA: New Orleans (40, 32)

IN: Indianapolis (39, 51)

NC: Charlotte (38, 34)

ND: Fargo (37, 35)

GA: Atlanta (36, 21)

PA: Philadelphia (35, 44)

AR: Little Rock (34, 41)

NV: Las Vegas (33, 25)

OK: Oklahoma City (32, 39)

CA: Los Angeles (31, 3)

NY: New York City (30, 6)

KY: Louisville (29, 43)

KS: Wichita (28, 48)

AZ: Phoenix (27, 24)

FL: Jacksonville (26, 38)

NM: Albuquerque (25, 28)

AK: Anchorage (24, 11)

MN: Minneapolis (23, 15)

DE: Wilmington (22, 33)

MO: Kansas City (21, 31)

SD: Sioux Falls (20, 23)

MS: Jackson (19, 49)

IL: Chicago (18, 13)

RI: Providence (17, 16)

TX: Houston (16, 19)

TN: Memphis (15, 42)

ME: Portland (14, 8)

NY: Buffalo (13, 45)

NE: Omaha (12, 17)

OH: Columbus (11, 22)

MD: Baltimore (10, 14)

NH: Manchester ( 9, 10)

IA: Des Moines ( 8, 20)

VT: Burlington ( 7, 4)

OR: Portland ( 6, 1)

WI: Milwaukee ( 5, 18)

NJ: Newark ( 4, 2)

MI: Detroit ( 3, 46)

IL: Aurora ( 2, 7)

CT: Bridgeport ( 1, 5)

Effective Tax Rate Tax Bill

Tax Relative to U.S. Average

1x

(≈ $3,100)

1.5x

(≈ $4,650)

0.5x

(≈ $1,550)

Tax Relative to U.S. Average

2.5x

(≈ $7,750)

2x

(≈ $6,200)

(Rate Rank, Bill Rank)

19

Commercial Property Taxes

Figure 3 shows effective property tax rates for commercial properties worth $1 million dollars

for the largest city in each state. This analysis looks specifically at taxes on office buildings,

hotels, and other commercial properties without inventory on site. Tax rates for other types of

commercial property will often be similar, but will vary in cities where personal property is taxed

differently than real property. The analysis assumes each property has an additional $200,000

worth of fixtures, which includes items such as office furniture, equipment, display racks, and

tools. Different types of commercial property will have different proportions of real and personal

property. Therefore, effective tax rates will change between different types of commercial

property in cities where personal property is taxed differently from real property.

22

The average effective tax rate on commercial properties for the 53 cities in Figure 3 is 2.055

percent. A property worth $1 million with $200,000 in fixtures would thus owe $24,654 in

property taxes (2.055% x $1.2m).

Tax rates vary widely across the 53 cities. The top six cities of Detroit, New York City,

Bridgeport (CT), Chicago, Providence, and Aurora (IL) all have effective tax rates that are at

least two-thirds higher than the average for these cities. The bottom five cities of Fargo, Virginia

Beach, Honolulu, Seattle, and Cheyenne (WY) all have tax rates that are less than half of the

average.

A few of the cities had significant changes in their effective tax rates from 2016 to 2017. The

city with the largest decline in its tax rates was Indianapolis, where a lower nominal tax rate led

the effective tax rate on a $1-million valued commercial property to decline by 13.7%, from

2.85% to 2.46%, with the city’s ranking falling 5 places from 11

th

to 16

th

. The other city with a

significant drop in its tax rate rankings was Salt Lake City, UT (from 35

th

to 40

th

).

23

Columbus, OH had the largest increase in effective tax rates on commercial properties from 2016

to 2017. A property tax reappraisal sharply reduced the underassessment of commercial property,

and was the main driver in increasing the city’s effective tax rate on a commercial property

worth $1 million by almost 25%, from 1.75% to 2.15%, so that Columbus’ ranking rose from

30

th

to 23

rd

. From a rankings perspective, Baltimore’s rank rose five places (from 16

th

to 11

th

),

and the ranking for three cities (Jackson, MS; Portland, ME; and Sioux Falls, SD), climbed by

four places.

Appendix Table 3a shows how effective tax rates on commercial properties vary based on their

value, showing tax rates for properties worth $100,000, $1 million, and $25 million (all have

fixtures worth 20% of the real property value). Effective tax rates for commercial properties

22

For an analysis that looks at how effective tax rates vary between different types of commercial property, see “The

Effects of State Personal Property Taxation on Effective Tax Rates for Commercial Property” by Aaron Twait,

published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (April 2018). The paper finds that average effective tax rates for

payable 2016 exceeded 1.9% for hospitals, restaurants, and office space while wholesale trade facilities encountered

rates roughly half as large. The paper also finds the current study assumptions realistically model the property taxes

payable on the most common type of commercial property – office property.

23

The ranking for the city representing South Carolina fell precipitously, but since the largest city in the state

changed from Columbia to Charleston year to year changes are not meaningful.

20

generally do not vary based on property values, unlike homestead properties, where exemptions

or other tax relief programs often create significantly lower rates on lower valued properties.

Only 11 of the 53 cities have effective tax rates that vary based on their value. Value-driven

differences in effective tax rates make the biggest difference in rankings in Philadelphia.

Philadelphia has among the lowest tax rates for commercial properties worth $100,000 (1.143%,

44

th

highest), but is just slightly above average for commercial properties worth $25 million

(2.125%, 24

th

highest). The city offers property owners a credit against the first $2,000 of

Business Use and Occupancy Tax (effectively, a property tax imposed only on business

properties) assessed against individual properties, and this credit creates this large differential.

The credit reduces the tax on a $100,000-valued property by 46%, but by only 0.3% for a

property worth $25 million.

Other cities where the rankings vary significantly (by at least ten places between the $100,000-

valued and $25 million-valued parcels) because of beneficial tax treatment provided to lower-

valued properties through credits, exemptions, or preferential assessment practices include:

 Des Moines (20

th

highest for $100k, 7

th

highest for $25m)

 Minneapolis (21

st

highest for $100k, 8

th

highest for $25m)

 Washington, DC (39

th

highest for $100k, 28

th

highest for $25m)

Appendix Table 3b shows effective tax rates on commercial properties for a different set of

cities. Whereas Table 3a has the largest city for each state, Table 3b shows the 50 largest cities in

the country regardless of their state. There is considerable overlap between the two groups of

cities, but some significant differences as well. In Table 3b, California has eight cities, Texas has

seven cities, Arizona has three cities, and six states (CO, FL, NC, OK, and TN) have two cities

each. There are 21 states without any cities in the top 50 shown in Table 3b. Appendix Table 3b

also shows effective tax rates on commercial properties worth $100,000, $1 million, and $25

million (with fixtures worth 20% of the real property value).

The average effective tax rates for commercial properties is slightly lower for the 50 largest

cities shown in Table 3b than the cities shown in Table 3a—about 3 percent lower for the three

property values analyzed.

In some states, tax rates do not vary too much across the largest cities. For example, consider tax

rates for commercial properties worth $1 million in the two largest states:

 For California’s eight cities, the highest tax rate is in Oakland (34

th

highest) and the

lowest is in Sacramento (46

th

). California accounts for 6 of the 8 cities ranked between

39

th

and 46

th

.

 For Texas’s seven cities, the highest tax rate is in El Paso (4

th

highest) and the lowest is in

Austin (21

st

). Texas accounts for four of the seven cities ranked between 11

th

and 17

th

.

However, in other cases there can be considerable differences in effective tax rates between

cities within the same state. There are actually larger differences in tax rates for states with just

two or three cities:

 In Arizona: Phoenix has the 20

th

highest tax rate, while neighboring Mesa as the 30

th

highest.

21

 In Tennessee: Memphis has the 6

th

highest tax rate, while Nashville has the 41

st

highest.

 In Colorado: Denver has the 19

th

highest tax rate, while Colorado Springs has the 29

th

highest.

Appendix Table 3c provides additional information about how effective property tax rates vary

across states by looking at a rural community in each state. The rural analysis includes county

seats with populations between 2,500 and 10,000 that are located in nonmetropolitan counties.

On average, commercial tax rates are about 15 percent lower for the 50 rural communities than

the largest cities in each state. For a property worth $1 million, the average effective tax rate is

1.75% for the rural cities versus 2.05% for the urban cities shown in Appendix Table 3a. For 30

states, the effective tax rate on a $1-million valued commercial property is lower in the selected

rural municipality than in the state’s largest city.

The state with the biggest difference in the tax rate in the largest city and the rural municipality is

Tennessee, where the tax rate on a commercial property worth $1 million in Savannah (TN) is

about a third of the rate in Memphis (1.00% vs. 2.83%). Other states where the tax rate in the

rural community is significantly lower than the largest city include Delaware (59% lower),

Connecticut (58% lower), Oregon (52% lower), and Arkansas (48% lower).

On the other hand, in 20 states the tax rate is higher in the rural municipality than in the largest

city in the state. The biggest difference is in South Carolina, where the tax rate on a commercial

property worth $1 million in Mullins is 59 percent higher than the rate in Charleston (2.82% vs.

1.77%). Other states where the tax rate in the rural municipality is significantly higher than the

largest city include Kansas (48% higher), Washington (42% higher), Montana (42% higher), and

Florida (31% higher).

Variation in tax rates across the 50 rural cities is very similar to variation across the largest cities

in each state.

Some readers may want to use findings on effective tax rates from one specific table to reach

conclusions on property taxes throughout an entire state. The small differences in tax rates across

cities in California and Texas (Appendix Table 3b) show that the largest city in each state can

serve as a proxy for property tax rates throughout an entire state. However, the large differences

between the largest cities in Tennessee, Arizona, and Colorado show that caution is needed when

extrapolating findings for a single city to an entire state.

Readers wishing to determine whether taxes in a state are high, low, or somewhere in between

are best served by comparing the rankings for urban and rural municipalities. For example, four

states (Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and New York) have multiple top ten rankings in both an

urban and rural setting – suggesting that these states are most likely to have the highest

commercial property taxes. Conversely, four states (Delaware, Hawaii, Virginia, and Wyoming)

have multiple bottom ten rankings in both urban and rural settings.

22

Comparing Property Taxes Calculated with Fixed Property Values

This report uses fixed property values (i.e. $1 million in all cities) to control for the impact

local real estate conditions have on relative tax burdens. However, differences in property

values – driven largely by differences in land values – mean identically valued properties often

look very different across the country. For example, a $1 million property in Detroit is very

different from a $1 million parcel in New York City. For two properties with different values

but identical characteristics (i.e. similar square footage, amenities, etc.) in two cities with the

same effective tax rates, the property tax bill will be higher in dollar terms in the city with high

property values than the city with low values.

For taxes on commercial, industrial, and apartment properties, the report solely uses fixed

property values. As a result, if the goal is to compare taxes due on properties with similar

characteristics (i.e. 5000 square feet in the central business district), the net tax bills (i.e.

$3,000) will be underestimated in cities with high property values and overestimated in cities

with low property values. In contrast, data on effective tax rates (i.e. 1.5 percent) will be

largely unaffected by the property value chosen for the analysis, because effective tax rates

usually do not increase with property values for business properties. For this reason, it is better

to use data on effective tax rates when making cross-city comparisons for taxes on

commercial, industrial, and apartment properties.

In addition, fixed property values are not problematic from the perspective of a real estate

investor looking to invest a certain amount of money—whether it’s a $1 million condo in New

York or a $1 million apartment complex in Detroit.

Note that the use of fixed property values also makes year-to-year comparisons of effective tax

rates or tax bills challenging because property values change over time. A $1 million property

in 1995 looks very different than a $1 million property in 2016 in most cities.

For homestead property taxes, the report analyzes property taxes on median valued homes,

which adjusts for differences in property values, and thus allows for comparisons of property

taxes on a “typical” home across cities and over time.

23

Figure 3: Commercial Property Taxes for Largest City in Each State (2017)

Effective Tax Rate for $1-Million Valued Property (plus $200k in Fixtures)

0.61%

0.85%

0.91%

0.96%

1.07%

1.08%

1.14%

1.19%

1.26%

1.30%

1.39%

1.40%

1.42%

1.44%

1.45%

1.49%

1.59%

1.61%

1.68%

1.77%

1.82%

1.88%

1.97%

2.05%

2.06%

2.07%

2.15%

2.20%

2.31%

2.35%

2.36%

2.42%

2.46%

2.64%

2.68%

2.75%

2.77%

2.78%

2.83%

2.84%

2.85%

3.00%

3.43%

3.68%

3.78%

3.81%

3.90%

4.24%

WY: Cheyenne (53)

WA: Seattle (52)

HI: Honolulu (51)

VA: Virginia Beach (50)

ND: Fargo (49)

DE: Wilmington (48)

NC: Charlotte (47)

MT: Billings (46)

NV: Las Vegas (45)

CA: Los Angeles (44)

KY: Louisville (43)

DC: Washington (42)

OK: Oklahoma City (41)

UT: Salt Lake City (40)

AR: Little Rock (39)

ID: Boise (38)

AK: Anchorage (37)

AL: Birmingham (36)

SD: Sioux Falls (35)

NM: Albuquerque (34)

GA: Atlanta (33)

WV: Charleston (32)

FL: Jacksonville (31)

SC: Charleston (30)

MA: Boston (29)

NH: Manchester (28)

PA: Philadelphia (27)

LA: New Orleans (26)

ME: Portland (25)

NE: Omaha (24)

OH: Columbus (23)

AZ: Phoenix (22)

CO: Denver (21)

VT: Burlington (20)

NY: Buffalo (19)

TX: Houston (18)

OR: Portland (17)

IN: Indianapolis (16)

NJ: Newark (15)

KS: Wichita (14)

WI: Milwaukee (13)

MO: Kansas City (12)

MD: Baltimore (11)

TN: Memphis (10)

MS: Jackson (9)

MN: Minneapolis (8)

IA: Des Moines (7)

IL: Aurora (6)

RI: Providence (5)

IL: Chicago (4)

CT: Bridgeport (3)

NY: New York City (2)

MI: Detroit (1)

Tax Relative to U.S. Average

0.5x

1x

1.5x

2x

24

Industrial Property Taxes

Figure 4 shows effective property tax rates for industrial properties with $1 million worth of real

property for the largest city in each state. This analysis looks specifically at taxes on

manufacturing properties. We assume that each property has an additional $1 million of personal

property, consisting of $500,000 of machinery and equipment, $400,000 of inventories, and

$100,000 of fixtures. Differences in personal property taxation have significant impacts on

effective tax rates for industrial properties, as described in the box on the next page. Readers

should use some caution when interpreting these results; see the box on comparing property

taxes calculated with fixed property values for guidance (page 22).

The average effective tax rate on industrial properties for the 53 cities in Figure 4 is 1.499

percent. A parcel with a real property value of $1 million that has an additional $1 million in

personal property would thus owe $29,984 in property taxes (1.499% x $2m total parcel value).

For shorthand, this section refers to parcels based on their real property values.

Tax rates vary widely across the 53 cities. The top four cities of Jackson (MS), Detroit,

Memphis, and Houston all have effective tax rates that are at least 60% higher than the average

for these cities. The bottom seven cities of Virginia Beach, Fargo, Honolulu, Wilmington (DE),

Cheyenne, Seattle, and Louisville all have tax rates that are less than half of the average.

Some cities had significant changes in their effective tax rates from 2016 to 2017. Similarly to

commercial properties, the city with the largest decline in its industrial property tax rates was

Indianapolis, where a lower nominal tax rate dropped the effective tax rate by nearly 15%, from

2.31% to 2.00%, so that the city’s ranking dropped from 7

th

to 12

th

. Other cities with significant

ranking declines include Salt Lake City, which fell four places from 36

th

highest to 40

th

in the

rankings; Boston, which fell from 38

th

highest to 41

st

; and Buffalo, which fell from 25

th

highest

to 28

th

.

Chicago had the largest increase in effective tax rates on industrial properties from 2016 to 2017.

A reduction in the underassessment of industrial properties and a higher nominal tax rate

increased the effective tax rate on an industrial property in the city worth $1 million by 18%,

from 1.92% to 2.27%, so that the city’s ranking rose from 14

th

to 7

th

. Four other cities

experienced ranking three-place increase in their ranking: Anchorage (AK) rose from 27

th

highest to 24

th

; Birmingham (AL) rose from 40

th

highest to 37

th

; Manchester (NH) rose from 41

st

highest to 38

th

; and Oklahoma City rose from 30

th

highest to 27

th

.

Appendix Table 4a shows how effective tax rates on industrial properties vary based on their

value, showing tax rates for properties worth $100,000, $1 million, and $25 million (all have

personal property worth 100% of the real property value). As the table notes, effective tax rates

for industrial properties generally do not vary based on property values, unlike homestead

properties, where exemptions or other tax relief programs often create significantly lower rates

on lower valued properties.

25

Taxes on Personal Property

Property taxes are often imposed differently on real property (the value of land and buildings)

versus personal property (the value of machinery and equipment, inventories, and fixtures).

For example, Appendix Table 4g shows how three categories of personal property are taxed in

the largest cities in each state:

 Machinery and equipment, which includes things like assembly robots and milling

machines, is fully exempt from taxation in 21 cities. In another 10 cities, the property

tax system provides preferential treatment to machinery and equipment over real

property. In contrast, real property is treated preferentially relative to personal property

in at least once instance in five cities.

 Manufacturers’ inventories, which include raw materials, supplies, unfinished

products, and similar items, are fully exempt from taxation in 43 cities. In another 4

cities, inventories receive preferential treatment relative to real property, while the

reverse is true in 2 cities.

 Fixtures, which include office furniture, equipment, display racks, and tools, are fully

exempt from taxation in 15 cities. In another 8 cities, the property tax system provides

preferential treatment to fixtures relative to real property, while fixtures are taxed more

heavily than real property in at least one instance in 10 cities.

Because personal property is often taxed at a lower rate than real property, the effective tax

rate on business properties usually depends on the share of a parcel’s total value (i.e. real

property + personal property) that comes from personal property. That means estimates of

effective tax rates depend on assumptions about the split of total parcel value between real and

personal property.

However, the split between real and personal property varies by industry and location. Our

modeling indicates that personal property’s share of total parcel value ranges from a low of

33.0% for apparel manufacturers to a high of 68.0% for motor vehicle manufacturers. After

applying state-specific weights for each manufacturing type, the median state has 54% of total

industrial parcel value in personal property with the minimum amount being 50%

(Massachusetts) and the maximum being 59% (Michigan).

24

Because estimates of effective tax rates are sensitive to assumptions about personal property’s

share of total parcel value, we present two sets of estimates for industrial properties: personal

property accounts for 50% of total parcel value in one set of estimates and 60% in the other

set. The first set will be a better reflection of effective tax rates for industries and states where

personal property accounts for a smaller share of total parcel value (like apparel manufacturers

and Massachusetts), while the second set will be better when personal property accounts for a

larger share of total parcel value (like motor vehicle manufacturers and Michigan).

Only 12 of the 53 cities have effective tax rates that vary based on their value. Value-driven

differences in effective tax rates make the biggest difference in rankings in Washington, D.C.

The District of Columbia has one of the lowest tax rates for industrial properties worth $100,000

24

To determine personal property’s share of total parcel value, we replicate the methodology used by the Minnesota

Department of Revenue’s Research Division in their biennial Tax Incidence Study. These studies are available on

their website: http://www.revenue.state.mn.us/research_stats/Pages/Tax_Incidence_Studies.aspx.

26

(0.780%, 43

rd

highest), but is above average for industrial properties worth $25 million (1.867%,

17

th

highest). The city exempts the first $225,000 of business personal property, which is

effectively a complete personal property exemption for the $100,000-valued parcel but only

exempts 0.9% of the personal property associated with the $25 million-valued parcel. The

exemption reduces the total tax on a $100,000-valued property by nearly 60% but by less than

1% for a property worth $25 million.

Other cities where the rankings vary significantly because of beneficial tax treatment provided to

lower-valued properties through credits, exemptions, or preferential assessment practices

include:

 Phoenix (31

st

highest for $100k, 8

th

highest for $25m)

 Billings (MT) (50

th

highest for $100k, 35

th

highest for $25m)

 Des Moines (30

th

highest for $100k, 16

th

highest for $25m)

 Philadelphia (47

th

highest for $100k, 34

th

highest for $25m)

Appendix Table 4c shows effective tax rates on industrial properties for a different set of cities.

Whereas Table 4a has the largest city for each state, Table 4c shows the 50 largest cities in the

country regardless of their state. There is considerable overlap between the two groups of cities,

but some significant differences as well. In Table 4c, California has eight cities, Texas has seven

cities, Arizona has three cities, and five states (CO, FL, NC, OK, and TN) have two cities each.

There are 21 states without any cities in the top 50 shown in Table 4c. Appendix Table 4c also

shows effective tax rates on industrial properties worth $100,000, $1 million, and $25 million

(again with personal property equal to 100% of the real property value).

The average effective tax rate for industrial properties is higher for the 50 largest cities shown in

Table 4c than the cities shown in Table 4a—roughly 6-7 percent higher, regardless of which of

the three property values is analyzed.

In some states, tax rates do not vary too much across the largest cities. For example, consider tax

rates for industrial properties worth $1 million in the two largest states:

 For California’s eight cities, the highest tax rate is in Oakland (37

th

highest) and the

lowest is in Sacramento (45

th

). California accounts for 8 of the 9 cities ranked between

37

th

and 45

th

.

 For Texas’s seven cities, the highest tax rate is in El Paso (highest among the 50) and the

lowest is in Austin (11

th

). Texas accounts for the four of the top five cities and six of the

top eight.

However, in other cases there can be considerable differences in effective tax rates between

cities within the same state. Consider these noticeable differences in ranking (with the associated

effective tax rates) for the $1 million-valued industrial properties in states with two or three cities

among the nation’s largest fifty:

 In Tennessee: Memphis has the 7

th

highest tax rate (2.583%), while Nashville has the 34

th

highest (1.104%).

 In Colorado: Denver has the 18

th

highest tax rate (1.860%), while Colorado Springs has

the 31

st

highest (1.316%).

27

 In Arizona: Phoenix has the 16

th

highest tax rate (1.953%), while neighboring Mesa has

the 26

th

highest (1.417%).

Appendix Table 4e provides additional information about how effective property tax rates vary

across states by looking at a rural community in each state. The rural analysis includes county

seats with populations between 2,500 and 10,000 that are located in nonmetropolitan counties.

On average, industrial tax rates are about 13 to 14 percent lower for the 50 rural communities

than the largest cities in each state. For a property worth $1 million, the average effective tax rate

is 1.297% for the rural cities versus 1.499% for the urban cities shown in Appendix Table 4a. For

28 states, the effective tax rate on a $1-million valued industrial property is lower in the selected

rural municipality than in the state’s largest city.

The state with the biggest difference in the tax rate in the largest city and the rural municipality is

Tennessee, where the tax rate on an industrial property worth $1 million in Savannah (TN) is

about a third of the rate in Memphis (0.94% vs. 2.58%). Other states where the tax rate in the

rural municipality is significantly lower than the largest city include Connecticut (59% lower),

Delaware (48% lower), Oregon (52% lower), and Arkansas (48% lower).

On the other hand, in 22 states the tax rate is higher in the rural municipality than in the largest

city in the state. The biggest difference is in South Carolina, where the tax rate on an industrial

property worth $1 million in Mullins is 61 percent higher than the rate in Charleston (3.67% vs.

2.28%). Other states where the tax rate in the rural municipality is significantly higher than the

largest city include Virginia (53% higher), Kansas (47% higher), Washington (42% higher), and

Montana (35% higher).

Variation in industrial tax rates across the 50 rural cities is very similar to variation across the

largest cities in each state.

Some readers may want to use findings on effective tax rates from one specific table to reach

conclusions on property taxes throughout an entire state. The small differences in tax rates across

cities in California and Texas (Appendix Table 4c) show that the largest city in each state can

serve as a proxy for property tax rates throughout an entire state. However, the large differences

between the two or three largest cities in Tennessee, Arizona, and Colorado show that caution is

needed when extrapolating findings for a single city to an entire state.

Readers wishing to determine whether taxes in a state are high, low, or somewhere in between

are best served by comparing the rankings for urban and rural municipalities. For example, six

states (Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, and Texas) have multiple top

ten rankings in both an urban and rural setting under both sets of assumptions – suggesting that

these states are most likely to have the highest industrial property taxes. Delaware, Hawaii,

Kentucky, North Dakota, South Dakota, Virginia, and Wyoming are the seven states that most

often have bottom ten rankings in both urban and rural settings.

28

Figure 4: Industrial Property Taxes for Largest City in Each State (2017)

Effective Tax Rate for $1-Million Valued Property (plus $1 Million in Personal Property)

0.49%

0.57%

0.60%

0.64%

0.66%

0.69%

0.71%

0.87%

0.89%

0.91%

0.95%

1.10%

1.12%

1.13%

1.16%

1.17%

1.18%

1.21%

1.30%

1.36%

1.39%

1.40%

1.41%

1.42%

1.46%

1.47%

1.49%

1.51%

1.58%

1.60%

1.63%

1.69%

1.73%

1.79%

1.86%

1.93%

1.94%

1.95%

2.00%

2.06%

2.09%

2.10%

2.19%

2.27%

2.28%

2.34%

2.53%

2.58%

2.73%

2.84%

VA: Virginia Beach (53)

ND: Fargo (52)

HI: Honolulu (51)

DE: Wilmington (50)

WY: Cheyenne (49)

WA: Seattle (48)

KY: Louisville (47)

SD: Sioux Falls (46)

MT: Billings (45)

NC: Charlotte (44)

NV: Las Vegas (43)

CA: Los Angeles (42)

MA: Boston (41)

UT: Salt Lake City (40)

ME: Portland (39)

NH: Manchester (38)

AL: Birmingham (37)

ID: Boise (36)

PA: Philadelphia (35)

NM: Albuquerque (34)

OH: Columbus (33)

FL: Jacksonville (32)

MD: Baltimore (31)

AR: Little Rock (30)

OK: Oklahoma City (29)

NY: Buffalo (28)

DC: Washington (27)

KS: Wichita (26)

GA: Atlanta (25)

AK: Anchorage (24)

WI: Milwaukee (23)

NJ: Newark (22)

VT: Burlington (21)

WV: Charleston (20)

NE: Omaha (19)

IA: Des Moines (18)

MN: Minneapolis (17)

CO: Denver (16)

RI: Providence (15)

OR: Portland (14)

AZ: Phoenix (13)

IN: Indianapolis (12)

IL: Aurora (11)

CT: Bridgeport (10)

LA: New Orleans (9)

MO: Kansas City (8)

IL: Chicago (7)

SC: Charleston (6)

NY: New York City (5)

TX: Houston (4)

TN: Memphis (3)

MI: Detroit (2)

MS: Jackson (1)

Tax Relative to U.S. Average

0.5x

1x

1.5x

2x

29

Apartment Property Taxes

Figure 5 shows effective property tax rates for apartment buildings worth $600,000 for the

largest city in each state. The analysis assumes each property has an additional $30,000 worth of

fixtures, which includes items such as stoves, refrigerators, garbage disposals, air conditioners,

drapes, and lawn care equipment. Readers should use some caution when interpreting these

results; see the box on comparing property taxes calculated with fixed property values for

guidance (page 22).

The average effective tax rate on apartment properties for the 53 cities in Figure 5 is 1.834

percent. A property worth $600,000 with $30,000 in personal property would thus owe $11,554

in property taxes (1.834% x $630,000 total parcel value).

Tax rates vary widely across the 53 cities. The top two cities of New York City and Detroit have

effective tax rates that are 2.5 to 3 times higher than the average for these cities. The next three

cities (Aurora, IL; Bridgeport, CT; and Des Moines, IA) have effective tax rates that are roughly

double the average for these cities. Conversely, there are eight cities where tax rates on

apartments are less than half the average, with the lowest rates in Honolulu, Cheyenne, Salt Lake

City, Denver, and Washington (DC).

Some cities had significant changes in their effective tax rates from 2016 to 2017. The cities

where property tax rates on apartment properties declined by at least 7% were Des Moines (IA)

and Louisville. A phased-in reduction in the assessment ratio of apartment properties – part of a

larger property tax reform effort – substantially influenced the effective tax rate reduction for

apartments in Des Moines; while growing underassessment of apartment properties drove the

decline in Louisville. However, these changes had no effect on Des Moines’ ranking (which

remains at 5

th

highest) and resulted in only a two-place decline in Louisville’s rank, from 41

st

highest to 43

rd

. In fact, when excluding South Carolina because of the change in cities, no city

fell more than two places in rank from 2016.

The effective tax rate on apartments increased by 23% between 2016 and 2017 in Columbus

(OH) as property tax reappraisal sharply reduced the underassessment of apartment properties,

driving the city’s ranking up 7 places, from 19

th

to 12

th

. Five other cities had notable increases in

the effective tax rankings for apartments: Charleston (WV) rose from 25

th

to 21

st

, Phoenix rose

from 37

th

to 34

th

, Jackson (MS) rose from 11

th

to 8

th

, Las Vegas rose from 44

th

to 41

st

, and Sioux

Falls (SD) rose from 26

th

to 23

rd

.

Appendix Table 5b shows effective tax rates on apartment properties for a different set of cities.

Whereas Table 5a has the largest city for each state, Table 5b shows the 50 largest cities in the

country regardless of their state. There is considerable overlap between the two groups of cities,

but some significant differences as well. In Table 5b, California has eight cities, Texas has seven

cities, Arizona has three cities, and five states (CO, FL, NC, OK, and TN) have two cities each.

There are 21 states without any cities in the top 50 shown in Table 5b.

The average effective tax rates for apartment properties is about 6 percent lower for the 50

largest cities shown in Table 5b than the cities shown in Table 5a. In some states, tax rates do not

30

vary too much across the largest cities. For example, consider tax rates for apartment properties

worth $600,000 in the two largest states:

 For California’s eight cities, the highest tax rate is in Oakland (24

th

highest) and the

lowest is in Sacramento (39

th

highest). There is a clustering effect as California accounts

for 6 of the 8 cities ranked between 32

nd

and 39

th

.

 For Texas’s seven cities, the highest tax rate is in Fort Worth (3

rd

highest) and the lowest

is in Austin (13

th

). Texas accounts for five of the seven cities ranked between 3

rd

and 9

th

.

However, in some states there are considerable differences in effective tax rates between

different cities. Consider these notable differences in rankings and effective tax rates between the

cities in these states:

 In Tennessee: Memphis has the 4

th

highest tax rate (2.917%), while Nashville has the 33

rd

highest (1.247%).

 In Oklahoma: Tulsa has the 21

st

highest tax rate (1.501%), while Oklahoma City has the

31

st

highest (1.262%).

 In Arizona: Phoenix and Tucson have the 25

th

and 27

th

highest rates (1.343% and

1.325%, respectively), while Mesa has the 44

th

highest (0.960%).

Appendix Table 5c provides additional information about how effective property tax rates vary

across states by looking at a rural community in each state. The rural analysis includes county

seats with populations between 2,500 and 10,000 that are located in nonmetropolitan counties.

On average, apartment tax rates are about 15 percent lower for the 50 rural communities than the

largest cities in each state. For the $600,000-valued apartment property, the average effective tax

rate is 1.623% for the rural cities versus 1.834% for the large cities shown in Appendix Table 5a.

For 28 states, the effective tax rate on a $600,000-valued apartment property is lower in the

selected rural municipality than in the state’s largest city.

The state where the tax rate in the largest city is the lowest vis-à-vis the rate for the rural

municipality is Tennessee, where the tax rate on a $600,000-valued apartment property in

Savannah is about a third of the rate in Memphis (1.03% vs. 2.92%). Other states where the tax

rate in the rural municipality is significantly lower than the largest city include Delaware (57%

lower), Oregon (52% lower), Arkansas (49% lower) and Connecticut (47% lower).

On the other hand, in 22 states the tax rate is higher in the rural municipality than in the largest

city in the state. The biggest difference is in Pennsylvania, where the tax rate on an apartment

property worth $600,000 in Ridgway is nearly 120 percent higher than the rate in Philadelphia

(2.85% vs. 1.31%). Other states where the tax rate in the rural municipality is significantly

higher than in the largest city include Massachusetts (110% higher), Hawaii (77% higher),

Kansas (70% higher), and South Carolina (59% higher).

Variation in apartment tax rates across the 50 rural municipalities is very similar to variation

across the largest cities in each state.

Some readers may want to use findings on effective tax rates from one specific table to reach

conclusions on property taxes throughout an entire state. The small differences in tax rates across

31

cities in California and Texas (Appendix Table 5b) show that the largest city in each state can

serve as a proxy for property tax rates throughout an entire state. However, the large differences

between the largest cities in Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Arizona show that caution is needed

when extrapolating findings for a single city to an entire state.

Readers wishing to determine whether taxes in a state are high, low, or somewhere in between

are best served by comparing the rankings for urban and rural municipalities. For example, six

states (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin) have top ten rankings in

both an urban and rural setting – suggesting that these states are most likely to have the highest

apartment property taxes. Colorado, Hawaii, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming are the five states that

have bottom ten rankings in both urban and rural settings.

32

Figure 5: Apartment Property Taxes for Largest City in Each State (2017)

Effective Tax Rate for $600,000 Valued Property (plus $30,000 of Fixtures)

0.33%

0.60%

0.72%

0.76%

0.77%

0.83%

0.84%

0.90%

0.96%

1.05%

1.08%

1.10%

1.19%

1.24%

1.26%

1.31%

1.33%

1.34%

1.39%

1.40%

1.44%

1.45%

1.47%

1.49%

1.57%

1.62%

1.65%

1.66%

1.69%

1.71%

1.84%

1.88%

2.03%

2.04%

2.15%

2.35%

2.38%

2.42%

2.46%

2.52%

2.69%

2.75%

2.84%

2.92%

3.01%

3.34%

3.81%

3.92%

4.55%

5.40%

HI: Honolulu (53)

WY: Cheyenne (52)

UT: Salt Lake City (51)

CO: Denver (50)

DC: Washington (49)

VA: Virginia Beach (48)

WA: Seattle (47)

MT: Billings (46)

MA: Boston (45)

NC: Charlotte (44)

KY: Louisville (43)

ND: Fargo (42)

NV: Las Vegas (41)

CA: Los Angeles (40)

IL: Chicago (39)

OK: Oklahoma City (38)

KS: Wichita (37)

PA: Philadelphia (36)

NM: Albuquerque (35)

AZ: Phoenix (34)

DE: Wilmington (33)

AK: Anchorage (32)

AR: Little Rock (31)

MO: Kansas City (30)

AL: Birmingham (29)

ID: Boise (28)

LA: New Orleans (27)

GA: Atlanta (26)

SC: Charleston (25)

FL: Jacksonville (24)

SD: Sioux Falls (23)

MN: Minneapolis (22)

WV: Charleston (21)

IN: Indianapolis (20)

RI: Providence (19)

NE: Omaha (18)

ME: Portland (17)

NH: Manchester (16)

TX: Houston (15)

MD: Baltimore (14)

OR: Portland (13)

OH: Columbus (12)

VT: Burlington (11)

NY: Buffalo (10)

WI: Milwaukee (9)

MS: Jackson (8)

TN: Memphis (7)

NJ: Newark (6)

IA: Des Moines (5)

CT: Bridgeport (4)

IL: Aurora (3)

MI: Detroit (2)

NY: New York City (1)

Tax Relative to U.S. Average

0.5x

1x

1.5x

2x

2.5x

3x

33

Classification and Preferential Treatment of Homestead Properties

Many cities have preferences built into their property tax systems that result in lower effective

tax rates for certain classes of property, with these features usually designed to benefit

homeowners. The “classification ratio” describes these preferences by comparing the effective

tax rate for two types of property. For example, if a city has a 3.0% effective tax rate on

commercial properties and a 1.5% effective tax rate on homestead properties, then the

commercial-homestead classification ratio is 2.0 (3.0% divided by 1.5%).

In a property tax system that treats all properties similarly, the classification ratio would be 1.0,

because the effective rates on all properties would be the same. Therefore, the classification ratio

provides a summary measure of the degree to which one type of property subsidizes lower

property taxes on another class of properties. There are four main features of property tax

systems that lead to different effective tax rates for different classes of property: the assessment

ratio, the nominal tax rate, exemptions and credits, and the sales ratio.

25

First, states may have different assessment ratios for different classes of property, which is the

percentage of market value used to determine taxable values. For example, a state may have a

100% assessment ratio for commercial property and a 70% assessment ratio for residential

property, which means a $100,000 commercial property would be taxed on its full market value

but a $100,000 residential property would be taxed as if it were worth $70,000.

Second, cities may have different nominal tax rates for different classes of property, which is the

tax rate applied to the taxable value to determine the tax bill. The nominal tax rate is also known

as the statutory tax rate or millage rate.

Third, states or cities may have exemptions or credits that are only available to certain types of

properties. The most common are homestead exemptions, which reduce the amount of property

value subject to taxation, but are usually restricted to owner-occupied homes and unavailable to

businesses or renters. For example, a $50,000 homestead exemption would mean a $200,000

home would be taxed as if it were worth $150,000, assuming there is a 100% assessment ratio.

26

Fourth, the sales ratio may vary across property classes. The sales ratio measures the accuracy of

assessments by comparing assessments to actual sales. For example, if the sales ratio for

homesteads is 95%, then a home worth $100,000 would be “on the books” as if it were worth

$95,000. Unlike the three other causes of classification, differences in sales ratios across classes

are not written into law and are normally unintentional. Nonetheless, differences in the quality of

assessments across property classes can produce a de facto classification system.

25

For details on classification in each state, see the Property Tax Classification table on the Lincoln Institute of

Land Policy’s Significant Features of the Property Tax website (https://www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/significant-

features-property-tax/Report_Property_Tax_Classification.aspx).

26

For information on homestead exemptions in each state, see “How Do States Spell Relief: A National Study of

Homestead Exemptions and Property Tax Credits” by Adam H. Langley in Land Lines (April 2015).

34

Commercial-Homestead Classification Ratio

Figure 6a shows the commercial-homestead classification ratio for the largest city in each state,

by comparing the effective tax rate on a $1 million commercial property to the effective tax rate

on a median-value homestead property. Note that because homeowners’ household goods are not

taxable, we exclude commercial fixtures and instead compare only the effective rates on real

property (land and buildings).

The average classification ratio for the 53 cities shown in Figure 6a is 1.640, which means that

on average commercial properties experience an effective tax rate that is 64% higher than

homesteads.

The commercial-homestead classification ratio varies widely across the 53 cities. The top four

cities of New York City, Boston, Honolulu, and Denver all have classification ratios equal to or

greater than 3.5. Just over a quarter of the cities (14 of 53) have classification ratios above 2.0,

meaning that commercial properties face an effective tax rate that is at least double that for

homesteads.

There are five cities where the classification ratio is below one, meaning that their classification

system favors commercial properties over homesteads: Las Vegas, Louisville, Virginia Beach,

Cheyenne (WY), and Wilmington (DE). The property tax systems in these cities are not

structured to favor commercial properties, but the sales ratio results in a de facto classification

system since commercial properties are under-assessed relative to homestead properties.

Appendix Table 6a provides additional information about the commercial-homestead

classification ratio in each city. Of the 53 cities, 16 have a higher assessment ratio for

commercial properties, 14 have a higher nominal tax rate on commercial properties, and 30 have

exemptions or credits that favor homesteads over commercial properties. Property tax systems

often combine these features – in 19 of these cities homeowners benefit from at least two of

these three features (in Minneapolis, homeowners benefit from all three). In 13 cities preferential

treatment for homeowners is delivered through exemptions or credits alone, while in 8 cities

preferences are delivered exclusively through differences in assessment ratios or nominal tax

rates.

On average, tax disparities between commercial and homestead properties fell slightly in 2017—

declining to 1.640 from 1.672 in 2016. The commercial-homestead classification ratio declined

in 29 cities

27

, with the largest drops in Chicago (-0.349); Indianapolis (-0.245); Phoenix (-0.202);

Virginia Beach (-0.143); and Fargo (-0.138). Relative changes in sales ratios for commercial

versus homestead properties tend to have the biggest impact on short-term changes in

classification ratios. However, policy decisions that change the underlying property tax structure

can sometimes come into play – for example, policymakers’ decision in North Dakota to end the

state-paid 12% credit against homestead taxes plays a large role in Fargo’s lower classification

ratio. From a rankings perspective, Virginia Beach (KY) fell 13 places, from 38

th

to 51

st

highest,

and Cheyenne (WY) fell 10 places (from 42

nd

to 52

nd

highest).

27

Excluding South Carolina, where the city change renders comparisons between this report and the last misleading.

35

The classification ratio increased in 15 cities, with the largest rises in Boston (0.469); Columbus,

OH (0.259); Detroit (0.105); and Baltimore (0.066). Here, the decline is largely driven again by

sales ratio changes, although the large increase in Boston’s homestead exemption results in a

much higher classification ratio for that city.

Figure 6c shows the longer-term picture, with trends in the commercial-homestead classification

ratio going back to 1998. The 1.640 figure for 2017 is the lowest we have measured, about 2%

lower than the 1.678 from last year’s report and the 1.680 in 2002. There was a roughly

equivalent drop, on a proportional basis, from 2016 to 2017 when looking solely at locations

where residential and commercial properties are treated differently in statute. For cities with

“statutory classification,”

28

the average dropped from 1.889 to 1.854.

Apartment-Homestead Classification Ratio

Figure 6b shows the apartment-homestead classification ratio for the largest city in each state,

by comparing the effective tax rate on a $600,000 apartment building to the effective tax rate on

a median-value homestead. This classification ratio shows the degree of subsidy provided to

homeowners at the expense of renters. The apartment-homestead classification ratio shows that

apartments subsidize homestead property taxes at about half the rate that commercial properties

do, with apartments facing an effective tax rate that is 33% higher than homesteads on average.

In nearly all locations studied, the apartment-homestead classification ratio is smaller than or

equal to the commercial-homestead classification ratio, with the exceptions of (in alphabetical

order): Burlington (VT), Charleston (WV), Cheyenne (WY), Detroit, Houston, New York City,

and Wilmington (DE).

New York City is a major outlier in the apartment-homestead classification ratio, with an

effective tax rate on apartments that is nearly five times higher than the median valued home.

There are four other cities with classification ratios above 2.0: Charleston (SC), Indianapolis,

Charleston (WV), and Birmingham. On the other hand, there are six cities with a classification

ratio below 1.0, with the lowest ratios in Chicago, Virginia Beach, and Cheyenne. The

preference given to apartments in these cities is not the result of statutory provisions, but is

simply the result of greater underassessment for apartments relative to homesteads.

Appendix Table 6b provides more details about the apartment-homestead classification ratio in

each city. As with commercial properties, a large majority of cities have higher effective tax

rates on apartments than homesteads. However, the preferences given to homesteads relative to

apartments are caused more by homestead exemptions and credits than by differences in

assessment ratios or nominal tax rates. In total, 36 of the 53 cities have statutory preferences for

homesteads relative to apartments, but only 10 offer more than one preference. Five cities have

preferential assessment ratios and/or nominal tax rates only, while 20 cities offer homestead

exemptions or credits alone.

On average, tax disparities between apartments and homesteads fell about 1-2% in 2017—

declining to 1.332 from 1.351 in 2016. The apartment-homestead classification ratio declined in

28

To identify cities with statutory classification, we ignore the sales ratio. This group only includes cities where

classification is written into law with the assessment ratio, nominal tax rate, or exemptions/credits.

36

28 cities

29

, with the largest drops in Indianapolis (-0.245); New York City (-0.175); Fargo, ND

(-0.138); Sioux Falls, SD (-0.123); and Burlington, VT (-0.116). The classification ratio

increased in 11 cities, with the largest rises in Columbus, OH (0.259); Boston (0.246); Baltimore

(0.066); Denver (0.044); and Portland, ME (0.019). As with the commercial-homestead ratios,

relative changes in sales ratio have the biggest impact in year-to-year changes in the apartment-

homestead ratios. However, policymakers’ decisions influenced some changes in the apartment-

homestead classification ratios; in Fargo, the same factors affecting changes in the commercial-

homestead classification ratio come into play. Figure 6d provides information on how the

apartment-homestead classification ratio has changed since 1998.

29

Again excluding South Carolina because of the change in cities.

37

Figure 6a: Commercial-Homestead Classification Ratio for Largest City in Each State (2017)

0.879

0.916

0.922

0.959

0.997

1.000

1.012

1.022

1.063

1.070

1.071

1.073

1.077

1.087

1.096

1.106

1.126

1.162

1.193

1.259

1.284

1.287

1.329

1.363

1.437

1.463

1.590

1.600

1.640

1.753

1.827

1.847

1.863

1.937

1.952

1.996

2.037

2.109

2.141

2.168

2.180

2.205

2.353

2.766

3.101

3.499

3.561

3.968

4.237

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

DE: Wilmington (53)

WY: Cheyenne (52)

VA: Virginia Beach (51)

KY: Louisville (50)

NV: Las Vegas (49)

CT: Bridgeport (48)

NJ: Newark (47)

NC: Charlotte (46)

OR: Portland (45)

WA: Seattle (44)

NH: Manchester (43)

CA: Los Angeles (42)

NE: Omaha (41)

OK: Oklahoma City (40)

MD: Baltimore (39)

WI: Milwaukee (38)

AK: Anchorage (37)

ME: Portland (36)

ND: Fargo (35)

IL: Aurora (34)

VT: Burlington (33)

SD: Sioux Falls (32)

NM: Albuquerque (31)

MI: Detroit (30)

AR: Little Rock (29)

OH: Columbus (28)

TX: Houston (27)

MT: Billings (26)

FL: Jacksonville (25)

GA: Atlanta (24)

NY: Buffalo (23)

IA: Des Moines (22)

TN: Memphis (21)

Average for Cities

UT: Salt Lake City (20)

MS: Jackson (19)

MO: Kansas City (18)

ID: Boise (17)

MN: Minneapolis (16)

RI: Providence (15)

AZ: Phoenix (14)

LA: New Orleans (13)

WV: Charleston (12)

PA: Philadelphia (11)

DC: Washington (10)

AL: Birmingham (9)

KS: Wichita (8)

IN: Indianapolis (7)

IL: Chicago (6)

SC: Charleston (5)

CO: Denver (4)

HI: Honolulu (3)

NY: New York City (2)

MA: Boston (1)

38

Figure 6b: Apartment-Homestead Classification Ratio for Largest City in Each State (2017)

0.795

0.875

0.920

0.959

0.964

0.966

1.000

1.012

1.022

1.025

1.034

1.038

1.061

1.069

1.070

1.073

1.077

1.087

1.096

1.115

1.117

1.118

1.122

1.126

1.245

1.257

1.259

1.284

1.303

1.310

1.332

1.363

1.437

1.461

1.463

1.549

1.600

1.827

1.863

1.954

2.180

2.255

2.353

3.101

4.800

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

IL: Chicago (53)

VA: Virginia Beach (52)

WY: Cheyenne (51)

KY: Louisville (50)

UT: Salt Lake City (49)

NV: Las Vegas (48)

NC: Charlotte (47)

CT: Bridgeport (46)

MT: Billings (45)

NH: Manchester (44)

NJ: Newark (43)

OR: Portland (42)

RI: Providence (41)

WA: Seattle (40)

DE: Wilmington (39)

MO: Kansas City (38)

CA: Los Angeles (37)

NE: Omaha (36)

KS: Wichita (35)

NM: Albuquerque (34)

CO: Denver (33)

OK: Oklahoma City (32)

WI: Milwaukee (31)

MD: Baltimore (30)

AK: Anchorage (29)

ME: Portland (28)

ND: Fargo (27)

IL: Aurora (26)

VT: Burlington (25)

DC: Washington (24)

HI: Honolulu (23)

AZ: Phoenix (22)

SD: Sioux Falls (21)

PA: Philadelphia (20)

MI: Detroit (19)

AR: Little Rock (18)

OH: Columbus (17)

TX: Houston (16)

MN: Minneapolis (15)

Average for Cities

FL: Jacksonville (14)

GA: Atlanta (13)

LA: New Orleans (12)

NY: Buffalo (11)

IA: Des Moines (10)

TN: Memphis (9)

MS: Jackson (8)

ID: Boise (7)

MA: Boston (6)

AL: Birmingham (5)

WV: Charleston (4)

IN: Indianapolis (3)

SC: Charleston (2)

NY: New York City (1)

39

Figure 6c: Commercial-Homestead Classification Ratio for Largest City in Each State (1998 – 2017)

Note: “Statutory classification” is the group of cities where classification is written into law with the assessment ratio,

nominal tax rate, or exemptions/credits. Identification of this group ignores the sales ratio.

Figure 6d: Apartment-Homestead Classification Ratio for Largest City in Each State (1998 – 2017)

1.76

1.72

1.68

1.71 1.71

1.73

1.77

1.79

1.75

1.72

1.71

1.79

1.72

1.71

1.68

1.67

1.64

2.07

1.94

1.88

1.96

1.94

1.95

1.99

2.04

2.00

1.97

1.90

2.05

1.95

1.92

1.91

1.89

1.85

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Commercial/Home Ratio

Payable Year

All Location Average

Locations with Statutory Classification

Note: 1.0 denotes unclassified property tax system.

1.49

1.43

1.36

1.34

1.38

1.40

1.44

1.46

1.41

1.42

1.45

1.39

1.38

1.35

1.33

1.78

1.68

1.59

1.54

1.58

1.61

1.66

1.70

1.63

1.64

1.63

1.68

1.58

1.56

1.55

1.56

1.51

1.0

1.5

2.0

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Commercial/Home Ratio

Payable Year

All Location Average

Locations with Statutory Classification

Note: 1.0 denotes unclassified property tax system.

40

Property Tax Assessment Limits

Property tax limitations have become an increasingly important feature of the local government

finance landscape since the late 1970s, when rapid property value growth provoked Californians

to adopt the now-iconic Proposition 13. Since that time, limitations on property taxes have

become increasingly popular, especially during the late 1990s and early 2000s, when property

values again appreciated significantly.

30

There are many different types of property tax limits, including constraints on tax rates, tax

levies, and assessed values.

31

This report accounts for the impact of limits on tax rates and levies

implicitly, because of how these laws impact cities’ tax rates. However, accounting for the

impact of assessment limits requires an explicit modeling strategy.

Assessment limits typically restrict growth in the assessed value for individual parcels and then

reset the taxable value of properties when they are sold. Therefore, the level of tax savings

provided from assessment limits largely depends on two factors: how long a homeowner has

owned her home and appreciation of the home’s market value relative to the allowable growth of

its assessed value.

32

This report estimates the amount of tax relief provided by assessment limits for the average

homeowner in a particular city by estimating the amount of value growth these limits exclude

from taxation over an average tenure of ownership (See Methodology section for details).

33

One

key difference between assessment limits and other types of property tax limits, however, is that

tax savings from assessment limits vary widely across individual taxpayers within the same city.

Tax savings will be greater than average for homeowners whose home values have grown faster

than average for the city and have owned their homes longer than average. States with parcel-

specific assessment limits include Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois (Cook County

only), Michigan, New Mexico, New York (New York City and Nassau County only), Oklahoma,

Oregon, South Carolina, and Texas.

Figure 7 shows the impact of assessment limits for a median valued home in the 29 cities

modeled. The impact of assessment limits varies widely across cities. The largest effect is in

New York City, which has an assessment limit that has capped growth in assessed values for

residential properties since 1981, even when a property is sold. Because most homes in New

York were built prior to 1981, the average home in New York City has been subject to

assessment limits for 36 years. However, effective tax rates on newly built homes are far higher,

30

Paquin, Bethany P. 2015. “Chronicle of the 161-Year History of State-Imposed Property Tax Limitations.”

Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

31

The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy maintains a comprehensive database of property tax limits on its website:

https://www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/significant-features-property-tax/Report_Tax_Limits.aspx.

32

Haveman, Mark and Terri A. Sexton. 2008. Property Tax Assessment Limits: Lessons from Thirty Years of

Experience. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

33

Unlike most locales, assessment limits effective in New York City and Portland (OR) do not reset upon sale of a

property. Therefore, for those two cities the duration of the assessment limitation is set to the lesser of the average

age of an owner-occupied home (i.e. number of years since average home was constructed, which is 65 years in

New York City and 64 years in Portland) or the period during which assessment limits have been in place (since

1981 in New York City and 1996 in Portland).

41

because they do not benefit from the assessment limit. In fact, the owner of a median valued

home in New York City ($569,700) built prior to 1981 would face less than half the effective tax

rate than the owner of a newly built median valued home despite them having identical values.

Assessment limits also have large impacts in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Oakland, Miami, and

Sacramento, where effective tax rates are 40-45% lower for homes that have been owned for the

average duration in each city than for newly purchased homes. In contrast, in four cities

assessment limits have no impact on taxes for the average homeowner, because growth in market

values is less than allowable growth under the assessment limit.

Appendix Table 7 also shows the impact of assessment limits in terms of the dollar difference in

taxes between newly purchased homes and homes subject to the average assessment limitation in

each city, for median valued homes. In 9 cities, the difference in tax bills is at least $1,000.

Accounting for assessment limits can lead to major differences in city’s tax rate rankings. For

example, consider effective tax rates for median valued homes in the largest city in each state

(See Appendix Tables 2a and 2b). New York City has the 30

th

highest effective tax rate for new

homeowners, but drops to 50

th

highest once adjusting for assessment limits. Other cities with

large changes include Los Angeles (31

st

to 47

th

); Jacksonville (26

th

to 41

st

); Portland, OR (6

th

to

17

th

); and Phoenix (27

th

to 36

th

).

42

Figure 7: Impact of Assessment Limits

Difference in Property Taxes between a Newly Purchased Home and a Home that Has Been

Owned for the Average Duration for the City (For Median Valued Home)

Notes: See Methodology section for details on calculation.

*New York City and Portland (OR) have unique assessment limits, because they do not reset when a property

is sold like in other cities (See footnote 33 on page 40 for details on the methodology for these two cities).

0.0%

0.5%

0.9%

1.7%

2.2%

3.4%

4.5%

6.1%

13.2%

15.8%

18.8%

24.4%

27.6%

31.3%

32.1%

34.1%

37.0%

38.1%

41.2%

43.4%

43.7%

44.5%

53.8%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

San Antonio (TX)

Houston (TX)

El Paso (TX)

Austin (TX)

Fort Worth (TX)

Arlington (TX)

Dallas (TX)

Tucson (AZ)

Albuquerque (NM)

Tulsa (OK)

Oklahoma City (OK)

Little Rock (AR)

Chicago (IL)

Charleston (SC)

Mesa (AZ)

Phoenix (AZ)

Detroit (MI)

San Diego (CA)

Fresno (CA)

Portland (OR)*

Jacksonville (FL)

San Jose (CA)

Long Beach (CA)

Sacramento (CA)

Miami (FL)

Oakland (CA)

Los Angeles (CA)

San Francisco (CA)

New York City (NY)*

43

Methodology

This study updates the 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study: Payable Year 2016. It examines

four distinct classes of property using a standard set of assumptions about their “true” market

values and the split between real and personal property. The report calculates property taxes for

parcels with a range of property values in three sets of cities:

 the largest city in each state and the District of Columbia along with Aurora, Illinois and

Buffalo, New York;

 the largest fifty cities in the United States; and

 a rural municipality in each state.

This section first describes how property taxes are calculated, then describes data collection and

the selection of cities, next defines the four property classes included in this study, and finally

describes the methodology used to estimate the impact of assessment limits.

A. Components of the Property Tax Calculation

As an aid in reviewing the remaining assumptions of this study, it is helpful to think of the property

tax calculation as having six distinct components:

(1) a “true” market value (TMV),

(2) a local sales ratio (SR),

(3) applicable exemptions that reduce taxable value (E),

(4) a statutory classification system (classification rate) or other provisions that effectively

determine the proportion of the assessor’s estimated market value that is taxable (CR),

(5) the total local property tax rate (TR), and

(6) applicable property tax credits (C).

Accordingly, the net local property tax for a given parcel of property is written:

Net Property Tax = {[(TMV x SR) – E] x CR x TR} – C

Component 1: True Market Value (TMV)

The calculations for this study start with an assumption about the true market value of the four

classes of property. This is the market value of a parcel of property as determined in a local real

estate market consisting of arm-length transactions between willing buyers and sellers. This is in

contrast to “assessed value” or “estimated market value,” which is generally the starting point for

tax calculations.

This study assumes the true market values are consistent across all locations in the study. For

example, the ranking of property taxes on a residential homestead parcel with a true market value

of $150,000 assumes that the parcel is actually worth $150,000 in the local real estate market in

each location in each state, regardless of what the local assessor may think the property is worth.

44

For some locations the assumed true market value may be very atypical (a $150,000 home in

Boston, for example). Nevertheless, this study assumes the property exists there. Essentially, this

study is meant to compare the effects of property tax structures. Using fixed values allows the

isolated effects of tax structures to be observed. That is, the report compares property taxes, not

local real estate markets. However, as previously discussed the report does include tables that show

the residential tax burdens where the home value is set equal to local median values.

Component 2: Sales Ratios (SR)

A unique aspect of this study is that it includes the effects of assessment practices on relative tax

burdens. It would be much simpler to start the calculations by fixing the assessor’s “estimated

market value” for each property. However, in every state, the quality of property tax assessments

is a significant aspect of the local property tax scene. Omission of this aspect of the property tax

calculation would make this study much less useful.

Sales ratios are simply a measure of the accuracy of assessments. The sales ratio is determined by

comparing assessments to actual sales. A sales ratio of 100% indicates that assessments are equal

to market value. Sales ratios of less than 100% indicate that assessments are less than market value;

sales ratios of over 100% indicate that assessments are higher than market value. In some states,

state aid formulas use sales ratios to adjust assessors’ values when local property wealth is used as

a measure of local fiscal capacity. While sales ratios are generally not used in calculating an

individual’s actual property tax bill, some states do use sales data to equalize values as part of the

property tax process.

By applying sales ratios, this study recognizes that our $150,000 residential homestead may be

“on the books” at $155,000 in one location, and $140,000 in another, and that the actual tax on the

property will be based on these “estimates” of market value. For example, if the relevant sales ratio

in a given location is 93%, we convert the $150,000 true market value to $139,500 ($150,000 x

.93) before applying the provisions of the local property tax. In this way, the study presents tax

liabilities that represent the actual experience of property owners.

Sales ratio data is provided either at the city or county level, depending on the state. We use city-

level data where appropriate; otherwise we default to county data. Our preference is to use sales

ratio data that differentiates between different types of property. However, in many locations only

one ratio is reported, covering all types of property. In those cases, we apply the same ratio to all

of that location’s examples in the study.

In the case of personal property, sales ratios are generally not used. Many states do not have sales

ratios for personal property or assume they are 100%. Where states report personal property sales

ratios, we include them in this study.

Component 3: Exemptions (E)

Many states provide exemptions that reduce the amount of property value subject to taxation. In

some cases these exemptions are provided on a blanket basis across a state; in other cases the

exemptions are local-option. Because exemptions are subtracted from assessed value, we apply

45

them after first applying the sales ratio to true market value, since the exemption will not

incorporate any of the assessment error that properties can be subject to.

Note: in some cases the exemption is subtracted from taxable value instead of assessed value. In

those cases we apply the exemption after applying the classification rate.

Component 4: Classification Rates (CR)

The fourth component of the property tax calculation involves subjecting the parcel’s taxable value

to classification (or assessment) rates, which convert assessed value to taxable value. In many

cases, these classification rates are 100%, meaning that taxable value is equal to assessed value.

However, governments often use differential rates to affect the distribution of property tax levies

– to provide tax relief for a selected class of classes of properties at the expense of others.

In most states, state legislatures set the classification schemes. In a few states, local governments

have some autonomy over classification rates.

Because of the wide variation in the quality of assessments across the states, particularly across

classes of property, many states have no classification scheme in statute may in fact have

significant classification via uneven assessments across classes of property. (In some cases, this

may violate state constitutional provisions on uniform assessments.) Some states, like Minnesota,

enforce strict standards of assessment quality (sales ratio studies, state orders adjusting values,

state certification of assessors, etc.) and put their classification policy in statute.

Component 5: Total Local Tax Rate (TR)

The study defines “payable 2017 tax rate” as the rate used to calculate the property taxes with a

lien date in 2017, regardless of the date(s) on which payments are due. In some cities, there are

multiple combinations of taxing jurisdictions (namely, the state, cities, counties, school districts,

and special taxing districts). For instance, a city may be located in multiple school districts and

therefore rates will differ based on which school district a parcel is located in. This study uses the

rate that is most prevalent in a city.

This study excludes special assessments since they are more in the nature of user charges, do not

affect a majority of parcels, and are usually not sources of general revenue.

Component 6: Credits (C)

The final step in the tax calculation is to recognize any general deductions from the gross property

tax calculations (credits). The study includes any credits that apply to a majority of parcels of the

specified type. Certain states provide credits based on early payment; the study assumes that

taxpayers take advantage of the credit by making the early payment.

Effective Tax Rates (ETRs)

Effective tax rates are used to express the relationship between net property taxes and the true

market value of a property. This contrasts with the millage rates or other rates that are applied to

46

taxable value to determine a parcel’s tax burden. By including the effects of all statutory tax

provisions as well as the effects of local assessment practices, effective tax rates have the virtue of

allowing more meaningful comparisons across states and property types.

B. Data Collection

Data for the property tax calculations was collected in one of two ways. Where possible, we collect

property tax data directly from various state and local websites. Otherwise, we collect data using

a contact-verification approach in which we ask state and local tax experts to provide information.

In both cases, this information served as the basis for calculations by the Minnesota Center for

Fiscal Excellence.

Selection of Additional Urban Cities

In Cook County (Chicago) and in New York City, the property tax system (notably, the assessment

ratios) is substantially different from the system used in the remainder of Illinois and New York,

respectively. We include the second-largest cities in those states (Buffalo and Aurora) to represent

the property tax structures in the remainder of those states. In essence, the Urban analysis is a

comparison of 53 different property tax structures.

Selection of Rural Cities

Rural cities generally must meet three criteria to be included in the study:

 the city has a population of between 2,500 and 10,000 (controlling for size);

 the city is a county seat (controlling, as best as possible, for economic conditions and type

of services delivered); and

 the city is located in a county coded as a “6” or “7”

34

on the U.S. Department rural-urban

measurement continuum (controlling for geographical relationships to urban areas)

In five states (Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, New Jersey, and Rhode Island), there were no

counties coded 6 or 7 on the USDA’s continuum. In the case of Massachusetts, the only code 6 or

7 county included Nantucket Island, which does not seem comparable to rural counties in other

states. In these six cases, we selected the county seat in the most rural county available.

Data on Median-Valued Homes

This study compares homeowner property taxes using a “median value analysis”, which sets the

home value in each city equal to the median value of owner-occupied housing units in the city, or

for smaller cities, in the relevant county. This data comes from the one-year or five-year data in

the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey for 2016, as appropriate. We intend this

comparison to show how differences in local real estate markets affect residential property taxes.

34

Counties coded “6” are nonmetro counties with urban population of 2,500 to 19,999 that are adjacent to a metro

area; counties coded “7” are nonmetro counties within the same population range that are not adjacent to a metro

area.

47

Note that the payable 2014 edition of this study was the first to use ACS data on median home

values. Prior to that, median home value data came from metropolitan-area data provided by the

National Association of Realtors. Readers should make time-trend comparisons of tax burdens on

median-valued homes before and after this methodological change with care.

Special Property Tax Provisions

“Special property tax provisions” are provisions that, in practice, apply to less than half of all

taxpayers for a given class of property. Special provisions are normally triggered by special

circumstances or attributes of the taxpayer or property. Examples include senior tax deferrals, and

special valuation exclusions based on age, health or special use.

Because the goal of this study is to compare the actual tax experience of the largest number of

taxpayers in the selected jurisdictions, this study excludes special property tax provisions.

C. Property Classes and Assumptions About Value

This report studies hypothetical properties in four property classes (1) residential homesteads, (2)

commercial property, (3) industrial property, and (4) apartments. Except for apartments, the study

calculates taxes for all properties based on multiple values that are fixed across states. All classes

of business property (commercial, industrial, and apartments) have a corresponding set of

assumptions regarding the amount of personal property each parcel has.

These four classes were selected for a variety of reasons. First, they represent the vast majority of

property value across the country. In Minnesota, these four classes represent nearly 70% of market

value. It is likely that this figure is similar to other states, and may be even higher in states that do

not have substantial agricultural operations. Second, these are the classes of property that

policymakers tend to focus time and attention on. Third, most omitted classes of property are either

not relevant to all fifty states (cabin properties, for example) or require more complex work to

develop assumptions about value (public utilities and farms, for example).

Selection of Fixed Values

This report compares the tax burdens various property tax systems across the nation impose on a

fixed amount of value. Holding property values constant across all jurisdictions controls for the

effects differences in property values have on effective tax rates. The specific fixed values the

study uses for homes, commercial, and industrial properties were largely chosen between 1995

and 2000 to represent a low-valued

35

, medium-valued, and high-valued parcel.

Over time we have added or eliminated property values when appropriate. However, to preserve

the usefulness of time-trend comparisons we have not changed any fixed values after their first

appearance in the report.

35

Note that the study no longer includes the $70,000 “low-valued” home.

48

Importantly, in most locations the effective tax rates for commercial and industrial properties do

not vary much with value. Therefore, with few exceptions the specific fixed values selected for

inclusion in the report are not of major consequence.

Real and Personal Property

The treatment of personal property is a significant part of each state’s property tax regime. Because

personal property exemptions (or lack thereof) vary from state to state, creating accurate property

tax comparisons will depend in large part on making accurate assumptions about personal

property. This is especially true with regard to industrial parcels, which have much higher

proportions of personal property than do commercial properties in general.

Making these assumptions is challenging because the specific mix of real and personal property

obviously varies by industry and location. With the permission of the Minnesota Department of

Revenue’s Research Division, we have borrowed the methodology they use to determine shares of

real and personal business property in their biennial Tax Incidence Study.

36

Using that

methodology, we have calculated state-specific real property, machinery and equipment, fixtures,

and inventory shares for industrial parcels. The findings this model generates indicate that the

median split for industrial parcels nationwide is 45.5% land and buildings (real property) and

54.5% personal property. Overall, the split ranges from 41.0% real/59.0% personal (Michigan) to

49.6% real/50.4% personal (Massachusetts).

PROPERTY CLASSES AND TRUE MARKET VALUES

Values of Property

Class Real Mach. &

Equip.

Inventories Fixtures Total

Homestead

$150,000

$300,000

$0

$150,000

$300,000

Apartments

$600,000

$0

$30,000

$630,000

Commercial $100,000

$1,000,000

$25,000,000

$0

$20,000

$200,000

$5,000,000

$120,000

$1,200,000

$30,000,000

Industrial

(50% Personal)

$100,000

$1,000,000

$25,000,000

$50,000

$500,000

$12,500,000

$40,000

$400,000

$10,000,000

$10,000

$100,000

$2,500,00

$200,000

$2,000,000

$50,000,000

Industrial

(60% Personal)

$100,000

$1,000,000

$25,000,000

$75,000

$750,000

$18,750,000

$60,000

$600,000

$15,000,000

$15,000

$150,000

$3,750,000

$250,000

$2,500,000

$62,500,000

These results suggest a two-assumption approach, with one set of rankings assuming 40% real

property/60% personal property and a second set of rankings assuming 50% real property/50%

personal property. The following table summarizes the assumed true market values and assessed

value of personal property used for each property class.

36

Tax Incidence Studies are available on the website of the Minnesota Department of Revenue:

http://www.revenue.state.mn.us/research_stats/Pages/Tax_Incidence_Studies.aspx.

49

This study does not include intangibles such as bank balances or financial securities in the

property tax calculations.

Definitions of Real and Personal Property

The types of property found in this study are defined as follows:

 Real Property: consists of land and buildings not classified as personal property for tax

purposes.

 Machinery and Equipment: includes large and ponderous equipment, generally not

portable and often mounted on special foundations. Examples include large printing

presses and assembly robots.

 Inventories: includes raw materials, unfinished products, supplies and similar items used

by manufacturers. Does not include any inventory retailers hold for sale.

 Fixtures: includes items such as office furnishings, display racks, tools and similar items,

but not motor vehicles. In the case of apartments, it includes such things as stoves,

refrigerators, garbage disposals, air conditioners, drapes, and lawn care equipment.

D. Estimates of Assessment Limitation Effects

This study estimates the effect that provisions have which deliver property tax relief for

homeowners by limiting increases in home value or property taxes at the parcel level. Generally,

the value of parcel-specific assessment limitations results from a combination of the length of

homeowner tenure and changes in the market value of the parcel relative to the provisions of the

applicable limitation. This study uses data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey

to estimate that average length of homeowner tenure for locations where assessment limitation

provisions are in effect. ZIP5 data from the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s House Price Index

for All Transactions is used to estimate the average change in residential property value each

individual city where assessment limitation provisions are in effect. We then model the average

change in residential property value over the average length of homeowner tenure in each of these

locations and compare that change to the allowable growth in homestead value and/or taxes during

that period to determine the amount of excluded value or property tax relief these provisions afford.

One final key assumption: in most instances the model represents the experience of a homeowner

with an “average” length of tenure.

37

Therefore, if the model returns no excluded value, then we

assume that the provision does not apply to half or more of homeowners and thus does not apply.

MCFE prepared a working paper for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy on this subject where

there is considerably more detailed information on the methodology underlying this analysis.

38

37

Except for New York City and Portland (OR). In those cities the assessment limitations do no reset upon sale of

the property, and so the duration of the assessment limitation is set equal to the lesser of the average age of an

owner-occupied home (i.e. number of years since average home was constructed, which is 65 years in New York

City and 64 years in Portland) or the period during which assessment limitations have been in effect (since 1981 in

New York City and 1996 in Portland).

38

Twait, Aaron. 2012. “Property Assessment Limits: Effects on Homestead Property Tax Burdens and National

Property Tax Rankings.” Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. April.

Appendix Table 1a: Factors Correlated with Homestead Property Tax Rates in Large U.S. Cities

(Effective Tax Rate for Median Valued Home, with Assessment Limits)

Tax Rate

Property Tax Reliance

Median Home Value

Local Gov't Spending

Classification Ratio

State City

Rank

(1

-

73)

Tax

Rate

Rank

(1

-

73)

Impact on

Tax Rate

Rank

(1

-

73)

Impact on

Tax Rate

Rank

(1

-

73)

Impact on

Tax Rate

Commercial

Rank (1

-

73)

Apartments

Rank (1

-

73)

Impact on

Tax Rate

Alabama Birmingham 63 0.67 70 -0.60 70 0.73 32 0.00 10 5 -0.53

Alaska Anchorage 31 1.34 9 0.58 14 -0.37 39 -0.03 46 39 0.16

Arizona Mesa 62 0.72 47 -0.20 38 0.00 66 -0.23 16 27 -0.09

Arizona Phoenix 44 1.01 48 -0.20 35 -0.02 54 -0.18 22 30 -0.04

Arizona Tucson 33 1.22 39 -0.07 59 0.31 63 -0.22 15 28 -0.08

Arkansas Little Rock 40 1.06 65 -0.51 47 0.22 57 -0.20 31 20 0.04

California Fresno 52 0.83 43 -0.11 30 -0.08 35 -0.02 51 46 0.18

California Long Beach 60 0.74 62 -0.45 10 -0.78 6 0.35 55 50 0.19

California Los Angeles 64 0.66 50 -0.26 6 -0.90 5 0.43 57 52 0.19

California Oakland 59 0.75 56 -0.34 4 -0.97 4 0.65 58 53 0.19

California Sacramento 66 0.65 57 -0.37 16 -0.33 12 0.21 53 48 0.19

California San Diego 51 0.84 32 0.07 9 -0.86 31 0.01 56 51 0.19

California San Francisco 68 0.65 55 -0.32 1 -1.36 2 1.04 61 55 0.20

California San Jose 55 0.82 40 -0.08 2 -1.15 18 0.11 60 54 0.19

Colorado Colorado Springs 71 0.45 71 -0.60 25 -0.13 25 0.06 1 67 -0.47

Colorado Denver 65 0.66 69 -0.58 13 -0.47 7 0.34 4 44 -0.46

Connecticut Bridgeport 1 3.81 1 1.27 43 0.14 38 -0.03 62 56 0.20

DC Washington 61 0.72 64 -0.51 7 -0.87 1 1.68 19 32 -0.05

Delaware Wilmington 28 1.46 33 -0.01 58 0.30 20 0.10 73 56 0.27

Florida Jacksonville 53 0.83 37 -0.04 48 0.24 34 -0.01 28 15 -0.02

How to Interpret Each Factor’s Impact on a City’s Tax Rate

The columns labeled “Impact on Tax Rate” shows how each factor is expected to affect the tax rate in that city relative to a scenario where the city had the average

value for that variable—a positive value means that factor increases the city’s tax rate, while a negative value means that factor decreases the city ’s tax rate.

For example, consider Birmingham, Alabama. The city has the 70

th

highest property tax reliance (4

th

lowest), which is predicted to decrease the city’s tax rate on a

median valued home by 0.60 percentage points relative to a city with average property tax reliance. An alternative way to interpret this data is that if Birmingham

had the average property tax reliance and all other characteristics of the city were unchanged (home values, government spend ing, etc.), then the city’s tax rate

would be 0.60 percentage points higher, which at 1.26% would be 32

nd

highest. Birmingham also has the 70

th

highest median home value (4th lowest), which is

expected to increase their tax rate by 0.73 percentage points relative to a scenario where the city had the average home value for all cities in this analysis. Local

government spending per capita in Birmingham (32

nd

highest) equals the average for the cities in this analysis, and thus is not expected to affect the city’s tax rate.

Finally, Birmingham has significantly higher tax rates for commercial properties and apartments than for homestead properties; the classification ratio is 10

th

highest for commercial properties and 5

th

highest for apartments. The city’s classification ratios are predicted to decrease the property t ax rate on a median valued

home by 0.53 percentage points compared to a city with the average classification ratio.

51

Tax Rate Property Tax Reliance

Median Home Value Local Gov't Spending Classification Ratio

State City

Rank

(1

-

73)

Tax

Rate

Rank

(1

-

73)

Impact on

Tax Rate

Rank

(1

-

73)

Impact on

Tax Rate

Rank

(1

-

73)

Impact on

Tax Rate

Commercial

Apartments

Impact

Florida Miami 48 0.90 34 -0.01 21 -0.25 27 0.05 37 24 0.08

Georgia Atlanta 39 1.08 42 -0.11 23 -0.20 9 0.32 26 14 -0.08

Hawaii Honolulu* 73 0.31 16 0.35 3 -0.99 73 -0.41 6 31 -0.35

Idaho Boise 54 0.83 11 0.44 33 -0.04 72 -0.38 23 7 -0.30

Illinois Aurora 2 3.76 4 0.99 44 0.14 60 -0.22 68 35 0.19

Illinois Chicago 26 1.54 38 -0.06 24 -0.14 10 0.32 8 73 -0.06

Indiana Indianapolis 43 1.03 41 -0.08 63 0.41 41 -0.05 7 3 -0.64

Iowa Des Moines 9 2.26 13 0.38 64 0.43 49 -0.11 29 11 -0.08

Kansas Wichita 34 1.19 24 0.16 66 0.45 58 -0.20 9 47 -0.13

Kentucky Louisville 35 1.18 53 -0.31 55 0.27 67 -0.24 47 70 0.20

Louisiana New Orleans 45 1.00 58 -0.38 31 -0.05 40 -0.03 14 13 -0.24

Maine Portland 19 1.89 8 0.67 20 -0.26 46 -0.09 44 37 0.15

Maryland Baltimore 13 2.07 30 0.09 53 0.26 21 0.09 27 40 0.09

Massachusetts Boston 70 0.51 3 1.14 11 -0.74 29 0.02 3 6 -0.79

Michigan Detroit 4 2.74 63 -0.49 73 1.34 19 0.11 40 21 0.06

Minnesota Minneapolis 30 1.35 35 -0.03 27 -0.10 23 0.09 13 16 -0.20

Mississippi Jackson 24 1.56 7 0.73 70 0.73 61 -0.22 18 8 -0.31

Missouri Kansas City 27 1.51 67 -0.54 57 0.30 30 0.01 17 56 -0.01

Montana Billings 47 0.95 22 0.19 34 -0.03 69 -0.27 36 56 0.15

Nebraska Omaha 16 2.01 23 0.18 56 0.28 36 -0.02 52 49 0.18

Nevada Las Vegas 36 1.14 54 -0.31 29 -0.08 48 -0.10 64 68 0.21

New Hampshire

Manchester 10 2.26 6 0.76 32 -0.05 59 -0.21 72 56 0.24

New Jersey Newark* 3 3.16 2 1.27 27 -0.10 47 -0.10 71 56 0.24

New Mexico Albuquerque 32 1.25 46 -0.17 41 0.07 70 -0.29 39 45 0.14

New York Buffalo 17 1.93 66 -0.54 72 0.78 17 0.14 33 12 -0.02

New York New York City 69 0.55 51 -0.30 8 -0.86 3 0.86 5 1 -1.77

North Carolina Charlotte 42 1.04 68 -0.57 39 0.03 13 0.18 50 56 0.19

North Carolina Raleigh 46 0.98 17 0.29 26 -0.13 62 -0.22 59 56 0.20

North Dakota Fargo 41 1.06 45 -0.17 40 0.05 56 -0.18 69 36 0.19

Ohio Columbus 15 2.01 44 -0.14 60 0.33 44 -0.08 70 42 0.20

*Honolulu and Newark do not have data on property tax reliance or local government spending in the Fiscally Standardized Cities database, so statewide data on all local

governments is used instead (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 Census of Government Finances).

52

Tax Rate Property Tax Reliance

Median Home Value Local Gov't Spending Classification Ratio

State City

Rank

(1

-

73)

Tax

Rate

Rank

(1

-

73)

Impact on

Tax Rate

Rank

(1

-

73)

Impact on

Tax Rate

Rank

(1

-

73)

Impact on

Tax Rate

Commercial

Apartments

Impact

Oklahoma Oklahoma City 37 1.13 52 -0.30 49 0.24 71 -0.29 43 43 0.15

Oklahoma Tulsa 29 1.37 49 -0.26 62 0.40 64 -0.23 49 38 0.16

Oregon Portland 23 1.64 20 0.20 12 -0.55 33 0.00 62 56 0.20

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 38 1.10 72 -0.70 52 0.26 16 0.14 20 22 -0.09

Rhode Island Providence 22 1.69 5 0.90 42 0.13 42 -0.06 11 56 -0.10

South Carolina Charleston 72 0.44 36 -0.03 17 -0.31 45 -0.09 2 2 -1.21

South Dakota Sioux Falls 25 1.55 25 0.15 45 0.16 68 -0.24 67 29 0.17

Tennessee Memphis 20 1.85 31 0.09 69 0.65 15 0.14 24 9 -0.15

Tennessee Nashville 56 0.79 27 0.13 36 -0.01 26 0.05 24 9 -0.15

Texas Arlington 12 2.14 14 0.38 51 0.25 65 -0.23 34 23 0.06

Texas Austin 18 1.90 10 0.50 15 -0.34 24 0.07 42 26 0.10

Texas Dallas 14 2.02 29 0.12 49 0.24 28 0.03 32 19 0.04

Texas El Paso 5 2.60 18 0.28 65 0.43 52 -0.15 41 34 0.12

Texas Fort Worth 11 2.25 12 0.38 54 0.27 51 -0.15 35 18 0.04

Texas Houston 21 1.79 15 0.35 46 0.20 43 -0.07 30 17 0.01

Texas San Antonio 7 2.39 21 0.19 61 0.38 22 0.09 38 25 0.09

Utah Salt Lake City 57 0.79 28 0.12 19 -0.27 55 -0.18 21 69 0.02

Vermont Burlington 8 2.37 61 -0.41 18 -0.29 14 0.16 65 33 0.16

Virginia Virginia Beach 49 0.90 26 0.13 22 -0.23 53 -0.17 48 72 0.23

Washington Seattle 50 0.84 59 -0.38 5 -0.91 11 0.21 54 56 0.20

West Virginia Charleston 58 0.76 60 -0.39 67 0.48 50 -0.14 12 4 -0.54

Wisconsin Milwaukee 6 2.57 19 0.22 68 0.51 37 -0.02 45 41 0.16

Wyoming Cheyenne 67 0.65 73 -0.90 37 -0.01 8 0.32 66 71 0.24

53

Appendix Table 1b: Factors Correlated with Commercial Property Tax Rates in Large U.S. Cities

(Effective Tax Rate for $1-Million Valued Commercial Property, with $200k in Fixtures)

Tax Rate

Property Tax Reliance

Median Home Value

Local Gov't Spending

Classification Ratio*

State City

Rank

(1

-

73)

Tax

Rate

Rank

(1

-

73)

Impact on

Tax Rate

Rank

(1

-

73)

Impact on

Tax Rate

Rank

(1

-

73)

Impact on

Tax Rate

Rank

(1

-

73)

Impact on

Tax Rate

Alabama Birmingham 47 1.45 70 -0.64 70 0.91 32 0.00 10 0.33

Alaska Anchorage 48 1.44 9 0.63 14 -0.46 39 -0.05 46 -0.18

Arizona Mesa 41 1.62 47 -0.22 38 -0.01 66 -0.36 16 0.20

Arizona Phoenix 28 2.20 48 -0.22 35 -0.03 54 -0.28 22 0.13

Arizona Tucson 26 2.33 39 -0.07 59 0.39 63 -0.35 15 0.20

Arkansas Little Rock 50 1.40 65 -0.55 47 0.27 57 -0.31 31 -0.09

California Fresno 57 1.25 43 -0.12 30 -0.10 35 -0.02 51 -0.19

California Long Beach 58 1.22 62 -0.49 10 -0.98 6 0.55 55 -0.20

California Los Angeles 60 1.19 50 -0.28 6 -1.12 5 0.66 57 -0.20

California Oakland 52 1.35 56 -0.36 4 -1.22 4 1.01 58 -0.20

California Sacramento 65 1.14 57 -0.40 16 -0.42 12 0.33 53 -0.20

California San Diego 62 1.17 32 0.08 9 -1.07 31 0.01 56 -0.20

California San Francisco 61 1.17 55 -0.35 1 -1.70 2 1.62 61 -0.20

California San Jose 53 1.32 40 -0.09 2 -1.44 18 0.18 60 -0.20

Colorado Colorado Springs 40 1.63 71 -0.65 25 -0.17 25 0.09 1 0.99

Colorado Denver 27 2.31 69 -0.63 13 -0.59 7 0.53 4 0.94

Connecticut Bridgeport 3 3.81 1 1.37 43 0.17 38 -0.04 62 -0.21

DC Washington 55 1.30 64 -0.55 7 -1.09 1 2.62 19 0.16

Delaware Wilmington 67 1.07 33 -0.01 58 0.38 20 0.16 73 -0.33

Florida Jacksonville 39 1.68 37 -0.04 48 0.30 34 -0.02 28 -0.05

*Table shows impact of the commercial-homestead classification ratio

How to Interpret Each Factor’s Impact on a City’s Tax Rate

The columns labeled “Impact on Tax Rate” shows how each factor is expected to affect the tax rate in that city relative to a scenario where the city had the average

value for that variable—a positive value means that factor increases the city’s tax rate, while a negative value means that factor decreases the ci ty’s tax rate.

For example, consider Birmingham, Alabama. The city has the 70

th

highest property tax reliance (4

th

lowest), which is predicted to decrease the city’s commercial

property tax rate by 0.64 percentage points relative to a city with average property tax reliance. An alternative way to interpret this data is that if Birmingham had

the average property tax reliance and all other characteristics of the city were unchanged (home values, government spending, etc.), then the city’s commercial tax

rate would be 0.64 percentage points higher. Birmingham also has the 70

th

highest median home value (4th lowest), which is expected to increase their tax rate by

0.91 percentage points relative to a scenario where the city had the average home value for all cities in this analysis. Local government spending per capita in

Birmingham equals the average for the cities in this analysis (32

nd

highest), and thus is not expected to affect the city’s tax rate. Finally, Birmingham has the 10

th

highest commercial-homestead classification ratio, which is predicted to increase the commercial property tax rate by 0. 33 percentage points compared to a city

with the average classification ratio.

54

Tax Rate Property Tax Reliance

Median Home Value Local Gov't Spending Classification Ratio*

State City

Rank

(1

-

73)

Tax

Rate

Rank

(1

-

73)

Impact on

Tax Rate

Rank

(1

-

73)

Impact on

Tax Rate

Rank

(1

-

73)

Impact on

Tax Rate

Rank

(1

-

73)

Tax

Rate

Florida Miami 35 1.88 34 -0.02 21 -0.31 27 0.08 37 -0.12

Georgia Atlanta 43 1.59 42 -0.11 23 -0.25 9 0.50 26 0.00

Hawaii Honolulu** 71 0.91 16 0.37 3 -1.24 73 -0.64 6 0.69

Idaho Boise 49 1.42 11 0.47 33 -0.06 72 -0.59 23 0.12

Illinois Aurora 6 3.43 4 1.07 44 0.18 60 -0.34 68 -0.25

Illinois Chicago 4 3.78 38 -0.07 24 -0.17 10 0.49 8 0.39

Indiana Indianapolis 21 2.46 41 -0.09 63 0.52 41 -0.08 7 0.42

Iowa Des Moines 7 3.00 13 0.41 64 0.53 49 -0.17 29 -0.06

Kansas Wichita 17 2.68 24 0.17 66 0.56 58 -0.31 9 0.36

Kentucky Louisville 56 1.26 53 -0.34 55 0.34 67 -0.37 47 -0.18

Louisiana New Orleans 32 2.05 58 -0.41 31 -0.06 40 -0.05 14 0.28

Maine Portland 31 2.06 8 0.72 20 -0.32 46 -0.14 44 -0.17

Maryland Baltimore 13 2.78 30 0.09 53 0.32 21 0.15 27 -0.05

Massachusetts Boston 36 1.82 3 1.22 11 -0.93 29 0.04 3 0.95

Michigan Detroit 1 4.24 63 -0.53 73 1.67 19 0.17 40 -0.13

Minnesota Minneapolis 9 2.85 35 -0.03 27 -0.13 23 0.14 13 0.30

Mississippi Jackson 10 2.84 7 0.79 70 0.91 61 -0.35 18 0.17

Missouri Kansas City 14 2.77 67 -0.58 57 0.38 30 0.02 17 0.17

Montana Billings 64 1.14 22 0.20 34 -0.04 69 -0.42 36 -0.12

Nebraska Omaha 30 2.07 23 0.20 56 0.35 36 -0.03 52 -0.19

Nevada Las Vegas 63 1.14 54 -0.34 29 -0.10 48 -0.15 64 -0.21

New Hampshire

Manchester 34 1.88 6 0.82 32 -0.06 59 -0.33 72 -0.28

New Jersey Newark** 18 2.64 2 1.37 27 -0.13 47 -0.15 71 -0.28

New Mexico Albuquerque 44 1.49 46 -0.19 41 0.09 70 -0.44 39 -0.13

New York Buffalo 24 2.35 66 -0.58 72 0.98 17 0.21 33 -0.11

New York New York City 2 3.90 51 -0.32 8 -1.08 3 1.34 5 0.85

North Carolina Charlotte 66 1.08 68 -0.61 39 0.03 13 0.28 50 -0.19

North Carolina Raleigh 68 0.99 17 0.31 26 -0.16 62 -0.35 59 -0.20

North Dakota Fargo 69 0.96 45 -0.18 40 0.06 56 -0.29 69 -0.25

Ohio Columbus 37 1.79 44 -0.15 60 0.42 44 -0.12 70 -0.26

*Table shows impact of the commercial-homestead classification ratio

**Honolulu and Newark do not have data on property tax reliance or local government spending in the Fiscally Standardized Citie s database, so statewide data on all

local governments is used instead (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 Census of Government Finances).

55

Tax Rate Property Tax Reliance

Median Home Value Local Gov't Spending Classification Ratio*

State City

Rank

(1

-

73)

Tax

Rate

Rank

(1

-

73)

Impact on

Tax Rate

Rank

(1

-

73)

Impact on

Tax Rate

Rank

(1

-

73)

Impact on

Tax Rate

Rank

(1

-

73)

Tax

Rate

Oklahoma Oklahoma City 54 1.30 52 -0.33 49 0.30 71 -0.45 43 -0.16

Oklahoma Tulsa 45 1.49 49 -0.28 62 0.50 64 -0.35 49 -0.18

Oregon Portland 22 2.42 20 0.21 12 -0.69 33 0.00 62 -0.21

Pennsylvania Philadelphia 33 1.97 72 -0.75 52 0.32 16 0.22 20 0.15

Rhode Island Providence 5 3.68 5 0.97 42 0.16 42 -0.10 11 0.33

South Carolina Charleston 38 1.77 36 -0.04 17 -0.38 45 -0.13 2 0.95

South Dakota Sioux Falls 46 1.45 25 0.16 45 0.19 68 -0.38 67 -0.23

Tennessee Memphis 11 2.83 31 0.09 69 0.82 15 0.22 24 0.04

Tennessee Nashville 59 1.21 27 0.14 36 -0.01 26 0.08 24 0.04

Texas Arlington 19 2.59 14 0.40 51 0.31 65 -0.36 34 -0.11

Texas Austin 29 2.13 10 0.53 15 -0.42 24 0.10 42 -0.15

Texas Dallas 20 2.55 29 0.13 49 0.30 28 0.05 32 -0.09

Texas El Paso 8 2.96 18 0.30 65 0.54 52 -0.24 41 -0.14

Texas Fort Worth 16 2.71 12 0.41 54 0.34 51 -0.24 35 -0.11

Texas Houston 23 2.36 15 0.38 46 0.26 43 -0.11 30 -0.06

Texas San Antonio 12 2.81 21 0.20 61 0.47 22 0.15 38 -0.13

Utah Salt Lake City 51 1.39 28 0.13 19 -0.34 55 -0.28 21 0.14

Vermont Burlington 25 2.35 61 -0.45 18 -0.37 14 0.24 65 -0.21

Virginia Virginia Beach 70 0.96 26 0.14 22 -0.28 53 -0.27 48 -0.18

Washington Seattle 72 0.85 59 -0.41 5 -1.14 11 0.33 54 -0.20

West Virginia Charleston 42 1.61 60 -0.42 67 0.60 50 -0.22 12 0.30

Wisconsin Milwaukee 15 2.75 19 0.24 68 0.64 37 -0.03 45 -0.17

Wyoming Cheyenne 73 0.61 73 -0.97 37 -0.01 8 0.50 66 -0.23

*Table shows impact of the commercial-homestead classification ratio

56

Appendix Table 1c: Correlates of Cities’ Effective Tax Rates on Homestead Properties

(1) (2) Mean St. Dev. Data

Tax Rate on Median Valued Home N/A N/A 1.387 0.728 Effective tax rate on median valued home, with assessment limits

Source: 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study (Appendix Tables 2b, 2e)

Median Home Value -0.671*** -0.854*** 246,958 173,615 Median home value in city

(0.059) (0.112) Source: 2016 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau)

Business Classification Ratio -0.397*** -0.256*** 1.453 0.670 Commercial-homestead classification ratio, with taxes on personal property

excluded for commercial properties

Source: 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study

(0.100) (0.090)

Apartments Classification Ratio -0.494*** -0.362* 1.231 0.395 Apartment-homestead classification ratio, with taxes on personal property

excluded for apartments

Source: 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study

(0.128) (0.182)

Property Tax Reliance 0.820*** 0.0325*** 40.5 13.8 Property taxes as a percent of own source revenue for the

fiscally standardized city (FiSC)

Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. FiSC database (2015).

(0.097) (0.006)

Local Gov't Spending Per Capita 0.562*** 0.120*** 6.167 1.963 Direct expenditures per capita for the fiscally standardized city (FiSC)

Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. FiSC database (2015).

(1000s) (0.149) (0.034)

State and Federal Aid

as % Local Gov't Budget

-0.0485 0.00148 34.8 10.1 Intergovernmental revenue as a percent of general revenue for the

fiscally standardized city (FiSC)

Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. FiSC database (2015).

(0.115) (0.006)

Local as % State-Local Spending -0.142 -0.000225 49.6 7.5 Local government direct expenditures as a percent of state and local direct

expenditures (State-level variable)

Source: 2015 Survey of State and Local Gov’t Finances (U.S. Census Bureau)

(0.337) (0.010)

Constant -0.228 10.57***

(1.332) (1.419)

N 69 69

R-sq 0.74 0.678

adj. R-sq 0.71 0.641

F 34.09 12.47

* p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01; robust standard errors in parenthesis.

Regression #1 shows elasticities with all variables measured in natural logs; these coefficients are reported in figure 1.

Regression #2 measures all variables in levels except for median home value, which is measured as the natural log; these coefficients are used in appendix table 1a.

Notes: Washington, DC and New York City were excluded from the regression because they have very atypical revenue structures, and as major outliers they significantly altered

the coefficient estimates and weakened the overall fit for the model. Honolulu and Newark were excluded because they do not h ave data in the FiSC database on property tax

reliance or state and federal aid as a percent of the local government budget. The means and standard deviations shown in the table also exclude these four cities .

57

Appendix Table 1d: Correlates of Cities’ Effective Tax Rates on Commercial Properties

(1) (2) Mean St. Dev. Data

Tax Rate on Commercial Property N/A N/A 1.961 0.813 Effective tax rate on $1-Million Commercial Property

Source: 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study (Appendix Tables 3a, 3b)

Median Home Value -0.500*** -1.069*** 246,958 173,615 Median home value in city

(0.070) (0.185) Source: 2016 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau)

Business Classification Ratio 0.493*** 0.456*** 1.453 0.670 Commercial-homestead classification ratio, with taxes on personal property

excluded for commercial properties

Source: 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study

(0.097) (0.136)

Apartments Classification Ratio -0.352*** -0.501** 1.231 0.395 Apartment-homestead classification ratio, with taxes on personal property

excluded for apartments

Source: 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study

(0.125) (0.198)

Property Tax Reliance 0.752*** 0.0350*** 40.5 13.8 Property taxes as a percent of own source revenue for the

fiscally standardized city (FiSC)

Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. FiSC database (2015).

(0.107) (0.005)

Local Gov't Spending Per Capita 0.640*** 0.186*** 6.167 1.963 Direct expenditures per capita for the fiscally standardized city (FiSC)

Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. FiSC database (2015).

(1000s) (0.153) (0.047)

State and Federal Aid

as % Local Gov't Budget

0.0997 0.00711 34.8 10.1 Intergovernmental revenue as a percent of general revenue for the

fiscally standardized city (FiSC)

Source: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. FiSC database (2015).

(0.098) (0.006)

Local as % State-Local Spending 0.129 0.00787 49.6 7.5 Local government direct expenditures as a percent of state and local direct

expenditures (State-level variable)

Source: 2015 Survey of State and Local Gov’t Finances (U.S. Census Bureau)

(0.305) (0.012)

Constant -2.615** 11.79***

(1.266) (2.432)

N 69 69

R-sq 0.653 0.636

adj. R-sq 0.614 0.595

F 25.01 14.67

* p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01; robust standard errors in parenthesis.

Regression #1 shows elasticities with all variables measured in natural logs.

Regression #2 measures all variables in levels except for median home value, which is measured as the natural log; these coef ficients are used in appendix table 1b.

Notes: Washington, DC and New York City were excluded from the regression because they have very atypical revenue structures, and as major outliers they significantly altered

the coefficient estimates and weakened the overall fit for the model. Honolulu and Newark were excluded because they do not have data in the FiSC database on property tax

reliance or state and federal aid as a percent of the local government budget. The means and standard deviations shown in the table also exclude these four cities.

58

Appendix Table 2a: Homestead Property Taxes for Largest City in Each State: Median Valued Homes

Tax Rate (%) Tax Bill ($)

Median

Home

Value

State City Rate Rank

Change

from ‘16

Rate Rank

Change

from ‘16

Alabama Birmingham

0.665%

48

1

↑

589

53

-

88,500

Alaska Anchorage

1.344%

24

-

4,313

11

1

↑

320,800

Arizona Phoenix

1.257%

27

2

↑

2,681

24

2

↑

213,300

Arkansas Little Rock

1.112%

34

1

↓

1,790

41

4

↓

161,000

California Los Angeles

1.179%

31

1

↓

6,997

3

-

593,500

Colorado Denver

0.658%

49

2

↑

2,373

29

5

↑

360,900

Connecticut Bridgeport

3.806%

1

↑

6,752

5

1

↓

177,400

DC Washington

0.719%

47

1

↑

4,144

12

1

↓

576,100

Delaware Wilmington

1.459%

22

1

↓

2,124

33

3

↓

145,600

Florida Jacksonville

1.258%

26

1

↑

1,984

38

1

↑

157,800

Georgia Atlanta

1.083%

36

1

↓

2,845

21

1

↑

262,600

Hawaii Honolulu

0.306%

53

-

2,024

37

2

↓

661,700

Idaho Boise

0.828%

44

1

↑

1,816

40

3

↑

219,200

Illinois Aurora*

3.756%

2

1

↑

6,618

7

2

↓

176,200

Illinois Chicago

1.642%

18

2

↑

4,004

13

-

243,900

Indiana Indianapolis

1.032%

39

1

↓

1,323

51

2

↓

128,200

Iowa Des Moines

2.262%

8

2

↓

2,852

20

1

↑

126,100

Kansas Wichita

1.194%

28

-

1,475

48

2

↓

123,500

Kentucky Louisville

1.183%

29

3

↓

1,786

43

5

↓

150,900

Louisiana New Orleans

0.997%

40

1

↓

2,190

32

3

↓

219,700

Maine Portland

1.890%

14

1

↓

5,303

8

-

280,600

Maryland Baltimore

2.073%

10

-

3,183

14

-

153,500

Massachusetts Boston

0.515%

51

1

↑

2,551

26

6

↓

495,400

Michigan Detroit

3.629%

3

2

↓

1,579

46

1

↓

43,500

Minnesota Minneapolis

1.351%

23

1

↓

3,178

15

-

235,200

Mississippi Jackson

1.555%

19

1

↓

1,376

49

1

↓

88,500

Missouri Kansas City

1.512%

21

2

↓

2,213

31

2

↑

146,300

Montana Billings

0.947%

41

2

↑

2,040

36

4

↑

215,500

Nebraska Omaha

2.010%

12

-

3,012

17

1

↑

149,900

Nevada Las Vegas

1.141%

33

1

↑

2,604

25

-

228,300

New Hampshire Manchester

2.257%

9

1

↓

4,950

10

1

↓

219,300

New Jersey Newark

3.163%

4

-

7,440

2

-

235,200

New Mexico Albuquerque

1.274%

25

-

2,441

28

4

↓

191,600

New York Buffalo*

1.929%

13

1

↑

1,610

45

2

↑

83,500

New York New York City

1.181%

30

2

↑

6,726

6

-

569,700

AVERAGE 1.495%

3,111 235,815

59

Tax Rate (%) Tax Bill ($)

Median

Home

Value

State City Rate Rank

Change

from ‘16

Rate Rank

Change

from ‘16

North Carolina Charlotte

1.036%

38

2

↓

2,087

34

2

↓

201,500

North Dakota Fargo

1.058%

37

3

↑

2,078

35

1

↑

196,400

Ohio Columbus

2.010%

11

-

2,829

22

3

↓

140,700

Oklahoma Oklahoma City

1.175%

32

1

↓

1,845

39

2

↑

157,100

Oregon Portland

2.424%

6

1

↑

9,577

1

-

395,100

Pennsylvania Philadelphia

1.102%

35

2

↑

1,697

44

-

154,000

Rhode Island Providence

1.692%

17

-

3,036

16

1

↑

179,400

South Carolina Charleston**

0.502%

52

NA

1,493

47

NA

297,700

South Dakota Sioux Falls

1.548%

20

3

↑

2,684

23

5

↑

173,400

Tennessee Memphis

1.845%

15

-

1,786

42

-

96,800

Texas Houston

1.795%

16

-

2,938

19

4

↑

163,700

Utah Salt Lake City

0.787%

45

1

↓

2,243

30

1

↑

285,100

Vermont Burlington

2.373%

7

2

↑

6,951

4

3

↑

292,900

Virginia Virginia Beach

0.900%

42

1

↓

2,444

27

-

271,400

Washington Seattle

0.838%

43

1

↓

5,079

9

1

↑

606,200

West Virginia Charleston

0.761%

46

-

906

52

-

119,000

Wisconsin Milwaukee

2.568%

5

-

2,945

18

2

↓

114,700

Wyoming Cheyenne

0.650%

50

-

1,366

50

-

210,200

AVERAGE

1.495%

3,111 235,815

* Illinois and New York have two cities included in this table, because the tax systems in Chicago and New York City are sign ificantly different from the rest of the state.

** Charleston, SC is now the largest city in the state and replaces Columbia, SC.

Source for median home values: 2016 American Community Survey, 1-year data

60

Appendix Table 2b: Homestead Property Taxes for Largest City in Each State: Median Valued Homes, with Assessment Limits

Tax Rate (%)

Tax Bill ($)

Median

Home

Value

State City Rate Rank

Change

from ‘16

Rate Rank

Change

from ‘16

Alabama Birmingham

0.665%

46

2

↑

589

53

-

88,500

Alaska Anchorage

1.344%

24

-

4,313

9

1

↑

320,800

Arizona Phoenix

1.007%

36

1

↑

2,148

32

3

↑

213,300

Arkansas Little Rock

1.062%

32

-

1,710

42

4

↓

161,000

California Los Angeles

0.664%

47

1

↓

3,943

11

-

593,500

Colorado Denver

0.658%

48

2

↑

2,373

28

5

↑

360,900

Connecticut Bridgeport

3.806%

1

-

6,752

3

1

↓

177,400

DC Washington

0.719%

45

2

↑

4,144

10

1

↓

576,100

Delaware Wilmington

1.459%

22

1

↓

2,124

33

4

↓

145,600

Florida Jacksonville

0.829%

41

3

↓

1,308

49

2

↓

157,800

Georgia Atlanta

1.083%

31

1

↓

2,845

21

1

↑

262,600

Hawaii Honolulu

0.306%

53

-

2,024

37

3

↓

661,700

Idaho Boise

0.828%

42

1

↑

1,816

38

4

↑

219,200

Illinois Aurora*

3.756%

2

-

6,618

4

1

↓

176,200

Illinois Chicago

1.542%

20

-

3,760

12

-

243,900

Indiana Indianapolis

1.032%

35

1

↓

1,323

48

1

↑

128,200

Iowa Des Moines

2.262%

7

1

↓

2,852

20

1

↑

126,100

Kansas Wichita

1.194%

26

1

↑

1,475

45

1

↓

123,500

Kentucky Louisville

1.183%

27

1

↓

1,786

40

3

↓

150,900

Louisiana New Orleans

0.997%

37

2

↓

2,190

31

3

↓

219,700

Maine Portland

1.890%

13

1

↓

5,303

6

-

280,600

Maryland Baltimore

2.073%

9

-

3,183

13

-

153,500

Massachusetts Boston

0.515%

51

-

2,551

25

5

↓

495,400

Michigan Detroit

2.744%

4

-

1,194

51

3

↓

43,500

Minnesota Minneapolis

1.351%

23

1

↓

3,178

14

-

235,200

Mississippi Jackson

1.555%

18

-

1,376

46

-

88,500

Missouri Kansas City

1.512%

21

2

↓

2,213

30

2

↑

146,300

Montana Billings

0.947%

38

3

↑

2,040

36

3

↑

215,500

Nebraska Omaha

2.010%

11

-

3,012

17

1

↑

149,900

Nevada Las Vegas

1.141%

28

-

2,604

24

1

↑

228,300

New Hampshire Manchester

2.257%

8

1

↓

4,950

8

1

↓

219,300

New Jersey Newark

3.163%

3

-

7,440

1

-

235,200

New Mexico Albuquerque

1.252%

25

-

2,399

27

3

↓

191,600

New York Buffalo*

1.929%

12

1

↑

1,610

44

1

↑

83,500

New York New York City

0.546%

50

2

↑

3,109

15

-

569,700

AVERAGE 1.424%

2,885

235,185

61

Tax Rate (%)

Tax Bill ($)

Median

Home

Value

State City Rate Rank

Change

from ‘16

Rate Rank

Change

from ‘16

North Carolina Charlotte

1.036%

34

3

↓

2,087

34

3

↓

201,500

North Dakota Fargo

1.058%

33

3

↑

2,078

35

1

↑

196,400

Ohio Columbus

2.010%

10

-

2,829

22

3

↓

140,700

Oklahoma Oklahoma City

1.135%

29

-

1,782

41

-

157,100

Oregon Portland

1.645%

17

-

6,498

5

-

395,100

Pennsylvania Philadelphia

1.102%

30

3

↑

1,697

43

-

154,000

Rhode Island Providence

1.692%

16

-

3,036

16

1

↑

179,400

South Carolina Charleston**

0.435%

52

NA

1,296

50

NA

297,700

South Dakota Sioux Falls

1.548%

19

4

↑

2,684

23

4

↑

173,400

Tennessee Memphis

1.845%

14

-

1,786

39

1

↑

96,800

Texas Houston

1.795%

15

-

2,938

19

4

↑

163,700

Utah Salt Lake City

0.787%

43

1

↓

2,243

29

1

↑

285,100

Vermont Burlington

2.373%

6

2

↑

6,951

2

↑

292,900

Virginia Virginia Beach

0.900%

39

-

2,444

26

-

271,400

Washington Seattle

0.838%

40

-

5,079

7

1

↑

606,200

West Virginia Charleston

0.761%

44

-

906

52

-

119,000

Wisconsin Milwaukee

2.568%

5

-

2,945

18

2

↓

114,700

Wyoming Cheyenne

0.650%

49

-

1,366

47

3

↑

210,200

AVERAGE

1.424%

2,885

235,185

* Illinois and New York have two cities included in this table, because the tax systems in Chicago and New York City are sign ificantly different from the rest of the state.

** Charleston, SC is now the largest city in the state and replaces Columbia, SC.

Source for median home values: 2016 American Community Survey, 1-year data

62

Appendix Table 2c: Homestead Property Taxes for Largest City in Each State: Homes worth $150,000 and $300,000

$150,000 Property Value $300,000 Property Value

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property Value

State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Change

from ‘16

Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Change

from ‘16

Alabama Birmingham

0.690%

1,035

47

1

↑

0.707%

2,122

47

1

↑

X

Alaska Anchorage

1.298%

1,947

23

4

↑

1.338%

4,013

25

-

X

Arizona Phoenix

1.257%

1,885

25

4

↑

1.257%

3,771

27

6

↑

Arkansas Little Rock

1.096%

1,644

33

-

1.212%

3,637

30

2

↓

X

California Los Angeles

1.137%

1,706

32

-

1.165%

3,496

33

2

↑

X

Colorado Denver

0.658%

986

48

2

↑

0.658%

1,973

48

2

↑

Connecticut Bridgeport

3.806%

5,709

1

↑

3.806%

11,418

2

1

↑

DC Washington

0.416%

623

51

-

0.621%

1,863

50

1

↑

X

Delaware Wilmington

1.459%

2,189

22

2

↓

1.459%

4,377

23

-

Florida Jacksonville

1.234%

1,851

26

-

1.474%

4,421

22

2

↓

X

Georgia Atlanta

0.721%

1,081

46

2

↓

1.142%

3,427

35

5

↓

X

Hawaii Honolulu

0.162%

242

52

-

0.255%

765

52

1

↑

X

Idaho Boise

0.782%

1,173

44

1

↑

1.026%

3,079

41

1

↓

X

Illinois Aurora*

3.693%

5,540

2

1

↑

3.906%

11,717

1

-

X

Illinois Chicago

1.513%

2,270

20

1

↑

1.680%

5,040

19

-

X

Indiana Indianapolis

1.034%

1,551

38

3

↓

1.042%

3,126

39

-

X

Iowa Des Moines

2.291%

3,436

7

1

↓

2.368%

7,103

7

1

↓

X

Kansas Wichita

1.201%

1,801

28

-

1.216%

3,649

29

-

X

Kentucky Louisville

1.183%

1,775

29

5

↓

1.183%

3,550

32

5

↓

Louisiana New Orleans

0.783%

1,175

43

-

1.120%

3,359

37

3

↓

X

Maine Portland

1.764%

2,646

16

2

↓

1.899%

5,698

14

-

X

Maryland Baltimore

2.073%

3,110

10

-

2.073%

6,220

10

1

↑

Massachusetts Boston

0.101%

151

53

-

0.195%

585

53

1

↓

X

Michigan Detroit

3.629%

5,444

3

2

↓

3.629%

10,888

3

1

↓

Minnesota Minneapolis

1.231%

1,847

27

4

↓

1.397%

4,191

24

2

↓

X

Mississippi Jackson

1.694%

2,541

17

1

↑

1.794%

5,383

17

-

X

Missouri Kansas City

1.512%

2,269

21

2

↓

1.512%

4,537

21

-

Montana Billings

0.947%

1,420

39

2

↑

0.947%

2,840

42

2

↑

Nebraska Omaha

2.010%

3,014

12

1

↑

2.010%

6,029

13

-

Nevada Las Vegas

1.141%

1,711

31

-

1.141%

3,422

36

-

New Hampshire Manchester

2.257%

3,386

8

-

2.257%

6,772

8

-

New Jersey Newark

3.163%

4,745

4

-

3.163%

9,490

4

-

New Mexico Albuquerque

1.262%

1,893

24

1

↑

1.290%

3,870

26

-

X

New York Buffalo*

2.007%

3,010

13

2

↓

2.055%

6,166

11

1

↓

X

New York New York City

1.096%

1,644

34

3

↑

1.153%

3,460

34

3

↑

X

AVERAGE

1.455% 2,182

1.516% 4,548

N = 27

63

$150,000 Property Value $300,000 Property Value

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property Value

State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Change

from ‘16

Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Change

from ‘16

North Carolina Charlotte

1.036%

1,553

37

3

↓

1.036%

3,107

40

2

↓

North Dakota Fargo

1.058%

1,587

36

2

↑

1.058%

3,174

38

3

↑

Ohio Columbus

2.010%

3,016

11

1

↑

2.010%

6,031

12

-

Oklahoma Oklahoma City

1.171%

1,757

30

-

1.209%

3,627

31

1

↑

X

Oregon Portland

2.424%

3,636

6

1

↑

2.424%

7,272

6

1

↑

Pennsylvania Philadelphia

1.095%

1,642

35

1

↑

1.233%

3,700

28

3

↑

X

Rhode Island Providence

1.692%

2,539

18

1

↓

1.692%

5,077

18

-

South Carolina Charleston**

0.502%

752

50

NA

0.502%

1,505

51

NA

South Dakota Sioux Falls

1.548%

2,322

19

3

↑

1.548%

4,644

20

4

↑

Tennessee Memphis

1.845%

2,768

14

1

↑

1.845%

5,536

16

-

Texas Houston

1.778%

2,667

15

1

↑

1.879%

5,636

15

-

X

Utah Salt Lake City

0.787%

1,180

42

-

0.787%

2,360

45

-

Vermont Burlington

2.104%

3,156

9

-

2.133%

6,399

9

-

X

Virginia Virginia Beach

0.900%

1,351

40

1

↓

0.900%

2,701

43

1

↓

Washington Seattle

0.838%

1,257

41

1

↓

0.838%

2,514

44

1

↓

West Virginia Charleston

0.761%

1,141

45

1

↑

0.761%

2,283

46

-

Wisconsin Milwaukee

2.612%

3,918

5

-

2.685%

8,055

5

-

X

Wyoming Cheyenne

0.650%

975

49

-

0.650%

1,950

49

-

AVERAGE

1.455% 2,182

1.516% 4,548

N = 27

* Illinois and New York have two cities included in this table, because the tax systems in Chicago and New York City are sign ificantly different from the rest of the state.

** Charleston, SC is now the largest city in the state and replaces Columbia, SC.

64

Appendix Table 2d: Homestead Property Taxes for the Largest Fifty U.S. Cities: Median Valued Homes

Tax Rate (%) Tax Bill ($)

Median

Home

Value

State City Rate Rank

Change

from ‘16

Rate Rank

Change

from ‘16

Arizona Mesa

0.853%

44

1

↑

1,783

43

2

↑

209,000

Arizona Phoenix

1.257%

24

4

↑

2,681

28

3

↑

213,300

Arizona Tucson

1.230%

25

2

↓

1,771

44

2

↓

144,000

California Fresno

1.209%

26

1

↑

2,750

27

1

↑

227,500

California Long Beach

1.202%

27

7

↑

6,237

8

-

518,900

California Los Angeles

1.179%

31

2

↓

6,997

5

-

593,500

California Oakland

1.334%

20

-

8,667

4

-

649,700

California Sacramento

1.111%

36

2

↑

3,408

15

-

306,900

California San Diego

1.155%

34

2

↓

6,555

7

-

567,400

California San Francisco

1.164%

33

2

↓

11,922

1

-

1,024,000

California San Jose

1.306%

21

3

↑

10,471

2

-

802,000

Colorado Colorado Springs

0.450%

50

-

1,097

50

-

243,600

Colorado Denver

0.658%

48

-

2,373

34

3

↑

360,900

DC Washington

0.719%

47

-

4,144

12

-

576,100

Florida Jacksonville

1.258%

23

2

↑

1,984

38

3

↑

157,800

Florida Miami

1.592%

16

1

↓

4,420

11

-

277,700

Georgia Atlanta

1.083%

38

2

↓

2,845

25

1

↑

262,600

Illinois Chicago

1.642%

15

2

↑

4,004

13

-

243,900

Indiana Indianapolis

1.032%

40

-

1,323

49

-

128,200

Kansas Wichita

1.194%

28

2

↓

1,475

48

-

123,500

Kentucky Louisville

1.183%

29

7

↓

1,786

42

2

↓

150,900

Louisiana New Orleans

0.997%

41

-

2,190

36

2

↓

219,700

Maryland Baltimore

2.073%

8

1

↓

3,183

20

6

↓

153,500

Massachusetts Boston

0.515%

49

-

2,551

30

5

↓

495,400

Michigan Detroit

3.629%

1

-

1,579

47

-

43,500

Minnesota Minneapolis

1.351%

19

1

↓

3,178

21

5

↓

235,200

Missouri Kansas City

1.512%

17

1

↓

2,213

35

1

↑

146,300

Nebraska Omaha

2.010%

11

-

3,012

22

-

149,900

Nevada Las Vegas

1.141%

35

-

2,604

29

1

↑

228,300

New Mexico Albuquerque

1.274%

22

1

↓

2,441

32

3

↓

191,600

New York New York City

1.181%

30

3

↑

6,726

6

-

569,700

North Carolina Charlotte

1.036%

39

2

↓

2,087

37

2

↓

201,500

North Carolina Raleigh

0.981%

42

-

2,379

33

1

↓

242,500

Ohio Columbus

2.010%

10

1

↓

2,829

26

2

↓

140,700

Oklahoma Oklahoma City

1.175%

32

2

↓

1,845

39

4

↑

157,100

AVERAGE 1.434%

3,594 282,592

65

Tax Rate (%) Tax Bill ($)

Median

Home

Value

State City Rate Rank

Change

from ‘16

Rate Rank

Change

from ‘16

Oklahoma Tulsa

1.403%

18

1

↑

1,825

40

1

↓

130,100

Oregon Portland

2.424%

4

1

↑

9,577

3

-

395,100

Pennsylvania Philadelphia

1.102%

37

2

↑

1,697

45

1

↑

154,000

Tennessee Memphis

1.845%

13

-

1,786

41

3

↑

96,800

Tennessee Nashville

0.789%

46

3

↓

1,661

46

8

↓

210,600

Texas Arlington

2.148%

7

1

↑

3,327

16

4

↑

154,900

Texas Austin

1.898%

12

-

5,855

9

-

308,500

Texas Dallas

2.028%

9

1

↑

3,186

19

2

↓

157,100

Texas El Paso

2.603%

2

1

↑

3,261

17

1

↑

125,300

Texas Fort Worth

2.259%

6

-

3,411

14

9

↑

151,000

Texas Houston

1.795%

14

-

2,938

24

3

↑

163,700

Texas San Antonio

2.389%

5

1

↓

3,198

18

3

↑

133,900

Virginia Virginia Beach

0.900%

43

1

↑

2,444

31

2

↑

271,400

Washington Seattle

0.838%

45

1

↑

5,079

10

-

606,200

Wisconsin Milwaukee

2.568%

3

1

↓

2,945

23

4

↓

114,700

AVERAGE

1.434%

3,594 282,592

Source for median home values: 2016 American Community Survey, 1-year data

66

Appendix Table 2e: Homestead Property Taxes for the Largest Fifty U.S. Cities: Median Valued Homes, with Assessment Limits

Tax Rate (%) Tax Bill ($)

Median

Home

Value

State City Rate Rank

Change

from ‘16

Rate Rank

Change

from ‘16

Arizona Mesa

0.719%

43

1

↓

1,502

45

1

↑

209,000

Arizona Phoenix

1.007%

29

4

↑

2,148

34

2

↑

213,300

Arizona Tucson

1.219%

20

1

↑

1,755

42

2

↓

144,000

California Fresno

0.830%

36

2

↑

1,889

37

5

↑

227,500

California Long Beach

0.744%

41

2

↓

3,862

10

2

↓

518,900

California Los Angeles

0.664%

44

1

↓

3,943

9

1

↑

593,500

California Oakland

0.755%

40

-

4,902

6

1

↑

649,700

California Sacramento

0.653%

46

2

↓

2,005

36

2

↓

306,900

California San Diego

0.837%

35

-

4,746

7

2

↓

567,400

California San Francisco

0.646%

47

1

↓

6,612

1

-

1,024,000

California San Jose

0.823%

38

3

↑

6,599

2

-

802,000

Colorado Colorado Springs

0.450%

50

-

1,097

50

-

243,600

Colorado Denver

0.658%

45

2

↑

2,373

31

4

↑

360,900

DC Washington

0.719%

42

3

↑

4,144

8

1

↑

576,100

Florida Jacksonville

0.829%

37

3

↓

1,308

48

1

↓

157,800

Florida Miami

0.901%

32

-

2,502

27

5

↓

277,700

Georgia Atlanta

1.083%

26

1

↓

2,845

23

2

↑

262,600

Illinois Chicago

1.542%

15

1

↑

3,760

11

-

243,900

Indiana Indianapolis

1.032%

28

-

1,323

47

2

↑

128,200

Kansas Wichita

1.194%

21

1

↑

1,475

46

1

↓

123,500

Kentucky Louisville

1.183%

22

2

↓

1,786

39

1

↓

150,900

Louisiana New Orleans

0.997%

30

1

↓

2,190

33

2

↓

219,700

Maryland Baltimore

2.073%

7

1

↓

3,183

16

4

↓

153,500

Massachusetts Boston

0.515%

49

1

↓

2,551

26

2

↓

495,400

Michigan Detroit

2.744%

1

-

1,194

49

1

↓

43,500

Minnesota Minneapolis

1.351%

18

1

↓

3,178

17

4

↓

235,200

Missouri Kansas City

1.512%

16

1

↓

2,213

32

1

↑

146,300

Nebraska Omaha

2.010%

10

1

↓

3,012

20

-

149,900

Nevada Las Vegas

1.141%

23

-

2,604

25

3

↑

228,300

New Mexico Albuquerque

1.252%

19

-

2,399

29

2

↓

191,600

New York New York City

0.546%

48

1

↑

3,109

19

5

↓

569,700

North Carolina Charlotte

1.036%

27

1

↓

2,087

35

3

↓

201,500

North Carolina Raleigh

0.981%

31

1

↓

2,379

30

1

↓

242,500

Ohio Columbus

2.010%

9

1

↓

2,829

24

1

↓

140,700

Oklahoma Oklahoma City

1.135%

24

-

1,782

41

2

↑

157,100

AVERAGE 1.279%

2,926 282,592

67

Tax Rate (%) Tax Bill ($)

Median

Home

Value

State City Rate Rank

Change

from ‘16

Rate Rank

Change

from ‘16

Oklahoma Tulsa

1.372%

17

1

↑

1,785

40

1

↓

130,100

Oregon Portland

1.645%

14

-

6,498

3

-

395,100

Pennsylvania Philadelphia

1.102%

25

2

↑

1,697

43

1

↑

154,000

Tennessee Memphis

1.845%

12

-

1,786

38

3

↑

96,800

Tennessee Nashville

0.789%

39

8

↓

1,661

44

7

↓

210,600

Texas Arlington

2.138%

6

1

↑

3,311

13

5

↑

154,900

Texas Austin

1.898%

11

-

5,855

4

-

308,500

Texas Dallas

2.018%

8

2

↑

3,170

18

3

↓

157,100

Texas El Paso

2.603%

2

1

↑

3,261

14

2

↑

125,300

Texas Fort Worth

2.248%

5

-

3,394

12

9

↑

151,000

Texas Houston

1.795%

13

-

2,938

22

4

↑

163,700

Texas San Antonio

2.389%

4

-

3,198

15

4

↑

133,900

Virginia Virginia Beach

0.900%

33

3

↑

2,444

28

2

↑

271,400

Washington Seattle

0.838%

34

3

↑

5,079

5

1

↑

606,200

Wisconsin Milwaukee

2.568%

3

1

↓

2,945

21

4

↓

114,700

AVERAGE

1.279%

2,926 282,592

Source for median home values: 2016 American Community Survey, 1-year data

68

Appendix Table 2f: Homestead Property Taxes for the Largest Fifty U.S. Cities: Homes worth $150,000 and $300,000

$150,000 Property Value $300,000 Property Value

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property Value

State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Change

from ‘16

Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Change

from ‘16

Arizona Mesa

0.853%

1,280

42

1

↑

0.853%

2,560

44

1

↑

Arizona Phoenix

1.257%

1,885

21

6

↑

1.257%

3,771

24

7

↑

Arizona Tucson

1.230%

1,845

25

1

↓

1.230%

3,690

26

2

↓

California Fresno

1.189%

1,784

27

2

↑

1.218%

3,654

27

3

↑

X

California Long Beach

1.162%

1,742

30

5

↑

1.190%

3,570

30

7

↑

X

California Los Angeles

1.137%

1,706

32

1

↓

1.165%

3,496

32

1

↑

X

California Oakland

1.286%

1,928

19

-

1.317%

3,951

21

-

X

California Sacramento

1.083%

1,625

37

-

1.110%

3,330

39

1

↑

X

California San Diego

1.115%

1,673

34

1

↓

1.142%

3,427

36

1

↓

X

California San Francisco

1.118%

1,676

33

1

↓

1.145%

3,435

34

-

X

California San Jose

1.256%

1,883

22

4

↑

1.286%

3,859

23

3

↑

X

Colorado Colorado Springs

0.450%

676

48

-

0.450%

1,351

49

-

Colorado Denver

0.658%

986

47

-

0.658%

1,973

47

-

DC Washington

0.416%

623

49

-

0.621%

1,863

48

-

X

Florida Jacksonville

1.234%

1,851

23

-

1.474%

4,421

18

1

↓

X

Florida Miami

1.331%

1,997

18

-

1.614%

4,843

16

1

↓

X

Georgia Atlanta

0.721%

1,081

46

-

1.142%

3,427

35

8

↓

X

Illinois Chicago

1.513%

2,270

15

2

↑

1.680%

5,040

15

1

↑

X

Indiana Indianapolis

1.034%

1,551

39

3

↓

1.042%

3,126

40

1

↑

X

Kansas Wichita

1.201%

1,801

26

1

↓

1.216%

3,649

28

3

↓

X

Kentucky Louisville

1.183%

1,775

28

7

↓

1.183%

3,550

31

8

↓

Louisiana New Orleans

0.783%

1,175

45

-

1.120%

3,359

38

6

↓

X

Maryland Baltimore

2.073%

3,110

8

1

↓

2.073%

6,220

9

-

Massachusetts Boston

0.101%

151

50

-

0.195%

585

50

-

X

Michigan Detroit

3.629%

5,444

1

-

3.629%

10,888

1

-

Minnesota Minneapolis

1.231%

1,847

24

4

↓

1.397%

4,191

20

1

↓

X

Missouri Kansas City

1.512%

2,269

16

1

↓

1.512%

4,537

17

1

↑

Nebraska Omaha

2.010%

3,014

11

-

2.010%

6,029

11

-

Nevada Las Vegas

1.141%

1,711

31

1

↓

1.141%

3,422

37

1

↓

New Mexico Albuquerque

1.262%

1,893

20

2

↑

1.290%

3,870

22

-

X

New York New York City

1.096%

1,644

35

4

↑

1.153%

3,460

33

5

↑

X

North Carolina Charlotte

1.036%

1,553

38

4

↓

1.036%

3,107

41

2

↓

North Carolina Raleigh

0.981%

1,472

40

-

0.981%

2,943

42

-

Ohio Columbus

2.010%

3,016

10

1

↓

2.010%

6,031

10

-

Oklahoma Oklahoma City

1.171%

1,757

29

1

↓

1.209%

3,627

29

-

X

AVERAGE

1.389% 2,083

1.456% 4,367

N = 31

69

$150,000 Property Value $300,000 Property Value

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property Value

State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Change

from ‘16

Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Change

from ‘16

Oklahoma Tulsa

1.416%

2,125

17

1

↓

1.462%

4,387

19

1

↑

X

Oregon Portland

2.424%

3,636

4

1

↑

2.424%

7,272

5

-

Pennsylvania Philadelphia

1.095%

1,642

36

2

↑

1.233%

3,700

25

3

↑

X

Tennessee Memphis

1.845%

2,768

12

-

1.845%

5,536

14

-

Tennessee Nashville

0.789%

1,183

44

3

↓

0.789%

2,366

46

3

↓

Texas Arlington

2.141%

3,211

7

1

↑

2.255%

6,765

7

-

X

Texas Austin

1.794%

2,691

13

-

1.895%

5,686

12

-

X

Texas Dallas

2.019%

3,028

9

1

↑

2.119%

6,357

8

-

X

Texas El Paso

2.654%

3,981

2

1

↑

2.784%

8,352

2

1

↑

X

Texas Fort Worth

2.257%

3,386

6

-

2.370%

7,110

6

-

X

Texas Houston

1.778%

2,667

14

-

1.879%

5,636

13

-

X

Texas San Antonio

2.419%

3,629

5

1

↓

2.548%

7,643

4

-

X

Virginia Virginia Beach

0.900%

1,351

41

1

↑

0.900%

2,701

43

1

↑

Washington Seattle

0.838%

1,257

43

1

↑

0.838%

2,514

45

1

↑

Wisconsin Milwaukee

2.612%

3,918

3

1

↓

2.685%

8,055

3

1

↓

X

AVERAGE

1.389% 2,083

1.456% 4,367

N = 31

70

Appendix Table 2g: Homestead Property Taxes for Selected Rural Municipalities: Median Valued Homes

Tax Rate (%) Tax Bill ($)

Median

Home

Value

State City Rate Rank

Change

from ‘16

Rate Rank

Change

from ‘16

Alabama

Monroeville

0.369%

47

1

↑

391

49

-

105,800

Alaska

Ketchican

1.087%

28

2

↑

2,527

13

-

232,500

Arizona

Safford

0.760%

40

-

1,038

33

1

↑

136,600

Arkansas

Pocahontas

0.236%

49

-

175

50

-

74,300

California

Yreka

1.007%

32

-

1,509

23

3

↓

149,800

Colorado

Walsenburg

0.577%

44

1

↑

526

47

1

↑

91,200

Connecticut

Litchfield

2.005%

12

2

↑

7,019

1

-

350,000

Delaware

Georgetown

0.621%

43

-

1,242

30

-

199,800

Florida

Moore Haven

0.927%

33

-

681

42

1

↓

73,400

Georgia

Fitzgerald

1.558%

18

1

↑

1,330

27

2

↑

85,400

Hawaii

Kauai

0.203%

50

-

974

36

1

↓

479,200

Idaho

Saint Anthony

0.834%

36

-

898

37

-

107,700

Illinois

Galena

2.162%

8

1

↓

3,247

6

-

150,200

Indiana

North Vernon

0.872%

34

-

742

39

-

85,100

Iowa

Hampton

1.701%

17

2

↓

1,393

25

4

↓

81,900

Kansas

Iola

2.051%

10

2

↑

1,579

20

7

↑

77,000

Kentucky

Morehead

1.103%

27

2

↓

1,844

17

-

167,100

Louisiana

Natchitoches

0.351%

48

1

↓

494

48

1

↓

140,900

Maine

Rockland

1.947%

14

1

↓

3,088

8

-

158,600

Maryland

Denton

1.550%

19

1

↑

2,730

9

-

176,100

Massachusetts

Adams

2.116%

9

-

3,135

7

-

148,200

Michigan

Manistique

2.035%

11

3

↓

1,261

28

2

↓

62,000

Minnesota

Glencoe

1.251%

22

1

↓

1,553

21

3

↓

124,100

Mississippi

Philadelphia

1.075%

30

1

↑

985

35

3

↑

91,600

Missouri

Boonville

1.131%

25

3

↑

1,251

29

3

↑

110,600

Montana

Glasgow

1.060%

31

2

↓

1,607

19

5

↑

151,600

Nebraska

Sidney

2.169%

7

4

↑

2,727

10

-

125,700

Nevada

Fallon

1.270%

21

1

↑

1,695

18

1

↑

133,500

New Hampshire

Lancaster

2.718%

3

2

↓

4,553

4

1

↑

167,500

New Jersey

Maurice River Twp

2.611%

4

-

4,384

5

1

↓

167,900

New Mexico

Santa Rosa

0.811%

37

2

↓

725

40

-

89,400

New York

Warsaw

2.830%

1

2

↑

2,725

11

1

↑

96,300

North Carolina

Edenton

1.112%

26

1

↑

1,240

31

3

↓

111,500

North Dakota

Devils Lake

1.086%

29

3

↓

1,008

34

1

↓

92,800

Ohio

Bryan

1.523%

20

2

↓

1,433

24

2

↓

94,100

AVERAGE 1.340%

1,826 135,926

71

Tax Rate (%) Tax Bill ($)

Median

Home

Value

State City Rate Rank

Change

from ‘16

Rate Rank

Change

from ‘16

Oklahoma

Mangum

0.783%

38

1

↑

610

43

2

↑

77,900

Oregon

Tillamook

1.167%

24

-

2,066

15

1

↓

177,100

Pennsylvania

Ridgway

2.731%

2

-

1,942

16

1

↓

71,100

Rhode Island

Hopkinton

1.973%

13

3

↓

4,947

3

-

250,800

South Carolina

Mullins

0.845%

35

2

↑

573

44

-

67,900

South Dakota

Vermillion

1.908%

15

1

↑

2,538

12

4

↑

133,000

Tennessee

Savannah

0.648%

42

-

567

45

2

↓

87,500

Texas

Fort Stockton

1.747%

16

1

↑

1,522

22

3

↑

87,100

Utah

Richfield

0.767%

39

1

↓

1,163

32

1

↓

151,600

Vermont

Hartford

2.543%

5

-

5,772

2

-

227,000

Virginia

Wise

0.571%

45

1

↓

699

41

1

↑

122,400

Washington

Okanogan

1.191%

23

-

1,377

26

3

↓

115,600

West Virginia

Elkins

0.514%

46

-

537

46

-

104,500

Wisconsin

Rice Lake

2.171%

6

-

2,443

14

3

↓

112,500

Wyoming

Worland

0.709%

41

-

857

38

2

↓

120,900

AVERAGE

1.340%

1,826 135,926

Source for median home values: 2016 American Community Survey, 5-year data

72

Appendix Table 2h: Homestead Property Taxes for Selected Rural Municipalities: Homes worth $150,000 and $300,000

$150,000 Property Value $300,000 Property Value

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property Value

State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Change

from ‘16

Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Change

from ‘16

Alabama Monroeville

0.381%

572

48

1

↑

0.396%

1,187

49

-

X

Alaska Ketchican

1.087%

1,630

30

2

↑

1.087%

3,260

31

2

↑

Arizona Safford

0.760%

1,139

40

-

0.760%

2,279

40

-

Arkansas Pocahontas

0.474%

710

47

-

0.590%

1,771

45

1

↓

X

California Yreka

1.007%

1,511

33

-

1.032%

3,096

34

-

X

Colorado Walsenburg

0.577%

866

44

1

↑

0.577%

1,732

46

1

↑

Connecticut Litchfield

2.005%

3,008

12

3

↑

2.005%

6,016

13

4

↑

Delaware Georgetown

0.621%

932

43

-

0.621%

1,864

43

2

↑

Florida Moore Haven

1.604%

2,406

19

-

1.928%

5,785

16

-

X

Georgia Fitzgerald

1.663%

2,494

18

-

1.733%

5,198

19

-

X

Hawaii Kauai

0.100%

150

50

-

0.142%

427

50

-

X

Idaho St. Anthony

0.834%

1,251

37

-

1.088%

3,264

30

2

↑

X

Illinois Galena

2.161%

3,242

8

1

↓

2.309%

6,926

5

2

↑

X

Indiana North Vernon

0.962%

1,443

34

-

0.962%

2,886

35

-

Iowa Hampton

1.803%

2,705

17

3

↓

1.864%

5,593

18

5

↓

X

Kansas Iola

2.080%

3,120

10

1

↑

2.096%

6,287

9

3

↑

X

Kentucky Morehead

1.103%

1,655

29

2

↓

1.103%

3,310

29

2

↓

Louisiana Natchitoches

0.379%

569

49

1

↓

0.601%

1,803

44

1

↓

X

Maine Rockland

1.931%

2,896

14

1

↓

2.079%

6,238

11

-

X

Maryland Denton

1.550%

2,326

20

1

↑

1.550%

4,651

20

2

↑

Massachusetts Adams

2.116%

3,173

9

-

2.116%

6,347

8

1

↑

Michigan Manistique

2.035%

3,052

11

3

↓

2.035%

6,104

12

4

↓

Minnesota Glencoe

1.329%

1,994

22

-

1.516%

4,549

22

2

↓

X

Mississippi Philadelphia

1.203%

1,804

24

1

↑

1.303%

3,908

23

-

X

Missouri Boonville

1.131%

1,696

27

3

↑

1.131%

3,392

27

3

↑

Montana Glasgow

1.060%

1,590

32

1

↓

1.060%

3,180

33

2

↓

Nebraska Sidney

2.169%

3,254

7

5

↑

2.169%

6,508

7

8

↑

Nevada Fallon

1.270%

1,905

23

-

1.270%

3,810

24

-

New Hampshire Lancaster

2.718%

4,077

3

1

↓

2.718%

8,155

3

1

↓

New Jersey Maurice River Twp

2.611%

3,916

4

-

2.611%

7,833

4

-

New Mexico Santa Rosa

0.837%

1,256

36

1

↓

0.856%

2,568

36

-

X

New York Warsaw

3.057%

4,586

1

-

3.261%

9,782

1

-

X

North Carolina Edenton

1.112%

1,668

28

1

↑

1.112%

3,337

28

1

↑

North Dakota Devils Lake

1.086%

1,629

31

3

↓

1.086%

3,258

32

4

↓

Ohio Bryan

1.523%

2,284

21

1

↓

1.523%

4,568

21

-

AVERAGE

1.373% 2,059

1.415% 4,244

N = 21

73

$150,000 Property Value $300,000 Property Value

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property Value

State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Change

from ‘16

Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Change

from ‘16

Oklahoma Mangum

0.828%

1,241

38

2

↓

0.852%

2,556

37

-

X

Oregon Tillamook

1.167%

1,750

26

-

1.167%

3,500

26

-

Pennsylvania Ridgway

2.866%

4,300

2

1

↑

2.927%

8,782

2

1

↑

X

Rhode Island Hopkinton

1.973%

2,959

13

3

↓

1.973%

5,918

15

5

↓

South Carolina Mullins

0.845%

1,267

35

3

↑

0.845%

2,534

38

-

South Dakota Vermillion

1.908%

2,863

15

2

↑

1.908%

5,725

17

1

↑

Tennessee Savannah

0.648%

972

42

-

0.648%

1,943

42

-

Texas Fort Stockton

1.898%

2,847

16

-

2.002%

6,007

14

-

X

Utah Richfield

0.767%

1,151

39

-

0.767%

2,301

39

-

Vermont Hartford

2.193%

3,289

6

1

↓

2.081%

6,243

10

5

↓

X

Virginia Wise

0.571%

857

45

1

↓

0.571%

1,714

47

1

↓

Washington Okanogan

1.191%

1,787

25

1

↓

1.191%

3,573

25

-

West Virginia Elkins

0.514%

771

46

-

0.514%

1,541

48

-

Wisconsin Rice Lake

2.218%

3,327

5

1

↑

2.288%

6,863

6

-

X

Wyoming Worland

0.709%

1,063

41

-

0.709%

2,126

41

-

AVERAGE

1.373% 2,059

1.415% 4,244

N = 21

74

Appendix Table 3a: Commercial Property Taxes for Largest City in Each State

Land and Building Value:

$100,000

Land and Building Value:

$1 Million

Land and Building Value:

$25 Million

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property

Value

Lower Tax

Rate on

Personal

Property

State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Alabama Birmingham

1.450%

1,740

34 (1

↑)

1.450%

17,400

36 (

-

)

1.450%

435,000

39 (1

↓)

Alaska Anchorage

1.202%

1,442

42 (1

↑)

1.437%

17,240

37 (3

↑)

1.462%

438,519

37 (3

↑)

X

Arizona Phoenix

2.091%

2,509

23 (

-

)

2.198%

26,374

22 (

-

)

2.603%

780,772

16 (2

↑)

X

Arkansas Little Rock

1.400%

1,680

36 (

-

)

1.400%

16,803

39 (2

↓)

1.400%

420,074

40 (1

↓)

California Los Angeles

1.193%

1,432

43 (1

↓)

1.193%

14,316

44 (

-

)

1.193%

357,908

45 (1

↓)

Colorado Denver

2.312%

2,774

19 (2

↑)

2.312%

27,740

21 (2

↑)

2.312%

693,496

22 (1

↑)

Connecticut Bridgeport

3.806%

4,567

3 (1

↑)

3.806%

45,671

3 (1

↑)

3.806%

1,141,770

3 (1

↑)

DC Washington

1.299%

1,559

39 (2

↑)

1.299%

15,593

42 (1

↑)

1.978%

593,413

28 (

-

)

X

Delaware Wilmington

1.068%

1,282

47 (

-

)

1.068%

12,821

48 (1

↓)

1.068%

320,521

48 (1

↓)

X

Florida Jacksonville

1.428%

1,713

35 (1

↓)

1.683%

20,197

31 (

-

)

1.718%

515,435

32 (1

↓)

X

Georgia Atlanta

1.585%

1,903

31 (1

↓)

1.585%

19,025

33 (1

↓)

1.585%

475,630

34 (1

↓)

Hawaii Honolulu

0.908%

1,089

51 (

-

)

0.908%

10,892

51 (

-

)

0.908%

272,304

51 (

-

)

X

Idaho Boise

1.286%

1,543

40 (

-

)

1.420%

17,041

38 (

-

)

1.549%

464,696

35 (

-

)

X

Illinois Aurora*

3.432%

4,118

6 (

-

)

3.432%

41,180

6 (

-

)

3.432%

1,029,496

6 (

-

)

X

Illinois Chicago

3.784%

4,541

4 (1

↓)

3.784%

45,405

4 (1

↓)

3.784%

1,135,136

4 (1

↓)

X

Indiana Indianapolis

2.458%

2,950

14 (6

↓)

2.458%

29,497

16 (5

↓)

2.458%

737,435

17 (6

↓)

Iowa Des Moines

2.270%

2,724

20 (2

↑)

2.997%

35,968

7 (1

↑)

3.251%

975,283

7 (

-

)

X

Kansas Wichita

2.683%

3,220

12 (1

↑)

2.683%

32,197

14 (1

↑)

2.683%

804,923

14 (1

↑)

Kentucky Louisville

1.260%

1,512

41 (3

↓)

1.260%

15,124

43 (2

↓)

1.260%

378,094

43 (1

↓)

Louisiana New Orleans

2.054%

2,465

25 (1

↓)

2.054%

24,652

26 (2

↓)

2.054%

616,293

27 (3

↓)

Maine Portland

2.057%

2,468

24 (1

↑)

2.057%

24,681

25 (

-

)

2.057%

617,025

26 (1

↓)

Maryland Baltimore

2.781%

3,337

9 (5

↑)

2.781%

33,372

11 (5

↑)

2.781%

834,311

11 (5

↑)

Massachusetts Boston

1.818%

2,182

28 (2

↓)

1.818%

21,818

29 (1

↓)

1.818%

545,455

30 (1

↓)

X

Michigan Detroit

4.243%

5,091

1 (

-

)

4.243%

50,914

1 (

-

)

4.243%

1,272,858

1 (

-

)

X

Minnesota Minneapolis

2.255%

2,706

21 (4

↓)

2.851%

34,208

8 (1

↑)

2.952%

885,479

8 (1

↑)

X

Mississippi Jackson

2.841%

3,410

7 (4

↑)

2.841%

34,096

9 (4

↑)

2.841%

852,390

9 (4

↑)

Missouri Kansas City

2.770%

3,324

10 (2

↑)

2.770%

33,244

12 (2

↑)

2.770%

831,099

12 (2

↑)

X

Montana Billings

1.049%

1,258

48 (2

↑)

1.137%

13,642

46 (3

↑)

1.221%

366,444

44 (4

↑)

X

Nebraska Omaha

1.898%

2,278

26 (1

↑)

2.067%

24,800

24 (2

↑)

2.085%

625,394

25 (2

↑)

X

Nevada Las Vegas

1.139%

1,367

45 (

-

)

1.139%

13,670

45 (1

↑)

1.139%

341,752

46 (

-

)

New Hampshire Manchester

1.881%

2,257

27 (1

↑)

1.881%

22,574

28 (1

↑)

1.881%

564,344

29 (1

↑)

X

New Jersey Newark

2.636%

3,163

13 (2

↑)

2.636%

31,634

15 (2

↑)

2.636%

790,854

15 (2

↑)

X

New Mexico Albuquerque

1.494%

1,793

32 (

-

)

1.494%

17,928

34 (

-

)

1.494%

448,192

36 (

-

)

New York Buffalo*

2.352%

2,822

17 (1

↓)

2.352%

28,224

19 (1

↓)

2.352%

705,609

20 (1

↓)

X

New York New York City

3.903%

4,684

2 (

-

)

3.903%

46,840

2 (

-

)

3.903%

1,170,997

2 (

-

)

X

AVERAGE

1.994% 2,393

2.055% 24,654

2.090% 627,074

N = 11 N = 26

75

Land and Building Value:

$100,000

Land and Building Value:

$1 Million

Land and Building Value:

$25 Million

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property

Value

Lower Tax

Rate on

Personal

Property

State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

North Carolina Charlotte

1.079%

1,295

46 (2

↓)

1.079%

12,945

47 (2

↓)

1.079%

323,632

47 (2

↓)

North Dakota Fargo

0.958%

1,150

49 (

-

)

0.958%

11,500

49 (1

↑)

0.958%

287,488

49 (1

↑)

X

Ohio Columbus

2.151%

2,582

22 (7

↑)

2.151%

25,815

23 (7

↑)

2.151%

645,377

23 (9

↑)

X

Oklahoma Oklahoma City

1.301%

1,561

38 (1

↑)

1.301%

15,608

41 (1

↑)

1.301%

390,207

42 (1

↑)

Oregon Portland

2.424%

2,909

15 (5

↑)

2.424%

29,086

17 (4

↑)

2.424%

727,154

18 (4

↑)

Pennsylvania Philadelphia

1.143%

1,372

44 (2

↑)

1.967%

23,599

27 (

-

)

2.125%

637,486

24 (2

↑)

X

Rhode Island Providence

3.683%

4,420

5 (

-

)

3.683%

44,197

5 (

-

)

3.683%

1,104,934

5 (

-

)

South Carolina Charleston**

1.772%

2,126

29 (NA)

1.772%

21,265

30 (NA)

1.772%

531,615

31 (NA)

South Dakota Sioux Falls

1.452%

1,743

33 (4

↑)

1.452%

17,428

35 (4

↑)

1.452%

435,691

38 (3

↑)

X

Tennessee Memphis

2.830%

3,395

8 (1

↑)

2.830%

33,954

10 (2

↑)

2.830%

848,861

10 (2

↑)

X

Texas Houston

2.356%

2,827

16 (2

↑)

2.356%

28,268

18 (1

↑)

2.356%

706,695

19 (1

↑)

Utah Salt Lake City

1.387%

1,664

37 (4

↓)

1.387%

16,638

40 (5

↓)

1.387%

415,954

41 (4

↓)

Vermont Burlington

2.348%

2,818

18 (1

↑)

2.348%

28,178

20 (

-

)

2.348%

704,440

21 (

-

)

X

Virginia Virginia Beach

0.958%

1,150

50 (2

↓)

0.958%

11,499

50 (2

↓)

0.958%

287,467

50 (1

↓)

Washington Seattle

0.850%

1,020

52 (

-

)

0.850%

10,197

52 (

-

)

0.850%

254,922

52 (

-

)

West Virginia Charleston

1.614%

1,937

30 (1

↑)

1.614%

19,369

32 (1

↑)

1.614%

484,234

33 (1

↑)

Wisconsin Milwaukee

2.694%

3,233

11 (1

↓)

2.751%

33,014

13 (3

↓)

2.757%

827,165

13 (3

↓)

X

Wyoming Cheyenne

0.611%

733

53 (

-

)

0.611%

7,328

53 (

-

)

0.611%

183,196

53 (

-

)

AVERAGE

1.994% 2,393

2.055% 24,654

2.090% 627,074

N = 11 N = 26

* Illinois and New York have two cities included in this table, because the tax systems in Chicago and New York City are significantly different from the rest of the state.

$100,000-valued property has an additional $20,000 worth of fixtures; $1 million-valued property has an additional $200,000 worth of fixtures; $25 million-valued property has an

additional $5 million worth of fixtures.

** Charleston, SC is now the largest city in the state and replaces Columbia, SC.

76

Appendix Table 3b: Commercial Property Taxes for the Largest Fifty U.S. Cities

Land and Building Value:

$100,000

Land and Building Value:

$1 Million

Land

and Building Value:

$25 Million

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property

Value

Lower Tax

Rate on

Personal

Property

State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Arizona Mesa

1.540%

1,848

29 (4

↑)

1.616%

19,388

30 (3

↑)

1.901%

570,439

27 (3

↑)

X

Arizona Phoenix

2.091%

2,509

21 (2

↓)

2.198%

26,374

20 (2

↓)

2.603%

780,772

14 (2

↓)

X

Arizona Tucson

2.233%

2,679

19 (3

↑)

2.333%

27,991

18 (2

↑)

2.710%

813,095

12 (1

↑)

X

California Fresno

1.247%

1,497

38 (1

↑)

1.247%

14,967

39 (1

↑)

1.247%

374,171

39 (1

↑)

California Long Beach

1.218%

1,462

39 (4

↑)

1.218%

14,621

40 (4

↑)

1.218%

365,526

40 (4

↑)

California Los Angeles

1.193%

1,432

41 (1

↓)

1.193%

14,316

42 (1

↓)

1.193%

357,908

42 (1

↓)

California Oakland

1.349%

1,618

33 (1

↑)

1.349%

16,183

34 (1

↑)

1.349%

404,580

35 (1

↑)

California Sacramento

1.137%

1,364

46 (

-

)

1.137%

13,638

46 (1

↑)

1.137%

340,950

46 (1

↑)

California San Diego

1.170%

1,404

43 (1

↓)

1.170%

14,036

44 (1

↓)

1.170%

350,901

44 (1

↓)

California San Francisco

1.172%

1,407

42 (1

↓)

1.172%

14,068

43 (1

↓)

1.172%

351,690

43 (1

↓)

California San Jose

1.317%

1,580

34 (4

↑)

1.317%

15,805

35 (4

↑)

1.317%

395,118

36 (3

↑)

Colorado

Colorado Springs

1.632%

1,959

26 (1

↑)

1.632%

19,586

29 (1

↑)

1.632%

489,654

31 (1

↑)

Colorado Denver

2.312%

2,774

17 (1

↑)

2.312%

27,740

19 (

-

)

2.312%

693,496

20 (

-

)

DC Washington

1.299%

1,559

36 (1

↑)

1.299%

15,593

37 (1

↑)

1.978%

593,413

25 (

-

)

X

Florida Jacksonville

1.428%

1,713

32 (

-

)

1.683%

20,197

28 (

-

)

1.718%

515,435

30 (2

↓)

X

Florida Miami

1.581%

1,897

28 (

-

)

1.878%

22,533

25 (1

↑)

1.918%

575,532

26 (

-

)

X

Georgia Atlanta

1.585%

1,903

27 (1

↓)

1.585%

19,025

31 (2

↓)

1.585%

475,630

32 (1

↓)

Illinois Chicago

3.784%

4,541

3 (

-

)

3.784%

45,405

3 (

-

)

3.784%

1,135,136

3 (

-

)

X

Indiana Indianapolis

2.458%

2,950

14 (10

↓)

2.458%

29,497

15 (9

↓)

2.458%

737,435

17 (11

↓)

Kansas Wichita

2.683%

3,220

11 (2

↓)

2.683%

32,197

12 (2

↓)

2.683%

804,923

13 (3

↓)

Kentucky Louisville

1.260%

1,512

37 (2

↓)

1.260%

15,124

38 (2

↓)

1.260%

378,094

38 (1

↓)

Louisiana New Orleans

2.054%

2,465

22 (2

↓)

2.054%

24,652

23 (2

↓)

2.054%

616,293

24 (3

↓)

Maryland Baltimore

2.781%

3,337

7 (3

↑)

2.781%

33,372

8 (3

↑)

2.781%

834,311

8 (3

↑)

Massachusetts Boston

1.818%

2,182

24 (1

↓)

1.818%

21,818

26 (1

↓)

1.818%

545,455

28 (1

↓)

X

Michigan Detroit

4.243%

5,091

1 (

-

)

4.243%

50,914

1 (

-

)

4.243%

1,272,858

1 (

-

)

X

Minnesota Minneapolis

2.255%

2,706

18 (3

↓)

2.851%

34,208

5 (1

↓)

2.952%

885,479

5 (1

↓)

X

Missouri Kansas City

2.770%

3,324

8 (1

↓)

2.770%

33,244

9 (1

↓)

2.770%

831,099

9 (1

↓)

X

Nebraska Omaha

1.898%

2,278

23 (1

↑)

2.067%

24,800

22 (1

↑)

2.085%

625,394

23 (1

↑)

X

Nevada Las Vegas

1.139%

1,367

45 (

-

)

1.139%

13,670

45 (1

↑)

1.139%

341,752

45 (1

↑)

New Mexico Albuquerque

1.494%

1,793

30 (

-

)

1.494%

17,928

32 (

-

)

1.494%

448,192

33 (1

↑)

New York New York City

3.903%

4,684

2 (

-

)

3.903%

46,840

2 (

-

)

3.903%

1,170,997

2 (

-

)

X

North Carolina Charlotte

1.079%

1,295

47 (3

↓)

1.079%

12,945

47 (2

↓)

1.079%

323,632

47 (2

↓)

North Carolina Raleigh

0.991%

1,189

48 (1

↑)

0.991%

11,891

48 (1

↑)

0.991%

297,266

48 (1

↑)

Ohio Columbus

1.787%

2,144

25 (

-

)

1.787%

21,443

27 (

-

)

1.787%

536,087

29 (

-

)

X

Oklahoma Oklahoma City

1.301%

1,561

35 (1

↑)

1.301%

15,608

36 (1

↑)

1.301%

390,207

37 (1

↑)

AVERAGE

1.938% 2,326

1.988% 23,853

2.030% 608,971

N = 10 N = 18

77

Land and Building Value:

$100,000

Land and Building Value:

$1 Million

Land and Building Value:

$25 Million

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property

Value

Lower Tax

Rate on

Personal

Property

State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Oklahoma Tulsa

1.485%

1,782

31 (

-

)

1.485%

17,820

33 (1

↑)

1.485%

445,510

34 (1

↑)

X

Oregon Portland

2.424%

2,909

15 (2

↑)

2.424%

29,086

16 (1

↑)

2.424%

727,154

18 (1

↑)

Pennsylvania Philadelphia

1.143%

1,372

44 (3

↑)

1.967%

23,599

24 (

-

)

2.125%

637,486

22 (1

↑)

X

Tennessee Memphis

2.830%

3,395

5 (

-

)

2.830%

33,954

6 (1

↑)

2.830%

848,861

6 (1

↑)

X

Tennessee Nashville

1.209%

1,451

40 (11

↓)

1.209%

14,513

41 (10

↓)

1.209%

362,825

41 (8

↓)

X

Texas Arlington

2.590%

3,108

12 (2

↑)

2.590%

31,082

13 (2

↑)

2.590%

777,041

15 (2

↑)

Texas Austin

2.129%

2,555

20 (1

↑)

2.129%

25,549

21 (1

↑)

2.129%

638,724

21 (1

↑)

Texas Dallas

2.550%

3,060

13 (2

↓)

2.550%

30,596

14 (2

↓)

2.550%

764,904

16 (2

↓)

Texas El Paso

2.964%

3,556

4 (8

↑)

2.964%

35,562

4 (9

↑)

2.964%

889,052

4 (11

↑)

Texas Fort Worth

2.715%

3,258

9 (4

↑)

2.715%

32,577

11 (3

↑)

2.715%

814,423

11 (5

↑)

Texas Houston

2.356%

2,827

16 (

-

)

2.356%

28,268

17 (1

↓)

2.356%

706,695

19 (1

↓)

Texas San Antonio

2.811%

3,374

6 (2

↑)

2.811%

33,736

7 (2

↑)

2.811%

843,404

7 (2

↑)

Virginia Virginia Beach

0.958%

1,150

49 (1

↓)

0.958%

11,499

49 (1

↓)

0.958%

287,467

49 (1

↓)

Washington Seattle

0.849%

1,019

50 (

-

)

0.850%

10,197

50 (

-

)

0.850%

254,922

50 (

-

)

Wisconsin Milwaukee

2.694%

3,233

10 (4

↓)

2.751%

33,014

10 (5

↓)

2.757%

827,165

10 (5

↓)

X

AVERAGE

1.938% 2,326

1.988% 23,853

2.030% 608,971

N = 10 N = 18

$100,000-valued property has an additional $20,000 worth of fixtures; $1 million-valued property has an additional $200,000 worth of fixtures; $25 million-valued property has an

additional $5 million worth of fixtures.

78

Appendix Table 3c: Commercial Property Taxes for Selected Rural Municipalities

Land and Building Value:

$100,000

Land and Building Value:

$1 Million

Land and

Building Value:

$25 Million

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property

Value

Lower Tax

Rate on

Personal

Property

State Municipality Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Alabama Monroeville

0.820%

984

45 (

-

)

0.820%

9,840

45 (

-

)

0.820%

246,000

45 (

-

)

Alaska Ketchican

0.906%

1,087

44 (

-

)

1.076%

12,916

38 (4

↑)

1.100%

329,911

38 (

-

)

X

Arizona Safford

1.572%

1,887

27 (8

↑)

1.643%

19,720

25 (8

↑)

1.912%

573,510

24 (4

↑)

X

Arkansas Pocahontas

0.722%

866

48 (1

↓)

0.722%

8,663

48 (1

↓)

0.722%

216,581

48 (1

↓)

California Yreka

1.057%

1,268

39 (1

↓)

1.057%

12,682

40 (2

↓)

1.057%

317,040

40 (1

↓)

Colorado Walsenburg

2.175%

2,610

12 (5

↑)

2.175%

26,097

15 (4

↑)

2.175%

652,422

15 (4

↑)

Connecticut Litchfield

1.588%

1,905

26 (2

↓)

1.588%

19,053

29 (4

↓)

1.588%

476,328

29 (4

↓)

Delaware Georgetown

0.442%

531

50 (

-

)

0.442%

5,307

50 (

-

)

0.442%

132,666

50 (

-

)

X

Florida Moore Haven

1.877%

2,252

22 (1

↑)

2.205%

26,466

12 (1

↓)

2.251%

675,163

11 (

-

)

X

Georgia Fitzgerald

1.800%

2,160

23 (3

↑)

1.800%

21,605

24 (2

↑)

1.800%

540,116

25 (1

↑)

Hawaii Kauai

0.675%

810

49 (

-

)

0.675%

8,100

49 (

-

)

0.675%

202,500

49 (

-

)

X

Idaho St. Anthony

1.488%

1,786

30 (4

↑)

1.633%

19,602

26 (5

↑)

1.773%

531,797

26 (4

↑)

X

Illinois Galena

2.047%

2,456

18 (1

↑)

2.047%

24,560

21 (

-

)

2.047%

614,012

21 (

-

)

X

Indiana North Vernon

3.035%

3,642

2 (1

↑)

3.035%

36,420

3 (1

↑)

3.035%

910,500

3 (2

↑)

Iowa Hampton

1.748%

2,097

24 (2

↓)

2.475%

29,702

8 (1

↓)

2.729%

818,622

7 (4

↓)

X

Kansas Iola

3.961%

4,753

1 (

-

)

3.961%

47,528

1 (

-

)

3.961%

1,188,203

1 (

-

)

Kentucky Morehead

1.143%

1,372

36 (5

↑)

1.143%

13,722

36 (5

↑)

1.143%

343,042

36 (6

↑)

Louisiana Natchitoches

1.256%

1,507

33 (3

↓)

1.256%

15,067

33 (3

↓)

1.256%

376,678

33 (1

↓)

Maine Rockland

2.228%

2,674

10 (

-

)

2.228%

26,736

11 (1

↑)

2.228%

668,400

12 (

-

)

Maryland Denton

2.058%

2,470

17 (3

↑)

2.058%

24,699

20 (2

↑)

2.058%

617,480

20 (3

↑)

Massachusetts Adams

2.025%

2,430

19 (7

↓)

2.025%

24,305

22 (8

↓)

2.025%

607,613

22 (8

↓)

X

Michigan Manistique

2.934%

3,521

3 (1

↓)

2.934%

35,210

4 (1

↓)

2.934%

880,259

4 (

-

)

X

Minnesota Glencoe

2.607%

3,128

6 (

-

)

3.310%

39,720

2 (

-

)

3.429%

1,028,762

2 (

-

)

X

Mississippi Philadelphia

2.104%

2,525

15 (1

↓)

2.104%

25,250

18 (2

↓)

2.104%

631,260

18 (2

↓)

Missouri Boonville

2.105%

2,526

14 (1

↑)

2.105%

25,260

17 (

-

)

2.105%

631,496

17 (

-

)

X

Montana Glasgow

1.510%

1,812

29 (2

↓)

1.610%

19,325

27 (

-

)

1.707%

511,967

27 (

-

)

X

Nebraska Sidney

2.020%

2,424

20 (5

↑)

2.195%

26,334

13 (11

↑)

2.213%

663,938

13 (9

↑)

X

Nevada Fallon

1.272%

1,526

32 (1

↓)

1.272%

15,262

32 (

-

)

1.272%

381,555

32 (1

↑)

New Hampshire Lancaster

2.265%

2,718

9 (1

↓)

2.265%

27,183

10 (

-

)

2.265%

679,572

10 (

-

)

X

New Jersey Maurice River Twp

2.176%

2,611

11 (2

↑)

2.176%

26,109

14 (1

↑)

2.176%

652,716

14 (1

↑)

X

New Mexico Santa Rosa

1.016%

1,219

41 (1

↓)

1.016%

12,191

42 (2

↓)

1.016%

304,773

42 (1

↓)

New York Warsaw

2.887%

3,464

4 (

-

)

2.887%

34,643

5 (

-

)

2.887%

866,064

5 (1

↑)

X

North Carolina Edenton

1.114%

1,337

37 (

-

)

1.114%

13,372

37 (

-

)

1.114%

334,294

37 (

-

)

North Dakota Devils Lake

1.066%

1,279

38 (5

↓)

1.066%

12,794

39 (4

↓)

1.066%

319,856

39 (4

↓)

X

Ohio Bryan

1.552%

1,863

28 (1

↑)

1.552%

18,628

30 (1

↓)

1.552%

465,693

30 (1

↑)

X

AVERAGE

1.701% 2,042

1.751% 21,010

1.770% 531,061

N = 9 N = 23

79

Land and Building Value:

$100,000

Land and Building Value:

$1 Million

Land and Building Value:

$25 Million

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property

Value

Lower Tax

Rate on

Personal

Property

State Municipality Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Oklahoma Mangum

0.913%

1,095

43 (

-

)

0.913%

10,953

44 (

-

)

0.913%

273,825

44 (

-

)

Oregon Tillamook

1.167%

1,400

35 (1

↑)

1.167%

13,998

35 (1

↑)

1.167%

349,957

35 (1

↑)

Pennsylvania Ridgway

2.490%

2,988

7 (

-

)

2.490%

29,880

7 (2

↑)

2.490%

746,992

8 (1

↑)

X

Rhode Island Hopkinton

1.988%

2,385

21 (5

↓)

1.988%

23,854

23 (5

↓)

1.988%

596,341

23 (5

↓)

South Carolina Mullins

2.817%

3,381

5 (

-

)

2.817%

33,807

6 (

-

)

2.817%

845,175

6 (1

↑)

South Dakota Vermillion

1.610%

1,932

25 (4

↓)

1.610%

19,322

28 (5

↓)

1.610%

483,043

28 (4

↓)

X

Tennessee Savannah

1.003%

1,203

42 (

-

)

1.003%

12,033

43 (

-

)

1.003%

300,824

43 (

-

)

X

Texas Fort Stockton

2.141%

2,569

13 (2

↓)

2.141%

25,689

16 (3

↓)

2.141%

642,213

16 (3

↓)

Utah Richfield

1.478%

1,774

31 (3

↓)

1.478%

17,741

31 (3

↓)

1.478%

443,520

31 (2

↓)

Vermont Hartford

2.087%

2,504

16 (2

↑)

2.087%

25,041

19 (1

↑)

2.087%

626,018

19 (1

↑)

X

Virginia Wise

0.803%

964

46 (

-

)

0.803%

9,640

46 (

-

)

0.803%

241,005

46 (

-

)

Washington Okanogan

1.208%

1,449

34 (2

↓)

1.208%

14,494

34 (

-

)

1.208%

362,356

34 (

-

)

West Virginia Elkins

1.036%

1,244

40 (1

↓)

1.036%

12,438

41 (2

↓)

1.036%

310,945

41 (1

↓)

Wisconsin Rice Lake

2.297%

2,756

8 (1

↑)

2.351%

28,218

9 (1

↓)

2.357%

707,195

9 (1

↓)

X

Wyoming Worland

0.776%

931

47 (1

↑)

0.776%

9,313

47 (1

↑)

0.776%

232,835

47 (1

↑)

AVERAGE

1.701% 2,042

1.751% 21,010

1.770% 531,061

N = 9 N = 23

$100,000-valued property has an additional $20,000 worth of fixtures; $1 million-valued property has an additional $200,000 worth of fixtures; $25 million-valued property has an

additional $5 million worth of fixtures.

80

Appendix Table 4a: Industrial Property Taxes for Largest City in Each State (Personal Property = 50% of Total Parcel Value)

Land and Building Value:

$100,000

Land and Building Value:

$1 Million

Land and Building Value:

$25 Million

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property

Value

State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Alabama Birmingham

1.160%

2,320

34 (3

↑)

1.160%

23,200

37 (3

↑)

1.160%

580,000

38 (3

↑)

Alaska Anchorage

1.347%

2,695

28 (3

↑)

1.488%

29,768

24 (3

↑)

1.503%

751,719

25 (3

↑)

X

Arizona Phoenix

1.254%

2,509

31 (1

↓)

1.953%

39,062

13 (1

↓)

2.196%

1,097,959

8 (2

↑)

X

Arkansas Little Rock

1.401%

2,802

26 (2

↓)

1.401%

28,019

30 (2

↓)

1.401%

700,474

30 (1

↓)

California Los Angeles

0.954%

1,909

39 (

-

)

0.954%

19,088

42 (

-

)

0.954%

477,211

43 (

-

)

Colorado Denver

1.860%

3,720

15 (

-

)

1.860%

37,199

16 (1

↑)

1.860%

929,982

18 (1

↑)

Connecticut Bridgeport

2.093%

4,186

10 (

-

)

2.093%

41,865

10 (

-

)

2.093%

1,046,623

11 (

-

)

DC Washington

0.780%

1,559

43 (1

↑)

1.417%

28,343

27 (3

↑)

1.867%

933,413

17 (1

↓)

X

Delaware Wilmington

0.641%

1,282

49 (1

↓)

0.641%

12,821

50 (1

↓)

0.641%

320,521

50 (1

↓)

Florida Jacksonville

1.163%

2,326

33 (

-

)

1.360%

27,198

32 (1

↓)

1.381%

690,456

32 (2

↓)

X

Georgia Atlanta

1.471%

2,941

21 (

-

)

1.471%

29,414

25 (1

↓)

1.471%

735,350

26 (1

↓)

Hawaii Honolulu

0.597%

1,194

51 (

-

)

0.597%

11,937

51 (1

↑)

0.597%

298,437

51 (1

↑)

Idaho Boise

0.771%

1,543

44 (1

↓)

1.174%

23,487

36 (1

↓)

1.252%

625,839

36 (1

↓)

X

Illinois Aurora*

2.059%

4,118

11 (

-

)

2.059%

41,180

11 (

-

)

2.059%

1,029,496

12 (

-

)

Illinois Chicago

2.266%

4,533

6 (7

↑)

2.266%

45,325

7 (7

↑)

2.266%

1,133,133

7 (8

↑)

Indiana Indianapolis

1.997%

3,995

12 (5

↓)

1.997%

39,948

12 (5

↓)

1.997%

998,705

13 (6

↓)

Iowa Des Moines

1.295%

2,591

30 (3

↓)

1.732%

34,639

18 (2

↓)

1.884%

942,044

16 (3

↓)

X

Kansas Wichita

1.463%

2,926

22 (1

↑)

1.463%

29,265

26 (

-

)

1.463%

731,615

27 (

-

)

Kentucky Louisville

0.709%

1,419

45 (

-

)

0.709%

14,188

47 (

-

)

0.709%

354,694

47 (

-

)

Louisiana New Orleans

2.103%

4,205

9 (1

↓)

2.103%

42,053

9 (1

↓)

2.103%

1,051,323

10 (2

↓)

Maine Portland

1.126%

2,252

36 (

-

)

1.126%

22,516

39 (

-

)

1.126%

562,900

40 (

-

)

Maryland Baltimore

1.389%

2,778

27 (2

↑)

1.389%

27,781

31 (2

↑)

1.389%

694,514

31 (2

↑)

Massachusetts Boston

1.104%

2,207

38 (3

↓)

1.104%

22,072

41 (3

↓)

1.104%

551,798

42 (3

↓)

Michigan Detroit

2.248%

4,497

7 (2

↓)

2.729%

54,582

2 (

-

)

2.729%

1,364,545

2 (

-

)

X

Minnesota Minneapolis

1.417%

2,834

23 (3

↑)

1.791%

35,823

17 (1

↑)

1.855%

927,275

19 (1

↓)

X

Mississippi Jackson

2.841%

5,683

1 (1

↑)

2.841%

56,826

1 (2

↑)

2.841%

1,420,650

1 (2

↑)

Missouri Kansas City

2.193%

4,386

8 (1

↑)

2.193%

43,857

8 (1

↑)

2.193%

1,096,432

9 (

-

)

Montana Billings

0.629%

1,258

50 (2

↑)

0.894%

17,875

45 (1

↑)

1.260%

629,954

35 (2

↑)

X

Nebraska Omaha

1.589%

3,177

18 (

-

)

1.690%

33,795

19 (

-

)

1.701%

850,266

20 (

-

)

X

Nevada Las Vegas

0.913%

1,826

40 (1

↑)

0.913%

18,260

43 (1

↑)

0.913%

456,489

44 (1

↑)

New Hampshire Manchester

1.129%

2,257

35 (3

↑)

1.129%

22,574

38 (3

↑)

1.129%

564,344

39 (3

↑)

New Jersey Newark

1.582%

3,163

19 (2

↓)

1.582%

31,634

22 (1

↓)

1.582%

790,854

23 (1

↓)

New Mexico Albuquerque

1.209%

2,417

32 (

-

)

1.209%

24,172

34 (

-

)

1.209%

604,302

37 (1

↓)

New York Buffalo*

1.411%

2,822

24 (2

↓)

1.411%

28,224

28 (3

↓)

1.411%

705,609

28 (2

↓)

New York New York City

2.342%

4,684

4 (2

↑)

2.342%

46,840

5 (1

↑)

2.342%

1,170,997

5 (1

↑)

AVERAGE

1.419% 2,838

1.499% 29,984

1.527% 763,726

N = 12

81

Land and Building Value:

$100,000

Land and Building Value:

$1 Million

Land and Building Value:

$25 Million

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property

Value

State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

North Carolina Charlotte

0.906%

1,812

41 (1

↓)

0.906%

18,123

44 (1

↓)

0.906%

453,072

45 (1

↓)

North Dakota Fargo

0.575%

1,150

52 (2

↓)

0.575%

11,500

52 (1

↓)

0.575%

287,488

52 (1

↓)

Ohio Columbus

1.303%

2,606

29 (1

↓)

1.303%

26,062

33 (1

↓)

1.303%

651,547

33 (1

↓)

Oklahoma Oklahoma City

1.404%

2,808

25 (

-

)

1.404%

28,077

29 (

-

)

1.404%

701,920

29 (2

↑)

Oregon Portland

1.939%

3,878

13 (1

↑)

1.939%

38,782

14 (1

↑)

1.939%

969,538

14 (3

↑)

Pennsylvania Philadelphia

0.686%

1,372

47 (

-

)

1.180%

23,599

35 (2

↑)

1.275%

637,486

34 (

-

)

X

Rhode Island Providence

1.931%

3,862

14 (2

↓)

1.931%

38,617

15 (2

↓)

1.931%

965,434

15 (1

↓)

South Carolina Charleston**

2.283%

4,567

5 (

NA

2.283%

45,669

6 (

NA)

2.283%

1,141,720

6 (

NA

)

South Dakota Sioux Falls

0.871%

1,743

42 (

-

)

0.871%

17,428

46 (1

↓)

0.871%

435,691

46 (

-

)

Tennessee Memphis

2.583%

5,167

2 (1

↑)

2.583%

51,670

3 (1

↑)

2.583%

1,291,745

3 (1

↑)

Texas Houston

2.526%

5,053

3 (1

↑)

2.526%

50,527

4 (1

↑)

2.526%

1,263,174

4 (1

↑)

Utah Salt Lake City

1.117%

2,234

37 (3

↓)

1.117%

22,336

40 (4

↓)

1.117%

558,404

41 (3

↓)

Vermont Burlington

1.601%

3,202

17 (2

↑)

1.601%

32,023

21 (1

↑)

1.601%

800,572

22 (1

↑)

Virginia Virginia Beach

0.495%

990

53 (

-

)

0.495%

9,899

53 (

-

)

0.495%

247,468

53 (

-

)

Washington Seattle

0.692%

1,383

46 (

-

)

0.692%

13,833

48 (

-

)

0.692%

345,830

48 (

-

)

West Virginia Charleston

1.633%

3,265

16 (

-

)

1.633%

32,651

20 (

-

)

1.633%

816,280

21 (

-

)

Wisconsin Milwaukee

1.479%

2,958

20 (

-

)

1.513%

30,257

23 (

-

)

1.516%

758,229

24 (

-

)

X

Wyoming Cheyenne

0.664%

1,328

48 (1

↑)

0.664%

13,279

49 (1

↑)

0.664%

331,982

49 (1

↑)

AVERAGE

1.419% 2,838

1.499% 29,984

1.527% 763,726

N = 12

* Illinois and New York have two cities included in this table, because the tax systems in Chicago and New York City are sign ificantly different from the rest of the state.

** Charleston, SC is now the largest city in the state and replaces Columbia, SC.

$100,000-valued property has an additional $50,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $40,000 worth of inventories, and a n additional $10,000 worth of fixtures.

$1 million-valued property has an additional $500,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $400,000 worth of inventories, and an additional $100,000 worth of

fixtures.

$25 million-valued property has an additional $12.5 million worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $10 million worth of inventories, and an additional $2. 5 million

worth of fixtures.

82

Appendix Table 4b: Industrial Property Taxes for Largest City in Each State (Personal Property = 60 % of Total Parcel Value)

Land and Building Value:

$100,000

Land and Building Value:

$1 Million

Land and Building Value:

$25 Million

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property

Value

State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Alabama Birmingham

1.102%

2,755

31 (1

↑)

1.102%

27,550

35 (1

↑)

1.102%

688,750

36 (1

↑)

Alaska Anchorage

1.391%

3,478

22 (

-

)

1.504%

37,598

20 (2

↑)

1.516%

947,469

20 (3

↑)

X

Arizona Phoenix

1.004%

2,509

35 (

-

)

1.943%

48,577

8 (1

↑)

2.137%

1,335,849

6 (2

↑)

X

Arkansas Little Rock

1.401%

3,503

20 (

-

)

1.401%

35,029

24 (

-

)

1.401%

875,724

25 (

-

)

California Los Angeles

0.907%

2,267

37 (2

↑)

0.907%

22,668

40 (2

↑)

0.907%

566,688

41 (2

↑)

Colorado Denver

1.772%

4,429

12 (

-

)

1.772%

44,294

13 (

-

)

1.772%

1,107,347

14 (

-

)

Connecticut Bridgeport

1.751%

4,377

13 (3

↓)

1.751%

43,768

14 (3

↓)

1.751%

1,094,196

15 (3

↓)

DC Washington

0.624%

1,559

46 (1

↑)

1.542%

38,543

19 (

-

)

1.901%

1,188,413

10 (

-

)

X

Delaware Wilmington

0.513%

1,282

49 (

-

)

0.513%

12,821

50 (

-

)

0.513%

320,521

50 (

-

)

Florida Jacksonville

1.140%

2,851

28 (

-

)

1.298%

32,449

27 (

-

)

1.315%

821,721

27 (

-

)

X

Georgia Atlanta

1.453%

3,634

18 (

-

)

1.453%

36,336

21 (1

↓)

1.453%

908,400

23 (2

↓)

Hawaii Honolulu

0.477%

1,194

51 (

-

)

0.477%

11,937

51 (1

↑)

0.477%

298,437

51 (1

↑)

Idaho Boise

0.617%

1,543

47 (1

↓)

1.133%

28,321

33 (1

↑)

1.195%

746,696

33 (2

↓)

X

Illinois Aurora*

1.647%

4,118

15 (

-

)

1.647%

41,180

16 (

-

)

1.647%

1,029,496

17 (

-

)

Illinois Chicago

1.813%

4,533

11 (6

↑)

1.813%

45,325

12 (6

↑)

1.813%

1,133,133

13 (7

↑)

Indiana Indianapolis

1.911%

4,779

7 (1

↓)

1.911%

47,786

9 (2

↓)

1.911%

1,194,657

9 (2

↓)

Iowa Des Moines

1.036%

2,591

34 (1

↓)

1.386%

34,639

26 (5

↓)

1.507%

942,044

21 (2

↓)

X

Kansas Wichita

1.229%

3,073

25 (

-

)

1.229%

30,731

30 (

-

)

1.229%

768,269

31 (1

↓)

Kentucky Louisville

0.624%

1,561

45 (1

↓)

0.624%

15,606

49 (1

↓)

0.624%

390,144

49 (1

↓)

Louisiana New Orleans

2.117%

5,293

5 (

-

)

2.117%

52,929

6 (

-

)

2.117%

1,323,216

7 (1

↓)

Maine Portland

0.944%

2,360

36 (

-

)

0.944%

23,599

39 (1

↓)

0.944%

589,963

40 (

-

)

Maryland Baltimore

1.223%

3,058

26 (1

↑)

1.223%

30,577

31 (1

↑)

1.223%

764,413

32 (2

↑)

Massachusetts Boston

0.883%

2,207

39 (2

↓)

0.883%

22,072

42 (2

↓)

0.883%

551,798

43 (2

↓)

Michigan Detroit

1.863%

4,657

9 (1

↓)

2.440%

60,991

4 (1

↓)

2.440%

1,524,771

4 (1

↓)

X

Minnesota Minneapolis

1.134%

2,834

29 (2

↑)

1.433%

35,823

23 (2

↑)

1.484%

927,275

22 (

-

)

X

Mississippi Jackson

2.841%

7,103

1 (1

↑)

2.841%

71,033

1 (1

↑)

2.841%

1,775,813

1 (1

↑)

Missouri Kansas City

2.073%

5,182

6 (1

↑)

2.073%

51,817

7 (1

↑)

2.073%

1,295,432

8 (1

↑)

Montana Billings

0.503%

1,258

50 (3

↑)

0.842%

21,050

45 (

-

)

1.262%

788,695

30 (3

↑)

X

Nebraska Omaha

1.541%

3,852

17 (1

↓)

1.622%

40,541

18 (1

↓)

1.630%

1,018,920

19 (1

↓)

X

Nevada Las Vegas

0.868%

2,170

41 (

-

)

0.868%

21,702

44 (

-

)

0.868%

542,542

45 (

-

)

New Hampshire Manchester

0.903%

2,257

38 (2

↑)

0.903%

22,574

41 (2

↑)

0.903%

564,344

42 (2

↑)

New Jersey Newark

1.265%

3,163

23 (1

↑)

1.265%

31,634

29 (

-

)

1.265%

790,854

29 (

-

)

New Mexico Albuquerque

1.154%

2,886

27 (2

↑)

1.154%

28,855

32 (1

↑)

1.154%

721,384

34 (1

↑)

New York Buffalo*

1.129%

2,822

30 (4

↓)

1.129%

28,224

34 (3

↓)

1.129%

705,609

35 (3

↓)

New York New York City

1.874%

4,684

8 (1

↑)

1.874%

46,840

10 (

-

)

1.874%

1,170,997

11 (

-

)

AVERAGE

1.275% 3,186

1.363% 34,087

1.388% 867,793

N = 12

83

Land and Building Value:

$100,000

Land and Building Value:

$1 Million

Land and Building Value:

$25 Million

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property

Value

State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

North Carolina Charlotte

0.880%

2,201

40 (2

↓)

0.880%

22,006

43 (2

↓)

0.880%

550,152

44 (2

↓)

North Dakota Fargo

0.460%

1,150

52 (2

↓)

0.460%

11,500

52 (1

↓)

0.460%

287,488

52 (1

↓)

Ohio Columbus

1.042%

2,606

33 (1

↑)

1.042%

26,062

37 (

-

)

1.042%

651,547

38 (

-

)

Oklahoma Oklahoma City

1.435%

3,587

19 (

-

)

1.435%

35,870

22 (1

↑)

1.435%

896,740

24 (

-

)

Oregon Portland

1.842%

4,605

10 (1

↑)

1.842%

46,053

11 (1

↑)

1.842%

1,151,327

12 (1

↑)

Pennsylvania Philadelphia

0.549%

1,372

48 (

-

)

0.944%

23,599

38 (1

↑)

1.020%

637,486

39 (

-

)

X

Rhode Island Providence

1.656%

4,141

14 (1

↓)

1.656%

41,407

15 (1

↓)

1.656%

1,035,184

16 (1

↓)

South Carolina Charleston**

2.169%

5,423

4 (

NA

)

2.169%

54,232

5 (

NA

)

2.169%

1,355,793

5 (

NA

)

South Dakota Sioux Falls

0.697%

1,743

42 (1

↑)

0.697%

17,428

46 (1

↑)

0.697%

435,691

46 (1

↑)

Tennessee Memphis

2.510%

6,274

3 (

-

)

2.510%

62,742

3 (1

↑)

2.510%

1,568,548

3 (1

↑)

Texas Houston

2.526%

6,316

2 (2

↑)

2.526%

63,159

2 (3

↑)

2.526%

1,578,968

2 (3

↑)

Utah Salt Lake City

1.064%

2,661

32 (2

↓)

1.064%

26,610

36 (1

↓)

1.064%

665,242

37 (1

↓)

Vermont Burlington

1.396%

3,491

21 (

-

)

1.396%

34,907

25 (1

↑)

1.396%

872,671

26 (

-

)

Virginia Virginia Beach

0.428%

1,070

53 (1

↓)

0.428%

10,699

53 (

-

)

0.428%

267,468

53 (

-

)

Washington Seattle

0.662%

1,656

43 (1

↓)

0.662%

16,560

47 (1

↓)

0.662%

414,011

47 (1

↓)

West Virginia Charleston

1.638%

4,095

16 (2

↓)

1.638%

40,952

17 (2

↓)

1.638%

1,023,809

18 (2

↓)

Wisconsin Milwaukee

1.238%

3,095

24 (1

↓)

1.265%

31,635

28 (

-

)

1.268%

792,697

28 (

-

)

X

Wyoming Cheyenne

0.631%

1,577

44 (1

↑)

0.631%

15,769

48 (1

↑)

0.631%

394,229

48 (1

↑)

AVERAGE

1.275% 3,186

1.363% 34,087

1.388% 867,793

N = 12

* Illinois and New York have two cities included in this table, because the tax systems in Chicago and New York City are sign ificantly different from the rest of the state.

** Charleston, SC is now the largest city in the state and replaces Columbia, SC.

$100,000-valued property has an additional $75,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $60,000 worth of inventories, and a n additional $15,000 worth of fixtures.

$1 million-valued property has an additional $750,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $600,000 worth of inventories, and an additional $150,000 worth of

fixtures.

$25 million-valued property has an additional $18.75 million worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $15 million worth of inventories, and an additional $3 .75 million

worth of fixtures.

84

Appendix Table 4c: Industrial Property Taxes for the Largest Fifty U.S. Cities (Personal Propert y = 50% of Total Parcel Value)

Land and Building Value:

$100,000

Land and Building Value:

$1 Million

Land and Building Value:

$25 Million

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property

Value

State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Arizona Mesa

0.924%

1,848

41 (3

↑)

1.417%

28,348

26 (4

↑)

1.589%

794,444

22 (3

↑)

X

Arizona Phoenix

1.254%

2,509

28 (1

↑)

1.953%

39,062

16 (2

↓)

2.196%

1,097,959

13 (1

↑)

X

Arizona Tucson

1.340%

2,679

25 (5

↑)

1.992%

39,833

15 (1

↑)

2.218%

1,109,138

11 (4

↑)

X

California Fresno

0.998%

1,996

36 (

-

)

0.998%

19,956

39 (

-

)

0.998%

498,894

39 (

-

)

California Long Beach

0.975%

1,949

37 (4

↑)

0.975%

19,495

40 (4

↑)

0.975%

487,368

40 (4

↑)

California Los Angeles

0.954%

1,909

38 (1

↓)

0.954%

19,088

41 (1

↓)

0.954%

477,211

41 (1

↓)

California Oakland

1.079%

2,158

34 (

-

)

1.079%

21,578

37 (

-

)

1.079%

539,440

37 (

-

)

California Sacramento

0.909%

1,818

43 (

-

)

0.909%

18,184

45 (1

↑)

0.909%

454,600

45 (1

↑)

California San Diego

0.936%

1,871

40 (

-

)

0.936%

18,715

43 (

-

)

0.936%

467,868

43 (

-

)

California San Francisco

0.938%

1,876

39 (

-

)

0.938%

18,757

42 (

-

)

0.938%

468,920

42 (

-

)

California San Jose

1.054%

2,107

35 (

-

)

1.054%

21,073

38 (

-

)

1.054%

526,824

38 (

-

)

Colorado

Colorado Springs

1.316%

2,631

26 (2

↑)

1.316%

26,311

31 (2

↑)

1.316%

657,776

31 (2

↑)

Colorado Denver

1.860%

3,720

16 (

-

)

1.860%

37,199

18 (

-

)

1.860%

929,982

19 (1

↑)

DC Washington

0.780%

1,559

46 (

-

)

1.417%

28,343

27 (1

↑)

1.867%

933,413

18 (1

↓)

X

Florida Jacksonville

1.163%

2,326

30 (2

↑)

1.360%

27,198

30 (1

↓)

1.381%

690,456

30 (1

↓)

X

Florida Miami

1.305%

2,609

27 (

-

)

1.533%

30,668

21 (1

↑)

1.558%

778,901

23 (1

↓)

X

Georgia Atlanta

1.471%

2,941

19 (

-

)

1.471%

29,414

23 (

-

)

1.471%

735,350

25 (1

↓)

Illinois Chicago

2.266%

4,533

9 (5

↑)

2.266%

45,325

10 (5

↑)

2.266%

1,133,133

10 (6

↑)

Indiana Indianapolis

1.997%

3,995

14 (4

↓)

1.997%

39,948

14 (4

↓)

1.997%

998,705

16 (6

↓)

Kansas Wichita

1.463%

2,926

20 (

-

)

1.463%

29,265

24 (

-

)

1.463%

731,615

26 (

-

)

Kentucky Louisville

0.709%

1,419

47 (

-

)

0.709%

14,188

48 (

-

)

0.709%

354,694

48 (

-

)

Louisiana New Orleans

2.103%

4,205

13 (1

↓)

2.103%

42,053

13 (1

↓)

2.103%

1,051,323

15 (3

↓)

Maryland Baltimore

1.389%

2,778

24 (2

↑)

1.389%

27,781

29 (3

↑)

1.389%

694,514

29 (3

↑)

Massachusetts Boston

1.104%

2,207

32 (1

↑)

1.104%

22,072

35 (1

↑)

1.104%

551,798

35 (1

↑)

Michigan Detroit

2.248%

4,497

10 (2

↓)

2.729%

54,582

4 (3

↓)

2.729%

1,364,545

4 (3

↓)

X

Minnesota Minneapolis

1.417%

2,834

22 (2

↑)

1.791%

35,823

19 (

-

)

1.855%

927,275

20 (1

↓)

X

Missouri Kansas City

2.193%

4,386

12 (1

↑)

2.193%

43,857

12 (1

↑)

2.193%

1,096,432

14 (1

↓)

Nebraska Omaha

1.589%

3,177

17 (

-

)

1.690%

33,795

20 (

-

)

1.701%

850,266

21 (

-

)

X

Nevada Las Vegas

0.913%

1,826

42 (

-

)

0.913%

18,260

44 (1

↑)

0.913%

456,489

44 (1

↑)

New Mexico Albuquerque

1.209%

2,417

29 (2

↑)

1.209%

24,172

32 (2

↑)

1.209%

604,302

33 (2

↑)

New York New York City

2.342%

4,684

8 (1

↑)

2.342%

46,840

9 (

-

)

2.342%

1,170,997

9 (

-

)

North Carolina Charlotte

0.906%

1,812

44 (6

↓)

0.906%

18,123

46 (5

↓)

0.906%

453,072

46 (5

↓)

North Carolina Raleigh

0.803%

1,605

45 (

-

)

0.803%

16,052

47 (

-

)

0.803%

401,296

47 (

-

)

Ohio Columbus

1.082%

2,165

33 (8

↓)

1.082%

21,648

36 (5

↓)

1.082%

541,212

36 (5

↓)

Oklahoma Oklahoma City

1.404%

2,808

23 (

-

)

1.404%

28,077

28 (1

↓)

1.404%

701,920

28 (2

↑)

AVERAGE

1.509% 3,018

1.597% 31,936

1.623% 811,478

N = 11

85

Land and Building Value:

$100,000

Land and Building Value:

$1 Million

Land and Building Value:

$25 Million

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property

Value

State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Oklahoma Tulsa

1.439%

2,879

21 (1

↑)

1.439%

28,787

25 (1

↑)

1.439%

719,670

27 (1

↑)

Oregon Portland

1.939%

3,878

15 (

-

)

1.939%

38,782

17 (

-

)

1.939%

969,538

17 (1

↑)

Pennsylvania Philadelphia

0.686%

1,372

49 (

-

)

1.180%

23,599

33 (2

↑)

1.275%

637,486

32 (2

↑)

X

Tennessee Memphis

2.583%

5,167

6 (

-

)

2.583%

51,670

7 (

-

)

2.583%

1,291,745

7 (

-

)

Tennessee Nashville

1.104%

2,209

31 (10

↓)

1.104%

22,085

34 (9

↓)

1.104%

552,125

34 (7

↓)

Texas Arlington

2.617%

5,234

5 (

-

)

2.617%

52,339

6 (

-

)

2.617%

1,308,480

6 (

-

)

Texas Austin

2.214%

4,428

11 (

-

)

2.214%

44,280

11 (

-

)

2.214%

1,106,993

12 (1

↓)

Texas Dallas

2.719%

5,438

4 (

-

)

2.719%

54,384

5 (

-

)

2.719%

1,359,612

5 (

-

)

Texas El Paso

2.960%

5,919

1 (1

↑)

2.960%

59,194

1 (2

↑)

2.960%

1,479,854

1 (2

↑)

Texas Fort Worth

2.765%

5,531

3 (

-

)

2.765%

55,310

3 (1

↑)

2.765%

1,382,745

3 (1

↑)

Texas Houston

2.526%

5,053

7 (

-

)

2.526%

50,527

8 (

-

)

2.526%

1,263,174

8 (

-

)

Texas San Antonio

2.838%

5,675

2 (1

↓)

2.838%

56,753

2 (

-

)

2.838%

1,418,821

2 (

-

)

Virginia Virginia Beach

0.495%

990

50 (

-

)

0.495%

9,899

50 (

-

)

0.495%

247,468

50 (

-

)

Washington Seattle

0.692%

1,383

48 (

-

)

0.692%

13,833

49 (

-

)

0.692%

345,830

49 (

-

)

Wisconsin Milwaukee

1.479%

2,958

18 (

-

)

1.513%

30,257

22 (1

↓)

1.516%

758,229

24 (1

↓)

X

AVERAGE

1.509% 3,018

1.597% 31,936

1.623% 811,478

N = 11

$100,000-valued property has an additional $50,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $40,000 worth of inventories, and a n additional $10,000 worth of fixtures.

$1 million-valued property has an additional $500,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $400,000 worth of inventories, and an additional $100,000 worth of

fixtures.

$25 million-valued property has an additional $12.5 million worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $10 million worth of inventories, and an additional $2.5 mill ion

worth of fixtures.

86

Appendix Table 4d: Industrial Property Taxes for the Largest Fifty U.S. Cities (Personal Property = 60% of Total Parcel Value)

Land and Building Value:

$100,000

Land and Building Value:

$1 Million

Land and Building Value:

$25 Million

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property

Value

State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Arizona Mesa

0.739%

1,848

45 (2

↑)

1.403%

35,068

26 (1

↑)

1.540%

962,447

21 (2

↑)

X

Arizona Phoenix

1.004%

2,509

32 (1

↓)

1.943%

48,577

13 (

-

)

2.137%

1,335,849

10 (2

↑)

X

Arizona Tucson

1.072%

2,679

30 (3

↑)

1.949%

48,714

12 (2

↑)

2.130%

1,331,170

11 (3

↑)

X

California Fresno

0.948%

2,370

34 (1

↑)

0.948%

23,697

36 (2

↑)

0.948%

592,437

37 (1

↑)

California Long Beach

0.926%

2,315

35 (6

↑)

0.926%

23,150

38 (6

↑)

0.926%

578,750

38 (6

↑)

California Los Angeles

0.907%

2,267

36 (2

↑)

0.907%

22,668

39 (2

↑)

0.907%

566,688

39 (2

↑)

California Oakland

1.025%

2,562

31 (1

↑)

1.025%

25,623

34 (1

↑)

1.025%

640,585

34 (1

↑)

California Sacramento

0.864%

2,159

43 (

-

)

0.864%

21,594

46 (

-

)

0.864%

539,838

46 (

-

)

California San Diego

0.889%

2,222

38 (2

↑)

0.889%

22,224

41 (2

↑)

0.889%

555,593

41 (2

↑)

California San Francisco

0.891%

2,227

37 (2

↑)

0.891%

22,274

40 (2

↑)

0.891%

556,843

40 (2

↑)

California San Jose

1.001%

2,502

33 (1

↑)

1.001%

25,024

35 (1

↑)

1.001%

625,604

36 (1

↑)

Colorado

Colorado Springs

1.254%

3,135

22 (2

↑)

1.254%

31,355

29 (1

↑)

1.254%

783,867

29 (1

↑)

Colorado Denver

1.772%

4,429

16 (1

↓)

1.772%

44,294

18 (1

↓)

1.772%

1,107,347

19 (1

↓)

DC Washington

0.624%

1,559

48 (

-

)

1.542%

38,543

20 (

-

)

1.901%

1,188,413

15 (

-

)

X

Florida Jacksonville

1.140%

2,851

27 (

-

)

1.298%

32,449

27 (1

↑)

1.315%

821,721

27 (1

↑)

X

Florida Miami

1.288%

3,219

21 (1

↑)

1.471%

36,769

21 (

-

)

1.490%

931,427

22 (1

↓)

X

Georgia Atlanta

1.453%

3,634

18 (

-

)

1.453%

36,336

22 (

-

)

1.453%

908,400

24 (2

↓)

Illinois Chicago

1.813%

4,533

15 (2

↑)

1.813%

45,325

17 (2

↑)

1.813%

1,133,133

18 (2

↑)

Indiana Indianapolis

1.911%

4,779

11 (1

↓)

1.911%

47,786

14 (3

↓)

1.911%

1,194,657

14 (3

↓)

Kansas Wichita

1.229%

3,073

24 (1

↑)

1.229%

30,731

30 (1

↑)

1.229%

768,269

30 (1

↑)

Kentucky Louisville

0.624%

1,561

47 (1

↓)

0.624%

15,606

49 (

-

)

0.624%

390,144

49 (

-

)

Louisiana New Orleans

2.117%

5,293

9 (

-

)

2.117%

52,929

10 (

-

)

2.117%

1,323,216

12 (2

↓)

Maryland Baltimore

1.223%

3,058

25 (1

↑)

1.223%

30,577

31 (1

↑)

1.223%

764,413

31 (1

↑)

Massachusetts Boston

0.883%

2,207

39 (3

↓)

0.883%

22,072

42 (3

↓)

0.883%

551,798

42 (3

↓)

Michigan Detroit

1.863%

4,657

13 (1

↓)

2.440%

60,991

8 (3

↓)

2.440%

1,524,771

8 (3

↓)

X

Minnesota Minneapolis

1.134%

2,834

28 (1

↑)

1.433%

35,823

24 (1

↑)

1.484%

927,275

23 (1

↑)

X

Missouri Kansas City

2.073%

5,182

10 (1

↑)

2.073%

51,817

11 (1

↑)

2.073%

1,295,432

13 (

-

)

Nebraska Omaha

1.541%

3,852

17 (1

↓)

1.622%

40,541

19 (1

↓)

1.630%

1,018,920

20 (1

↓)

X

Nevada Las Vegas

0.868%

2,170

41 (1

↑)

0.868%

21,702

44 (1

↑)

0.868%

542,542

44 (1

↑)

New Mexico Albuquerque

1.154%

2,886

26 (2

↑)

1.154%

28,855

32 (1

↑)

1.154%

721,384

32 (1

↑)

New York New York City

1.874%

4,684

12 (1

↑)

1.874%

46,840

15 (

-

)

1.874%

1,170,997

16 (

-

)

North Carolina Charlotte

0.880%

2,201

40 (3

↓)

0.880%

22,006

43 (3

↓)

0.880%

550,152

43 (3

↓)

North Carolina Raleigh

0.767%

1,917

44 (

-

)

0.767%

19,173

47 (

-

)

0.767%

479,318

47 (

-

)

Ohio Columbus

0.866%

2,165

42 (12

↓)

0.866%

21,648

45 (11

↓)

0.866%

541,212

45 (11

↓)

Oklahoma Oklahoma City

1.435%

3,587

19 (1

↑)

1.435%

35,870

23 (1

↑)

1.435%

896,740

25 (1

↑)

AVERAGE

1.408% 3,521

1.511% 37,768

1.532% 957,279

N = 11

87

Land and Building Value:

$100,000

Land and Building Value:

$1 Million

Land and Building Value:

$25 Million

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property

Value

State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Oklahoma Tulsa

1.426%

3,564

20 (1

↑)

1.426%

35,641

25 (1

↑)

1.426%

891,020

26 (1

↑)

Oregon Portland

1.842%

4,605

14 (

-

)

1.842%

46,053

16 (

-

)

1.842%

1,151,327

17 (

-

)

Pennsylvania Philadelphia

0.549%

1,372

49 (

-

)

0.944%

23,599

37 (

-

)

1.020%

637,486

35 (1

↑)

X

Tennessee Memphis

2.510%

6,274

7 (1

↓)

2.510%

62,742

7 (

-

)

2.510%

1,568,548

7 (

-

)

Tennessee Nashville

1.073%

2,682

29 (10

↓)

1.073%

26,818

33 (10

↓)

1.073%

670,438

33 (8

↓)

Texas Arlington

2.617%

6,542

5 (

-

)

2.617%

65,424

5 (1

↑)

2.617%

1,635,599

5 (1

↑)

Texas Austin

2.214%

5,535

8 (

-

)

2.214%

55,350

9 (

-

)

2.214%

1,383,741

9 (

-

)

Texas Dallas

2.719%

6,798

4 (

-

)

2.719%

67,981

4 (

-

)

2.719%

1,699,514

4 (

-

)

Texas El Paso

2.960%

7,399

1 (1

↑)

2.960%

73,993

1 (1

↑)

2.960%

1,849,818

1 (1

↑)

Texas Fort Worth

2.765%

6,914

3 (

-

)

2.765%

69,137

3 (

-

)

2.765%

1,728,431

3 (

-

)

Texas Houston

2.526%

6,316

6 (1

↑)

2.526%

63,159

6 (2

↑)

2.526%

1,578,968

6 (2

↑)

Texas San Antonio

2.838%

7,094

2 (1

↓)

2.838%

70,941

2 (1

↓)

2.838%

1,773,526

2 (1

↓)

Virginia Virginia Beach

0.428%

1,070

50 (

-

)

0.428%

10,699

50 (

-

)

0.428%

267,468

50 (

-

)

Washington Seattle

0.662%

1,656

46 (1

↓)

0.662%

16,560

48 (

-

)

0.662%

414,011

48 (

-

)

Wisconsin Milwaukee

1.238%

3,095

23 (

-

)

1.265%

31,635

28 (1

↑)

1.268%

792,697

28 (1

↑)

X

AVERAGE

1.408% 3,521

1.511% 37,768

1.532% 957,279

N = 11

$100,000-valued property has an additional $75,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $60,000 worth of inventories, and a n additional $15,000 worth of fixtures.

$1 million-valued property has an additional $750,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $600,000 worth of inventories, and an additional $150,000 worth of

fixtures.

$25 million-valued property has an additional $18.75 million worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $15 million worth of inventories, and an additional $3.75 mi llion

worth of fixtures.

88

Appendix Table 4e: Industrial Property Taxes for Selected Rural Municipalities (Personal Property = 50% of Total Parcel Value)

Land and Building Value:

$100,000

Land and Building Value:

$1 Million

Land and Building Value:

$25 Million

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property

Value

State Municipality Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Alabama Monroeville

0.656%

1,312

46 (1

↑)

0.656%

13,120

46 (1

↑)

0.656%

328,000

46 (1

↑)

Alaska Ketchican

0.748%

1,496

43 (2

↓)

0.880%

17,596

39 (1

↑)

0.894%

446,911

38 (2

↑)

X

Arizona Safford

0.943%

1,887

33 (12

↑)

1.407%

28,133

16 (11

↑)

1.568%

783,852

16 (3

↑)

X

Arkansas Pocahontas

0.722%

1,443

44 (2

↓)

0.722%

14,434

44 (

-

)

0.722%

360,861

44 (

-

)

California Yreka

0.845%

1,691

40 (2

↓)

0.845%

16,909

41 (

-

)

0.845%

422,720

41 (

-

)

Colorado Walsenburg

1.740%

3,480

6 (3

↑)

1.740%

34,796

10 (1

↑)

1.740%

869,896

10 (2

↑)

Connecticut Litchfield

0.859%

1,718

39 (11

↓)

0.859%

17,184

40 (9

↓)

0.859%

429,603

40 (9

↓)

Delaware Georgetown

0.265%

531

50 (

-

)

0.265%

5,307

50 (

-

)

0.265%

132,666

50 (

-

)

Florida Moore Haven

1.520%

3,041

13 (2

↓)

1.774%

35,476

9 (1

↓)

1.801%

900,405

8 (

-

)

X

Georgia Fitzgerald

1.584%

3,167

11 (1

↓)

1.584%

31,673

13 (1

↑)

1.584%

791,816

15 (

-

)

Hawaii Kauai

0.405%

810

49 (

-

)

0.405%

8,100

49 (

-

)

0.405%

202,500

49 (

-

)

Idaho St. Anthony

0.893%

1,786

38 (6

↑)

1.328%

26,561

18 (10

↑)

1.412%

705,786

18 (6

↑)

X

Illinois Galena

1.228%

2,456

21 (

-

)

1.228%

24,560

24 (2

↓)

1.228%

614,012

25 (

-

)

Indiana North Vernon

2.421%

4,842

3 (

-

)

2.421%

48,420

3 (

-

)

2.421%

1,210,500

3 (

-

)

Iowa Hampton

1.113%

2,226

25 (1

↑)

1.549%

30,986

14 (1

↓)

1.701%

850,728

12 (3

↓)

X

Kansas Iola

2.149%

4,298

4 (1

↑)

2.149%

42,976

4 (2

↑)

2.149%

1,074,390

4 (2

↑)

Kentucky Morehead

0.652%

1,303

47 (1

↑)

0.652%

13,032

47 (1

↑)

0.652%

325,807

47 (1

↑)

Louisiana Natchitoches

1.285%

2,570

18 (2

↓)

1.285%

25,703

22 (5

↓)

1.285%

642,568

23 (5

↓)

Maine Rockland

1.225%

2,451

22 (2

↑)

1.225%

24,508

25 (

-

)

1.225%

612,700

26 (2

↑)

Maryland Denton

1.037%

2,075

28 (3

↑)

1.037%

20,749

31 (3

↑)

1.037%

518,730

31 (3

↑)

Massachusetts Adams

1.215%

2,430

23 (6

↓)

1.215%

24,305

26 (7

↓)

1.215%

607,613

27 (6

↓)

Michigan Manistique

1.602%

3,204

10 (4

↓)

1.873%

37,455

7 (3

↓)

1.873%

936,387

7 (3

↓)

X

Minnesota Glencoe

1.564%

3,128

12 (1

↑)

1.986%

39,720

6 (1

↑)

2.058%

1,028,762

6 (1

↑)

X

Mississippi Philadelphia

2.104%

4,208

5 (1

↓)

2.104%

42,084

5 (

-

)

2.104%

1,052,100

5 (

-

)

Missouri Boonville

1.690%

3,379

8 (1

↓)

1.690%

33,792

12 (3

↓)

1.690%

844,799

13 (3

↓)

Montana Glasgow

0.906%

1,812

36 (

-

)

1.207%

24,133

27 (1

↓)

1.623%

811,265

14 (

-

)

X

Nebraska Sidney

1.677%

3,354

9 (3

↑)

1.782%

35,632

8 (4

↑)

1.793%

896,385

9 (4

↑)

X

Nevada Fallon

1.019%

2,039

29 (

-

)

1.019%

20,386

32 (

-

)

1.019%

509,655

32 (

-

)

New Hampshire Lancaster

1.359%

2,718

15 (

-

)

1.359%

27,183

17 (1

↓)

1.359%

679,572

19 (2

↓)

New Jersey Maurice River Twp

1.305%

2,611

17 (1

↑)

1.305%

26,109

20 (

-

)

1.305%

652,716

21 (1

↑)

New Mexico Santa Rosa

0.826%

1,652

41 (2

↓)

0.826%

16,516

42 (

-

)

0.826%

412,896

42 (

-

)

New York Warsaw

1.732%

3,464

7 (1

↑)

1.732%

34,643

11 (1

↓)

1.732%

866,064

11 (

-

)

North Carolina Edenton

0.894%

1,787

37 (

-

)

0.894%

17,872

38 (1

↑)

0.894%

446,794

39 (

-

)

North Dakota Devils Lake

0.640%

1,279

48 (5

↓)

0.640%

12,794

48 (3

↓)

0.640%

319,856

48 (3

↓)

Ohio Bryan

1.309%

2,618

16 (14

↑)

1.309%

26,177

19 (14

↑)

1.309%

654,413

20 (13

↑)

AVERAGE

1.240% 2,479

1.297% 25,394

1.316% 657,753

N = 10

89

Land and Building Value:

$100,000

Land and Building Value:

$1 Million

Land and Building Value:

$25 Million

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property

Value

State Municipality Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Oklahoma Mangum

0.986%

1,972

30 (3

↑)

0.986%

19,715

33 (3

↑)

0.986%

492,885

33 (3

↑)

Oregon Tillamook

0.933%

1,866

35 (

-

)

0.933%

18,664

37 (1

↑)

0.933%

466,609

37 (1

↑)

Pennsylvania Ridgway

1.494%

2,988

14 (

-

)

1.494%

29,880

15 (

-

)

1.494%

746,992

17 (1

↓)

Rhode Island Hopkinton

1.089%

2,179

26 (1

↓)

1.089%

21,790

29 (

-

)

1.089%

544,741

29 (

-

)

South Carolina Mullins

3.673%

7,346

1 (

-

)

3.673%

73,456

1 (

-

)

3.673%

1,836,400

1 (

-

)

South Dakota Vermillion

0.966%

1,932

32 (10

↓)

0.966%

19,322

35 (12

↓)

0.966%

483,043

35 (9

↓)

Tennessee Savannah

0.935%

1,870

34 (

-

)

0.935%

18,705

36 (1

↑)

0.935%

467,624

36 (1

↑)

Texas Fort Stockton

2.585%

5,171

2 (

-

)

2.585%

51,708

2 (

-

)

2.585%

1,292,700

2 (

-

)

Utah Richfield

1.183%

2,365

24 (1

↓)

1.183%

23,654

28 (4

↓)

1.183%

591,360

28 (1

↓)

Vermont Hartford

1.252%

2,504

20 (

-

)

1.252%

25,041

23 (2

↓)

1.252%

626,018

24 (1

↓)

Virginia Wise

0.757%

1,513

42 (2

↓)

0.757%

15,130

43 (

-

)

0.757%

378,255

43 (

-

)

Washington Okanogan

0.983%

1,966

31 (1

↑)

0.983%

19,660

34 (1

↑)

0.983%

491,507

34 (1

↑)

West Virginia Elkins

1.055%

2,109

27 (

-

)

1.055%

21,090

30 (

-

)

1.055%

527,255

30 (

-

)

Wisconsin Rice Lake

1.260%

2,521

19 (

-

)

1.293%

25,860

21 (3

↓)

1.297%

648,256

22 (2

↓)

X

Wyoming Worland

0.701%

1,401

45 (1

↑)

0.701%

14,012

45 (1

↑)

0.701%

350,290

45 (1

↑)

AVERAGE

1.240% 2,479

1.297% 25,394

1.316% 657,753

N = 10

$100,000-valued property has an additional $50,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $40,000 worth of inventories, and a n additional $10,000 worth of fixtures.

$1 million-valued property has an additional $500,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $400,000 worth of inventories, and an additional $100,000 worth of

fixtures.

$25 million-valued property has an additional $12.5 million worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $10 million worth of inventories, and an additional $2.5 mill ion

worth of fixtures.

90

Appendix Table 4f: Industrial Property Taxes for Selected Rural Municipalities (Personal Property = 60% of Total Parcel Value)

Land and Building Value:

$100,000

Land and Building Value:

$1 Million

Land and Building Value:

$25 Million

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property

Value

State Municipality Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Alabama Monroeville

0.623%

1,558

46 (2

↓)

0.623%

15,580

46 (

-

)

0.623%

389,500

46 (

-

)

Alaska Ketchican

0.739%

1,847

40 (2

↑)

0.844%

21,106

38 (1

↑)

0.855%

534,661

37 (2

↑)

X

Arizona Safford

0.755%

1,887

39 (8

↑)

1.378%

34,444

14 (2

↑)

1.507%

941,609

14 (3

↑)

X

Arkansas Pocahontas

0.722%

1,806

43 (3

↓)

0.722%

18,061

44 (

-

)

0.722%

451,536

44 (

-

)

California Yreka

0.803%

2,008

35 (2

↑)

0.803%

20,079

39 (2

↑)

0.803%

501,980

39 (2

↑)

Colorado Walsenburg

1.653%

4,132

6 (1

↑)

1.653%

41,320

8 (1

↑)

1.653%

1,033,001

8 (2

↑)

Connecticut Litchfield

0.725%

1,812

42 (8

↓)

0.725%

18,119

43 (6

↓)

0.725%

452,966

43 (6

↓)

Delaware Georgetown

0.212%

531

50 (

-

)

0.212%

5,307

50 (

-

)

0.212%

132,666

50 (

-

)

Florida Moore Haven

1.487%

3,716

10 (2

↓)

1.689%

42,233

7 (1

↓)

1.711%

1,069,336

7 (1

↓)

X

Georgia Fitzgerald

1.540%

3,850

9 (

-

)

1.540%

38,498

12 (1

↓)

1.540%

962,461

13 (1

↓)

Hawaii Kauai

0.324%

810

49 (

-

)

0.324%

8,100

49 (

-

)

0.324%

202,500

49 (

-

)

Idaho St. Anthony

0.714%

1,786

44 (2

↑)

1.271%

31,781

16 (4

↑)

1.338%

836,278

17 (1

↑)

X

Illinois Galena

0.982%

2,456

25 (

-

)

0.982%

24,560

29 (

-

)

0.982%

614,012

29 (

-

)

Indiana North Vernon

2.297%

5,742

3 (

-

)

2.297%

57,420

3 (

-

)

2.297%

1,435,500

3 (

-

)

Iowa Hampton

0.890%

2,226

32 (1

↑)

1.239%

30,986

17 (2

↓)

1.361%

850,728

16 (1

↓)

X

Kansas Iola

1.810%

4,525

5 (

-

)

1.810%

45,252

5 (2

↑)

1.810%

1,131,296

5 (2

↑)

Kentucky Morehead

0.573%

1,433

47 (1

↑)

0.573%

14,327

47 (1

↑)

0.573%

358,175

47 (1

↑)

Louisiana Natchitoches

1.294%

3,235

13 (1

↓)

1.294%

32,350

15 (2

↓)

1.294%

808,749

18 (4

↓)

Maine Rockland

1.025%

2,562

22 (1

↑)

1.025%

25,622

26 (1

↑)

1.025%

640,550

26 (1

↑)

Maryland Denton

0.909%

2,272

31 (

-

)

0.909%

22,724

35 (

-

)

0.909%

568,105

35 (

-

)

Massachusetts Adams

0.972%

2,430

26 (6

↓)

0.972%

24,305

30 (6

↓)

0.972%

607,613

30 (6

↓)

Michigan Manistique

1.318%

3,295

12 (1

↓)

1.643%

41,063

9 (4

↓)

1.643%

1,026,570

10 (5

↓)

X

Minnesota Glencoe

1.251%

3,128

14 (1

↑)

1.589%

39,720

11 (1

↑)

1.646%

1,028,762

9 (4

↑)

X

Mississippi Philadelphia

2.104%

5,261

4 (

-

)

2.104%

52,605

4 (

-

)

2.104%

1,315,125

4 (

-

)

Missouri Boonville

1.608%

4,019

8 (2

↓)

1.608%

40,191

10 (2

↓)

1.608%

1,004,777

11 (3

↓)

Montana Glasgow

0.725%

1,812

41 (

-

)

1.110%

27,739

20 (1

↑)

1.587%

991,565

12 (1

↓)

X

Nebraska Sidney

1.621%

4,051

7 (3

↑)

1.704%

42,606

6 (4

↑)

1.713%

1,070,720

6 (3

↑)

X

Nevada Fallon

0.969%

2,423

27 (1

↓)

0.969%

24,229

31 (1

↓)

0.969%

605,730

31 (1

↓)

New Hampshire Lancaster

1.087%

2,718

17 (

-

)

1.087%

27,183

21 (2

↓)

1.087%

679,572

21 (

-

)

New Jersey Maurice River Twp

1.044%

2,611

21 (

-

)

1.044%

26,109

25 (

-

)

1.044%

652,716

25 (

-

)

New Mexico Santa Rosa

0.790%

1,976

36 (2

↑)

0.790%

19,760

40 (2

↑)

0.790%

493,988

40 (2

↑)

New York Warsaw

1.386%

3,464

11 (2

↑)

1.386%

34,643

13 (1

↑)

1.386%

866,064

15 (1

↑)

North Carolina Edenton

0.850%

2,125

34 (1

↑)

0.850%

21,247

37 (1

↑)

0.850%

531,169

38 (

-

)

North Dakota Devils Lake

0.512%

1,279

48 (3

↓)

0.512%

12,794

48 (1

↓)

0.512%

319,856

48 (1

↓)

Ohio Bryan

1.047%

2,618

20 (16

↑)

1.047%

26,177

24 (16

↑)

1.047%

654,413

24 (16

↑)

AVERAGE

1.115% 2,788

1.175% 29,373

1.193% 745,517

N = 10

91

Land and Building Value:

$100,000

Land and Building Value:

$1 Million

Land and Building Value:

$25 Million

Tax Rate

Varies with

Property

Value

State Municipality Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Oklahoma Mangum

1.008%

2,519

23 (1

↓)

1.008%

25,192

27 (1

↓)

1.008%

629,798

27 (1

↓)

Oregon Tillamook

0.887%

2,216

33 (1

↓)

0.887%

22,164

36 (

-

)

0.887%

554,098

36 (

-

)

Pennsylvania Ridgway

1.195%

2,988

15 (1

↑)

1.195%

29,880

18 (

-

)

1.195%

746,992

19 (1

↑)

Rhode Island Hopkinton

0.913%

2,282

30 (1

↓)

0.913%

22,822

34 (1

↓)

0.913%

570,541

34 (1

↓)

South Carolina Mullins

3.489%

8,723

1 (

-

)

3.489%

87,229

1 (

-

)

3.489%

2,180,725

1 (

-

)

South Dakota Vermillion

0.773%

1,932

38 (11

↓)

0.773%

19,322

42 (11

↓)

0.773%

483,043

42 (11

↓)

Tennessee Savannah

0.915%

2,287

29 (1

↑)

0.915%

22,875

33 (1

↑)

0.915%

571,874

33 (1

↑)

Texas Fort Stockton

2.585%

6,464

2 (

-

)

2.585%

64,635

2 (

-

)

2.585%

1,615,875

2 (

-

)

Utah Richfield

1.124%

2,809

16 (2

↓)

1.124%

28,090

19 (2

↓)

1.124%

702,240

20 (1

↓)

Vermont Hartford

1.002%

2,504

24 (

-

)

1.002%

25,041

28 (

-

)

1.002%

626,018

28 (

-

)

Virginia Wise

0.777%

1,944

37 (2

↑)

0.777%

19,435

41 (2

↑)

0.777%

485,880

41 (2

↑)

Washington Okanogan

0.941%

2,353

28 (

-

)

0.941%

23,535

32 (

-

)

0.941%

588,370

32 (

-

)

West Virginia Elkins

1.060%

2,650

18 (1

↑)

1.060%

26,498

23 (

-

)

1.060%

662,448

23 (

-

)

Wisconsin Rice Lake

1.055%

2,638

19 (1

↓)

1.082%

27,039

22 (

-

)

1.084%

677,726

22 (

-

)

X

Wyoming Worland

0.666%

1,664

45 (2

↓)

0.666%

16,639

45 (

-

)

0.666%

415,969

45 (

-

)

AVERAGE

1.115% 2,788

1.175% 29,373

1.193% 745,517

N = 10

$100,000-valued property has an additional $75,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $60,000 worth of inventories, and a n additional $15,000 worth of fixtures.

$1 million-valued property has an additional $750,000 worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $600,000 worth of inventories, and an additional $150,000 worth of

fixtures.

$25 million-valued property has an additional $18.75 million worth of machinery and equipment, an additional $15 million worth of inventories, and an additional $3.75 mi llion

worth of fixtures.

92

Appendix Table 4g: Preferential Treatment of Personal Property, Largest City in Each State (2016)

Machinery & Equipment Manufacturers' Inventories Fixtures

Rural Municipality

State

City

Full

Exemption

Preferential

Treatment

Full

Exemption

Preferential

Treatment

Full

Exemption

Preferential

Treatment

Are preferences for personal

property the same as in the

state’s rural municipality?

Alabama Birmingham

X

Yes

Alaska Anchorage

X

No

-

See note below

Arizona Phoenix

X

Yes

Arkansas Little Rock

No

-

See note below

California Los Angeles

X

Yes

Colorado Denver

X

Yes

Connecticut Bridgeport

X

Yes

DC Washington

***

X

***

Yes

Delaware Wilmington

X

Yes

Florida Jacksonville

X

Yes

Georgia Atlanta

X

-

Yes

Hawaii Honolulu

X

Yes

Idaho Boise

X

Yes

Illinois Chicago

X

Yes

Illinois Aurora

X

Yes

Indiana Indianapolis

X

Yes

Iowa Des Moines

X

Yes

Kansas Wichita

X

Yes

Kentucky Louisville

X

-

Yes

Louisiana New Orleans

-

Yes

Maine Portland

X

Yes

Maryland Baltimore

X

-

Yes

Massachusetts Boston

X

Yes

Michigan Detroit

X

Yes

Minnesota Minneapolis

X

Yes

Mississippi Jackson

Yes

Missouri Kansas City

X

Yes

Montana Billings

***

X

***

Yes

Nebraska Omaha

***

X

***

Yes

Nevada Las Vegas

X

Yes

New Hampshire Manchester

X

Yes

New Jersey Newark

X

Yes

New Mexico Albuquerque

X

No

-

See note below

New York New York City

X

Yes

New York Buffalo

X

Yes

Number of Cities 21 31 43 47 15 23 No = 7

93

Machinery & Equipment Manufacturers' Inventories Fixtures

Rural Municipality

State

City

Full

Exemption

Preferential

Treatment

Full

Exemption

Preferential

Treatment

Full

Exemption

Preferential

Treatment

Are preferences for personal

property the same as in the

state’s rural municipality?

North Carolina Charlotte

X

Yes

North Dakota Fargo

X

Yes

Ohio Columbus

X

Yes

Oklahoma Oklahoma City

-

Yes

Oregon Portland

X

Yes

Pennsylvania Philadelphia

X

Yes

Rhode Island Providence

X

-

No

-

See note below

South Carolina Columbia

X

Yes

South Dakota Sioux Falls

X

Yes

Tennessee Memphis

X

Yes

Texas Houston

Yes

Utah Salt Lake City

X

Yes

Vermont Burlington

X

No

-

See note below

Virginia Virginia Beach

X

-

No

-

See note below

Washington Seattle

X

Yes

West Virginia Charleston

Yes

Wisconsin Milwaukee

X

-

Yes

Wyoming Cheyenne

X

No

-

See note below

Number of Cities 21 31 43 47 15 23 No = 7

* Preferential treatment means there are statutory provisions that result in lower property taxes on personal property than on real property, which could be due to

exemptions/credits, the nominal tax rate, or the assessment ratio. Preferences are usually fairly uniform within a state.

** A dash ("-") indicates that real property is treated preferentially to personal property.

*** In the District of Columbia and Nebraska, there is a personal property exemption which is capped at a fixed value amount. This provides personal property with preferential

treatment for a $100,000-valued property but the non-preferential treatment embedded in the tax system overwhelms that benefit at higher values.

*** In Montana, whether personal property is treated preferentially to real property depends on the total value of a parcel. At low values, machinery and equipment and fixtures are

taxed preferentially, because of Montana’s exemption of the first $100,000 of property value. But at high values, personal property is being taxed more heavily than real property

because the state has a system of tiered assessment ratios.

Differences in Preferential Treatment in Rural Municipalities

-Alaska: Ketchikan has a full exemption for manufacturers’ inventories.

-Arkansas: Pocahontas has preferential treatment for manufacturers’ inventories.

-New Mexico: Santa Rosa has preferential treatment for machinery/equipment and fixtures.

-Rhode Island: Hopkinton does not treat real property preferentially to fixtures.

-Vermont: Hartford has a full exemption for machinery/equipment and fixtures.

-Virginia: Wise treats real property preferentially to machinery/equipment.

-Wyoming: Worland does not have preferential treatment for manufacturers’ inventories.

94

Appendix Table 5a: Apartment Property Taxes for Largest City in Each State

Land and Building Value:

$600,000

Lower Tax

Rate on

Personal

Property

State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Change

From ‘16

Alabama Birmingham

1.450%

9,135

29

-

Alaska Anchorage

1.398%

8,809

32

-

X

Arizona Phoenix

1.343%

8,458

34

3

↑

X

Arkansas Little Rock

1.400%

8,820

31

1

↓

California Los Angeles

1.193%

7,516

40

1

↓

Colorado Denver

0.763%

4,807

50

1

↑

Connecticut Bridgeport

3.806%

23,977

4

-

DC Washington

0.765%

4,820

49

1

↑

X

Delaware Wilmington

1.390%

8,755

33

-

X

Florida Jacksonville

1.646%

10,368

24

1

↓

X

Georgia Atlanta

1.565%

9,860

26

2

↓

Hawaii Honolulu

0.326%

2,051

53

-

X

Idaho Boise

1.469%

9,258

28

-

X

Illinois Aurora*

3.922%

24,708

3

-

X

Illinois Chicago

1.244%

7,835

39

1

↑

X

Indiana Indianapolis

1.838%

11,581

20

-

X

Iowa Des Moines

3.338%

21,027

5

-

X

Kansas Wichita

1.305%

8,223

37

2

↓

Kentucky Louisville

1.081%

6,811

43

2

↓

X

Louisiana New Orleans

1.490%

9,388

27

-

Maine Portland

2.041%

12,860

17

-

Maryland Baltimore

2.379%

14,991

14

1

↑

Massachusetts Boston

0.958%

6,036

45

-

X

Michigan Detroit

4.554%

28,689

2

-

X

Minnesota Minneapolis

1.686%

10,622

22

-

X

Mississippi Jackson

2.841%

17,900

8

3

↑

Missouri Kansas City

1.440%

9,074

30

1

↑

X

Montana Billings

0.902%

5,680

46

1

↑

X

Nebraska Omaha

2.026%

12,766

18

-

X

Nevada Las Vegas

1.104%

6,953

41

3

↑

New Hampshire Manchester

2.150%

13,544

16

-

X

New Jersey Newark

3.013%

18,980

6

-

X

New Mexico Albuquerque

1.329%

8,374

35

1

↓

New York Buffalo*

2.688%

16,935

10

-

X

New York New York City

5.396%

33,998

1

-

X

AVERAGE

1.834% 11,557

N = 30

95

Land and Building Value:

$600,000

Lower Tax

Rate on

Personal

Property

State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Change

From ‘16

North Carolina Charlotte

1.048%

6,602

44

1

↓

North Dakota Fargo

1.095%

6,900

42

-

X

Ohio Columbus

2.459%

15,489

12

7

↑

X

Oklahoma Oklahoma City

1.262%

7,949

38

-

Oregon Portland

2.424%

15,270

13

1

↑

Pennsylvania Philadelphia

1.307%

8,232

36

-

X

Rhode Island Providence

1.878%

11,828

19

2

↑

South Carolina Charleston**

1.617%

10,190

25

18

↓

South Dakota Sioux Falls

1.660%

10,457

23

3

↑

X

Tennessee Memphis

2.917%

18,380

7

1

↑

X

Texas Houston

2.348%

14,794

15

2

↓

Utah Salt Lake City

0.722%

4,550

51

2

↓

X

Vermont Burlington

2.520%

15,873

11

1

↑

X

Virginia Virginia Beach

0.827%

5,208

48

-

Washington Seattle

0.841%

5,300

47

1

↓

West Virginia Charleston

1.713%

10,791

21

4

↑

X

Wisconsin Milwaukee

2.745%

17,296

9

-

Wyoming Cheyenne

0.602%

3,794

52

-

AVERAGE

1.834% 11,557

N = 30

* Illinois and New York have two cities included in this table, because the tax systems in Chicago and New York City are sign ificantly different from the rest of the state.

** Charleston, SC is now the largest city in the state and replaces Columbia, SC.

Property has an additional $30,000 worth of fixtures.

96

Appendix Table 5b: Apartment Property Taxes for the Largest Fifty U.S. Cities

Land and

Building Value:

$600,000

Lower Tax

Rate on

Personal

Property

State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Change

From ‘16

Arizona Mesa

0.960%

6,048

44

1

↑

X

Arizona Phoenix

1.343%

8,458

25

5

↑

X

Arizona Tucson

1.325%

8,348

27

2

↓

X

California Fresno

1.247%

7,858

32

1

↑

California Long Beach

1.218%

7,676

35

4

↑

California Los Angeles

1.193%

7,516

36

2

↓

California Oakland

1.349%

8,496

24

2

↑

California Sacramento

1.137%

7,160

39

1

↑

California San Diego

1.170%

7,369

38

2

↓

California San Francisco

1.172%

7,385

37

2

↓

California San Jose

1.317%

8,297

28

4

↑

Colorado

Colorado Springs

0.504%

3,176

50

-

Colorado Denver

0.763%

4,807

49

-

DC Washington

0.765%

4,820

48

-

X

Florida Jacksonville

1.646%

10,368

19

-

X

Florida Miami

1.823%

11,486

17

-

X

Georgia Atlanta

1.565%

9,860

20

-

Illinois Chicago

1.244%

7,835

34

3

↑

X

Indiana Indianapolis

1.838%

11,581

16

-

X

Kansas Wichita

1.305%

8,223

30

2

↓

Kentucky Louisville

1.081%

6,811

41

3

↓

X

Louisiana New Orleans

1.490%

9,388

22

-

Maryland Baltimore

2.379%

14,991

11

1

↑

Massachusetts Boston

0.958%

6,036

45

1

↓

X

Michigan Detroit

4.554%

28,689

2

-

X

Minnesota Minneapolis

1.686%

10,622

18

-

X

Missouri Kansas City

1.440%

9,074

23

1

↑

X

Nebraska Omaha

2.026%

12,766

15

1

↓

X

Nevada Las Vegas

1.104%

6,953

40

2

↑

New Mexico Albuquerque

1.329%

8,374

26

1

↑

New York New York City

5.396%

33,998

1

-

X

North Carolina Charlotte

1.048%

6,602

42

1

↓

North Carolina Raleigh

0.984%

6,198

43

-

Ohio

Columbus

2.042%

12,866

14

1

↑

X

Oklahoma Oklahoma City

1.262%

7,949

31

-

AVERAGE

1.719% 10,833

N = 24

97

Land and Building Value:

$600,000

Lower Tax

Rate on

Personal

Property

State City Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Change

From ‘16

Oklahoma Tulsa

1.501%

9,459

21

2

↑

X

Oregon Portland

2.424%

15,270

10

1

↑

Pennsylvania Philadelphia

1.307%

8,232

29

-

X

Tennessee Memphis

2.917%

18,380

4

1

↓

X

Tennessee Nashville

1.247%

7,856

33

12

↓

X

Texas Arlington

2.659%

16,754

8

-

X

Texas Austin

2.249%

14,166

13

-

X

Texas Dallas

2.572%

16,204

9

2

↓

Texas El Paso

2.904%

18,295

5

4

↑

Texas Fort Worth

2.923%

18,416

3

↑

X

Texas Houston

2.348%

14,794

12

2

↓

Texas San Antonio

2.845%

17,925

6

1

↓

X

Virginia Virginia Beach

0.827%

5,208

47

-

Washington Seattle

0.841%

5,298

46

-

Wisconsin Milwaukee

2.745%

17,296

7

3

↓

AVERAGE

1.719% 10,833

N = 24

Property has an additional $30,000 worth of fixtures.

98

Appendix Table 5c: Apartment Property Taxes for Selected Rural Municipalities

Land and

Building Value:

$600,000

Lower Tax

Rate on

Personal

Property

State Municipality Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Change

From ‘16

Alabama Monroeville

0.820%

5,166

43

-

Alaska Ketchican

1.044%

6,579

35

2

↑

X

Arizona Safford

0.865%

5,448

41

1

↑

X

Arkansas Pocahontas

0.719%

4,531

45

-

California Yreka

1.057%

6,658

34

1

↓

Colorado Walsenburg

0.672%

4,234

47

1

↑

Connecticut Litchfield

2.007%

12,641

18

2

↑

X

Delaware Georgetown

0.592%

3,729

49

1

↑

X

Florida Moore Haven

2.163%

13,627

14

1

↓

X

Georgia Fitzgerald

1.802%

11,350

22

1

↑

X

Hawaii Kauai

0.576%

3,630

50

1

↓

X

Idaho St. Anthony

1.701%

10,717

25

2

↑

X

Illinois Galena

2.339%

14,736

10

1

↑

X

Indiana North Vernon

1.931%

12,168

20

2

↑

X

Iowa Hampton

3.223%

20,307

2

1

↓

X

Kansas Iola

2.220%

13,985

13

2

↑

Kentucky Morehead

0.995%

6,266

38

3

↑

X

Louisiana Natchitoches

0.847%

5,334

42

4

↓

Maine Rockland

2.228%

14,036

12

2

↑

Maryland Denton

1.788%

11,265

23

1

↑

Massachusetts Adams

2.015%

12,694

17

1

↑

X

Michigan Manistique

2.910%

18,332

3

-

Minnesota Glencoe

1.661%

10,464

26

5

↓

X

Mississippi Philadelphia

2.104%

13,256

16

-

Missouri Boonville

1.077%

6,784

32

2

↑

X

Montana Glasgow

1.010%

6,361

37

1

↓

X

Nebraska Sidney

2.161%

13,616

15

4

↑

X

Nevada Fallon

1.281%

8,070

27

1

↑

New Hampshire Lancaster

2.589%

16,310

5

-

X

New Jersey Maurice River Twp

2.487%

15,665

8

-

X

New Mexico Santa Rosa

0.885%

5,573

40

1

↓

New York Warsaw

3.299%

20,786

1

↑

X

North Carolina Edenton

1.113%

7,011

31

-

North Dakota Devils Lake

1.219%

7,677

28

2

↓

X

Ohio Bryan

1.774%

11,177

24

1

↑

X

AVERAGE

1.623% 10,224

N = 27

99

Land and Building Value:

$600,000

Lower Tax

Rate on

Personal

Property

State Municipality Tax Rate Tax Bill Rank

Change

From ‘16

Oklahoma Mangum

0.887%

5,586

39

1

↑

Oregon Tillamook

1.167%

7,349

30

-

Pennsylvania Ridgway

2.846%

17,928

4

-

X

Rhode Island Hopkinton

1.977%

12,455

19

2

↓

South Carolina Mullins

2.564%

16,152

7

-

South Dakota Vermillion

1.840%

11,593

21

9

↓

X

Tennessee Savannah

1.027%

6,469

36

1

↓

X

Texas Fort Stockton

2.585%

16,288

6

-

Utah Richfield

0.774%

4,879

44

-

X

Vermont Hartford

2.334%

14,707

11

1

↓

X

Virginia Wise

0.646%

4,068

48

2

↓

Washington Okanogan

1.196%

7,534

29

-

West Virginia Elkins

1.064%

6,706

33

1

↓

Wisconsin Rice Lake

2.346%

14,780

9

-

Wyoming Worland

0.714%

4,500

46

1

↑

AVERAGE

1.623% 10,224

N = 27

Property has an additional $30,000 worth of fixtures.

100

Appendix Table 6a: Commercial-Homestead Classification Ratio for Largest City in Each State

Classification Ratio Causes of Preferential Treatment of Homesteads

City State Rank Ratio

Chg. from

2016

Assessment

Ratio

Nominal

Tax Rate

Exemptions

& Credits

Sales

Ratio*

Birmingham Alabama

9

2.180

0.009

X

Anchorage Alaska

37

1.073

-

0.003

X

Phoenix Arizona

14

1.996

-

0.202

X

-

Little Rock Arkansas

29

1.259

0.000

X

+

Los Angeles California

42

1.012

-

0.001

X

Denver Colorado

4

3.499

-

0.118

X

-

Bridgeport Connecticut

44

1.000

0.000

Washington DC

10

2.168

0.028

X

-

Wilmington Delaware

53

0.879

-

0.077

-

Jacksonville Florida

25

1.363

-

0.036

X

Atlanta Georgia

24

1.437

-

0.023

X

Honolulu Hawaii

3

3.561

-

0.015

X

-

Boise Idaho

17

1.863

-

0.059

X

-

Aurora Illinois

34

1.096

-

0.012

X

Chicago Illinois

6

2.766

-

0.349

X

Indianapolis Indiana

7

2.353

-

0.245

X

-

Des Moines Iowa

22

1.590

0.018

X

-

+

Wichita Kansas

8

2.205

0.006

X

-

Louisville Kentucky

50

0.959

-

0.006

-

New Orleans Louisiana

13

2.037

-

0.016

X

-

Portland Maine

36

1.077

0.017

X

Baltimore Maryland

39

1.070

0.066

+

Boston Massachusetts

1

4.237

0.469

X

-

Detroit Michigan

30

1.193

0.105

X

-

Minneapolis Minnesota

15

1.977

0.018

X

-

Jackson Mississippi

19

1.827

0.007

X

Kansas City Missouri

18

1.847

-

0.011

X

-

Billings Montana

26

1.329

0.020

X

-

Omaha Nebraska

41

1.022

-

0.010

-

+

Las Vegas Nevada

49

0.997

-

0.006

-

Manchester New Hampshire

43

1.000

0.000

Newark New Jersey

44

1.000

0.000

Albuquerque New Mexico

31

1.162

0.001

X

Buffalo New York

23

1.463

-

0.050

X

New York City New York

2

3.968

-

0.112

X

-

X

101

Classification Ratio Causes of Preferential Treatment of Homesteads

City State Rank Ratio

Chg. from

2016

Assessment

Ratio

Nominal

Tax Rate

Exemptions

& Credits

Sales

Ratio*

Charlotte North Carolina

44

1.000

0.000

Fargo North Dakota

35

1.087

-

0.138

X

-

Columbus Ohio

28

1.284

0.259

X

-

Oklahoma City Oklahoma

40

1.063

-

0.002

X

+

Portland Oregon

44

1.000

0.000

Philadelphia Pennsylvania

11

2.141

-

0.014

X

Providence Rhode Island

16

1.952

0.000

X

Charleston* South Carolina

5

3.101

NA

X

Sioux Falls South Dakota

32

1.126

-

0.123

X

-

Memphis Tennessee

21

1.600

0.000

X

Houston Texas

27

1.287

-

0.010

X

-

Salt Lake City Utah

20

1.753

-

0.007

X

-

Burlington Vermont

33

1.106

-

0.113

X

-

X

-

Virginia Beach Virginia

51

0.922

-

0.143

-

Seattle Washington

44

1.000

0.000

Charleston West Virginia

12

2.109

-

0.034

X

+

Milwaukee Wisconsin

38

1.071

0.004

X

Cheyenne Wyoming

52

0.916

-

0.102

-

TOTAL/AVERAGE 1.641 -0.031 16 14 30 6 (+), 24 (-)

* Charleston, SC is now the largest city in the state and replaces Columbia, SC.

*For sales ratio, "+" indicates that the sales ratio is higher for commercial properties and thus increases the classification ratio,

while "-" indicates that the sales ratio is lower for commercial properties and thus decreases the classification ratio. For a few cities,

one of the other three features of the property tax system favors commercial properties over homesteads, and this is also ind icated with a “-”.

102

Appendix Table 6b: Apartment-Homestead Classification Ratio for Largest City in Each State

Classification Ratio Causes of Preferential Treatment of Homesteads

City State

Rank

Ratio

Chg. from

2016

Assessment

Ratio

Nominal

Tax Rate

Exemptions

& Credits

Sales

Ratio**

Birmingham Alabama

5

2.180

0.009

X

Anchorage Alaska

29

1.073

-

0.003

X

Phoenix Arizona

22

1.122

-

0.013

X

Little Rock Arkansas

18

1.259

0.000

X

+

Los Angeles California

37

1.012

-

0.001

X

Denver Colorado

33

1.038

0.044

+

Bridgeport Connecticut

40

1.000

0.000

Washington DC

24

1.117

0.014

X

-

Wilmington Delaware

38

1.000

0.000

Jacksonville Florida

14

1.363

-

0.036

X

Atlanta Georgia

13

1.437

-

0.023

X

Honolulu Hawaii

23

1.118

-

0.005

X

-

Boise Idaho

7

1.863

-

0.059

X

-

Aurora Illinois

26

1.096

-

0.012

X

Chicago Illinois

53

0.795

-

0.032

-

X

Indianapolis Indiana

3

2.353

-

0.245

X

-

Des Moines Iowa

10

1.549

-

0.091

X

-

Wichita Kansas

35

1.025

0.001

X

Louisville Kentucky

50

0.959

-

0.006

-

New Orleans Louisiana

12

1.461

-

0.011

X

Portland Maine

28

1.077

0.017

X

Baltimore Maryland

30

1.070

0.066

+

Boston Massachusetts

6

1.954

0.246

X

Detroit Michigan

19

1.257

-

0.004

X

Minneapolis Minnesota

15

1.310

-

0.005

X

+

Jackson Mississippi

8

1.827

0.007

X

Kansas City Missouri

38

1.000

0.000

Billings Montana

40

1.000

0.000

Omaha Nebraska

36

1.022

-

0.010

+

Las Vegas Nevada

48

0.966

-

0.006

-

Manchester New Hampshire

40

1.000

0.000

Newark New Jersey

40

1.000

0.000

Albuquerque New Mexico

34

1.034

0.000

X

Buffalo New York

11

1.463

-

0.050

X

New York City New York

1

4.800

-

0.175

X

-

X

103

Classification Ratio Causes of Preferential Treatment of Homesteads

City State Rank Ratio

Chg. from

2016

Assessment

Ratio

Nominal

Tax Rate

Exemptions

& Credits

Sales

Ratio**

Charlotte North Carolina

47

1.000

0.000

Fargo North Dakota

27

1.087

-

0.138

X

-

Columbus Ohio

17

1.284

0.259

X

-

Oklahoma City Oklahoma

32

1.061

-

0.004

X

Portland Oregon

40

1.000

0.000

Philadelphia Pennsylvania

20

1.245

-

0.009

X

Providence Rhode Island

40

1.000

0.000

Charleston* South Carolina

2

3.101

NA

X

Sioux Falls South Dakota

21

1.126

-

0.123

X

-

Memphis Tennessee

9

1.600

0.000

X

Houston Texas

16

1.303

-

0.010

X

-

Salt Lake City Utah

49

0.964

-

0.004

-

Burlington Vermont

25

1.115

-

0.116

X

-

X

-

Virginia Beach Virginia

52

0.875

-

0.004

-

Seattle Washington

40

1.000

0.000

Charleston West Virginia

4

2.255

0.147

X

+

Milwaukee Wisconsin

31

1.069

0.004

X

Cheyenne Wyoming

51

0.920

-

0.015

-

TOTAL/AVERAGE 1.332 -0.019 9 6 30 6 (+), 15 (-)

* Charleston, SC is now the largest city in the state and replaces Columbia, SC.

**For sales ratio, "+" indicates that the sales ratio is higher for apartments and thus increases the classification ratio,

while "-" indicates that the sales ratio is lower for apartments and thus decreases the classification ratio. For a few cities,

one of the other three features of the property tax system favors apartments over homesteads, and this is also indicated with a “-”.

104

Appendix Table 7: Impact of Assessment Limits

Difference in Property Taxes between a Newly Purchased Home and a Home Subject to that

Has Been Owned for the Average Duration for the City (For Median Valued Home)

Tax Rate on Median-Valued Home Tax Bill on Median-Valued Home

State

City

Newly

Purchased

Home

Home Owned

for Average

Duration in City

Difference

Newly

Purchased

Home

Home Owned

for Average

Duration in City

Difference

% Difference

Arizona

Mesa

0.853

0.719

0.134

1,783

1,502

281

15.8%

Arizona

Ph

oenix

1.257

1.007

0.250

2,681

2,148

533

19.9%

Arizona

Tucson

1.230

1.219

0.011

1,771

1,755

16

0.9%

Arkansas

L

ittle Rock

1.112

1.062

0.050

1,790

1,710

80

4.5%

California

Fresno

1.209

0.830

0.379

2,750

1,889

861

31.3%

California

Long Beach

1.202

0.744

0.458

6,237

3,862

2,375

38.1%

California

Los Angeles

1.179

0.664

0.515

6,997

3,943

3,054

43.6%

California

Oakland

1.334

0.755

0.579

8,667

4,902

3,765

43.4%

California

Sacramento

1.111

0.653

0.458

3,408

2,005

1,403

41.2%

California

San Diego

1.155

0.837

0.318

6,555

4,746

1,809

27.6%

California

San Francisco

1.164

0.646

0.518

11,922

6,612

5,310

44.5%

California

San Jose

1.306

0.823

0.483

10,471

6,599

3,872

37.0%

Florida

Jacksonville

1.258

0.829

0.429

1,984

1,308

676

34.1%

Florida

Mi

ami

1.592

0.901

0.691

4,420

2,502

1,918

43.4%

Illinois

Chicago

1.642

1.542

0.100

4,004

3,760

244

6.1%

Michigan

D

etroit

3.629

2.744

0.885

1,579

1,194

385

24.4%

New Mexico

Albuquerque

1.274

1.252

0.022

2,441

2,399

42

1.7%

New York

N

ew York City

*

1.181

0.546

0.635

6,726

3,109

3,617

53.8%

Oklahoma

O

klahoma City

1.175

1.135

0.040

1,845

1,782

63

3.4%

Oklahoma

Tulsa

1.403

1.372

0.031

1,825

1,785

40

2.2

%

Oregon

Portland

*

2.424

1.645

0.779

9,577

6,498

3,079

32.1%

South Caro

lina

Charleston

0.502

0.435

0.067

1,493

1,296

197

13.2%

Texas

Arlington

2.148

2.138

0.010

3,327

3,311

16

0.5

%

Texas

Aust

in

1.898

0.000

5,855

0

0.0%

Texas

Dallas

2.028

2.018

0.010

3,186

3,170

16

0.5%

Texas

El Paso

2.603

0.000

3,261

0

0.0%

Texas

Fort

Worth

2.259

2.248

0.011

3,411

3,394

17

0.5%

Texas

Houston

1.795

0.000

2,938

0

0.0%

Texas

San Antonio

2.389

0.000

3,198

0

0.0%

AVERAGE 1.562 1.291 0.271 4,348 3,187 1,161 19.4%

Notes: Table is for states with parcel-specific assessment limits. Taxes on newly purchased homes come from Appendix Tables 2a and 2d, which ignore assessment limits.

Taxes on homes owned for the average duration in each city come from Appendix Tables 2b and 2e, which do account for assessment limits. See Methodology section for details.

*New York City and Portland (OR) have unique assessment limits, because they do not reset when a property is sold like in oth er cities (See Methodology section).