50-State Property Tax

Comparison Study

50-State Property Tax Comparison Study, Copyright © April 2015
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: “72 Mercer” by TRA Studio Architecture is licensed under CC BY 2.0

Acknowledgements This report would not have been possible without the cooperation and assistance of many individuals. • providing state and local policy makers with objective. 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. are responsible for determining the level of government they are willing to support with their tax dollars. efficient spending. For information about membership. and drafting. MCFE generally defers from taking positions on levels of government taxation and spending believing that citizens. Instead. The Center is a non-profit. calculations. through their elected officials. About the Minnesota Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence The Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence was founded in 1926 to promote sound tax policy. We pursue this mission by • educating and informing Minnesotans about sound fiscal policy. or visit our web site at www. non-partisan research about the impacts of tax and spending policies • advocating for the adoption of policies reflecting principles of fiscal excellence. call (651) 224-7477. and accountable manner. and accountable government. assisted with the final editing for publication.fiscalexcellence.org . did the research. Aaron Twait. non-partisan group supported by membership dues. MCFE Research Director. transparent. MCFE Executive Director. Mark Haveman.

  II.   VI.   VII.   Introduction __________________________________________________________________ i   Frequently Asked Questions ____________________________________________________ iii   Findings _____________________________________________________________________ 1   Homestead Property Tax Rankings and Burdens – Urban and Rural Cities _____________ 1   Highest and Lowest Homestead Taxes – Urban _____________________________________ 1   Highest and Lowest Homestead Taxes – Largest 50 Cities ____________________________ 2   Effects of Provisions that Limit Growth in Parcel-Level Assessments on Urban and Top 50 Homestead Rankings and Burdens _______________________________________________ 2   Commercial Property Tax Rankings and Burdens – Urban and Rural Cities ____________ 4   Highest and Lowest Commercial Taxes – Urban ____________________________________ 4   Highest and Lowest Commercial Taxes – Largest 50 Cities ___________________________ 5   Industrial Property Tax Rankings and Burdens – Urban and Rural Cities ______________ 5   Highest and Lowest Industrial Taxes – Urban ______________________________________ 7   Highest and Lowest Industrial Taxes – Largest 50 Cities _____________________________ 7   Apartment Property Tax Rankings and Burdens – Urban and Rural Cities _____________ 8   Highest and Lowest Apartment Taxes – Urban _____________________________________ 8   Highest and Lowest Apartment Taxes – Largest 50 Cities ____________________________ 8   IV.Table of Contents I.   Findings – Subsidization of Homeowners and Relationship to Property Tax Growth _____ 10   Rankings Tables – Urban ______________________________________________________ 14   Rankings Tables – Largest 50 U. Cities _________________________________________ 25   Rankings Tables – Rural_______________________________________________________ 36   Appendix: Methodology and Assumptions _______________________________________ 45   Data Collection_______________________________________________________________ 45   Selection of Additional Urban Cities _____________________________________________ 45   Selection of Rural Cities _______________________________________________________ 45   Components of the Property Tax Calculation _____________________________________ 45   True Market Value (TMV) ______________________________________________ 46   Sales Ratios (SR)_______________________________________________________ 46   Classification Rates (CR) ________________________________________________ 47   Total Local Tax Rate (TR) ______________________________________________ 47   Credits (C) ____________________________________________________________ 48   Property Classes and True Market Values ________________________________________ 48   Real and Personal Property _____________________________________________ 48   Real Property _________________________________________________________ 49   Personal Property – Machinery and Equipment ____________________________ 49   Personal Property – Inventories __________________________________________ 49   Personal Property – Fixtures ____________________________________________ 49   Property Classes and True Market Values ________________________________________ 49   Effective Tax Rates (ETRs) ____________________________________________________ 49   Estimates of Assessment Limitation Effects _______________________________________ 50   Special Property Tax Provisions ________________________________________________ 50   What Do Rankings Mean? _____________________________________________________ 50   .S.   III.   V.

.............................. Cities...... 5   Table 11: Industrial Parcel Value Assumptions ............................. Pay 2014 ......................................................................... 50 Largest U.......... 28   Table 32: Top 50 Commercial Property Taxes ....and $300...................... 38   Table 38: Rural Industrial Property Taxes (50% Personal Property) ....List of Tables Table 1: Urban and Rural Homestead Property Taxes by Census Region and Property Value.............................................................................000 Valued Homes................................................................ 20   Table 27: Urban Industrial Property Taxes (60% Personal Property) .............. Payable 2014 .......... $150.................................................. Pay 2014 ............. Payable 2014 ........000............................................................................................................................... 9   Table 19: Commercial-Homestead Classification Ratios for Payable 2014.................................. 6   Table 13: Rural Industrial Property Taxes by Census Region and Real Property Value.................. 8   Table 18: Highest and Lowest Apartment Property Taxes Among the 50 Largest U..........S.............. 3   Table 6: Effects of Assessment Limitations.............. Payable 2014 ....... 8   Table 17: Urban Cities with the Highest and Lowest Apartment Taxes............ 44   ...... 27   Table 31: Top 50 Homestead Property Taxes for a Median-Value Home – Listed by Net Tax Payable 2014 – With Assessment Limitations .......................... 5   Table 10: Highest and Lowest Commercial Property Taxes Among the 50 Largest U..........................................................................S..........................000...... 22   Table 28: Urban Apartment Property Taxes..... 18   Table 26: Urban Industrial Property Taxes (50% Personal Property) ... 7   Table 15: Highest and Lowest Industrial Property Taxes Among the 50 Largest U............................... 3   Table 7: Urban Commercial Property Taxes by Census Region and Real Property Value............... 36   Table 37: Rural Commercial Property Taxes ........ Pay 2014 .. Payable 2014 ........................................................... 7   Table 16: Urban and Rural Apartment Property Taxes by Census Region.......................................... 2   Table 5: Effects of Assessment Limitations... Payable 2014 .....................................................................................S.............. 6   Table 14: Urban Cities with the Highest and Lowest Industrial Taxes.............................. 4   Table 8: Rural Commercial Property Taxes by Census Region and Real Property Value..................................................................................................................000............................................................................................................................................................................. Cities...................... 17   Table 25: Urban Commercial Property Taxes ......................................... Payable 2014 ........................ 12   Table 21: Property Tax Collections........... 35   Table 36: Rural Homestead Property Taxes .................................................. 1   Table 3: Highest and Lowest Homestead Taxes Among Urban Cities for Median-Valued Homes........................................ Urban Cities ................................. 31   Table 34: Top 50 Industrial Property Taxes (60% Personal Property) .......................................................................................05 and Remaining States .............................. 33   Table 35: Top 50 Apartment Property Taxes ................ 42   Table 40: Rural Apartment Property Taxes .. Pay 2014 ..................................................................................................... Pay 2014 .....and $300........................................000-Valued Homes....... 29   Table 33: Top 50 Industrial Property Taxes (50% Personal Property) .............................................................. 4   Table 9: Urban Cities with Highest and Lowest Commercial Property Taxes.................................................................S.......................................................................................................................................................................... Cities.... Payable 2014 ................................................. Pay 2014 ............................................................... 13   Table 22: Urban Homestead Property Taxes ..................................................... Urban Cities ....................................................................................... 14   Table 23: Urban Homestead Property Taxes for a Median-Value Home – Listed by Net Tax Payable 2014 ............................ 1   Table 2: Highest and Lowest Homestead Taxes Among Urban Cities for $150..........000-Valued Homes......................... Pay 2014 ............................................000 and $300.............. 10   Table 20: Ratio of Apartment Effective Tax Rates (ETRs) to Homestead Rates........... 25   Table 30: Top 50 Homestead Property Taxes for a Median-Value Home – Listed by Net Tax Payable 2014 ..................................................................... FY 1998 and FY 2012.......................................................................... Payable 2014 .... for States With No Homeowner-Specific Assessment Limitations and with Classification Ratios < 1......................... 2   Table 4: Highest and Lowest Homestead Taxes Among the 50 Largest U.....................................................................................................................................................and $300.......................... Cities ...... 24   Table 29: Top 50 Homestead Property Taxes ..............S...............................................000-Valued Homes.... Payable 2014 ................................................. 6   Table 12: Urban Industrial Property Taxes by Census Region and Real Property Value................ Urban Cities.... 16   Table 24: Urban Homestead Property Taxes for a Median-Value Home – Listed by Net Tax Payable 2013 – With Assessment Limitations ................. 40   Table 39: Rural Industrial Property Taxes (60% Personal Property) ........................................................ Cities for $150..... $150.......

.....List of Figures Figure 1: Commercial-Homestead Classification Ratio. Urban Cities.. 1998 – 2014 ........................ 1998 – 2014.... 13   ............ 11   Figure 2: Apartment-Homestead Classification Ratio........... Urban Cities................

This Page Intentionally Blank .

unaffected by local real estate markets. total tax divided by total value) for four classes of property located in the largest city of each state (plus an additional city for Illinois and New York) and the District of Columbia. Note that we provide two sets of industrial rankings. We select cities for our rural analysis based on a rural-urban classification continuum developed by the U. fixed values for homestead property are often not representative of typical home values in a particular community. and a rural area for each state. The report also includes estimates of the effect that relief programs which freeze or limit increases in home value and/or property taxes at the individual level have on homeowner property tax burdens. This study assumes that the “true market value” of each of several parcels of property is the same in all 124 locations studied.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 I. differential assessment rates. and 2004 through 2013. we encourage readers to turn to the Appendix to better understand how this statistic works. Some locations have relatively high property tax levies because those local governments are more dependent on “own-source” revenue (revenue they raise themselves) or have limited non-property tax options available to them. Introduction This is MCFE’s fourteenth national property tax comparison study. Our research indicates that. This involves the use of the “sales ratio” statistic – the comparison of actual sales prices to assessed values. which reports on relative property tax burdens across the United States. Therefore. Since this statistic can significantly impact year-to-year changes in property tax burdens and rankings. one where personal property equals 50% of total parcel value and one where personal property equals 60% of total parcel value. this study also compares homeowner tax burdens for the median-value home in each large (i. This study is most useful when used in connection with other information about state and local tax structures.500 to 10. Other states have higher income and sales taxes in part to finance a greater share of the cost of local government. However. We first added this feature to the study in our payable 2012 edition. We continue to use fixed-value examples to facilitate comparisons with earlier studies1. 2002. Department of Agriculture.S. The appendix also generally reviews the methodology used in determining the property tax liabilities of the four sample property types and the important assumptions necessary to standardize the calculations and make the numbers comparable across the states. sometimes significantly. Because the "assessed value" of property varies from state to state. or other classification schemes. 1998. “non-rural”) city. See Appendix A for more information on this methodology. Fixed values enable comparisons of the tax burden resulting from each state's tax structure. 1 Previous studies are available for taxes payable 1995.000 located outside of metropolitan statistical areas. Readers should make time-trend comparisons of tax burdens on medianvalued homes before and after this methodological change with care. this year we have made a change to the methodology in our median home value analysis. Cities included in the rural analysis must be county seats with populations of 2. 2000. Importantly. i . and what implications it can have for our results. Also. We compare effective property tax rates (that is. on a statewide basis. why we include it in our calculations. our tax calculations necessarily account for the effects of local assessment practices as well as statutory tax provisions. Our Frequently Asked Questions and Methodology sections have much more on this topic.e. the property tax on a selected class of property may be relatively high or low due to state or local policies designed to redistribute property tax burdens across the classes of property through exemptions. the shares of personal property for industrial properties ranges from a low of 50.7% (Oregon) to a high of 60. Beginngin with this edition of the study we are using American Community Survey data on median home values as it provides more robust information while allowing for more precise geographical detail. the largest fifty cities in the United States.0% (Montana).

Nebraska. Hawaii. Arkansas. and Vermont. Introduction Data for property tax calculations were collected in one of two ways. Southwest: Arizona. disparities between homestead and non-homestead properties (particularly business property). Maryland. Sections IV. New York and Pennsylvania. New Mexico. Oklahoma and Texas. Virginia and West Virginia. Massachusetts. New Jersey. Georgia. V and VI contain the complete set of comparison tables referenced in this report. North Dakota. Colorado. Based on population growth and data collection issues. North Carolina. This section also provides information on the highest and lowest property tax burdens for individual cities in our largest fifty city and urban city sets. Kansas. Indiana. South Carolina. Iowa. MidAtlantic: Delaware. New Hampshire. Section VII is an appendix detailing our methodology and assumptions. New England: Connecticut. Oregon.I. District of Columbia. Maine. Missouri. Louisiana. Nevada. and personal property assumptions. with states assigned to the various regions as follows. South: Alabama.S. Montana. Midwest: Illinois. designed to provide interested readers with additional clarity about the contents of the report. Ohio. our set of Rural cities has changed from the payable 2013 edition of this study as follows: State IL KY MS VT WA Pay 2013 Rural City Clinton Laurel Aberdeen Newport Colville Pay 2014 Rural City Galena Morehead Philadelphia Hartford Okanogan This report is organized as follows: Secton II contains a “Frequently Asked Questions” section. Rhode Island. It also includes an analysis of several key features such as classification systems. West: Alaska. Where such data was not available. Idaho. California. Florida. Washington and Wyoming. property tax data was collected directly from various state and local websites. Where possible. South Dakota and Wisconsin. Census Bureau geographic region. the effects of assessment limitations. we calculated property taxes using a contact-verification approach in which state or local tax experts were asked to provide information and provided verification when necessary. Section III presents urban and rural results for all classes of property by U. Tennessee. Michigan. ii . Minnesota. Utah. Kentucky. Mississippi.

So. Wherever possible. urban population of 2. cities in metro areas. Massachusetts. 4 http://www.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 II. What else does it do? The study also provides a comparison of subsidization inherent in property tax systems.C 2 U. Also as of July 1. Frequently Asked Questions What’s in this publication? Our 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study calculates the net property taxes paid and the effective tax rates for homestead.S. we maintain continuity in the set of rural cities from one study to the next. industrial (manufacturing).ers.999. which have substantially different property tax regimes than the remainder of Illinois and New York. Delaware. we limited rural city selections to county seats in counties with one of two codes: • Code 6 (Nonmetro. New York and Aurora. 2013. property tax structures are uniform within states. or have Code 6 or Code 7 counties that are not useful for this study’s purposes (for example. not 50 different states and D. not adjacent to a metro area) Six states (Connecticut.000. New Jersey.500 and 10. this report compares property tax burdens between different locations. Census Bureau estimate. and apartment properties of various values in: • The largest city in each of the fifty states2 and the District of Columbia. Why does the Urban analysis include two cities from Illinois and New York? In most cases. How do you select cities for the Rural analysis? For early editions of this study. July 1.999. and Rhode Island) either have no usable Code 6 or Code 7 counties. Where possible. local contacts selected cities in “typical rural areas” for our Rural analysis. this is not the case in Cook County (Chicago) and New York City. How do you compute the net tax on a property? We use the following equation to calculate the net property taxes on our hypothetical properties: Net Property Tax = ((TMV x SR) .500-19.C.e.S. as well as Buffalo. However. the Code 6 or Code 7 counties in Massachusetts comprise Nantucket and Dukes Islands). commercial (retail)..aspx 3 iii . Department of Agriculture to guide our rural city choices for our payable 2008 study. The study measures homeowner subsidies paid by business property by measuring ratios of commercial-to-homestead effective tax rates and apartment-to-homestead effective tax rates. our Urban analysis is a comparison of 53 different property tax structures. The study also provides additional analysis and commentary. adjacent to a metro area) • Code 7 (Nonmetro.usda. Illinois (Urban analysis).EX) x CR x TR . Hawaii. We began using the rural-urban continuum codes4 developed by the U. with over-representation in two states. This metholodogy helps ensure that cities are more homogenous with regard to population and relationship to urban areas (i. and • A rural city in each of the fifty states (Rural analysis). urban population of 2. We include the second-largest cities in those states (Buffalo and Aurora) to represent the prevalent property tax structures in those states. removing large regional centers.500-19. • The largest fifty cities in the United States3 (Top 50 analysis). All cities used in the Rural analysis are county seats with populations between 2. In essence. 2013. and cities in very lightly populated areas) and has largely eliminated subjectivity in city choice.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes/.

The Classification Rate (CR) indicates the portion of a property’s total value subject to the property tax. having constant market values from location to location allows us to observe the isolated effects of tax structures – effectively comparing property taxes.II. may not affect a majority of parcels. The study examines commercial and industrial properties with “low”. these exemptions are for residential property. and “high” real property values. We do not include credits. or other special provisions offered to senior or disabled homeowners. The Total Local Tax Rate is the combination of state and local tax rates for payable 2014 that apply to the largest number of properties in each of our study locations. so a home with a true market value of $150. Applying the sales ratio allows us to treat properties consistently. For some locations. the “low” valuedhome is eliminated for our Urban and Top 50 analyses as being too unrealistic for most urban areas in the study. “medium”. We defined “payable 2014 property taxes” as those taxes where the lien affixes to the property in 2014. Finally.000 residential homestead may be “on the books” at $155. We adjust the assumed true market values for each of the sample properties in our study based on the sales ratio data provided for each location. How do you determine the property values you use for your sample properties? This report analyzes two different kinds of property: real property (land and buildings).000 in one location. Assessors are by law prevented from assessing a property at its full market value. the classification rate for homes in Alabama is 10%. it is important to adjust for the fact that a $150. refunds. and “high” real property values. Since our fixed reference point for all calculations is an assumed true market value. Most simply. we subtract Credits or Refunds (C) that are offered to the majority of homeowners. Certain states or localities will Exempt (EX) a certain portion of a property’s value from taxation. for example). Ideally. Since the exemption is applied to the assessed value of a property. the assumed true market value may not be typical (a $150.000 home in Boston. and $140. by favoring certain classes at the expense of others. This is designed to affect the distribution of property tax levies. based on the “class” a property is grouped into. However. Generally.000 in another. not local real estate markets. and are usually not sources of general revenue. and personal property (movable property). regardless of when the taxes are actually due. Apartment property consists of only one value. we apply it after generating the sales-ratio-adjusted property value. iv . because they do not make up a majority of homeowners. and that the actual tax on the property will be based on these estimates of market value. Note that the study does not include special assessments. “medium”. The sales ratio figure is determined by comparing assessments to actual sales. since they can be thought of as user charges. For example. or. Many states that have classification rates have different rates for different classes of properties. that figure will be close to 100%. sales ratios measure the accuracy of assessments. regardless of assessment differences between locations. This is a unique aspect of our study. Frequently Asked Questions True Market Value (TMV) is the value a parcel of property would fetch in an arms-length transaction between willing buyers and sellers. Sales Ratio (SR) data measures the effects of assessment practices on relative tax burdens.000 for tax purposes. Rural homes have “low”. but some states or localities also provide exemptions for business properties. There are three main reasons why assessed values differ from actual sales: • • • Changes in the real estate market since the assessment date change the value of the property.000 is valued at $15. Some sort of assessment error or bias has been introduced. and so do not represent the typical experience.

and that personal property comprised 60% of total property value. so we believe that this report covers a wide majority of properties across the nation. We do this by setting the home value for each city equal to the median value of owneroccupied housing units in each city.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 Do you ever vary the property values between locations? We do compare homeowner property taxes in Urban and Top 50 cities using a “median value analysis”. How do you know how much personal property a parcel has? This study assumes that 1/6th of total commercial property value is attributable to personal property. Beginning with our payable 2012 study. However. office equipment. However. American Community Survey data provides more robust information on median home values and provides greater geographic detail than the metropolitan statistical area level. such as the elderly). Readers should make time-trend comparisons of tax burdens on median-valued homes before and after this methodological change with care. This data comes from the one-year data in the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey for 2013. in the relevant county. Why don’t you look at other types of property. This comparison provides perspective on how differences in local real estate markets affect residential property taxes. Fixtures (furniture. because for states that fully exempt personal property. For industrial properties. Cabins are problematic because of their limited geographic scope. It would be difficult to set true market values for farms or utility properties. those not aimed at certain classes of homeowners. but it is almost always exempt from tax). since a larger share of the total property is exempt from taxation. commercial inventories are generally exempt). what is it? “Personal property” includes those things that businesses own that are not land or buildings (individuals also own personal property. found in all types of business property) Why does personal property matter? The amount of assumed personal property is important. this methodology is a change from previous editions of the study. This study assumes three kinds of personal property: • • • Machinery and Equipment (found in industrial/manufacturing properties only) Inventories (found in industrial/manufacturing properties only. where our median home value data came from metropolitan-area data provided by the National Association of Realtors. effective tax rates and rankings fall as that share of property value attributable to personal property rises. Tell me more about “personal property” – for starters. Policies that limit year-to-year growth in residential property assessments or taxes through a cap or a freeze mechanism often influence tax burdens. commercial. How do you deal with assessment limitations or other property relief programs? This study incorporates relief programs that are broadly applicable (i. this study would include every type of property. time and resource constraints limit us to the four types of property already discussed. and. like farms or cabins? Ideally. industrial. and residential homesteads comprise nearly 70% of total market value in Minnesota. or for smaller cities. See our methodology section for details. we incorporated additional analyses that measure the effect of relief programs that freeze or limit increases in home value or property taxes at the individual parcel level. the study presented two different assumptions: that personal property comprised 50% of total property value. We arrived at these assumptions after consulting with our sister NTC v . apartment. where the value of the relief is not based on homeowner tenure or income. As noted in the introduction.e. et cetera. given their complexities.

Essentially. It does not make sense that the owner of a commercial property worth $100. As a result.701). the property tax on a selected class of property may be relatively high or low because of policies designed to redistribute property tax burdens between classes through exemptions. vi . 6. Our study does not incorporate those types of relief programs. Some states have higher property tax levies because their local governments are more dependent on “own-source” revenues. consider that the average tax on a $100. machinery and equipment.0% (Montana). the average split for industrial parcels nationwide is 44. differential assessment rates. and inventory shares for industrial parcels. the study is most useful when used in connection with other information about state and local tax structures. we have borrowed the methodology they use to determine shares of real and personal business property in their biennial Tax Incidence Study. To illustrate this point. Frequently Asked Questions organizations and by studying data provided by an actual company with property holdings in multiple states.7% (Oregon) to 60. we prevent useful time-trend analysis of effective tax rates and net taxes paid. Overall.000 in payable 1995 paid 6. What are the study’s limitations? It’s important to recognize that property taxes are just one piece of the total state and local tax system. In previous editions of this study we measured tax burdens and rankings for industrial parcels where we allowed the shares of personal property to vary from state to state.7% less in taxes on the same piece of property in 2014. however. or other classification schemes. Using that methodology.519. If the study attempted to track the effective tax burden on an actual parcel over time. we have calculated state-specific real property. Since we hold one piece of the property tax calculation (the value) constant over time but let another piece (the rate) vary from year to year. With the permission of the Minnesota Department of Revenue’s Research Division. which often translates into relatively higher property tax burdens. Another limitation involves income-sensitive property tax relief programs (often referred to as “circuit-breakers). with corresponding shares of real property value.000 urban commercial property in our payable 1995 study ($2. Certain states place more responsibility for public service delivery with local government. the shares of personal property range from 50. In other cases. we are also investigating this area for possible future inclusion.II.7% lower than the average tax on a $100. Making year-to-year comparisons of effective tax rates or net taxes paid is also problematic. We discontinued this analysis beginning with our payable 2011 report to focus resources on other study-related initiatives.000-valued urban commercial property in this study is $2.0% land and buildings (real property) and 56.0% personal property. we would need to adjust property values annually based on changes in local real estate markets. fixtures. this analysis indicates how each state-specific industry mixes affect the property tax burden on industrial parcels of equal real property value. This model indicated that our assumptions regarding industrial personal property are very reasonable. according to the model.

Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 III.210 or 90% of the homestead’s market value. IL $5.and $300. offered a $70.033% $1.036 1.662 1.060 Bridgeport. because the cities of Chicago and New York have property tax systems that are fundamentally different than those found in the rest of their respective states we treat those cities as having distinct property tax systems. Locations with high rankings have relatively high tax rates and/or impose the tax on a relatively large amount of the homestead’s market value.645 0.C.553 1. State Tax City.162% South $1.314 0.929 3 Aurora.000 of assessed value.235 1.485 2.076% $6.322 1. AL Washington. Pay 2014 Urban Rural Census $150. NJ $8. In urban areas.109 2.193 Milwaukee.876% $2. and Table 36 on page 37 shows the residential homestead taxes for three different valued properties in a rural area in each state.696 1.036% $2.699% $5. DC Honolulu. CO Washington. Average $2. NJ $4.000.062% West $1. CO Birmingham.106 4 Newark. IL $11.386% $1. Residential burdens were lowest in the West and the South in urban and rural areas.988 $1.254 0. Locations ranking near the bottom tend to do so because of low property tax rates – many also offer sizable homestead exemptions: Honolulu offered a homestead exemption of $80. residential property tax burdens are highest in New England followed closely by the Midwest.174% $3. MI $5. Bridgeport. and Boston offered a homestead exemption equal to the lesser of $140.158 1.000 $150.357% $4.979% $6.100 1. CT $6. Table 29 on page 26 shows the same for the nation’s largest fifty cities.554% $2.221% $1. Table 1: Urban and Rural Homestead Property Taxes by Census Region and Property Value.164 2.000 Region Amount ETR Amount ETR Amount ETR Amount ETR New England $3.342 Newark.836% $2.662 1.171 1.000 Rank (of 53) City. CT $12.490% $4.845 0.000 $300. DC Boston.017 1.549 1. MI $11.000 $300.085% $6.989% $3.128 2.599 49 50 51 52 53 Denver.114 2. Table 1 below provides a snapshot of payable 2014 homestead property tax burdens by Census region. Aurora and Newark continue 1 . Note that effective tax rates (ETR) rise as property value rises –indicating that the impact of many residential property tax relief programs declines as home value rises.087% Mid-Atlantic $2.120 2 Detroit. WI $4. State Tax 1 Bridgeport.683 5 Milwaukee.882% U. Table 2: Highest and Lowest Homestead Taxes Among Urban Cities for $150. Payable 2014 $150.548% $4.000 $300.838 1.948% Midwest $2.738% Southwest $2.036% $3.897 $1.521 2.S. WY Denver.390% Highest and Lowest Homestead Taxes – Urban The urban cities with payable 2014 homestead tax rankings in the top or bottom five for both fixed-value examples are shown in Table 2.200 homestead exemption. HI $2.613% $3.345% $4.131% $3. Washington.005 $1. WI $8.746 $765 Table 3 presents the highest and lowest homestead taxes for the median-valued home in the largest city in each state and the District of Columbia. Findings Homestead Property Tax Rankings and Burdens – Urban and Rural Cities Table 22 on page 15 shows the payable 2014 property tax on two differently valued residential homesteads for the largest city in each state. D.214 1.261 2.964 Detroit.000-Valued Homes. Note that this set includes 53 cities. In rural areas. MA $994 $990 $650 $242 $175 Cheyenne.210 Aurora. MA Honolulu. those burdens are highest in the Mid-Atlantic region with New England a close second.969 1.186 1.109% $6.484 0. HI Boston.

Instead. State Tax City.897 $1.S.968 Cleveland. and Washington (D.200 2.400 2.000 Valued Homes. AZ Denver. Table 4: Highest and Lowest Homestead Taxes Among the 50 Largest U.C.750% 0. OR and Burlington. CO Washington. AL $1. see the Methodology section or the working paper prepared for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 2 .900 2.202 $1. Table 3: Highest and Lowest Homestead Taxes Among Urban Cities for Median-Valued Homes.000 $300.171 $803 $529 $84. Honolulu. they are replaced by cities where relatively low values are combined with moderate tax rates.599 3 Cleveland.298 $994 $716 $650 $175 New York.968 $206.989 $1.431% 0.000 Rank (of 50) City. CO Colorado Springs. NJ $5.723% 1. Payable 2014 $150.600 $116. VT $6.S. IN Charleston.400 $107. WI $4. cities.000 $83. Philadephia has moved out of the top 5 (into the mid-20s). State Tax 1 Detroit. When measured against median values the homestead exemptions in New York City. MA Colorado Springs.432 Effects of Provisions that Limit Growth in Parcel-Level Assessments on Urban and Top 50 Homestead Rankings and Burdens This report also analyzes the impact of programs that freeze or limit increases in individual parcels’ assessed value. Broadly. TX $8.746 $1. TX $7.774 $291.576 $159. State Tax Value ETR 1 Portland.988 $1. MA $1. and estimating the amount of value the provisions exclude from taxation. TX $3.324% 2 Bridgeport. However.632% Highest and Lowest Homestead Taxes – Largest 50 Cities In the set of largest (top 50) U. WI $8.000-valued homesteads. Boston. MI $5.182 $1. There are a few changes from the previous year – most notably. there is far more turnover in the list of cities with the lowesttaxed homes. DC Boston. Findings to impose top five burdens but Detroit and Milwaukee are replaced by higher-valued Portland.000 $163. OR $6. VT.964 Detroit. MI $11.000 and $300.800 1. For more information. DC Boston.145 4 San Antonio.929 2 Milwaukee.342% 4 Newark.601 $163.193 Milwaukee. NY Denver.) become relatively less generous and none of those cities appear in the lowest-taxes list.300 3. the methodology involves measuring the average change in home values over the period of an average homeowner’s tenure in relevant locales. TX $3.006% 0. CT $6. those shown in Table 4 had the highest and lowest payable 2014 property taxes for the $150.415 $273.040% 3 Burlington. WV Birmingham.III. indicating the relatively heavy reliance governments in Texas have on the property tax. Both Colorado locations benefit from the tax and expenditure limitations imposed in that state.993 San Antonio.960 46 47 48 49 50 Mesa. Cities for $150.894% 5 Aurora. IL $5. CO Washington. OH $7.000-valued and $300. Pay 2014 Median-Valued Home Rank (of 53) City.400 4. OH $3.859 El Paso. Two Texas locations (San Antonio and El Paso) are now in the top 5. which manifest themselves in the assessment ratio for homesteads and the property tax rate.987 5 El Paso.500% 49 50 51 52 53 Jackson. SC Indianapolis. CO $1. reflecting the effects of changes in the city’s property tax system. MS Columbia.

CA -4 -$306 -4 -$611 San Francisco. State Change in Change in Change Change in Rank Tax Burden in Rank Tax Burden Phoenix.$300. Cities Pay 2014 -. AZ +2 -$177 +3 -$356 Fresno.lincolninst. MI --$747 --$1.edu/pubs/2033_Property-Assessment-Limits-Effects-on-Homestead-Property-Tax-Burdens-and-National-Property-Tax-Rankings.065 Los Angeles.337 Oakland. In the three other locations – Little Rock. TX +1 -$26 +1 -$52 3 . Our modeling indicates assessment limitations would affect homeowners with average ownership tenure in nine cities in our Urban set and seventeen cities of the nation’s largest fifty. SC +3 +$90 +3 +$179 Table 6 shows how assessment limitations affect homeowners in the nation’s fifty largest cities.$150.220 San Jose. $150.000. 50 Largest U. AZ -1 -$178 --$355 Little Rock.$150. New York City and Portland – annual assessment limits generally range from 2% to 10% although some locations also have limits on multi-year increases. FL -13 -$433 -5 -$866 Detroit.S. Detroit. there are substantially more cities where assessment limitation provision effect the tax burden for a homeowner with an average ownership tenure. CA -3 -$291 -3 -$581 Long Beach. Table 5 shows how assessment limitations affect homeowners in the Urban cities.000 Home City.000-Valued Homes. in times when home values decline over the long-term.and $300. AZ +4 -$141 +4 -$281 Phoenix.000 Home Pay 2014 -. and Columbia – assessment limits are combined with periodic (as opposed to annual) revaluations in such a way that.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 on the subject. $150. FL -2 -$114 -2 -$228 Chicago. Table 5: Effects of Assessment Limitations. MI NC -$746 NC -$1..494 New York. CA -4 -$532 -5 -$1. Table 6: Effects of Assessment Limitations.S. As with Table 5.and $300. AR +1 -$41 --$81 Los Angeles. State Change in Change in Change in Change in Rank Tax Burden Rank Tax Burden Mesa. Rebounding local housing markets in the wake of Great Recession continue to create additional amounts of excluded homestead value. OR -3 -$423 -3 -$845 Austin.245 Portland. CA -1 -$368 -2 -$738 San Diego. In six of these locations – Phoenix. cities on Table 29 and Table 31.000. CA -8 -$387 -8 -$775 Chicago. available at: https://www. CA -13 -$668 -12 -$1336 Jacksonville. NY -4 -$622 -5 -$1. we are not able to perform this analysis for rural cities. Our assessment limitation-affected burdens and ranks are for urban cities shown on Table 22 and Table 24. starting on page 26. these provisions actually yield higher taxable values than would otherwise be the case. OR -2 -$423 -1 -$846 Columbia. IL -+$15 -+$29 Detroit.000-Valued Homes. Chicago. Urban Cities Pay 2014 -.000 Home City.$300.493 New York. CA -11 -$668 -11 -$1. Given the availability of data on local market home value changes. IL NC +$15 NC +$30 Jacksonville. CA -8 -$610 -10 -$1.245 Portland. CA -11 -$461 -9 -$921 Sacramento. FL -1 -$114 -1 -$228 Miami. Jacksonville. beginning on page 15 and for the fifty largest U.000 Home Pay 2014 -. NY -12 -$623 -9 --$1. Los Angeles.

211% U.724% $34.519 2.858% $22. Average $2.414% U.000 Amount ETR Amount ETR Amount ETR New England $3.S.515% $473.883 2.896% $594.034 1.986% $23.8%.152 1.929% $23.463% $743.186 1.479% Southwest $1. Pay 2014 $100.717 2.153% $27.584 2. these burdens are highest in the Midwest with New England in second place. Arizona – if other cities have larger reductions.4%.269 2.834 1.000. On average.835% $855.000 $1.790 1.750 1.III.000 $1.382% South $2.678 2.423% Midwest $2.715% Mid-Atlantic $2. $1 million of real property with $200.263% $714.143 1. Texas to 38%-41% of the tax on a fully-valued home (depeding on value) in New York City. In Honolulu.249 1.099% $25.499 2.7%-2.942 1.346% $29.929% South $1.983% West $1. Table 8: Rural Commercial Property Taxes by Census Region and Real Property Value.580 2.798 1.553 2.S. Findings Such provisions provided relief equal to a low of 1% of the tax on a fully-valued home in Austin.238 2.702 1. some cities that have reductions may move up in ranking – such as Mesa and Phoenix.986% Mid-Atlantic $2.784 1. Locations with high rankings have relatively high tax rates and/or impose the tax on a relatively large amount of the commercial parcel’s market value.000 $25. with ETRs around 2.845 1.715% $32.026 2.230 1.580% West $1. Of particular interest is the steep drop in 4 . As with urban areas.670 1.4 mills.000 Amount ETR Amount ETR Amount ETR New England $2.392% $424.150% $14.157% $656.986% $595.3% and 1.187% $363.815 2.217 1.487% $18.715% $814.315 1.621 1.929% $578. Table 7: Urban Commercial Property Taxes by Census Region and Real Property Value. the lowest burdens by far are found in the West.000.812 1. The lowest burdens are found in the West where the ETR ranges between 1.040 1.002 1.000.761% Highest and Lowest Commercial Taxes – Urban The urban cities with the highest and lowest commercial tax rankings are shown in Table 9.188% Table 8 below provides the same information for rural municipalities. providing an additional competitive edge.851% Southwest $2. In most cases ETRs rise as property value rises – this is because exemptions are generally fixed at a certain amount and so their effects commonly diminishes as total parcel value increases.000 of real property value with $20.000.700% $20. On average.870% $561. depending on value. and $25 million of real property with $5 million of personal property.419% $427. Pay 2014 $100.351% $16. Locations ranking near the bottom tend to do so because of low property tax rates and/or fractional assessment ratios – for instance in Nevada property is assessed at 35% of value and in Honolulu the tax rate on commercial real property is 12. ETRs rise with property value because of the diminishing effect of property tax exemptions.873% Midwest $3.258 2. Table 7 below provides a snapshot of payable 2014 urban commercial property tax burdens by Census region.745% $528.383 1. Table 32 on page 30 shows the same for the nation’s largest fifty cities and Table 37 on page 39 shows the property taxes for commercial properties in a rural area in each state.000 of personal property. Average $2.847% $22.177 1. these burdens are substantially higher in the Midwest than in any other region. When all assessment limitations are factored in.945 1. Commercial Property Tax Rankings and Burdens – Urban and Rural Cities Table 25 on page 18 shows the payable 2014 property tax for three commercial properties (assumed to be office buildings of selected value) in urban areas consisting of $100.391% $17.000 of personal property.435 1.151 2.380 1.000 $25.162 1.508 2. business personal property is exempt from taxation.

IL $46.347 Sacramento. We use the same set of real value assumptions as for commercial property ($100. VA $1. VA $11. NY $1. and where personal property comprises 60% of the total parcel value. IL $46.760 New York.136 Seattle. WA $11. MI $5.000.851 5 Bridgeport.327 Las Vegas.376 Providence. CA $339.473 Las Vegas. CA $13. PA $1. VA $11.140 Seattle. Table 11 on the next page provides a thumbnail sketch of the two assumptions.000 $1.S.093. VA $1. WA $1.780 Las Vegas.757 Des Moines.401 Minneapolis. HI $272. DE $329. Table 10: Rank (of 50) 1 2 3 4 5 46 47 48 49 50 Highest and Lowest Commercial Property Taxes Among the 50 Largest U.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 Philadelphia’s ranking – which moved out of Top 5 status at all values as a result of changes in the city’s property tax system. Table 9: Urban Cities with Highest and Lowest Commercial Property Taxes. NY $47.760 New York. WA $11.155 Seattle.158. NY $46. State Tax 1 Detroit. The large decline in Philadelphia’s rankings documented in the Urban set of cities can be seen here as well.057 Detroit.726 Virginia Beach.590 Sacramento.574 Detroit. VA $293. WA $1. IN $3. RI $1.000.892 Honolulu.925 Industrial Property Tax Rankings and Burdens – Urban and Rural Cities We consider industrial (manufacturing) property separately from commercial property because they tend to have higher proportions of personal property – an important consideration since states vary significantly in their tax treatment of personal property.000 $25.984 50 Virginia Beach.351 Indianapolis. IL $4.098 Des Moines. MI $50. RI $4. Cities. IL $1.360 New York.931 Chicago.000. MN $41.835 Raleigh. NC $12. 5 .323 Chicago.726 Virginia Beach.931 3 Chicago. State Tax City.735 Minneapolis.071.360 2 New York. NY $4.696 Memphis. Cities rank highly because of high property tax rates and/or relatively high assessment ratios. WY $207. MN $1. IN $37. RI $43. and $25 million). WY $831 Cheyenne. NY $4.087 Indianapolis.189. NV $1.719 Highest and Lowest Commercial Taxes – Largest 50 Cities The locations with the highest and lowest commercial property taxes in the nation’s fifty largest cities are listed below in Table 10. DE $1.000 City. State Tax City.000 Rank (of 53) City. IA $43. CT $4. NV $336. IL $4.321 Raleigh. WA $283. MI $5.089 Honolulu. DE $13.894 New York. cities generally rank near the bottom because of low assessment ratios and/or relatively low property tax rates. MI $50.931 49 Wilmington.000 $25.000.574 Indianapolis. We calculate and rank tax burdens for two different personal property assumptions: where personal property comprises 50% of the total parcel value.057 Detroit. State Tax Detroit. NC $1. WA $284.015 Virginia Beach.632 Chicago.000 $1.320 Wilmington. WY $8. HI $10.264. IN $933. VA $293.087 4 Providence. MI $1.173 Virginia Beach. Payable 2014 $100.947 52 Honolulu.105.232 Raleigh.632 Chicago. HI $1. NV $13.199 Wilmington.173 Virginia Beach.158.574 Detroit.397 Seattle. NY $1.597 New York.189.264.385 Providence. IA $1.304 53 Cheyenne. NC $308. MI $1. IL $1.155 51 Seattle. TN $3. Payable 2014 $100. $1 million. State Tax City. State Tax City.309 Cheyenne.323 Chicago.358 Seattle.750 Philadelphia.000.

000 $400.149 1.000 Amount ETR Amount ETR Amount ETR New England $2.606 1.669 1.070% $22.893 1.545% $772.304 1.000.000 $25.309 1. Table 13 provides the same information for rural municipalities.487% South $3.119% $22.850% West $2.5%-1.000.294% Note: assumes 50% of total parcel value is personal property and 50% is real property.474% West $1.558 1.436 1.663 1.124 1.408 1.481 1. Usually.006% U.000 Inventories $40.000 $25.545% Mid-Atlantic $2. The comments above regarding the relationship between the tax burdens on urban commercial and industrial properties and the increase in effective tax rates as urban values rise also apply here.035 1.303% $28. Without doubt these burdens are highest on average in the Midwest with ETRs of roughly 1.000 $1. these burdens are highest in the South and the Midwest at the $100.492 1.000 $25. Table 12: Urban Industrial Property Taxes by Census Region and Real Property Value.000 $18. ETRs tend to rise as values rise – largely representing the diminishing effect of property tax exemptions as parcel values rise.598 1.244 1.119% South $2.244 1.000 $10.245 1.318 1. On average.583% $796.504 1.237 1.312 1. depending on parcel value.III.474% $31. Pay 2014 $100. & Equip.750.000 Our payable 2014 industrial tax burden findings can be found in the following sections of the report beginning with Table 26 on page 21 for urban cities.000.000 $75.740% $35.000 $250.000.958 1. As is the case with commercial properties. The lowest tax burdens – by far – are found in the West.000 $1.372 1.543 1. Table 12 below provides a snapshot of payable 2014 urban industrial property tax burdens by Census region where 50% of the total parcel value is assumed to be personal property. $50.000.839% Southwest $3.000 $500.597% Note: assumes 50% of total parcel value is personal property and 50% is real property.011 1. the lowest burdens are found in the West where the ETR ranges from 0.122% $22.173 1.252% $28.759% Midwest $3. Average $2.000 $1.536 1.000 $750.98%.218% $25.500.702 1.000 $2.000.000 Total $200.497% $31.000 $62.85% to 0.S.000 $2.757 0. Pay 2014 $100. Table 13: Rural Industrial Property Taxes by Census Region and Real Property Value.334% $27.830% $919.000 Amount ETR Amount ETR Amount ETR New England $3.000 $100.410 1.704% $36.000 $3.029 1.480 1.750. industrial properties generally have higher total taxes but lower effective tax rates.119% $559.S.000.593% Southwest $2.000.000 Mach. Findings Table 11: Industrial Parcel Value Assumptions Pers.622% $35. Property As Share of Total Parcel Value (50% of Total) (60% of Total) Real $100.000 $15.000.545% $30. Compared to commercial properties of equal values.6%.129 0.125% $569.122% $560.139% U.577% $798.000 $60.000 $12.000 $100.993 1.500.000 level and by the Southwest for the two higher valued parcels followed closely by the South and Midwest. this is because industrial properties have more personal property than commercial parcels – which provides a bigger tax base – but a significant portion of that bigger tax base (the personal property) is oftentimes either not taxed or is taxed at lower rates than real property.409% $743.277% $647.000 $2.000 $25.949 1.358% Midwest $2.798% $925.899 1. 6 .000 $150.757% $879.090 1.000.436 1.000 Fixtures $10.000 $600.633 1. beginning with Table 33 on page 32 for the nation’s largest fifty cities and Table 38 on page 41 for rural municipalities.500.139 1.879% $19.000.435% $737.000 $50.00 $15.069 1. Average $2.000.122% Mid-Atlantic $2.356% $679.000 $1.956% $503.500.

973 Columbia.573 Raleigh. Detroit has moved out of the top rank for the $100. HI $11.194 Honolulu.000 Rank (of 50) City. State Tax City.750 4 Houston. NC $406. DC $1.375 Cheyenne. TX $56. VA $256.409.325 49 Cheyenne. For instance. TN $53. an exemption for business property (Fargo.000 5 Indianapolis.374 51 Wilmington. TX $5.246 Virginia Beach. and/or business personal property exemptions.371. WY $1.750 46 Washington.137 49 Philadelphia.000-valued property. TX $1.4% for industrial properties.548 Louisville.859 Dallas. TX $1. Cities. ND $13. VA $10.285.364 Memphis.000 $1. VA $1.486 Fort Worth.368 Fort Worth.572 47 Louisville. Table 15: Highest and Lowest Industrial Property Taxes Among the 50 Largest U.974 Fargo.063 Las Vegas.155 Note: assumes 50% of total parcel value is personal property and 50% is real property.199 Wilmington.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 Highest and Lowest Industrial Taxes – Urban The urban cities with payable 2014 industrial tax rankings in the top or bottom five where personal property comprises 50% of the parcel’s value are shown in Table 14 on the next page. TX $5. VA $256. Highest and Lowest Industrial Taxes – Largest 50 Cities The locations with the highest and lowest industrial property taxes in the nation’s fifty largest cities are listed on the next page in Table 15. State Tax City. PA $1. MI $62.439 Detroit.5% of market value. TN $5. DE $1. TX $54. Wilmington and Honolulu).000. compared to 4% for homesteads and 6% for commercial property.726 El Paso.321 3 Jackson. State Tax City. TX $1.560. MS $1.390 Memphis. Locations ranking near the bottom tend to do so because of low property tax rates.000 Rank (of 53) City.337 Fargo.341.481 Seattle.861 2 Memphis.000.437 53 Virginia Beach.439 El Paso.368. Similar to the urban city results.019 50 Virginia Beach. Payable 2014 $100. TX $5. Cities rank highly because of high property tax rates and/or relatively high assessment ratios.000. WA $15. WA $1. State Tax City. KY $393. TN $54.321 2 Dallas. MS $53.248 Raleigh. TX $51.000 $25.413 Detroit.413 Detroit.155 Note: assumes 50% of total parcel value is personal property and 50% is real property.025 Virginia Beach. TX $54.413 Houston. Locations with high rankings have relatively high tax rates and/or impose the tax on a relatively large amount of the commercial parcel’s market value. Three or four (depending on value) of the five highest ranked locations (and six to seven of the top ten) are located in Texas – reflecting in part Texas’ relatively high reliance on the property tax in its state and local finances and in part its policy of taxing all types of business personal property. NV $18.327 Cheyenne.327 Seattle. cities generally rank near the bottom because of low assessment ratios.359.338 50 Philadelphia. WA $387.000 $1. MI $1.246 Virginia Beach. SC $7. TN $5. NV $451. MI $62.000 $25. SC $79. MI $1. SC $1.984 52 Honolulu.141 5 San Antonio. for example).937 Honolulu. TX $5. TX $5. HI $298.S. assessment at some fraction of market value (Wilmington’s sales ratio is 30.025 Virginia Beach.411 Memphis. TN $1. TN $1.640 Jackson. KY $1. PA $1.195 48 Seattle.320 Wilmington.560. State Tax 1 Fort Worth. or some combination of the three.725 Louisville.434 Columbia.577 Las Vegas. VA $1. Payable 2014 $100.199 3 El Paso.480 4 Memphis. WY $13.000. 7 .637 Detroit. ND $349. relatively low property tax rates.141 Jackson. TX $1.359.473 Dallas. NC $16. MS $5. by law South Carolina assesses industrial land and buildings at 10.985. DE $329. VA $10.814 Houston. KY $15. State Tax 1 Columbia. DE $13. HI $1. WY $334. IN $4.390 Memphis. Table 14: Urban Cities with the Highest and Lowest Industrial Taxes.

MI $31.000 of personal property. IA $26.S.107 2.305 2. substantial exemptions of value.876 $4. assessment ratios at some fraction of market value.377% $13. Highest and Lowest Apartment Taxes – Urban The urban cities with the highest and lowest apartment property taxes were: Table 17: Urban Cities with the Highest and Lowest Apartment Taxes.902 1.254% West $6. CO Cheyenne.094% $6. CT $21.104% South $11. although in rural areas burdens in the South and Southwest are much closer to the low burdens found in the West.547% $7.890 1. DC Denver. As before. the city with the bottom ranking (Colorado Springs) has a burden that is substantially below the next-highest ranked city (Denver). On average.019 0.253 2. Findings Apartment Property Tax Rankings and Burdens – Urban and Rural Cities We calculate property taxes on a $600.051 49 50 51 52 53 Locations with high rankings have relatively high tax rates and/or impose the tax on a relatively large amount of the commercial parcel’s market value. Average $12. Table 16 shows payable 2014 apartment property tax burdens by Census region for both urban and rural cities.568 2.335 1 Detroit. cities rank highly because of high property tax rates and/or relatively high assessment ratios. Complete findings are available for urban properties (Table 28 on page 25).398% $12.436 1.212 1. tax burdens in both urban and rural areas are highest in the Midwest region with New England and the Mid-Atlantic very close behind.471% $13.780% $8.974 2. and rural municipalities (Table 40 on page 45).339% Midwest $15.960% U. Note that the two most highly ranked cities (Detroit and New York City) have apartment property taxes that are significantly higher than the third-ranked city (Memphis). top 50 cities (Table 35 on page 36).481 2 Des Moines.000 unfurnished apartment building with $30.684 2. and lowest by far in the West. Four of the top ten ranked locations (#6 through #9) are in Texas while the two lowest-ranked locations are situated in Colorado. NY $34.028 1. or some combination of the three. HI $5. Payable 2014 $600. IL $23. Payable 2014 Urban Rural Amount ETR Amount ETR New England $15.III.592% Note: assumes $600.000 in personal property. Conversely.938% $10.000-valued property with $30.000 City. Locations ranking near the bottom tend to do so because of low property tax rates. 8 .112% Southwest $9.929 5 Salt Lake City.013% Mid-Atlantic $14. UT Washington. WY Honolulu.967 $2. State Tax Rank (of 53) New York.211 1. Table 16: Urban and Rural Apartment Property Taxes by Census Region. Highest and Lowest Apartment Taxes – Largest 50 Cities The locations with the highest and lowest apartment property taxes in the nation’s fifty largest cities are listed below in Table 18. cities generally rank near the bottom because of low assessment ratios and/or relatively low property tax rates.528 $4.562 3 Aurora.656 $3.584 4 Bridgeport.746 1.

State Rank Tax (of 50) New York. Payable 2014 $600. Cities. WI $18.335 1 Detroit. OH $19.481 2 Memphis.347 3 Cleveland.S. AZ Seattle.656 $3.077 $5.309 9 46 47 48 49 50 . WA Washington. MI $31.919 $4.231 4 Milwaukee.000 City. NY $34.876 $4. CO Colorado Springs. TN $19.427 5 Mesa. DC Denver. CO $6.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 Table 18: Highest and Lowest Apartment Property Taxes Among the 50 Largest U.

III. Findings
Findings – Subsidization of Homeowners and Relationship to Property Tax Growth
Table 19 shows the ratio of the effective tax rate on a $1 million commercial property to the
effective tax rate on a median-value homestead property for each metropolitan area (real property
only). This “classification ratio” provides a summary measure of the degree to which homeowner
property taxes are subsized by commercial property owners.
A ratio of 1.0 indicates that no classification is apparent (at least as it relates to the relationship
between these two property types, which are typically the target of most classification systems).
A ratio greater than 1.0 indicates some degree of classification, broadly defined, with higher
values reflecting a greater degree of classification.5
Table 19: Commercial-Homestead Classification Ratios for Payable 2014, Urban Cities
City
Median Ratio Rank
State
City
Median
Value ($)
Value ($)
New York
New York City 488,100 4.323 1
South Dakota
Sioux Falls
153,300
Massachusetts
Boston
381,700 4.009 2
Texas
Houston
125,700
Hawaii
Honolulu
550,400 3.663 3
Arkansas
Little Rock
159,900
South Carolina
Columbia
163,600 3.661 4
Georgia
Atlanta
200,900
Colorado
Denver
263,900 3.618 5
North Dakota
Fargo
164,200
Indiana
Indianapolis
116,400 3.125 6
New Mexico
Albuquerque
183,400
Illinois
Chicago
211,400 2.696 7
Illinois
Aurora
159,300
Louisiana
New Orleans
183,100 2.382 8
Vermont
Burlington
273,900
Arizona
Phoenix
162,300 2.355 9
Michigan
Detroit
36,800
Alabama
Birmingham
83,800 2.200 10
Alaska
Anchorage
295,500
Kansas
Wichita
115,800 2.173 11
Oklahoma
Oklahoma City 136,900
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia
136,800 2.170 12
Wisconsin
Milwaukee
113,900
Minnesota
Minneapolis
179,900 2.157 13
Maine
Portland
230,000
Idaho
Boise
169,000 2.093 14
Wyoming
Cheyenne
197,800
West Virginia
Charleston
107,000 2.071 15
California
Los Angeles
451,200
District of Columbia
Washington
470,500 2.028 16
Kentucky
Louisville
141,900
Iowa
Des Moines
113,900 1.962 17
Nebraska
Omaha
134,600
Rhode Island
Providence
170,800 1.909 18
New Hampshire Manchester
206,600
Mississippi
Jackson
84,000 1.874 19
New Jersey
Newark
206,200
Missouri
Kansas City
126,900 1.831 20
North Carolina Charlotte
165,900
New York
Buffalo
68,500 1.791 21
Oregon
Portland
291,400
Utah
Salt Lake City 249,600 1.788 22
Washington
Seattle
436,600
U.S. Average
1.710 -Nevada
Las Vegas
162,400
U.S. Average (w/o NYC)
1.659 -Delaware
Wilmington
152,100
Tennessee
Memphis
89,400 1.600 23
Virginia
Virginia Beach 259,200
Montana
Billings
186,600 1.481 24
Connecticut
Bridgeport
163,400
Florida
Jacksonville
129,700 1.452 25
Maryland
Baltimore
150,000
Ohio
Columbus
123,700 1.365 26
State

Ratio Rank
1.341
1.330
1.262
1.256
1.203
1.153
1.123
1.104
1.086
1.079
1.071
1.065
1.045
1.036
1.016
1.014
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.988
0.981
0.953
0.868
0.862

Ratio = $1 million commercial ETR (real property only) divided by median value home ETR.

The ratios were calculated for real property only, after adjusting for differences in assessment
practices. Differences in the quality of assessments among various classes of property can
produce a de facto classification system even in the absence of statutory classification schemes.
5

Five locations have a ratio below 1.0, meaning that their classification systems favor commercial properties over
homesteads. This is simply a function of applying the sales ratio; commercial properties in these locations are
underassessed relative to homestead properties.

10

27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
43
43
43
43
43
49
50
51
52
53

Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014
Locations that rank near the top of this list do so because of extreme differences in classification
ratios between these two types of property. For instance, in New York City, residential property
is assessed at 6% of value while commercial property is assessed at 45% of value. In other cases
differences in tax rates and/or homestead exemptions or credits account for the differences, such
as in Boston; where nearly 37% of the value of the median home is exempt from taxation and the
homestead tax rate is some 40% that of commercial and industrial properties.
On a national basis, tax disparities between commercial and homestead properties fell slightly to
1.710 – meaning that the effective tax rate on $1 million commercial properties nationwide is, on
average, 71.0% higher than the effective tax rate on median-valued homes. As Figure 1 below
indicates, this 1.710 figure represents a fairly average classification ratio since 1998. Tax
disparities for “classified” locations6, where residential and commercial property are treated
differently in statute, also fell, to 1.923 – substantially lower then the 2.045 recorded for payable
2012 and about 2.5% lower than the long-term average of 1.969. The decrease in the
classification ratio – 0.3% for all locations and 1.2% in the subset of “classified” locations,
indicates that states (and where allowed, local governments) are either providing fewer subsidies
to homeowners or that the subsidies they provide are worth less on average than they were in
payable 2013.
Figure 1: Commercial-Homestead Classification Ratio, Urban Cities, 1998 – 2014
2.5

2.075
o
2.0
ti
a
R
e
m
o
/H
l
ia 1.755
c
r
e
m
m
o1.5
C

1.0
1998

1.960

1.944

1.941

1.947

1.714

1.713

1.728

2004

2005

2006

1.991

2.043

1.998

2.045
1.967
1.905

1.882

1.725

2000

1.680

2002

1.766

2007

1.786

2008

1.751

2009

1.947

1.923

1.716

1.710

2013

2014

1.791
1.724

1.707

2010

2011

2012

Payable Year
All Location Average

Unclassified

6

Classified Locations Average

Those locations where the classification ratio is 1.000 when no adjustments are made for the effects of assessment
practices – i.e. when the sales ratio statistic is disregarded. The effect is to create a group of property tax systems
where homestead property tax preferences are specficially written into law.

11

III. Findings
Similar analysis can be performed for other property types. Table 20 shows the classification
ratio for apartments versus homes, which provides another use finding – the degree of subsidy
provided to homeowners at the expense of renters.
Table 20: Ratio of Apartment Effective Tax Rates (ETRs) to Homestead Rates, Urban Cities, Pay 2014
State
City
Median Ratio Rank
State
City
Median Ratio Rank
Value ($)
Value ($)
New York

New York City 488,100 5.197

1

Illinois

Aurora

159,300 1.123

27

South Carolina

Columbia

163,600 3.661

2

Illinois

Chicago

211,400 1.100

28

Alabama

Birmingham

83,800 2.200

3

Alaska

Anchorage

295,500 1.079

29

Indiana

Indianapolis

116,400 2.115

4

Oklahoma

Oklahoma City 136,900 1.071

30

West Virginia

Charleston

107,000 2.107

5

Wisconsin

Milwaukee

113,900 1.063

31

Idaho

Boise

169,000 2.093

6

Vermont

Burlington

273,900 1.060

32

Iowa

Des Moines

113,900 2.002

7

Maine

Portland

230,000 1.045

33

Mississippi

Jackson

84,000 1.874

8

New Mexico

Albuquerque

183,400 1.036

34

New York

Buffalo

68,500 1.791

9

Montana

Billings

186,600 1.028

35

Rhode Island

Providence

170,800 1.657

10

Virginia

Virginia Beach 259,200 1.028

36

Massachusetts

Boston

381,700 1.653

11

Kansas

Wichita

115,800 1.026

37

Louisiana

New Orleans

183,100 1.615

12

California

Los Angeles

451,200 1.016

38

Tennessee

Memphis

89,400 1.600

13

Kentucky

Louisville

141,900 1.014

39

Florida

Jacksonville

129,700 1.452

14

Delaware

Wilmington

152,100 1.000

40

1.385

--

Missouri

Kansas City

126,900 1.000

40

Minnesota

Minneapolis

179,900 1.372

15

Nebraska

Omaha

134,600 1.000

40

Ohio

Columbus

123,700 1.365

16

New Hampshire Manchester

206,600 1.000

40

South Dakota

Sioux Falls

153,300 1.341

17

New Jersey

Newark

206,200 1.000

40

1.312

--

North Carolina

Charlotte

165,900 1.000

40

Texas

Houston

125,700 1.285

18

Oregon

Portland

291,400 1.000

40

Pennsylvania

Philadelphia

136,800 1.281

19

Washington

Seattle

436,600 1.000

40

Michigan

Detroit

36,800 1.266

20

Colorado

Denver

263,900 0.989

48

Arkansas

Little Rock

159,900 1.262

21

Nevada

Las Vegas

162,400 0.988

49

Georgia

Atlanta

200,900 1.256

22

Utah

Salt Lake City

249,600 0.984

50

North Dakota

Fargo

164,200 1.203

23

Wyoming

Cheyenne

197,800 0.937

51

District of Columbia

Washington

470,500 1.153

24

Connecticut

Bridgeport

163,400 0.868

52

Hawaii

Honolulu

550,400 1.150

25

Maryland

Baltimore

150,000 0.862

53

Arizona

Phoenix

162,300 1.128

26

U.S. Average

U.S. Avg (w/o NYC)

Ratio = $600,000 apartment ETR (real property ony) divided by median value home ETR.

Overall, the U.S. average ratio fell 0.1% from the previous year; and by 0.2% if New York City is
excluded, largely a reflection that effective tax rates for the average-valued median home
increased just slightly faster than effective tax rates for apartment properties. This indicates that
homeowners are being offered a lower relative level of subsidy, either because existing
homestead exemptions are becoming less valuable, or because states have enacted policies to
narrow the effective tax rate differential between homesteads and apartment properties. Figure 2
provides information on how this ratio has changed since 1998.

12

NJ.577 1. WA.427 1.634 1. for States With No Homeowner-Specific Assessment Limitations and with Classification Ratios < 1.383 1.701 1. VA.446 2012 Payable Year All Location Average Unclassified Classified Locations Average Note: see page 9 for definition of “classified” locations.396 2005 2006 1. Thirteen of the locations in our Urban set of cities have had classification ratios of no more than 1.420 1.5 2.488 1.000 Per Capita Per Capita of Income of Income FY 1998 $962.364 1.560 1. WI. WY.0 1998 2000 1. FY 1998 and FY 2012. However.676 1. Omaha.0 io t a R e m 1.5 1.440 2007 1.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 Figure 2: Apartment-Homestead Classification Ratio. Nationally.000 per $1. income data from Bureau of Economic Analysis. DE.57 $830.9% 2.05 and Remaining States States with no homeowner-specific assessment limitation provisions and Remaining States (n = 40) Classification Ratio < 1. the eleven remaining locations7 have consistently offered little or no preferential treatment to homeowners.606 1. Newark. Oregon – assessment limitations have been in effect during this period which have offered substantial tax relief to homeowners but which this study did not quantify before payable 2012.5%) 67.593 1.544 1.8% (0.682 1.20 $36.641 1.780 o /H t n e m tr a p A1. on both a per capita and per $1. NH. Louisville.394. Las Vegas. 7 Wilmington.385 2013 2014 1. have been lower in the nine states these locations represent that have offered little or no homeowner subsidy (Table 21).000 of income basis. Seattle.05 in at least 75% (nine of twelve) of the studies we published between payable 1998 and payable 2012.634 1. Manchester.556. Census data indicates that property tax increases between 1998 and 2012.050 (n = 11) Fiscal Year Prop Tax Prop Tax Prop Tax Prop Tax per $1.38 $1. Calculations by MCFE.343 2002 2004 1. Virginia Beach.664 1. Milwaukee.577 1.416 2009 2010 2011 1.49 $36.56 FY 2012 $1. California and Portland.8% Property tax and population data from Department of the Census.46 $32.48 Pct Chg 61. and Cheyenne. Lower classification ratios mean that homeowners pay a larger share of the overall property tax burden.413 1. NV. In two of those locations – Los Angeles. NE. Urban Cities.387 1.463 2008 1. Table 21: Property Tax Collections. 1998 – 2014 2. NC. Charlotte. greater homeowner sensitivity to property tax prices appears to play a role in retarding overall property tax growth.68 $33. KY. 13 .

974% 0.796% 41 42 43 44 45 Utah Idaho Louisiana South Carolina West Virginia Salt Lake City Boise New Orleans Columbia Charleston 1.920% 41 42 43 44 45 Montana Virginia Utah Idaho Louisiana Billings Virginia Beach Salt Lake City Boise New Orleans 1.235 2.809 2.162% 175 0.346% 1.285% 1.872 1.964% 1.043% 11 12 13 14 15 Nebraska New York Tennessee Ohio Texas Omaha Buffalo Memphis Columbus Houston 3.237% 1.285% 21 22 23 24 25 Minnesota South Dakota Delaware New Mexico Kentucky Minneapolis Sioux Falls Wilmington Albuquerque Louisville 2.473% 3 Illinois Aurora 5.018% 1.283 1.872 1.796% 0.438 2.561 2.907 1.403 1.946 2.203 1.696 1.639 1.162% 175 0.527 1.592 1.927 1.707% 1.279 2.000 VALUED PROPERTY Rank State City 1 Connecticut Bridgeport 2 Michigan Detroit 3 Illinois Aurora 4 New Jersey Newark 5 Wisconsin Milwaukee Net Tax 6.397 1.932% 0.943% 1.389 3.120% 2.000 VALUED PROPERTY – WITH ASSESSMENT LIMITS ETR Rank State City Net Tax ETR 4.943% 1.120% 6 7 8 9 10 New Hampshire Vermont Iowa Maryland Oregon Manchester Burlington Des Moines Baltimore Portland 3.342 4.513 3.006% 0.513 3.006% 0.162% 1.660% 46 47 48 49 50 California Wyoming Colorado Alabama New York Los Angeles Cheyenne Denver Birmingham New York City 1.324% 2.894% 4 New Jersey Newark 4.032% 1.210 4.782% 0.131% 1.194 1.011 1.802% 0.932% 0.946 2.075 1.478% 3.237% 1.561 2.487 3.663% 0.635% 1.723% 0.403 1.003 994 990 905 0.770 1.129% 31 32 33 34 35 Oklahoma North Dakota Nevada Arkansas Pennsylvania Oklahoma City Fargo Las Vegas Little Rock Philadelphia 1. Rankings Tables – Urban IV.162% 1.519% 16 17 18 19 20 Maine Rhode Island Illinois Mississippi Missouri AVERAGE Portland Providence Chicago Jackson Kansas City Kansas City 2.174 1.896% 1.625% 1.181 2.131% 1.660% 0.707% 1.194 0.964% 1.203 1.814 1.588% 1.964 5.093% 1.259% 2.663% 0.279 2.218 3.374% 1.061% 36 37 38 39 40 Arizona Pennsylvania New York Indiana Washington Phoenix Philadelphia New York City Indianapolis Seattle 1.162% 1.867% 1.814 1.380 1.193 2.920% 0.795% 6 7 8 9 10 New Hampshire Vermont Oregon Iowa Maryland Manchester Burlington Portland Des Moines Baltimore 3.125 0.873% 11 12 13 14 15 Nebraska New York Tennessee Ohio Texas Omaha Buffalo Memphis Columbus Houston 3.894% 2.907 1.603% 51 DC 52 Hawaii 53 Massachusetts Washington Honolulu Boston 16 17 18 19 650 0.180% 1.357% 1.856% 0.844 2.049 2.040% 3.867% 1.519% 1.743 1.437% 2.271% 26 27 28 29 30 Kentucky Kansas Alaska Georgia North Carolina Louisville Wichita Anchorage Atlanta Charlotte 1.743 1.592 1.064 2.509 1.342% 2.259% 2.668% 0.473% 2.271% 1.795% 5 Wisconsin Milwaukee 4.462 1.936% 36 37 38 39 40 Indiana Arizona Washington Montana Virginia Indianapolis Phoenix Seattle Billings Virginia Beach 1.265% 1.802% 0.914 2.668% 0.060 4.380 1.117% 51 DC 52 Hawaii 53 Massachusetts 14 Washington Honolulu Boston 650 0.084 1.809 2.382 2.750% 0.879 1.855 1.509 1.770 1.696 1.357% 1.193 Payable 2014 $150.855 1.800 2.844 2.019 2.125 1.743 1.248% 1.382 2.210% 26 27 28 29 30 Florida Kansas Alaska Georgia North Carolina Jacksonville Wichita Anchorage Atlanta Charlotte 1.253% 1.897 1.049 2.873% Maine Rhode Island Illinois Mississippi AVERAGE 20 Missouri Portland Providence Chicago Jackson 1.180% 1.389 3.346% 1.856% 0.693 1.976% 2 Michigan Detroit 5.879 1.040% 1 Connecticut Bridgeport 6.181 3.453 2.061 2.434% 242 0.117% .210% 31 32 33 34 35 Oklahoma North Dakota California Nevada Arkansas Oklahoma City Fargo Los Angeles Las Vegas Little Rock 1.800 2.061% 1.003 994 990 0.060 5.248% 1.914 2.716% 0.437% 2.655 3.032% 1.019 1.374% 1.283 1.IV.184 1.342% 2.253% 1.652 1.036 2.655 3.210 3.936% 0.341% 1.036 2.927 1.342 2.434% 242 0.896% 1.750% 46 47 48 49 50 West Virginia South Carolina Wyoming Colorado Alabama Charleston Columbia Cheyenne Denver Birmingham 1.102% 1.588% 1. Rankings Tables – Urban Table 22: Urban Homestead Property Taxes $150.490% 1.061 2.456% 21 22 23 24 25 Minnesota South Dakota Delaware Florida New Mexico Minneapolis Sioux Falls Wilmington Jacksonville Albuquerque 2.397 1.

795 2.668% 0.122 5.073 5.938 3.006% 0.989 1.073 5.357% 1.064 4.393 3.478% 2.512% 1.005 1.032% 2.988 0.582 3.120 11.194% 1.006% 0.860 3.988 0.072 4.582% 765 0.078% 36 37 38 39 40 Nevada Idaho Indiana Arizona Washington Las Vegas Boise Indianapolis Phoenix Seattle 3.677% 0.279 3.346% 26 27 28 29 30 New Mexico Alaska Kentucky Kansas Arkansas Albuquerque Anchorage Louisville Wichita Little Rock 3.190% 1.313% 1.663% 46 47 48 49 50 California Alabama Wyoming New York Colorado Los Angeles Birmingham Cheyenne New York City Denver 2.704 1.936% 41 42 43 44 45 Indiana Washington Montana Virginia Utah Indianapolis Seattle Billings Virginia Beach Salt Lake City 3.663% 51 DC 52 Massachusetts 53 Hawaii Washington Boston Honolulu 1.807 2.519% 1.599 Payable 2014 $300.106 3.489% 1.688% 1.234 2.704 4.006 6.921% 16 17 18 19 20 Ohio Illinois Rhode Island Mississippi Florida Columbus Chicago Providence Jackson Jacksonville 5.653 3.632% 1.761 2.467 4.943% 1.856% 0.131% 1.342% 2.168 2.043% 11 12 13 14 15 Nebraska New York Tennessee Maine Texas Omaha Buffalo Memphis Portland Houston 6.750% 46 47 48 49 50 West Virginia South Carolina Alabama Wyoming Colorado Charleston Columbia Birmingham Cheyenne Denver 2.268% 1.142% 36 37 38 39 40 Louisiana Nevada Idaho Arizona New York New Orleans Las Vegas Boise Phoenix New York City 3.800 5.896% 1.795% 1.271% 1.688% 1.435 3.234 1.218% 1.210% 1.536 4.287% 1.162% 31 32 33 34 35 Oklahoma North Carolina Pennsylvania North Dakota Louisiana Oklahoma City Charlotte Philadelphia Fargo New Orleans 3.097 6.437% 2.683 2.218% 1.582% 765 0.807 1.251 2.702% 3.142% 1.106 8.426 3.347 2.093% 1.120% 6 7 8 9 10 New Hampshire Vermont Iowa Maryland Oregon Manchester Burlington Des Moines Baltimore Portland 7.268% 1.371 3.520% 1.038 1.813 3.426 1.557 4.932% 0.032% 2.894% 4 New Jersey Newark 8.489% 1.655 1.897 0.894% 2.632% 1.018 2.038 1.018 2.313% 1.162% 1.866% 5 Wisconsin Milwaukee 8.973 6.707% 1.921% 11 12 13 14 15 Nebraska New York Tennessee Maine Texas Omaha Buffalo Memphis Portland Houston 6.311 7.629 3.723% 0.677% 0.024% 1.800 5.255% Washington Boston Honolulu 1.668% 0.795 2.124% 1.122 5.896% 1.251 0.026 7.568% 21 Minnesota AVERAGE 22 Missouri 23 Georgia 24 South Dakota 25 Delaware Minneapolis Kansas City Atlanta Sioux Falls Wilmington 4.024% 1.762 2.897 0.361 6.923 2.933% 1.097 6.936% 0.519% 1.072 4.929 11.828 5.782% 0.032 2.311 7.128 2.571 3.933% 1.582 3.764 1.805 3.702% 3 Michigan Detroit 10.856% 41 42 43 44 45 Montana Virginia Utah South Carolina West Virginia Billings Virginia Beach Salt Lake City Columbia Charleston 2.828 5.736 1.324% 2.683 8.974% 0.599 2.557 4.393 3.026 7.560 4.662 4.006 6.000 VALUED PROPERTY Rank State City 1 Connecticut Bridgeport 2 Michigan Detroit 3 Illinois Aurora 4 New Jersey Newark 5 Wisconsin Milwaukee Net Tax 12.568% 1.707% 1.194% 1.746 0.357% 1.920% 0.588% 16 17 18 19 20 Ohio Illinois Rhode Island Mississippi Minnesota Columbus Chicago Providence Jackson Minneapolis 5.485 3.437% 2.653 3.663% 0.335% 2.866% 6 7 8 9 10 New Hampshire Vermont Iowa Oregon Maryland Manchester Burlington Des Moines Portland Baltimore 7.554% 1.938 3.120% 2.): Urban Homestead Property Taxes $300.384 5.860 3.813 3.920% 0.687 5.346% 21 22 23 24 25 AVERAGE Missouri Florida Georgia South Dakota Delaware Kansas City Jacksonville Atlanta Sioux Falls Wilmington 4.943% 1.354 5.064 4.761 2.342% 2.210% 1.120 4.746 0.032 2.762 2.271% 1.687 5.040% 1 Connecticut Bridgeport 12.040% 3.287% 1.124% 1.629 3.131% 1.000 VALUED PROPERTY – WITH ASSESSMENT LIMITS ETR Rank State City Net Tax ETR 4.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 Table 22 (cont’d.335% 2.932% 0.567 2.485 1.976% 2 Illinois Aurora 11.255% 51 DC 52 Massachusetts 53 Hawaii 15 .005 1.567 1.245% 26 27 28 29 30 New Mexico Alaska Kentucky Kansas Arkansas Albuquerque Anchorage Louisville Wichita Little Rock 3.750% 0.218% 31 32 33 34 35 Oklahoma North Carolina Pennsylvania California North Dakota Oklahoma City Charlotte Philadelphia Los Angeles Fargo 3.467 4.371 3.745% 0.805 3.785% 1.361 2.

032% 0.750% 1.663% 0.182 1.707% 1.905 2.704% 2.375 2.896% 1.468% 1.804 1.518 2.120% 2.900 206.007 1. Source: Table B25077.437% 1.000 83.413 5. 2013 America n Community Survey 1-Year Estimates 16 .100 129.500 211.100 165.900 186.342% 2.632 3.900 171. except that values for Chittenden County.040% 2.908 1.093% 0.500 84.143% 1.700 Des Moines Virginia Beach Albuquerque Columbus Houston Salt Lake City Sioux Falls Wilmington Charlotte Kansas City Fargo Las Vegas Little Rock Louisville Phoenix Denver Billings Memphis New Orleans Jacksonville Honolulu Oklahoma City Detroit Wichita Philadelphia Boise Cheyenne Buffalo Jackson Columbia Indianapolis Charleston Birmingham 113.322 1.295% 1.968 5.821% 1.264% 0.600 381. VT were used for Burlington.854% 0.758 2.081 2.385 2.131% 1.000 113.500% 1.171 803 529 2.943% 0.463 1.006% 0.837 1.600 153.400 107.900 126.928 1.708% 8 1 7 4 3 31 36 6 13 40 26 17 49 10 5 18 20 22 11 48 1.774 6.700 249.913% 0.400 183.431% 0.356 1.900 162.576 5.415 5.200 488.200 183.300 451.244% 1.632% 9 43 25 14 15 44 23 24 30 19 33 35 34 27 37 51 41 12 42 28 53 32 2 29 38 45 50 16 21 47 39 46 52 # Information is city specific.800 115.324% 4.IV.285% 1.774 1.100 206.300 152.600 116.400 136.976% 1.400 123.500 150.417 1.894% 3.702 Tax Effective Rate Rank Tax Rate Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2.357% 1.639 1.697 2.519% 1.271% 1.700 125.637 1.101% 2.736 2.000 163.440 1.200 159.800 136.135 2.400 4.346% 1.750% 0.800 197.800 169.331 2.936% 1.300 263.802% 0.527% 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 2.900 36.374 5.373% 2.687 1.297% 1.932% 1.047 2.172% 3.600 89.605 1.749 1.247 1.400 159.668% 1.162% 1.900 164.400 273.200 162. WY were used for Cheyenne because city-specific data was not available.345 2.000 436.798 3.900 141.181 3.036% 0.600 295.738 1. and Laramie County.800 68.133 2.202 1.210% 1.400 163.000 197.900 200.900 134.035 4.900 259.400 470.718% 0.800 AVERAGE Iowa Virginia New Mexico Ohio Texas Utah South Dakota Delaware North Carolina Missouri North Dakota Nevada Arkansas Kentucky Arizona Colorado Montana Tennessee Louisiana Florida Hawaii Oklahoma Michigan Kansas Pennsylvania Idaho Wyoming New York Mississippi South Carolina Indiana West Virginia Alabama Net Tax 6.601 6.856% 1.933 2.921% 1.700 550. Rankings Tables – Urban Table 23: Urban Homestead Property Taxes for a Median-Value Home – Listed by Net Tax Payable 2014 State Oregon Connecticut Vermont New Jersey Illinois California New York New Hampshire Maine Washington Alaska Illinois DC Maryland Wisconsin Rhode Island Minnesota Georgia Nebraska Massachusetts City Median 2013 Home Value# Portland Bridgeport Burlington Newark Aurora Los Angeles New York City Manchester Portland Seattle Anchorage Chicago Washington Baltimore Milwaukee Providence Minneapolis Atlanta Omaha Boston 291.084 3.828 1.315 3.723% 1.211% 0. values for Kanawha County WV were used for Charleston.920% 1.200% 1.600 230.737 1.

440 1.738 1.280 1. values for Kanawha County WV were used for Charleston.750% 1.704% 2.700 249.400 123.952 5.600 295.043% 3. except that values for Chittenden County.928 1.000 116.437% 1.006% 0.500% 2.708% 1 7 4 10 2 6 13 38 26 17 45 49 48 9 5 18 20 22 11 47 1.032% 0.900 164.600 381.172% 0.404 3.943% 0.900 159.736 2.200 291.900 162.162% 1.200 183.035 4.500 211.598 2.187% 1.581 1.637 1.047 2.171 803 529 4.668% 3.821% 1.202 1.837 1.271% 1.100 550.700 125.750% 0.200 488.400 141.000 436.373% 2.687 1.782% 1.116% 0.900 171.686% 0.913% 0.500 150.131% 1.400 159.400 4.800 136.244% 1.400 107.896% 1.357% 1.707% 1.247 1.322 1.856% 1.431% 1.345 2.375 2.400 451.295% 1. 2013 America n Community Survey 1-Year Estimates 17 .974% 1.210% 1.600 230.785 1.500 84.000 113.800 AVERAGE Iowa Virginia New Mexico Ohio Texas Utah South Dakota Delaware North Carolina Missouri North Dakota Nevada Kentucky Arkansas Colorado Montana Tennessee Louisiana Hawaii Oklahoma Arizona Florida Kansas Pennsylvania Idaho Wyoming Michigan South Carolina New York Mississippi Indiana West Virginia Alabama Net Tax 6.300 152.905 2.800 169.749 1.900 263.300 129.400 136.600 89.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 Table 24: Urban Homestead Property Taxes for a Median-Value Home – Listed by Net Tax Payable 2013 – With Assessment Limitations State Connecticut Vermont New Jersey Oregon Illinois New Hampshire Maine Washington Alaska Illinois California New York DC Maryland Wisconsin Rhode Island Minnesota Georgia Nebraska Massachusetts City Median 2013 Home Value# Bridgeport Burlington Newark Portland Aurora Manchester Portland Seattle Anchorage Chicago Los Angeles New York City Washington Baltimore Milwaukee Providence Minneapolis Atlanta Omaha Boston 163.800 197.211% 0.519% 1.908 1.331 2.700 115.758 2.346% 1.702 Tax Effective Rate Rank Tax Rate Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2.477% 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 2.280 1.802% 0.300 206.540 1.601 6.181 3.135 2.632% 8 41 25 14 15 42 23 24 29 19 32 33 27 34 51 39 12 40 53 31 37 30 28 35 43 50 3 44 16 21 36 46 52 # Information is city specific.297% 1.385 2. VT were used for Burlington.932% 1.933 2.800 163.600 68.100 165.754% 0.600 153.900 206.415 5.133 2.036% 0.518 2. and Laramie County.285% 1. Source: Table B25077.000 197.800 36.605 1.854% 0.737 1.900 259.728% 0.400 273.936% 1.663% 0.120% 2.900 126.804 1.700 Des Moines Virginia Beach Albuquerque Columbus Houston Salt Lake City Sioux Falls Wilmington Charlotte Kansas City Fargo Las Vegas Louisville Little Rock Denver Billings Memphis New Orleans Honolulu Oklahoma City Phoenix Jacksonville Wichita Philadelphia Boise Cheyenne Detroit Columbia Buffalo Jackson Indianapolis Charleston Birmingham 113.400 183.894% 2.007 1.900 186.081 2.417 1.342% 2.920% 1.900 200.576 5.900 134.652 3.968 5.478% 0.000 83.921% 0.200 162.100 470.315 3.798 3.356 1.349 3.084 3. WY were used for Cheyenne because city-specific data was not available.040% 2.468% 1.

400% 2.106% 1.701 24.058% 2.979% 2.541% 1.397 1.740% 1.113% 3.808 14.157% 27 28 29 30 Nebraska New Hampshire Maine Georgia Omaha Manchester Portland Atlanta 2.215% 3.261 3.536 26.000% 1.218 2.615% 6 7 8 9 10 Minnesota Connecticut Illinois Indiana South Carolina Minneapolis Bridgeport Aurora Indianapolis Columbia 41.145% AVERAGE 2.542% 1.458 28.412% 16 17 18 19 20 New York Mississippi Texas Maryland New Jersey Buffalo Jackson Houston Baltimore Newark 32.667 1.307% 1.208 18.742 35.517% 1.199 11.977% Seattle Honolulu Cheyenne 1.455% 2.875 18.563% 1.474% 2.370 24.415% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Illinois Indiana South Carolina Tennessee Iowa Aurora Indianapolis Columbia Memphis Des Moines 3.717% 2.908% 0.473 2.222% 46 47 48 49 50 Montana Nevada Pennsylvania Delaware Virginia Billings Las Vegas Philadelphia Wilmington Virginia Beach 1.507% 1.640 2. Rankings Tables – Urban Table 25: Urban Commercial Property Taxes $100.894 2.123% 1.491 1.882 24.215% 3.729% 11 12 13 14 15 Tennessee Wisconsin Massachusetts Missouri Kansas Memphis Milwaukee Boston Kansas City Wichita 35.098 4.099% 25.470 2.969 2.849 1.031% 2.692% 51 Washington 52 Hawaii 53 Wyoming Seattle Honolulu Cheyenne 11.667 1.387 1.473 13.777 2.945 2.760 4.200% 2.390% 1.974 13.275 16 17 18 19 20 New York Mississippi Texas Maryland New Jersey Buffalo Jackson Houston Baltimore Newark 21 22 23 24 25 Colorado Oregon Vermont Louisiana Ohio Denver Portland Burlington New Orleans Columbus 26 Arizona Phoenix AVERAGE Net Tax ETR Michigan New York Illinois Rhode Island Iowa Detroit New York City Chicago Providence Des Moines 50.682% 2.276% 3.860% 3.376 4.673 3.450% 3.767 27.757 43.946% 0.400 2.327 1.610 33.740% 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 West Virginia Utah Florida South Dakota New Mexico Charleston Salt Lake City Jacksonville Sioux Falls Albuquerque 1.541% 36 37 38 39 40 Arkansas Idaho Alabama Kentucky DC Little Rock Boise Birmingham Louisville Washington 1.234% 1.173 1.892 8.100% 0.150% 1.461 3.219% 1.876 1.978 39.136 1.446 3.000 22.123% 1.774 15.467 1.574 47.222% 1.977% 46 47 48 49 50 California North Dakota Nevada Delaware Virginia Los Angeles Fargo Las Vegas Wilmington Virginia Beach 14.665 1.894 27.316 3.156% 41 42 43 44 45 Alaska DC Oklahoma Montana North Carolina Anchorage Washington Oklahoma City Billings Charlotte 16.507% 31 32 33 34 35 Florida Georgia West Virginia Idaho Utah Jacksonville Atlanta Charleston Boise Salt Lake City 21.883 2.231 16.624 13.380% 1.879 2.679 1.IV.723 1.979% 2.163 32.462 1.952% 11 12 13 14 15 Massachusetts Wisconsin Missouri Kansas Minnesota Boston Milwaukee Kansas City Wichita Minneapolis 3.389% 41 42 43 44 45 Oklahoma North Carolina California North Dakota Alaska Oklahoma City Charlotte Los Angeles Fargo Anchorage 1.347 1.931% 2.455% 2.000 Fixtures ETR Rank State City Michigan New York Illinois Rhode Island Connecticut Detroit New York City Chicago Providence Bridgeport 5.726 1.320 1.797% 1.307 37.519 2.086 17.315% 36 37 38 39 40 South Dakota New Mexico Arkansas Alabama Kentucky Sioux Falls Albuquerque Little Rock Birmingham Louisville 18.380 1.164% 1.309 0.561 20.000 VALUED PROPERTY $20.668 1.946% 0.872% 2.323 43.692% 51 Washington 52 Hawaii 53 Wyoming 18 Ohio Nebraska New Hampshire Maine Pennsylvania Columbus Omaha Manchester Portland Philadelphia 25.100% 0.687 14.200% 2.946 2.821 1.157% 21 22 23 24 25 Colorado Oregon Vermont Arizona Louisiana Denver Portland Burlington Phoenix New Orleans 28.315% 1.574 3.058% 2.732 3.577 1.358 10.908% 0.529% 1.031% 2.057 4.089 831 0.061% 2.219% 1.608 32.390% 1.563% 1.682% 2.563 15.164% 1.795 27.789 2.399% 1.517% 1.764% 2.000 Fixtures Rank State City 1 2 3 4 5 Net Tax Payable 2014 $1 MILLION-VALUED PROPERTY $200.873% .437 2.400% 2.436% 1.389% 1.402 2.758 18.543 3.574 2.401 40.412% 2.276% 3.741% 2.632 4.324% 2.474% 2.884% 2.157% 2.884% 2.735 3.741% 3.931 3.436% 1.385 4.170 34.835 1.324% 2.809 1.113% 3.307% 1.680 16.597 46.966% 3.689 29.892 2.588 2.314% 2.000% 1.646% 3.184 29.289 3.314% 2.061% 2.509 18.717% 2.764% 2.860% 3.966% 3.415% 3.646% 3.087 2.295% 2.569 1.351 36.

223 736.289 2.946 1.153 430.347 694.669 933.276% 3.871 697.017 521.215% 3.642% 2.835 329.314% 2.696 1.264.338 336.155 1.931 4.765 421.245 829.447 392.222% 46 47 48 49 50 California North Dakota Nevada Delaware Virginia Los Angeles Fargo Las Vegas Wilmington Virginia Beach 365.304 207.200% 1 2 3 4 5 AVERAGE 656.100% 0.851 1.164% 1.550 881.977% Seattle Honolulu Cheyenne 283.908% 0.390% 1.123% 1.462 982.833% 1.563% 36 37 38 39 40 Utah South Dakota New Mexico Arkansas Alaska Salt Lake City Sioux Falls Albuquerque Little Rock Anchorage 462.412% 2.404% 41 42 43 44 45 Alabama Kentucky Montana Oklahoma North Carolina Birmingham Louisville Billings Oklahoma City Charlotte 417.): Urban Commercial Property Taxes Payable 2014 $25 MILLION-VALUED PROPERTY $5.474% 2.600 792.966% 3.400% 2.680% 1.646% 6 7 8 9 10 Minnesota Connecticut Illinois Indiana South Carolina Minneapolis Bridgeport Aurora Indianapolis Columbia 1.995% 1.780 918.267 455.000 416.979% 2.024.324% 2.305 3.692% 51 Washington 52 Hawaii 53 Wyoming 19 .000 Fixtures Rank State City Net Tax ETR Michigan New York Illinois Iowa Rhode Island Detroit New York City Chicago Des Moines Providence 1.931 1.315% 1.595 349.031% 2.060 617.522 609.455% 21 22 23 24 25 New Jersey Colorado Oregon Vermont Louisiana Newark Denver Portland Burlington New Orleans 723.686% 3.717% 2.113% 3.415% 3.076 822.210 452.071.360 1.499 2.740% 1.345 609.093.179 366.618 719.946% 0.087 1.105.157% 2.875 503.604 742.219% 1.453 2.947 272.500 550.682% 2.238 600.572% 3.000.307% 1.687 394.632 1.507% 1.043 2.741% 16 17 18 19 20 New York Mississippi Arizona Texas Maryland Buffalo Jackson Phoenix Houston Baltimore 815.058% 2.275 1.031% 2.517% 1.158.541% 1.860% 3.764% 2.937% 2.389% 1.175 660.061% 11 12 13 14 15 Tennessee Wisconsin Massachusetts Missouri Kansas Memphis Milwaukee Boston Kansas City Wichita 893.150 865.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 Table 25 (cont’d.189.436% 1.961 468.000 2.000% 31 32 33 34 35 DC Florida Georgia Idaho West Virginia Washington Jacksonville Atlanta Boise Charleston 598.188% 26 27 28 29 30 Ohio Nebraska Pennsylvania New Hampshire Maine Columbus Omaha Philadelphia Manchester Portland 647.984 293.189 804.884% 2.719 0.

620 1.435 28.597% 0.774% 0.246 0.993 1.422% 1.254 43.364 5.699% 0.100% 0.558 39.903% 46 47 48 49 50 Washington North Dakota Montana Wyoming Pennsylvania Seattle Fargo Billings Cheyenne Philadelphia 1.498 18.922% 16 17 18 19 20 Iowa Nebraska Georgia Minnesota New York Des Moines Omaha Atlanta Minneapolis Buffalo 3.102 1.581% 31.991% 1.910% 0.903% 0.407% 5 Texas Houston Net Tax 79.447% 1.597 44.512% 51 Delaware 52 Hawaii 53 Virginia Wilmington Honolulu Virginia Beach 13.213% 2.427% 1.387 2.818 3.445% 1.720% 2 Michigan Detroit 2.112% 1.909% 1.000 VALUED PROPERTY $50.719 1.309 3.498% 1.663% 46 47 48 49 50 Kentucky Washington Montana North Dakota Wyoming Louisville Seattle Billings Fargo Cheyenne 15.137 47.269% 1.660% 0.990% 0.025 0.244% 36 37 38 39 40 Maryland Alabama Maine North Carolina California Baltimore Birmingham Portland Charlotte Los Angeles 2.654% 1.192% 11 12 13 14 15 Illinois Colorado Rhode Island Connecticut Oregon Aurora Denver Providence Bridgeport Portland 3.974 13.894 2.481 14.381 24.585 1.370 23.152 1.410% 1.950 1.199 11.124% 1.413 ETR 3.000 Inventories $10.437 1.843 3.000 Inventories $100.447% 1.548 1.975% 0.660% 0.965% 1.943 5.218% 1.000 Fixtures ETR Rank State 3.789% 0.571% 6 7 8 9 10 New York Michigan Louisiana Missouri Illinois New York City Detroit New Orleans Kansas City Chicago 4.551% 26 27 28 29 30 New Jersey Arkansas Ohio Oklahoma Alaska Newark Little Rock Columbus Oklahoma City Anchorage 2.162 1.536 1.794% 1.574 2.637% 1.588 3.524 1.840% 0.937 10.990% 0.551% 2.100% 0.192 33.577 1.380% 2.244% 1.401 40.141 4.090 1.433 2.725 15.573 0.512% 51 Delaware 52 Hawaii 53 Virginia 20 .673% 1.690% 0.193% 1.872 1.293% 26 27 28 29 30 Kansas New Jersey Florida Alaska DC Wichita Newark Jacksonville Anchorage Washington 29.630% 32.922% 1.581% 3.814 Payable 2014 $1 MILLION-VALUED PROPERTY $500.806 1.422% 1.980 1.608 1.804 1.208 18.327 0.760 4.487 2.200 1.025 37.000 Fixtures Rank State City 1 South Carolina Columbia 2 Tennessee Memphis 3 Mississippi Jackson 4 Texas Houston 5 Indiana Indianapolis Net Tax 7.220% 1.945 28.972% 1 South Carolina Columbia 2.180 1.021 1.233 1.287% 1.473 22.000 19.820 39.669% Wilmington Honolulu Virginia Beach 1.901% 1.597% 0.786% 41 42 43 44 45 Maine North Carolina California South Dakota Nevada Portland Charlotte Los Angeles Sioux Falls Las Vegas 22.640 51.426% 31 32 33 34 35 Arizona Utah Florida New Mexico New Hampshire Phoenix Salt Lake City Jacksonville Albuquerque Manchester 2.413 54.731% 0.193% 1.391 24.193% 2.407% 2.802 3.112% 41 42 43 44 45 South Dakota Nevada Idaho DC Kentucky Sioux Falls Las Vegas Boise Washington Louisville 1.455 33.894 28.860% 1.821 2.275 3.397 1.240 1.213% 2.720% 2.774% 0.972% 3.833 2.571% 4 Mississippi Jackson 2.447 28.477 2.346 3.070% 2.910% 0.860% 11 12 13 14 15 Minnesota Illinois Arizona Illinois Colorado Minneapolis Chicago Phoenix Aurora Denver 41.682% 3 Tennessee Memphis 2.547 28.498% 2.063 1.497% 21 22 23 24 New York Wisconsin Massachusetts West Virginia AVERAGE 25 Vermont Buffalo Milwaukee Boston Charleston Burlington 32.320 1.868 43.307 38.337 1.410% 1.845 2.669% 0.IV.121% 2.673% 1.996 1.630% 16 17 18 19 20 Rhode Island Connecticut Oregon Nebraska Georgia Providence Bridgeport Portland Omaha Atlanta 38.786% 0.177 38.965% 1.931 3.380% 2.349% 2.901% 1.380 1.577% 31.590% 31.844 2.218% 31 32 33 34 35 Arkansas Ohio Oklahoma Idaho Utah Little Rock Columbus Oklahoma City Boise Salt Lake City 28.590% 3.699% 0.220% 1.422% 1.375 0.210 25.000 Machinery and Equipment $400.434 62.612% 31.422% 1.654% 21 22 23 24 25 Massachusetts West Virginia Wisconsin Vermont Kansas AVERAGE Boston Charleston Milwaukee Burlington Wichita 3.261 1.803 19.866 22.682% 2.194 1.000 Machinery and Equipment $40.425 4.224 2.629 13.028% 6 7 8 9 10 Indiana New York Louisiana Missouri Iowa Indianapolis New York City New Orleans Kansas City Des Moines 48.821 1.975% 36 37 38 39 40 New Mexico New Hampshire Maryland Pennsylvania Alabama Albuquerque Manchester Baltimore Philadelphia Birmingham 24.576% 3.056 2.679 1.238% 1.957 28.697 4.193% 2.439 5. Rankings Tables – Urban Table 26: Urban Industrial Property Taxes (50% Personal Property) $100.387 4.390 53.028% 1.909% 1.439 2.

019 349.861 1.000 Machinery and Equipment $10.713 2.615% 798.789% 0.199% 11 12 13 14 15 Missouri Minnesota Illinois Illinois Colorado Kansas City Minneapolis Chicago Aurora Denver 1.220% 1.000.351% 1.244% 36 37 38 39 40 New Mexico Pennsylvania New Hampshire Maryland Alabama Albuquerque Philadelphia Manchester Baltimore Birmingham 609.581% 26 27 28 29 30 Vermont Kansas Florida New Jersey Alaska Burlington Wichita Jacksonville Newark Anchorage 775.121% 2.407% 2.742 621.590% 790.000 495.117.656 556.341.189 1.975% 0.514 748.218% 1.750 1.234% 2.309 1.090 1.597% 0.500 929.325 ETR 3.072 487.877% 1.238 596.239 1.714 1.422% 1.239 675.935 733.774% 0.137 387.875 1.985.203.551% 1.321 1.910% 0.720% 2.165 710.972% 3.572 1.210 451.795 836.922% 16 17 18 19 20 Rhode Island Connecticut DC Oregon Nebraska Providence Bridgeport Washington Portland Omaha 954.285.374 0.560.467% 1.618 720.903% 46 47 48 49 50 Montana Kentucky Washington North Dakota Wyoming Billings Louisville Seattle Fargo Cheyenne 394.767 609.155 0.219% 1.699% 0.000 1.509 1.909% 1.359.654% 815.013.030 1.460 455.000 Fixtures Rank State City 1 South Carolina Columbia 2 Michigan Detroit 3 Tennessee Memphis 4 Mississippi Jackson 5 Texas Houston Net Tax 1.213% 2.100% 0.345 609.965% 1.696 1.381 1.832 2.807 1.682% 2.000 Inventories $2.424 1.498% 1.028% 1.338 334.353 1.990% 0.571% 6 7 8 9 10 Indiana New York Iowa Louisiana Arizona Indianapolis New York City Des Moines New Orleans Phoenix 1.442% 31 32 33 34 35 Arkansas Ohio Oklahoma Idaho Utah Little Rock Columbus Oklahoma City Boise Salt Lake City 711.): Urban Industrial Property Taxes (50% Personal Property) Payable 2014 $25 MILLION-VALUED PROPERTY $12.096.356 723.447% 1.112% 41 42 43 44 45 Maine North Carolina California South Dakota Nevada Portland Charlotte Los Angeles Sioux Falls Las Vegas 550.189.432 393.931 1.500.106.630% 807.951 982.597% 795.193% 1.437 256.000 1.380% 2.143% 2.512% 51 Delaware 52 Hawaii 53 Virginia 21 .193% 2.703 1.071.431 950.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 Table 26 (cont’d.669 960.500.422% 1.860% 1.673% 21 Georgia 22 New York 23 Wisconsin AVERAGE 24 Massachusetts 25 West Virginia Atlanta Buffalo Milwaukee Boston Charleston 827.410% 1.886 705.669% Wilmington Honolulu Virginia Beach 329.615 938.660% 0.901% 1.984 298.099.786% 0.

056% 0.608 1.334 1.931 3.885 33.221% 1.441% 35.199 11.705 6.099 0.904% 11 12 13 14 15 Oregon Georgia Rhode Island Illinois Nebraska Portland Atlanta Providence Chicago Omaha 4.544 0.844 71.728% 0.605 6.137% 1.348% 1.310% 1.211% 1.097 4.794% 1 South Carolina Columbia 2.559% 0.531% 46 47 48 49 50 South Dakota Kentucky Wyoming Montana North Dakota Sioux Falls Louisville Cheyenne Billings Fargo 18.682% 2 Michigan Detroit 2.975% 0.477% 0.439% 51 Delaware 52 Hawaii 53 Virginia Wilmington Honolulu Virginia Beach 13.363 32.334% 3.362 1.002 1.441% 1.336 1.216% 2.767% 1.002 55.401 41.580% 1.586% 1.307 1.000 Fixtures Rank State City 1 South Carolina Columbia 2 Mississippi Jackson 3 Tennessee Memphis 4 Texas Houston 5 Indiana Indianapolis Net Tax 9.010 1.027 2.883 15.967 40.974 0.127 13.642% 3 Mississippi Jackson 2.597 2.639% 1.920% 36 37 38 39 40 Ohio Maryland Alabama New Hampshire North Carolina Columbus Baltimore Birmingham Manchester Charlotte 28.477% 0.839 1.355% 1.076% 1.899% 0.753% 1.261 3.640% 1.656% 1.975% 0.605% 0.320 1.574 2.186% 26 27 28 29 30 Florida Vermont Wisconsin Massachusetts New York Jacksonville Burlington Milwaukee Boston Buffalo 34.304% 31 32 33 34 35 New Mexico New Jersey Ohio Maryland Alabama Albuquerque Newark Columbus Baltimore Birmingham 2.528% 0.355% 3.894 2.728% 0.926% 0.833 41.146 15.566 2.642% 2.937 10.601% 11 12 13 14 15 Colorado Oregon Iowa Minnesota Georgia Denver Portland Des Moines Minneapolis Atlanta 45.216% 2.588 1.546 1.327 0.844 2.435% 16 17 18 19 20 Rhode Island Illinois Nebraska West Virginia Connecticut Providence Chicago Omaha Charleston Bridgeport 40.528% 0.424 30.541 5.826% 6 7 8 9 10 Indiana Louisiana Missouri Arizona New York Indianapolis New Orleans Kansas City Phoenix New York City 57.742% 0.000 Machinery and Equipment $60.165% 1.502 1.794% 2.304% 1.867% 2.050 66.622% 1.165 43.066% 1.631% 0.142 3.158% 36 37 38 39 40 Arizona New Hampshire North Carolina California Maine Phoenix Manchester Charlotte Los Angeles Portland 2.679 0.150 1.280% 5 Texas Houston Net Tax 94.700 Payable 2014 $1 MILLION-VALUED PROPERTY $750.559% Wilmington Honolulu Virginia Beach 1.860% 0.658 29.966 1.604 3.000 22.640% 16 17 18 19 20 West Virginia Connecticut Illinois Oklahoma Iowa Charleston Bridgeport Aurora Oklahoma City Des Moines 3.418% 3.702 33. Rankings Tables – Urban Table 27: Urban Industrial Property Taxes (60% Personal Property) $100.029% 0.897 49.682% 2.397 1.000 Fixtures ETR Rank State 3.257% 1.000 Machinery and Equipment $600.946% 0.662 26.000 VALUED PROPERTY $75.926% 0.435 26.418% 26 27 28 29 30 Minnesota New York Kansas Florida Utah Minneapolis Buffalo Wichita Jacksonville Salt Lake City 3.366 2.534 29.826% 1.715 1.119 28.966 3.033 47.912 2.580% 21 Arkansas 22 Vermont AVERAGE 23 Massachusetts 24 Alaska 25 Wisconsin Little Rock Burlington Boston Anchorage Milwaukee 3.154 23.941% 1.635% 0.860% 0.257% 1.656 1.037 1.194 1.641 1.000 Inventories $150.427 5.666 2.635% 0.158% 1.021 39.760 4.821 1.335% 3.767% 1.266 ETR 3.558 40.IV.672% 41 42 43 44 45 California Maine Pennsylvania Nevada Washington Los Angeles Portland Philadelphia Las Vegas Seattle 23.659 39.588 1.036 1.572% 38.686% 0.852 4.639% 1.572% 1.299 1.945 1.986 0.622% 1.370 23.280% 2.724 1.904% 1.208 17.045 64.950 3.677 67.961% 1.601% 1.056% 31 32 33 34 35 Kansas Idaho Utah New Mexico New Jersey Wichita Boise Salt Lake City Albuquerque Newark 31.552% 0.571% 4 Tennessee Memphis 2.165% 1.412 51.742% 46 47 48 49 50 Wyoming DC North Dakota Montana Pennsylvania Cheyenne Washington Fargo Billings Philadelphia 1.190 4.137% 1.345% 3.417 4.549% 36.101 4.389 1.380 1.484 6.434% 35.854 1.457 1.376% 1.335% 1.056 4.066% 1.410 24.437 2.662 44.505 18.920% 0.320% 21 22 23 24 Illinois DC Alaska Oklahoma AVERAGE 25 Arkansas Aurora Washington Anchorage Oklahoma City Little Rock 39.946% 41 42 43 44 45 Nevada Washington South Dakota Kentucky Idaho Las Vegas Seattle Sioux Falls Louisville Boise 2.577 1.275 3.000 Inventories $15.473 21.439% 51 Delaware 52 Hawaii 53 Virginia 22 .186% 1.571% 6 7 8 9 10 Louisiana Missouri Michigan New York Colorado New Orleans Kansas City Detroit New York City Denver 5.394 33.315 2.441% 36.076% 1.586% 1.686% 0.300 1.

013.656 ETR 3.355% 1.553 1.338 0.189.030 1.250 609.886 666.432 834.559% Wilmington Honolulu Virginia Beach 329.618 1.186% 1.715% 16 17 18 19 20 Georgia Rhode Island Illinois Nebraska West Virginia Atlanta Providence Chicago Omaha Charleston 1.750.385.860% 0.069 349.682% 2.257% 1.104.423 1.115 1.333 397.635% 0.071.975% 0.662 419.439% 51 Delaware 52 Hawaii 53 Virginia 23 .132 1.287% 1.000 Inventories $3.676.926% 0.946% 0.000 Fixtures Rank State City 1 South Carolina Columbia 2 Michigan Detroit 3 Mississippi Jackson 4 Tennessee Memphis 5 Texas Houston Net Tax 2.250 1.642% 2.415 1.066% 1.125 1.371.335% 1.280% 2.791.742% 46 47 48 49 50 South Dakota Kentucky Montana Wyoming North Dakota Sioux Falls Louisville Billings Cheyenne Fargo 455.128% 2.606.640% 1.049 1.794% 2.859 575.137% 1.528% 0.000 537.586% 21 Connecticut 22 Illinois 23 Alaska AVERAGE 24 Oklahoma 25 Arkansas Bridgeport Aurora Anchorage Oklahoma City Little Rock 987.297.867% 2.437 274.450% 900.655 0.158% 36 37 38 39 40 Ohio Maryland Alabama Pennsylvania New Hampshire Columbus Baltimore Birmingham Philadelphia Manchester 710.000.304% 31 32 33 34 35 Idaho Kansas Utah New Mexico New Jersey Boise Wichita Salt Lake City Albuquerque Newark 804.904% 1.625 463.425.826% 1.): Urban Industrial Property Taxes (60% Personal Property) Payable 2014 $25 MILLION-VALUED PROPERTY $18.477% 0.189 1.860 847.125 1.601% 1.920% 0.928 1.951 1.193.750.580% 982.571% 6 7 8 9 10 Indiana Louisiana Arizona Missouri DC Indianapolis New Orleans Phoenix Kansas City Washington 1.671% 0.345 609.577 785.500 2.238 1.025.525 991.418% 26 27 28 29 30 Florida Vermont Wisconsin Massachusetts New York Jacksonville Burlington Milwaukee Boston Buffalo 870.091 1.728% 0.589 0.330.931 1.393% 1.181 1.554 660.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 Table 27 (cont’d.669 1.651.622% 1.000 Machinery and Equipment $15.453% 906.696 1.639% 1.901 1.136 844.485 1.117.977 723.910% 11 12 13 14 15 New York Colorado Iowa Oregon Minnesota New York City Denver Des Moines Portland Minneapolis 1.024.975% 41 42 43 44 45 North Carolina California Maine Nevada Washington Charlotte Los Angeles Portland Las Vegas Seattle 591.572% 908.000.076% 1.539 1.056% 0.787% 1.351% 1.612 741.262 1.402 578.210 428.044 1.984 298.462 727.441% 886.216% 2.686% 0.767% 1.141.065 815.165% 1.297 1.

364% 16 17 18 19 20 Oregon New Hampshire Nebraska Indiana Maryland Portland Manchester Omaha Indianapolis Baltimore 14.938% 12.347 18.270% 1.227% 1.644 14.335 31.600 2.918% 11.646 18.103 1.529 15.417 3.051 1.876 0.384 8.757 8.528 4.282% 1.061 14.768 12.765% 11 12 13 14 15 New Jersey Mississippi Ohio Texas Vermont Newark Jackson Columbus Houston Burlington 17.919 5.877% 0.400 7.263% 1.520 8.596 1.893 10.040% 2.774% Denver Cheyenne Honolulu 4.739% 0.584 21.071% 2.642 2.000VALUED PROPERTY $30.077 8.390% 1.391% 2.IV.940% 0.925 1.582% 1.075 9.536 8.324% 2.523% 31 32 33 34 35 Arkansas Alabama Kansas New Mexico Alaska Little Rock Birmingham Wichita Albuquerque Anchorage 9.562 23.599% 1.175% 1.967 2.682% 2.730 7.997% 4.004 7.027% 2.352% 1.122 5.219% 1.912% 0.000% 12.331% 1.960% 2.748 5.263% 41 42 43 44 45 Kentucky California North Carolina Arizona Nevada Louisville Los Angeles Charlotte Phoenix Las Vegas 7.000 Fixtures Rank State City 1 New York New York City 2 Michigan Detroit 3 Iowa Des Moines 4 Illinois Aurora 5 Connecticut Bridgeport Net Tax 34.344% 36 37 38 39 40 North Dakota Delaware Oklahoma Pennsylvania Massachusetts Fargo Wilmington Oklahoma City Philadelphia Boston 8.972% 0.119% 46 47 48 49 50 Virginia Washington Montana Utah DC Virginia Beach Seattle Billings Salt Lake City Washington 6.729% 1.470 1.925% 2.565 19.656 3.007% 21 Maine AVERAGE 22 Minnesota 23 Illinois 24 Florida 25 South Dakota Portland Minneapolis Chicago Jacksonville Sioux Falls 12.076 8.968 9.851 12.481 26.622 12.211 1.213% 1.338 1.891 2.574% 1.630% 0.105% 3.757% 2.744% 3.441% 1.800% 11.929 ETR 5.481% 6 7 8 9 10 New York Tennessee Rhode Island Wisconsin South Carolina Buffalo Memphis Providence Milwaukee Columbia 19.762% 10.465% 2.643 7.216% 3.051 0.955 1.085 1.960 7.897 15.326% 51 Colorado 52 Wyoming 53 Hawaii 24 .355% 1.367 16.450% 4.917 9. Rankings Tables – Urban Table 28: Urban Apartment Property Taxes Payable 2014 $600.734% 26 27 28 29 30 Georgia Idaho West Virginia Missouri Louisiana Atlanta Boise Charleston Kansas City New Orleans 10.427 17.678 7.321% 2.

056 2.462 1.242 1.105% 1.519% 16 Illinois 17 Missouri 2.120% 6 7 8 9 10 Texas Texas Texas Maryland Texas Fort Worth Arlington Dallas Baltimore Austin 3.527 1.173% 1.770 1.495% AVERAGE 18 Florida 19 Oklahoma 20 Minnesota AVERAGE Miami Tulsa Minneapolis 2.936% 0.253% 1.162% 1.696 1.285% 1.554 1.180% 1.061 1.795% 2.645% 2.809 2.063% 1.032% 1.848 1.273% 2.603% 0.000 VALUED PROPERTY Rank State City Net Tax Payable 2014 $150.210% 26 27 28 29 30 Georgia North Carolina Oklahoma Nevada Tennessee Atlanta Charlotte Oklahoma City Las Vegas Nashville 1.403 1.743 1.964 4.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 V.920% 0.554 1.434% 0.729% 0.064 3.271% 1.844 2.380 0.625% 1.065 2.968 3.943% 1.635% 1.157 1.257% 1.465% 2.477% 0.000 VALUED PROPERTY – WITH ASSESSMENT LIMITS ETR Rank State City Net Tax ETR 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Wisconsin Ohio Texas Texas Detroit Milwaukee Cleveland San Antonio El Paso 5.127 2.324% 2.979% 36 37 38 39 40 California California Arizona California California San Diego San Francisco Phoenix Long Beach Sacramento 1.469 1.694 1.855 1.974% 0.434% 0.885 1.265% 1.487 3.873% 11 12 13 14 15 Oregon Nebraska Tennessee Ohio Texas Portland Omaha Memphis Columbus Houston 3.896% 1.237% 1.232% 1.914 2.478% 2.885 1.968 3.834% 0.477% 0.626 1.770 1.251 1.771% 0.809 2.920% 41 42 43 44 45 California Arizona California California California Sacramento Mesa Long Beach Los Angeles San Francisco 1.153 3.519% 16 Illinois 17 Missouri Chicago Kansas City 2.S.927 1.716% 0.907 1.061 1.124% 1.043% 2.619 1.091 2.253% 26 27 28 29 30 Arizona Kansas Georgia California North Carolina Tucson Wichita Atlanta San Jose Charlotte 1.279 1.018% 0.663% 0.409 3.658 1.920% 41 42 43 44 45 North Carolina Indiana New York Washington Virginia Raleigh Indianapolis New York City Seattle Virginia Beach 1.403 1.011 1.696 1.334 3.032% 1.465% 2.341% 1.844 2.069 0.713% 46 47 48 49 50 Arizona Colorado Colorado DC Massachusetts Mesa Denver Colorado Springs Washington Boston 1.049 2.298 994 716 650 175 0.085% 11 12 13 14 15 Texas Nebraska Tennessee Ohio Texas Austin Omaha Memphis Columbus Houston 3.572% 6 7 8 9 10 Texas Oregon Texas Texas Maryland Fort Worth Portland Arlington Dallas Baltimore 3.193 3. Cities Table 29: Top 50 Homestead Property Taxes $150.409 3.698 3.873% Chicago Kansas City 2.993 3.119% 1.453 2.879 1.544 1.120% 2.257% 1.760 1.371% 1.663% 0.334 3.374% 18 Oklahoma 19 Minnesota 20 Pennsylvania Tulsa Minneapolis Philadelphia 2.036% 1.897 1.411% .273% 2.131% 1.117% 46 47 48 49 50 Colorado New York Colorado DC Massachusetts Denver New York City Colorado Springs Washington Boston 994 905 716 650 175 0.129% 31 32 33 34 35 Oklahoma California California Nevada Tennessee Oklahoma City Fresno Los Angeles Las Vegas Nashville 1.865% 0.914 2.943% 1.990 1.210% 1.639 1.686 1.237% 1.394% 1.131% 1.049 2.679 1.544 1.595 1.065 2.974% 0.279 1.859 3. Rankings Tables – Largest 50 U.907 1.896% 1.029% 1.377% 1.084% 1.814 1.327% 21 22 23 24 25 California Florida Pennsylvania New Mexico Kentucky Oakland Jacksonville Philadelphia Albuquerque Louisville 2.859 3.976% 2.094 1.374% 1.093% 1.694 1.223% 2.927 1.662% 2.327% 1.814 1.993 3.438 2.223% 2.193 3.129% 31 32 33 34 35 Florida California North Carolina Indiana California Miami Oakland Raleigh Indianapolis Fresno 1.218 4.116 1.795% 2.645% 2.075 1.102% 2.180% 1.377% 1.380 1.855 1.029% 0.990 1.036% 1.271% 21 22 23 24 25 New Mexico Kentucky Florida Arizona Kansas Albuquerque Louisville Jacksonville Tucson Wichita 1.572% 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Wisconsin Ohio Texas Texas Detroit Milwaukee Cleveland San Antonio El Paso 5.285% 1.380 1.698 3.117% 25 2.662% 2.181 3.461 1.936% 0.080% 36 37 38 39 40 Arizona California Washington Virginia California Phoenix San Jose Seattle Virginia Beach San Diego 1.879 1.181 2.

989 1.921% 1.745% 0.079 4.202% 1.988 1.787 3.268% 1.588% 1.807 2.008% 36 37 38 39 40 Nevada Tennessee California California Arizona Las Vegas Nashville Long Beach Sacramento Phoenix 3.221 0.361 2.271% 1.785% 1.519% 1.120% 11 12 13 14 15 Maryland Nebraska Tennessee Texas Ohio Baltimore Omaha Memphis Houston Columbus 6.764 4.020 6.): Top 50 Homestead Property Taxes $300.828 5.020 6.960 3.761 1.279 1.467 1.599 8.771 3.489% AVERAGE 4.268% 1.128 6.866% 2.663% 0.568% 16 17 18 19 20 Illinois Minnesota Missouri Florida Georgia Chicago Minneapolis Kansas City Jacksonville Atlanta 5.920% 41 42 43 44 45 California Arizona California California California Sacramento Mesa Long Beach Los Angeles San Francisco 2.210% 1.653 1.327% 1.145 7.478% 2.550% AVERAGE 4.662% 2.029% 1.097% 1.340% 2.280% 2.387 3.715% 2.921% 1.234 2.421% 1.595 1.594 7.512% 1.536 4.262% 1.257% 1.097 5.663% 0.097 5.087 3.557 4.762 5.421% 1.147% 31 32 33 34 35 Tennessee California North Carolina Indiana California Nashville Oakland Raleigh Indianapolis Fresno 3.841 6.271% 26 27 28 29 30 Kentucky Kansas California Arizona Oklahoma Louisville Wichita San Jose Tucson Oklahoma City 3.531% 2.948% 0.715% 2.398 1.580 2.263 4.653 3.663% 0.324% 2.843 2.746 1.477% 46 47 48 49 50 New York Colorado DC Massachusetts Colorado New York City Denver Washington Boston Colorado Springs 1.571 3.267 2.032% 1.467 4.746 1.280% 2.442 6.387 3.313% 1.257% 1.263 4.234 3.771% 0.004% 0.807 2.432 0.494 2.943% 1.519% 21 22 23 24 25 Georgia Oklahoma California Pennsylvania New Mexico Atlanta Tulsa Oakland Philadelphia Albuquerque 4.531% 2.190% 1.466% 20 Missouri Kansas City 4.740% 46 47 48 49 50 Arizona Colorado DC Massachusetts Colorado Mesa Denver Washington Boston Colorado Springs 2.000 VALUED PROPERTY Rank State City 1 2 3 4 5 Net Tax Payable 2014 $300.632% 0.432 0.756% 0.441 1.650 1.813 3.761 1.897 1.291 3.131% 31 32 33 34 35 North Carolina California California California California Charlotte Fresno Los Angeles San Diego San Francisco 3.000 VALUED PROPERTY – WITH ASSESSMENT LIMITS ETR Rank State City Net Tax ETR Michigan Wisconsin Texas Ohio Texas Detroit Milwaukee San Antonio Cleveland El Paso 11.936% 0.687 2.218% 26 27 28 29 30 Kansas Arizona Oklahoma North Carolina Nevada Wichita Tucson Oklahoma City Charlotte Las Vegas 3.960 3.936% 0.111% 1.025 1.340% 2.980 3.361 6.165% 6 7 8 9 10 Texas Texas Texas Texas Maryland Fort Worth Arlington Dallas Austin Baltimore 7.828 5.980 3.594 7.976% 2.693% 1.032% 1.106% 1.147% 2.629 3.771 3.865% 0.029% 0.599 8.012 2.920% 41 42 43 44 45 New York North Carolina Indiana Washington Virginia New York City Raleigh Indianapolis Seattle Virginia Beach 3.805 3.131% 1.805 3.107 3.841 6.404% 1.213 3.036% 1.704 4.129% 1.393 1.313% 21 22 23 24 25 Oklahoma Florida Pennsylvania New Mexico Kentucky Tulsa Miami Philadelphia Albuquerque Louisville 4.107 3.318 3.987 7.973 6.557 1.384 4.653% 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Wisconsin Texas Ohio Texas Detroit Milwaukee San Antonio Cleveland El Paso 10.987 7.923 2.896% 11 12 13 14 15 Oregon Nebraska Tennessee Texas Ohio Portland Omaha Memphis Houston Columbus 6.896% 16 17 18 19 Illinois Florida Florida Minnesota Chicago Miami Jacksonville Minneapolis 5.866% 2.V.036% 1.404% 1.354 5. Rankings Tables – Largest 50 Cities Table 29 (cont’d.087 2.704 1.129% 1.606 3.974% 0.314 2.120% 2.210% 1.929 8.582% 0.212 3.687 2.489% 1.477% 26 .582% 0.813 1.662% 2.093% 36 37 38 39 40 California Arizona California Washington Virginia San Jose Phoenix San Diego Seattle Virginia Beach 3.938 1.860% 0.632% 0.762 5.897 1.078% 1.943% 1.454 3.938 3.218% 1.435 8.145 7.653% 6 7 8 9 10 Texas Texas Oregon Texas Texas Fort Worth Arlington Portland Dallas Austin 7.327% 1.795% 1.332 3.151% 1.629 3.568% 1.393 3.988 1.043% 2.

505 2.936% 1.500 436.117% 0.400 223.661 6.662% 0.913 2.440 1.315 3.604% 34 25 7 20 31 39 35 10 38 44 16 17 48 11 2 4 El Paso Fort Worth Arlington Minneapolis Dallas Atlanta Omaha Boston Sacramento Virginia Beach Albuquerque Columbus Houston Raleigh Fresno Charlotte Kansas City Nashville Las Vegas Philadelphia Louisville Phoenix Cleveland Denver Memphis Tulsa Jacksonville Oklahoma City Tucson Detroit Wichita Mesa Indianapolis Colorado Springs 116.815 1.943 2.200 234.800 115.700 136.896% 1.036% 1.054 7.100 444.100 36.605 1.202% 1.750% 2.160% 2.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 Table 30: Top 50 Homestead Property Taxes for a Median-Value Home – Listed by Net Tax Payable 2014 State California California Oregon California California New York California Texas California Washington Illinois Florida DC Maryland Wisconsin Texas Median 2013 Home Value# Net Tax Tax Rank Effective Tax Rate Rate Rank San Francisco San Jose Portland Oakland Los Angeles New York City San Diego Austin Long Beach Seattle Chicago Miami Washington Baltimore Milwaukee San Antonio 778.736 2.101% 1.100 2.900 126.181 3.244% 0.500 470.900 89.708% 1.854% 1.324% 1.749 1.400 197.373% 2.804 1.704% 2.976% 1.865% 1.800 400.129% 1.374 5.010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1.474 4.773 1.029% 0.800 172.032% 0.758 2.943% 1.356% 1.702 2.271% 1.278% 2. Source: Table B25077.000 200.600 263.000 113.463 1.210% 1.100 129.039 2.331 2.737 1.400 205.042 4.981 2.774 6.200 488.468% 2.900 134.155 5.700 202.796 2.300 129.920% 1.639 1.257% 3.600 City AVERAGE Texas Texas Texas Minnesota Texas Georgia Nebraska Massachusetts California Virginia New Mexico Ohio Texas North Carolina California North Carolina Missouri Tennessee Nevada Pennsylvania Kentucky Arizona Ohio Colorado Tennessee Oklahoma Florida Oklahoma Arizona Michigan Kansas Arizona Indiana Colorado 2.400 123.098% 0.251% 1.632 3.900 125.200 183.700 228.572 1.921 2.663% 1.718% 1.200 259.519% 1.264% 1.900 127.400 445.415% 1.295% 1.700 125.774 1.477% 5 6 8 19 9 21 12 47 40 45 24 14 15 42 32 30 18 37 36 23 26 41 3 49 13 22 27 33 28 1 29 46 43 50 . 2013 America n Community Survey 1-Year Estimates 27 2.524% 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 # Information is city specific.164% 1.800 155.120% 2.905 2.900 115.198 982 1.800 141.131% 1.172% 1.600 9.093% 2.500 451.385 2.900 163.555 3.600 211.500 150.400 136.700 165.147% 1.084 3.304 5.848 1.345 2.000 599.200% 1.300 116.181% 1.700 162.400 121.007 1.375 2.413 5.526% 2.300 66.928 1.591% 0.600 381.644 1.344 1.700 291.327% 1.500 120.133 3.900 162.432% 2.837 1.

375 2.519% 1.905 2.295% 1.251% 1.181 3.468% 2.432% 2.921 2.936 4.315 3.848 1.758 2.007 1.750% 0.600 City AVERAGE Virginia New Mexico Ohio Texas North Carolina North Carolina California Missouri Tennessee Nevada Pennsylvania Kentucky Ohio Colorado Tennessee California Oklahoma Oklahoma Arizona Arizona Florida Kansas Michigan Arizona Indiana Colorado Tax Effective Rank Tax Rate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2.944 1.477% 40 23 14 15 33 27 41 17 31 30 21 24 3 49 13 36 20 29 37 25 28 26 1 42 34 50 .704% 2.728% 0.736 2.896% 1.987% 1.349 3.300 136.029% 0.890 5.700 291.800 36.001 4.705 1.900 134.100 129.400 451.700 202.210% 0.500 444.131% 1.800 445.605 1.000 234.108% 0.327% 1.043% 0.032% 0.440 1.900 89.400 172.198 982 35 11 44 9 32 38 39 16 45 48 47 10 2 43 4 5 6 7 22 18 8 19 12 46 1.019% 2. Adjusted for Assessment Limitations# Net Tax San Jose Portland San Francisco Austin Oakland San Diego Seattle Chicago Los Angeles New York City Washington Baltimore Milwaukee Long Beach San Antonio El Paso Fort Worth Arlington Miami Minneapolis Dallas Atlanta Omaha Boston 599.702 Virginia Beach Albuquerque Columbus Houston Raleigh Charlotte Sacramento Kansas City Nashville Las Vegas Philadelphia Louisville Cleveland Denver Memphis Fresno Tulsa Oklahoma City Phoenix Tucson Jacksonville Wichita Detroit Mesa Indianapolis Colorado Springs 259.400 778.700 121.900 228.244% 3.686% 0.300 125.200 488.737 1.200 183.754% 0.440% 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 # Information is city specific.815 1.662% 0.900 162.600 116.500 150.762% 2.604% 2.652 3.910 2.036% 1.700 6.302% 1.936% 1.854% 1.572 1.581 1. Source: Table B25077.331 2.133 3.900 163.202% 1.800 141.053 3.943 2.804 1.200 126.404 3.952 5.700 125.644 1.749 1.800 155.796 2.084 3.120% 2.478% 0.526% 2.837 1.V.129% 1. Rankings Tables – Largest 50 Cities Table 31: Top 50 Homestead Property Taxes for a Median-Value Home – Listed by Net Tax Payable 2014 – With Assessment Limitations State California Oregon California Texas California California Washington Illinois California New York DC Maryland Wisconsin California Texas Texas Texas Texas Florida Minnesota Texas Georgia Nebraska Massachusetts Median 2013 Home Value.345 2.913 2.100 129.700 115.100 470.400 136.500 115.771% 1.920% 1.187% 1.708% Rate Rank 0.200 436.500 120.500 197.600 211.800 165.900 400.600 381.974% 1.600 263.400 123.249 4.928 1.672 2.900 66.400 223.852% 1. 2013 America n Community Survey 1-Year Estimates 28 1.373% 2.773 1.385 2.271% 2.010 2.700 162.198 1.356% 1.000 200.300 116.943% 0.400 205.111 5.280 1.257% 1.663% 1.100 2.172% 0.757% 2.540 1.957% 0.900 127.000 113.130% 1.

775% 1.860% 3.058% 2.723 2.764% 2.966% 3.461 3.458 28.409 1.979 16 17 18 19 20 Texas Texas Maryland Colorado Oregon Houston El Paso Baltimore Denver Portland 2.000 Fixtures Rank State City 1 2 3 4 5 Net Tax Payable 2014 $1 MILLION-VALUED PROPERTY $200.103 2.319 17.574 47.701 2.057 4.561 21.731% 1.219% 1.324% 16 17 18 19 20 Texas Texas Maryland Colorado Arizona Houston El Paso Baltimore Denver Tucson 29.400% 2.741% 2.076% 24.137% 1.438% 36 37 38 39 40 DC Oklahoma California California North Carolina Washington Oklahoma City San Jose Fresno Charlotte 1.735 3.315% 1.667 15.658% 26 27 28 29 30 Florida Pennsylvania Florida Arizona Georgia Miami Philadelphia Jacksonville Mesa Atlanta 23.455% 2.977 2.671% 2.275 2.731% 1.174% 1.140 1.979% 2.764% 2.133% 41 42 43 44 45 North Carolina California California California California Charlotte Los Angeles San Diego San Francisco Long Beach 14.577 1.327 1.170 34.965 2.394% 2.835 1.321 11.058% Atlanta Nashville Colorado Springs Miami Mesa 2.660% 1.470 2.205 3.409 18.882 2.586% 2.443% 1.655 29.774 15.950% 46 47 48 49 50 California Nevada North Carolina Virginia Washington Sacramento Las Vegas Raleigh Virginia Beach Seattle 13.052 31.569 1.473 21.474% 2.725 1.729% 11 12 13 14 15 Ohio Texas Texas Texas Texas Cleveland Dallas Fort Worth San Antonio Arlington 3.588% 2.145% 2.686 2.364 1.295% 26.860% 3.443% 1.726 11.507% 1.875 1.477 1.222% 36 37 38 39 40 Kentucky DC Oklahoma California California Louisville Washington Oklahoma City San Jose Fresno 16.106% 1.000 Fixtures ETR Rank State City Michigan New York Illinois Indiana Tennessee Detroit New York City Chicago Indianapolis Memphis 5.946 2.940 31.992 1.397 1.315% 1.979% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Massachusetts Wisconsin Missouri Kansas Minnesota Boston Milwaukee Kansas City Wichita Minneapolis 3.389% 31 32 33 34 35 Tennessee Colorado New Mexico Oklahoma California Nashville Colorado Springs Albuquerque Tulsa Oakland 20.989 1.588% 2.123% 1.231% 41 42 43 44 45 California California California California California Los Angeles San Diego San Francisco Long Beach Sacramento 1.879 2.289 3.163 32.892 2.977% 0.251 1.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 Table 32: Top 50 Commercial Property Taxes $100.307% 1.610 33.148 14.323 41.438% 1.473 12.740% Florida New Mexico Oklahoma California Kentucky Jacksonville Albuquerque Tulsa Oakland Louisville 1.665 14.297 20.917 2.482% 11 12 13 14 15 Ohio Texas Texas Texas Texas Cleveland Dallas Fort Worth San Antonio Arlington 32.474% 2.741% 2.324% 27.401 37.624 14.389% 1.731 22.872% 2.027% 0.087 2.173 1.950% 29 .248% 2.430 2.471% 2.467 1.774 20.574 4.671% 2.041 1.027% 0.760 4.873% 1.000 VALUED PROPERTY $20.055 31.884% 2.157% 24.662% 2.977% 0.894 2.590 13.347 1.795 28.667 1.645 1.359 1.511 14.701% 1.742 35.455% 2.113% 6 7 8 9 10 Tennessee Wisconsin Massachusetts Missouri Kansas Memphis Milwaukee Boston Kansas City Wichita 35.507% 1.689 29.307% 1.632 3.086 17.797% 1.701% 1.446 3.588 2.809 1.471% 2.966% 3.482% 2.222% 1.586% 2.174% 1.215% 3.105 3.450% 3.157% 2.092 13.113% 2.978% 1.551 1.248% 25.574 2.698 2.231% 1.293% 1.351 4.133% 1.789 21 22 23 24 25 Texas Arizona Ohio Arizona Nebraska AVERAGE Austin Tucson Columbus Phoenix Omaha 26 27 28 29 30 Georgia Tennessee Colorado Florida Arizona 31 32 33 34 35 Net Tax ETR Michigan New York Illinois Minnesota Indiana Detroit New York City Chicago Minneapolis Indianapolis 50.293% 1.529% 1.123% 1.215% 3.194 3.025% 21 22 23 24 Oregon Arizona Texas Ohio AVERAGE 25 Nebraska Portland Phoenix Austin Columbus Omaha 27.732 1.462 1.536 2.415 1.969 2.238% 2.884% 2.931% 2.232 1.219% 1.031 29.137% 46 47 48 49 50 Nevada Pennsylvania North Carolina Virginia Washington Las Vegas Philadelphia Raleigh Virginia Beach Seattle 1.687 15.786 2.597 46.179% 1.662% 2.400% 2.077 2.740% 1.179% 1.316 3.767 1.

453 2.222% 1.423 647.482% 2.307% 1.438% 1.017 2.V.965 1.000.632 365.550 881.884% 2.133% 1.289 801.150 865.671% 2.754% 11 12 13 14 15 Kansas Ohio Texas Arizona Texas Wichita Cleveland Dallas Phoenix Fort Worth 822.015 293.950% 21 22 23 24 30 .443% 36 37 38 39 40 California Kentucky Oklahoma California California Oakland Louisville Oklahoma City San Jose Fresno 431.977% 0.731% 1.871 697.833% 31 32 33 34 35 Georgia Tennessee Colorado New Mexico Oklahoma Atlanta Nashville Colorado Springs Albuquerque Tulsa 521.701% 1.368 736.780 369.189.595 353.264.925 1.058% 26 27 28 29 30 Arizona Pennsylvania Florida DC Florida Mesa Philadelphia Miami Washington Jacksonville 613.741% 2.031% 2.780 4.360 1.089 617.027% 0.471% 2.572% 3.223 741.507% 1.966% 3.182 1.324% 2.696 933.230 452.400% 2.124 1.687 392.153 432.835 308.389% 1. Rankings Tables – Largest 50 Cities Table 32 (cont’d.304 798.370 2.860% 3.215% 3.875 519.): Top 50 Commercial Property Taxes Payable 2014 $25 MILLION-VALUED PROPERTY $5.335 598.742 609.174% 1.021% 1.500 550.642% 2.290 341.000 Fixtures Rank State City 1 2 3 4 5 Net Tax ETR 1.113% Michigan New York Illinois Minnesota Indiana Detroit New York City Chicago Minneapolis Indianapolis 6 7 8 9 10 Tennessee Wisconsin Massachusetts Missouri Arizona Memphis Milwaukee Boston Kansas City Tucson 893.662% 2.179% 1.785 744.248% 2.185 2.076 826.123% 1.158.937% 2.117% 2.455% Colorado Oregon Texas Ohio AVERAGE 25 Nebraska Denver Portland Austin Columbus Omaha 719.588% 16 17 18 19 20 Texas Texas Texas Texas Maryland San Antonio Arlington Houston El Paso Baltimore 775.245 829.280 416.750 336.931 1.231% 41 42 43 44 45 North Carolina California California California California Charlotte Los Angeles San Diego San Francisco Long Beach 366.219% 1.087 1.293% 1.071.979% 2.046% 2.060 635.347 674.137% 46 47 48 49 50 California Nevada North Carolina Virginia Washington Sacramento Las Vegas Raleigh Virginia Beach Seattle 339.995% 1.604 776.155 284.586% 2.489 792.703 352.740% 1.340 510.522 2.179 387.474% 2.764% 2.345 606.647 742.157% 2.

193% 1.137 47.958 1.498% 1.596 43.922% 1.989 1.682 19.812 1.883 29.220% 1.906% 0.548 1.000 Machinery and Equipment $400.673% 1.774% 0.868 41.751 2.380% 11 12 13 14 15 Michigan Missouri Illinois Colorado Oregon Detroit Kansas City Chicago Denver Portland 4.860% 1.150% 1.654% Nashville Milwaukee 3.590% 1.034% 0.439 5.984% 41 42 43 44 45 California California California Nevada North Carolina San Francisco Long Beach Sacramento Las Vegas Raleigh 1.990% 0.375% 1.774% 0.121% 2.073% 2.000 Inventories $10.524 28.114 52.300 2.120 0.577 1.806 1.193% 36 37 38 39 40 Arizona North Carolina California California California Mesa Charlotte Fresno Los Angeles San Diego 1.309 3.581% .512% 46 47 48 49 50 Nevada North Carolina Kentucky Washington Virginia Las Vegas Raleigh Louisville Seattle Virginia Beach 18.141 4.002 22.866 1.558 2.368 54.819 1.000 VALUED PROPERTY $50.980 1.399% 1.410% 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Oklahoma Florida Colorado Arizona Arizona Tulsa Miami Colorado Springs Tucson Phoenix 2.238% 1.380% 2.056 3.720% 6 7 8 9 10 Texas Texas Indiana New York Texas Arlington Houston Indianapolis New York City Austin 5.814 4.034% 31 32 33 34 35 Oklahoma Oklahoma Colorado New Mexico Maryland Oklahoma City Tulsa Colorado Springs Albuquerque Baltimore 28.922% 1.632% 1.612 1.632% 1.571% 2.995% 0.349% 2.957 28.843 3.984% 0.152 1.407% 2.975% 0.544% 1.477 2.210 27.725 15.439 32.864 18.812% 0.818% 2.736% 2.063 16.754 2.720% 2.996 2.426% 1.750 51.455 33.000 Fixtures Rank State City Net Tax Payable 2014 $1 MILLION-VALUED PROPERTY $500.975% 0.654% 1.719 2.786% 0.812% 41 42 43 44 45 California California California California California Los Angeles San Diego San Francisco Long Beach Sacramento 19.910% 0.786% 0.390 3.445% 1.798 2.512% AVERAGE 3.991% 1.663% 0.410% 1.161 3.879 1.399% 1.576% 21 Tennessee 22 Wisconsin AVERAGE 32.422% 31 32 33 34 35 Florida New Mexico Maryland California California Jacksonville Albuquerque Baltimore Oakland San Jose 2.028% 16 17 18 19 20 Nebraska Georgia Minnesota Ohio Massachusetts Omaha Atlanta Minneapolis Cleveland Boston 3.433 37.343% 1.673% 1.903% 0.581% 1.150% 1.287% 26 27 28 29 30 Arizona Kansas Florida DC Ohio Mesa Wichita Jacksonville Washington Columbus 30.859 54.821 1.648% 23 Kansas 24 Ohio 25 Oklahoma Wichita Columbus Oklahoma City 2.193 18.903% 0.950 1.894 28.000 Machinery and Equipment $40.380% 6 7 8 9 10 Texas Texas Texas Indiana New York San Antonio Arlington Houston Indianapolis New York City 54.690 1.706% 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Texas Texas Texas Tennessee Detroit Fort Worth Dallas El Paso Memphis 62.969 1.028% 1.124% 1.686 2.508 24.387 4.573 1.647 32.435 1.818% 2.193% 2.000 Inventories $100.910% 0.377% 1.401 40.090 1.943% 36 37 38 39 40 California Pennsylvania California North Carolina California Oakland Philadelphia San Jose Charlotte Fresno 23.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 Table 33: Top 50 Industrial Property Taxes (50% Personal Property) $100.498% 1.939% 0.275 5.803 19.248 15.637 5.413 56.193% 2.622% 1.760 4.760 2.552% 31 Ohio Florida Wisconsin Massachusetts Tennessee Cleveland Miami Milwaukee Boston Nashville 32.612% 1.697 4.466 41.275 3.736% 2.473 20.638% 2.820 38.375% 1.473 5.486 5.943% 0.597 2.068 1.906% 46 47 48 49 50 DC Kentucky Washington Pennsylvania Virginia Washington Louisville Seattle Philadelphia Virginia Beach 1.346 3.000 Fixtures ETR Rank State Net Tax ETR 1 2 3 4 5 Texas Texas Texas Tennessee Texas Fort Worth Dallas El Paso Memphis San Antonio 5.481 10.886 0.625 0.804 31.976 27.439 2.637% 1.789 18.025 0.246 0.726 54.638% 2.407% 2.220% 1.422% 1.939% 0.990% 0.411 2.391 23.233 31.743% 2.265 3.590% 16 17 18 19 20 Arizona Colorado Oregon Nebraska Georgia Phoenix Denver Portland Omaha Atlanta 39.571% 2.070% 2.498 18.860% 11 12 13 14 15 Texas Missouri Arizona Minnesota Illinois Austin Kansas City Tucson Minneapolis Chicago 47.192 33.844 2.706% 2.743% 2.180 1.105 1.789% 0.413 48.380% 2.574 1.327 1.387 2.

467% 1.922% 1.300 748.935 733.096.900 1.422% 31 32 33 34 35 Oklahoma Oklahoma Colorado New Mexico Pennsylvania Oklahoma City Tulsa Colorado Springs Albuquerque Philadelphia 705.405 687.424 1.774% 0.990% 0.000 0.155 0.832 938.703 1.654% 824.767 609.714 1.581% 1.000 Machinery and Equipment $10.019 256.171 1.720 454.380% 11 12 13 14 15 Texas Arizona Arizona Missouri Minnesota Austin Tucson Phoenix Kansas City Minneapolis 1.812% 0.480 1.144.000 Inventories $2.975% 0.380% 2.943% 0.673% 827.572 406.V.150% 1.410% 1.239 1.500.818% 2.071.906% 46 47 48 49 50 Nevada North Carolina Kentucky Washington Virginia Las Vegas Raleigh Louisville Seattle Virginia Beach 451.359.877% 1.460 471.632% 807.713 1.199 1.615% 26 27 28 29 30 Massachusetts Tennessee Kansas Florida Ohio Boston Nashville Wichita Jacksonville Columbus 795.720% 6 7 8 9 10 Texas Texas Texas Indiana New York San Antonio Arlington Houston Indianapolis New York City 1.121% 2.931 2.193% 2.242 1.040 495.345 1.696 2.239 699.040 517.290% 2.910% 0.706% 2.512% 32 .189.754 1.137 387.743% 2.371. Rankings Tables – Largest 50 Cities Table 33 (cont’d.701 609.352.604 469.498% 1.786% 0.090 790.013.673% 836.656 575.219% 36 37 38 39 40 Maryland California California North Carolina California Baltimore Oakland San Jose Charlotte Fresno 596.099.939% 0.375% 1.762 1.034% 0.903% 0.638% 2.838 1.195 393.072 492.368.199% 2.321 1.571% 2.050 1.736% 2.795 853.590% 1.381 1.560.500.325 1.141 1.500 929.285.832 453.000 Fixtures Rank State City Net Tax ETR 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Texas Texas Texas Tennessee Detroit Fort Worth Dallas El Paso Memphis 1.399% 1.189.203.407% 2.951 960.318.750 3.): Top 50 Industrial Property Taxes (50% Personal Property) Payable 2014 $25 MILLION-VALUED PROPERTY $12.220% 1.535 1.984% 41 42 43 44 45 California California California California California Los Angeles San Diego San Francisco Long Beach Sacramento 487.193% 1.143% 16 17 18 19 20 Illinois Colorado DC Oregon Arizona Chicago Denver Washington Portland Mesa 1.356 710.860% 1.000.409.028% 1.886 1.707% 21 22 23 24 25 AVERAGE Nebraska Georgia Florida Ohio Wisconsin Omaha Atlanta Miami Cleveland Milwaukee 836.648% 816.404 2.

899% 0.338 2.736% 2.768% 0.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 Table 34: Top 50 Industrial Property Taxes (60% Personal Property) $100.380% 2.299 3.257% 1.193 18.021 1.335% 1.045 65.864% 0.647 31.002 2.638% 2.073 36.407 67.066% 1.313% 31 32 33 34 35 California Arizona Maryland Arizona California Oakland Tucson Baltimore Phoenix San Jose 2.897 51.736% 2.363 32.280% 2.313% 1.935% 0.000 Machinery and Equipment $600.896% 0.435 27.456 1.760 4.427 5.283 3.160 2.523% 1.152 2.441% 26 27 28 29 30 Ohio Kansas Florida New Mexico Ohio Cleveland Wichita Jacksonville Albuquerque Columbus 3.190 2.424 29.165% 1.861% 0.366 2.715 1.265 3.818% 2.146 0.861% 46 47 48 49 Washington Kentucky DC Pennsylvania Seattle Louisville Washington Philadelphia 1.306% 1.642 2.464 1.764 6.946% 0.605 21.982% 0.093% 1.335% 1.656 23.706% 2.473 22.266 59.919 0.074% 1.677 70.904% 1.622% 1.637 34.036 1.796% 0.310% 22 23 24 25 DC Tennessee Arizona Oklahoma Washington Nashville Mesa Oklahoma City 38.137% 1.767% 1.417 4.154 1.386 38.137% 26 27 28 29 30 Oklahoma Florida Wisconsin Massachusetts Colorado Tulsa Jacksonville Milwaukee Boston Colorado Springs 34.407 3.826% 1.781 1.904% 1.896% 0.571% 2.662 24.440% 20 Oklahoma Tulsa 3.601% 38.860% 0.306% 1.000 Inventories $150.702 33.142 3.363% 1.076% 6 7 8 9 10 Tennessee Texas Texas Texas Indiana Memphis Arlington Houston Austin Indianapolis 66.320% 1.743% 2.912 2.743% 2.093% 36 37 38 39 40 North Carolina California California California California Charlotte Fresno Los Angeles San Diego San Francisco 2.336 3.656% 1.571% 2.666 2.638% 2.000 Fixtures ETR Rank State Net Tax ETR Texas Texas Texas Texas Tennessee Fort Worth Dallas El Paso San Antonio Memphis 7.165 41.401 41.686 2.280% 11 12 13 14 15 Michigan New York Colorado Oregon Georgia Detroit New York City Denver Portland Atlanta 4.010 40.066% 0.839 3.867% 2.574 68.597 45.002 3.860% 0.275 1.852 4.640% 1.768% 41 42 43 44 45 Pennsylvania California California California California Philadelphia San Diego San Francisco Long Beach Sacramento 22.495 57.946% 0.518 0.599 1.642% 2.535% 1.926% 41 42 43 44 45 California California Nevada Arizona North Carolina Long Beach Sacramento Las Vegas Mesa Raleigh 2.027 2.566 4.854 1.601% 1.938 64.558 40.706% 6 7 8 9 10 Texas Texas Texas Indiana Missouri Arlington Houston Austin Indianapolis Kansas City 6.046 6.700 5.605 2.742% 0.622% 1.686% 21 Florida Miami AVERAGE 33 38.631% 0.989 1.385% 21 22 23 24 25 Florida Massachusetts Wisconsin Colorado Minnesota Miami Boston Milwaukee Colorado Springs Minneapolis 3.401 22.440% .577 1.961% 1.818% 2.314 1.150 1.382 23.864% 0.767% 1.950 5.000 VALUED PROPERTY $75.844 1.000 Inventories $15.549% 1.559 23.604 1.385% 1.327 0.348% 1.165% 1.505 19.211% 1.101 1.544 17.024 49.594 6.642% 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Texas Texas Texas Texas Detroit Fort Worth Dallas El Paso San Antonio 71.312 21.832 1.240 2.033 47.971 1.731 2.574 2.892% 0.231 0.257% 1.394 33.892% 36 37 38 39 40 Maryland California North Carolina California California Baltimore San Jose Charlotte Fresno Los Angeles 26.826% 16 17 18 19 Illinois Nebraska Tennessee Oklahoma Chicago Omaha Nashville Oklahoma City 4.535% 1.041% 1.926% 0.559% AVERAGE 3.056 4.857 6.686% 0.742% 0.935% 0.640% 11 12 13 14 15 Missouri Arizona Arizona New York Colorado Kansas City Tucson Phoenix New York City Denver 51.076% 2.531% 46 47 48 49 Nevada North Carolina Washington Kentucky Las Vegas Raleigh Seattle Louisville 21.662 2.460 68.000 Machinery and Equipment $60.380% 2.315 2.724 38.441% 16 17 18 19 20 Oregon Minnesota Georgia Illinois Nebraska Portland Minneapolis Atlanta Chicago Omaha 44.119 28.000 Fixtures Rank State City 1 2 3 4 5 Net Tax Payable 2014 $1 MILLION-VALUED PROPERTY $750.841 6.941% 1.376% 1.982% 31 32 33 34 35 Ohio Kansas New Mexico Ohio California Cleveland Wichita Albuquerque Columbus Oakland 32.029% 0.

904% 16 17 18 19 20 Colorado Oregon Minnesota Arizona Georgia Denver Portland Minneapolis Mesa Atlanta 1.638% 2.931 2.141.805 1.742% 46 Nevada 47 North Carolina 48 Washington Nashville Oklahoma City 34 10.928 1.093% 36 37 38 39 40 Maryland California Pennsylvania North Carolina California Baltimore San Jose Philadelphia Charlotte Fresno 666.065 820.439% 50 Virginia Virginia Beach Table 34 (cont’d.132 1.137% 1.306% 1.380% 2.938 0.262 1.432 834.977 710.393% 1.439% .350 1.442 1.000.768% 0.165% 1.696 1.706% 6 7 8 9 10 Tennessee Texas Texas Texas Indiana Memphis Arlington Houston Austin Indianapolis 1.892% 0.066% 0.901 1.402 584.047 2.441% 26 27 28 29 30 Florida Oklahoma Wisconsin Massachusetts Colorado Jacksonville Tulsa Milwaukee Boston Colorado Springs 870.743% 2.487.886 682.030 557.425.071.098 1.985 609.864% 0.951 1.076% 1.099 0.986 0.383.554 613.128% 2.214% 2.867% 2.000 Inventories $3.104.750.750.423 1.498 1.571% 959.714.375 1.V.000 Machinery and Equipment $15.830 463.761.606.826% 1.975% 0.280% 11 12 13 14 15 Arizona Arizona Missouri DC New York Tucson Phoenix Kansas City Washington New York City 1.351% 1.525 1.930 844.767% 1.642% 2.653% 1.601% 987.553 1.935% 41 42 43 44 45 California California California California California Los Angeles San Diego San Francisco Long Beach Sacramento 578.335% 1.860 1.622% 1.793 540.818% 2.044 1.189.612 727.049 2.946% 0.791.033.330.385% 1.000 Fixtures Rank State City Net Tax ETR 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Texas Texas Texas Texas Detroit Fort Worth Dallas El Paso San Antonio 1.): Top 50 Industrial Property Taxes (60% Personal Property) Payable 2014 $25 MILLION-VALUED PROPERTY $18.538 1.859 560.025.000.926% 0.736% 2.589 0.710.500 1.651.694 1.691.580% 982.860% 0.257% 1.193.656 1.860 865. Rankings Tables – Largest 50 Cities 50 Virginia Virginia Beach 1.640% 21 Illinois 22 Nebraska 23 Florida AVERAGE 24 Tennessee 25 Oklahoma Chicago Omaha Miami 1.345 591.571% 2.535% 900.336 1.013.910% 1.650 1.176 1.715% 1.896% 0.297.625 479.861% Las Vegas Raleigh Seattle 537.982% 0.125 1.648.171 785.113 537.313% 31 32 33 34 35 Ohio Kansas New Mexico Ohio California Cleveland Wichita Albuquerque Columbus Oakland 816.151 1.

643 7.345% 1.915% 11.263% 1.355% 1.793% 2.753 7.122 1.071% 3.539% 2.691 15.335 31.219% 1.192 1.000 Fixtures Rank State City 1 2 3 4 5 Net Tax ETR New York Michigan Tennessee Ohio Wisconsin New York City Detroit Memphis Cleveland Milwaukee 34.324% 2.729% 1.103 10.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 49 Kentucky 50 Virginia Louisville Virginia Beach 428.656 0.471 8.000 VALUED PROPERTY $30.955 7.438% 1.439% Table 35: Top 50 Apartment Property Taxes Payable 2014 $600.391% 2.280% 2.574% 1.465% 11 12 13 14 15 Texas Texas Oregon Texas Nebraska Dallas Houston Portland Austin Omaha 15.655 0.040% Indiana Maryland Minnesota Florida AVERAGE 20 Illinois Indianapolis Baltimore Minneapolis Miami Chicago 12.662 274.398 1.179% 1.366 12.137% 1.263% 1.174% 41 42 43 44 45 California California Nevada North Carolina Virginia Long Beach Sacramento Las Vegas Raleigh Virginia Beach 7.719% 2.338 1.175% 1.806% 11.509 6.143 1.061 14.077 5.919 4.352% 1.800% 21 22 23 24 25 Tennessee Florida Georgia Missouri Oklahoma Nashville Jacksonville Atlanta Kansas City Tulsa 11.851 2.293% 31 32 33 34 35 Oklahoma Pennsylvania Massachusetts California Kentucky Oklahoma City Philadelphia Boston Fresno Louisville 8.917 9.644 14.972% 46 47 48 49 Arizona Washington DC Colorado Mesa Seattle Washington Denver 6.996 15.213% 1.925% 6 7 8 9 10 Texas Texas Texas Texas Ohio Fort Worth San Antonio El Paso Arlington Columbus 17.004 7.053% 2.686% 0.960 7.762% 1.730 1.997% 3.127 15.135 7.599 17.270% 1.428 7.061 1.085 1.427 5.027% 12.481 19.918% 12.529 2.245 11.520 8.739% 16 17 18 19 35 .227% 36 37 38 39 40 California North Carolina California Arizona California Los Angeles Charlotte San Diego Phoenix San Francisco 7.231 18.460 15.378 1.785% 1.007% 12.133% 1.678 7.347 19.940% 0.876 4.642 2.459% 26 27 28 29 30 California Kansas New Mexico Arizona California Oakland Wichita Albuquerque Tucson San Jose 9.768 2.400 7.491% 2.057 8.536 8.164 7.231% 1.450% 4.033% 0.119% 1.893 9.965% 0.051 6.454% 2.774% 0.

525% .V. Rankings Tables – Largest 50 Cities 50 Colorado Colorado Springs 36 3.309 0.

667% 1.007 980 945 928 829 0.256 1.647 1.781% 0.071% 0.248% 2.807% 0.349% 0.728% 11 12 13 14 15 Iowa Connecticut Massachusetts Maine Rhode Island Hampton Litchfield Adams Rockland Hopkinton 3.413% 2.654% 0.413% 2.671% 0.626% 1.350% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Michigan Nebraska Wisconsin Kansas Connecticut Manistique Sidney Rice Lake Iola Litchfield 1.553% 41 42 43 44 45 Utah Arizona Tennessee West Virginia Colorado Richfield Safford Savannah Elkins Walsenburg 1.278 1.343 1.094 1.127% 2.455 1.440 1.369 1.619 3.472 1.456% 0.007% 0.645 1.563% 1.837% 0.210 16 17 18 19 20 Texas Ohio South Dakota Maryland Georgia Fort Stockton Bryan Madison Denton Fitzgerald 1.127% 2.955% 1.886% 0.532% 0.265% 871 1.231% 2.760% 0.031% 0.191 3.323% 1.343 1.582 1.367% 2.893% 1.367% 2.169% 0.772 1.000 VALUED PROPERTY ETR Rank State New York Pennsylvania New Hampshire New Jersey Vermont Warsaw Ridgway Lancaster Maurice River Township Hartford 1.990% 1.563% 1.092% 2.866% 1.547 1.678% Utah Arizona Tennessee West Virginia Colorado Richfield Safford Savannah Elkins Walsenburg 470 457 441 433 387 0.093 1.516% 16 17 18 19 20 Texas Georgia Florida Ohio South Dakota Fort Stockton Fitzgerald Moore Haven Bryan Madison 2.797 1.140 1.807% 31 32 33 34 35 Alaska California Indiana New Mexico South Carolina Ketchican Yreka North Vernon Santa Rosa Mullins 1.198% 1.866% 1.055% 1.393 2.990% 11 12 13 14 15 Massachusetts Iowa Rhode Island Illinois Maine Adams Hampton Hopkinton Galena Rockland 1.779% 2.852% 0.658% 2.447 2.799 2.048 2.645 2.716% 0.000% 46 47 48 49 50 Virginia Louisiana Arkansas Alabama Hawaii Wise Natchitoches Pocahontas Monroeville Kauai 798 685 653 572 50 0.932% 0.822 2.210 1.924 3.047% 1.098% 768 1.657 1.097% 1.139 3.867 1.093 1.987% 0.630% 0.574 1.214% 827 1.031% 1.678% 36 37 38 39 40 Oklahoma Idaho Montana Wyoming Delaware Mangum Saint Anthony Glasgow Worland Georgetown 1.372 3.000 VALUED PROPERTY Rank State City 1 2 3 4 5 Net Tax Payable 2014 $150.654% 0.970% 0.097% 26 27 28 29 30 North Carolina Kentucky Alaska Minnesota Mississippi Edenton Morehead Ketchican Glencoe Philadelphia 739 738 722 705 699 31 32 33 34 35 California Florida South Carolina New Mexico Idaho Yreka Moore Haven Mullins Santa Rosa Saint Anthony 36 37 38 39 40 Oklahoma Indiana Montana Wyoming Delaware 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Net Tax ETR New York Pennsylvania New Hampshire New Jersey Vermont Warsaw Ridgway Lancaster Maurice River Township Hartford 4.987 3.501 2.056% 1.435% 0.821 1.777% 0.630% 0.138 1.033% 37 .Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 VI.562% 1.055% 652 620 596 588 565 0.564% 2.248% 2.631% 1.245% 850 1.381% 0.728% 1.998% 26 27 28 29 30 Oregon Missouri North Dakota North Carolina Kentucky Tillamook Boonville Devils Lake Edenton Morehead 1.071 2.532% 0.325 1.181% 769 1.985 2.210 1.103% 2.584 1.852% Mangum North Vernon Glasgow Worland Georgetown 547 544 532 501 474 0.562% 21 Maryland AVERAGE 22 Minnesota 23 Nevada 24 Washington 25 Mississippi Denton Glencoe Fallon Okanogan Philadelphia 2.689 1. Rankings Tables – Rural Table 36: Rural Homestead Property Taxes $70.562% 1.345 2.985 1.345% 1.032% 1.282% 2.214% 1.716% 0.346 3.955% 1.017 0.489 1.074 1.562% 2.882% 1.245% 1.325 1.840% 0.350% 6 7 8 9 10 Michigan Wisconsin Nebraska Kansas Illinois Manistique Rice Lake Sidney Iola Galena 3.618% 0.553% Virginia Alabama Arkansas Hawaii Louisiana Wise Monroeville Pocahontas Kauai Natchitoches 372 244 118 50 0 0.098% 1.480 1.618% 0.550 3.933 2.525 3.057% 1.883% 0.306 1.062 21 22 23 24 25 AVERAGE Nevada Washington Oregon Missouri North Dakota Fallon Okanogan Tillamook Boonville Devils Lake 886 1.017 1.181% 1.795 1.056% 1.760% 0.652 2.768% 1.945 1.671% 0.

866% 1.556 2.294 3.685 1.902% 36 37 38 39 40 Oklahoma South Carolina Montana Wyoming Louisiana Mangum Mullins Glasgow Worland Natchitoches 2.656 1.278 5.873 5.503% 2.553% 0.618% 46 47 48 49 50 Colorado Arkansas Virginia Alabama Hawaii Walsenburg Pocahontas Wise Monroeville Kauai 1.055% 1.098% 1.280 2.955% 1.323 2.598 5.142% 38 .181% 1.490 5.000 VALUED PROPERTY Rank State City 1 2 3 4 5 New York Pennsylvania New Hampshire New Jersey Vermont Warsaw Ridgway Lancaster Maurice River Township Hartford 6 7 8 9 10 Wisconsin Michigan Illinois Nebraska Kansas 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Net Tax ETR 10.958% 1.100 7.097% 1.554 1.630% 0.245% 3.990% 1.949% Rhode Island Texas Georgia Ohio South Dakota Hopkinton Fort Stockton Fitzgerald Bryan Madison 5.735 1.097 7.173% 1.861 6.686 1.865 5.033 2. Rankings Tables – Rural Table 36 (cont’d.641 1.187% 2.852% 0.678% 0.586 2.707 1.094 3.413% 2.147 2.031% 1.214% 26 27 28 29 30 Oregon Idaho Missouri North Dakota North Carolina Tillamook Saint Anthony Boonville Devils Lake Edenton 3.519 3.699% 2.396% 0.846 2.716% 0.689 4.390% 3.862% 0.108% Iowa Connecticut Florida Massachusetts Maine Hampton Litchfield Moore Haven Adams Rockland 6.543 3.552% 0.671% 0.562% 4.011% 0.127% 2.970% 0.760% 0.562% 21 Maryland 22 Minnesota AVERAGE 23 Mississippi 24 Nevada 25 Washington Denton Glencoe Philadelphia Fallon Okanogan 4.168 1.518% 4.102 0.532% 0.910 2.298% 3.382 6.596 1.969 5.508 8.): Rural Homestead Property Taxes Payable 2014 $300.350% Rice Lake Manistique Galena Sidney Iola 6.238 7.093% 1.560 6.654% 0.830% 1.164 3.014 1.290 3.287% 2.367% 2.050 3.056% 31 32 33 34 35 Kentucky Alaska California Indiana New Mexico Morehead Ketchican Yreka North Vernon Santa Rosa 3.855 0.187 427 0.733% 1.171 1.199 4.701% 41 42 43 44 45 Delaware Utah Arizona Tennessee West Virginia Georgetown Richfield Safford Savannah Elkins 2.563% 1.033 2.890 1.745 6.961 1.659 1.894 1.248% 2.VI.

538 3.948% 2.360 11.435 14.059% 2.040 1.833 1.887 25.900 33.330% 2.125 23.456% 2.443 1.373% 1.800 1.313% 1.400 26.740% 0.966% 0.192 24.938% 0.521% 39 .683% 0.000 6.613% 1.980 8.283% 2.407 1.084 9.283% 2.924% 0.055 27.181% 1.500% 1.592 11.474 1.108 1.736% 26 Ohio AVERAGE 27 South Dakota 28 Arizona 29 Louisiana 30 Idaho Bryan Madison Safford Natchitoches Saint Anthony 2.262% 3.413 2.939% Moore Haven Hopkinton Denton Fitzgerald Litchfield 2.270 1.128% 2.736 14.700% 1.270% 2.390 3.173 12.590% 1.784% 20.784% 1.926% 16 17 18 19 20 Missouri Maine New Hampshire New Jersey Illinois Boonville Rockland Lancaster Maurice River Township Galena 24.820% 46 47 48 49 50 Virginia Wyoming Arkansas Hawaii Delaware Wise Worland Pocahontas Kauai Georgetown 898 888 820 800 625 0.241% 2.745% 20.456% 2.074 18.048% 41 42 43 44 45 Tennessee Montana Oklahoma Alaska Alabama Savannah Glasgow Mangum Ketchican Monroeville 1.987% 2.074% 2.099 2.373% 31 32 33 34 35 Nevada West Virginia Utah Washington North Dakota Fallon Elkins Richfield Okanogan Devils Lake 1.948 2.338% 2.736% 21 22 23 24 Vermont Rhode Island Maryland Georgia AVERAGE 25 Connecticut Hartford Hopkinton Denton Fitzgerald Litchfield 23.748% 0.326 2.260 2.228% 1.241% 1.576 1.128 3.446 1.112 1.668 23.010% 1.242 1.279 2.354 4.016% 2.471 16 17 18 19 20 Maine New Hampshire New Jersey Illinois Vermont Rockland Lancaster Maurice River Township Galena Hartford 21 22 23 24 25 Florida Rhode Island Maryland Georgia Connecticut Net Tax ETR Kansas Minnesota Iowa New York Michigan Iola Glencoe Hampton Warsaw Manistique 51.667% 0.740 2.367 2.740% 0.280 1.031 984 0.464 1.972% 1.516 2.203% 1.575 1.667% 0.749 2.939% 1.840 1.035% 1.035% 36 37 38 39 40 Kentucky Oregon New Mexico North Carolina Montana Morehead Tillamook Santa Rosa Edenton Glasgow 14.203% 1.066% 1.795% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Iowa Minnesota Texas Massachusetts Wisconsin Hampton Glencoe Fort Stockton Adams Rice Lake 3.877 8.291% 11 12 13 14 15 Pennsylvania Nebraska Mississippi Colorado Missouri Ridgway Sidney Philadelphia Walsenburg Boonville 2.052 1.419 2.748% 0.000 VALUED PROPERTY $20.883% 21.699 12.313% 1.825% 2.899% 22.074% 2.539 25.228% 1.590% 1.554 2.607% 2.596 1.787 1.241% 1.476 1.825% 2.050 16.948% 6 7 8 9 10 Indiana South Carolina Texas Wisconsin Massachusetts North Vernon Mullins Fort Stockton Rice Lake Adams 33.710% 2.519 1.330% 2.945 1.893 2.351 19.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 Table 37: Rural Commercial Property Taxes $100.926% 22.820% 41 42 43 44 45 California Alaska Tennessee Oklahoma Alabama Yreka Ketchican Savannah Mangum Monroeville 12.059% 11 12 13 14 15 Pennsylvania Florida Nebraska Mississippi Colorado Ridgway Moore Haven Sidney Philadelphia Walsenburg 27.583% 2.205% 36 37 38 39 40 Kentucky Oregon New Mexico North Carolina California Morehead Tillamook Santa Rosa Edenton Yreka 1.141 2.280% 3.379 4.987% 2.883% 1.422 12.114 3.181% 1.128% 2.266% 1.954 2.795% 2.196 8.899% 1.521% 46 47 48 49 50 Virginia Wyoming Arkansas Hawaii Delaware Wise Worland Pocahontas Kauai Georgetown 8.476 28.417 1.284 2.000 Fixtures Rank State City Net Tax Payable 2014 $1 MILLION-VALUED PROPERTY $200.356 39.058% 1.266% 1.796 12.504% 1.795 2.710% 1.058% 1.159 1.903% 1.859% 0.205% 31 32 33 34 35 Nevada West Virginia Utah Washington North Dakota Fallon Elkins Richfield Okanogan Devils Lake 15.262% 2.966% 0.141 39.010% 1.972% 1.235 35.016% 2.647 1.097% 2.030% 0.097% 2.896 14.585 3.083 1.907 1.164 24.521 19.252 0.126 1.683% 0.541 29.847 35.311 2.924% 0.761 15.648 1.713 24.490 1.000 Fixtures ETR Rank State 1 2 3 4 5 Kansas New York Michigan Indiana South Carolina Iola Warsaw Manistique North Vernon Mullins 5.190 14.373% 26 27 28 29 30 Ohio Arizona South Dakota Idaho Louisiana Bryan Safford Madison Saint Anthony Natchitoches 20.263 2.489 2.066% 1.

406 361.471 4.784% 26 27 28 29 30 AVERAGE Connecticut Ohio Idaho South Dakota Louisiana Litchfield Bryan Saint Anthony Madison Natchitoches 528.456% 2.287% 2.039 476.048 684.175 884.390 368.000 Fixtures Rank State City 1 2 3 4 5 Kansas Minnesota Iowa New York Michigan Iola Glencoe Hampton Warsaw Manistique 6 7 8 9 10 Indiana South Carolina Texas Wisconsin Massachusetts 11 12 13 14 15 Net Tax ETR 1.630% 1.800 277.340% 2.987% 2. Rankings Tables – Rural Table 37 (cont’d.795 569.664 564.825% 2.343% 2.874 354.883% 1.100 622.514 736.521% 40 .181% 1.860 411.066% 1.697 581.560 289.175 1.002.871 698.000 1.000.909 317.972% 1.475 629.313% 1.000 156.241% 1.748% 0.924% 0.821 513.736% 1.VI.088 246.926% 1.096 896.896 200.740% 0.262% 3.328 2.398% 3.930 204.325 346.873% 1.018 319.074% 16 17 18 19 20 Missouri Maine New Hampshire New Jersey Illinois Boonville Rockland Lancaster Maurice River Township Galena 617.058% 41 42 43 44 45 Alaska California Tennessee Oklahoma Alabama Ketchican Yreka Savannah Mangum Monroeville 316.590% 1.010% 1.855 2.966% 0.205% 36 37 38 39 40 Kentucky Oregon Montana New Mexico North Carolina Morehead Tillamook Glasgow Santa Rosa Edenton 360.278.373% 31 32 33 34 35 Nevada West Virginia Utah Washington North Dakota Fallon Elkins Richfield Okanogan Devils Lake 394.017 310.153% 1.898 561.307 1.330% Florida Pennsylvania Nebraska Mississippi Colorado Moore Haven Ridgway Sidney Philadelphia Walsenburg 686.996 638.162 520.567 2.059% 2.035% 0.939% 21 22 23 24 25 Vermont Rhode Island Maryland Arizona Georgia Hartford Hopkinton Denton Safford Fitzgerald 577.128% 2.908 1.053% 1.228% 1.899% 1.816 604.028 489.882 535.710% 1.266% 1.135 591.948% North Vernon Mullins Fort Stockton Rice Lake Adams 847.203% 1.667% 0.528 1.283% 2.030 379.097% 2.795% 2.761% 1.743 372.500 221.820% 46 47 48 49 50 Virginia Wyoming Arkansas Hawaii Delaware Wise Worland Pocahontas Kauai Georgetown 224.): Rural Commercial Property Taxes Payable 2014 $25 MILLION-VALUED PROPERTY $5.294 0.016% 2.019.800 603.500 838.612 1.890 702.469 1.683% 0.

252 0.099 3.993% 0.226 4.882% 0.792% 1.747% 0.897 0.747% 0.760 13.660% 1.995 1.859% 0.428% 16 17 18 19 20 Louisiana Pennsylvania Wisconsin West Virginia Massachusetts AVERAGE Natchitoches Ridgway Rice Lake Elkins Adams Lancaster 2.097 28.319 3.725% 1.652% 1.126 800 625 0.069% 21 22 23 24 25 Idaho New Hampshire New Jersey Illinois Vermont Saint Anthony Lancaster Maurice River Township Galena Hartford 24.717 1.069 18.077% 1.367 2.183% 1.800 0.953% 0.740 Iowa West Virginia Massachusetts Wisconsin AVERAGE 20 New Hampshire Hampton Elkins Adams Rice Lake 21 22 23 24 25 Net Tax ETR South Carolina Texas Kansas Indiana Mississippi Mullins Fort Stockton Iola North Vernon Philadelphia 72.304 3.590 4.436 1.561 1.677 4.231 1.069% 1.723% 0.766 45.859% 0.882% 0.559 1.400% 0.456% 2.295% 2.138 1.613% 2.824% 36 37 38 39 40 Maryland Montana Tennessee New Mexico Alaska Denton Glasgow Savannah Santa Rosa Ketchican 18.036% 0.218 2.694% 0.338% 2.176 21.907 1.747% 1.126 46.712 1.688% 0.563 14.258% 2.074 19.998% 0.263 22.698 1.206% 1.451 3.072 1.696 17.286% 25.950 1.043% 1.615% 11 12 13 14 15 Georgia Minnesota Florida Louisiana Pennsylvania Fitzgerald Glencoe Moore Haven Natchitoches Ridgway 3.191 1.147% 26 27 28 29 30 Nevada Rhode Island Oklahoma Washington Utah Fallon Hopkinton Mangum Okanogan Richfield 2.861 19.900% 31 32 33 34 35 Washington Utah South Dakota Connecticut Oregon Okanogan Richfield Madison Litchfield Tillamook 19.563% 0.376 1.000 Machinery and Equipment $400.870 1.945% 36 37 38 39 40 Tennessee New Mexico North Carolina California Idaho Savannah Santa Rosa Edenton Yreka Saint Anthony 1.000 Inventories $10.849% 0.312 1.120 8.097% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 New York Nebraska Colorado Missouri Michigan Warsaw Sidney Walsenburg Boonville Manistique 3.807 13.097% 6 7 8 9 10 Michigan Minnesota Florida New York Iowa Manistique Glencoe Moore Haven Warsaw Hampton 41.690% 41 42 43 44 45 North Carolina California Virginia North Dakota Wyoming Edenton Yreka Wise Devils Lake Worland 16.370% 11 12 13 14 15 Nebraska Colorado Missouri Georgia Arizona Sidney Walsenburg Boonville Fitzgerald Safford 34.764 1.000 Fixtures ETR Rank State South Carolina Texas Kansas Indiana Mississippi Mullins Fort Stockton Iola North Vernon Philadelphia 7.515 1.508 33.217% 1.370% 25.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 Table 38: Rural Industrial Property Taxes (50% Personal Property) $100.163% 1.900 41.559 1.410% 1.000 Machinery and Equipment $40.338% 2.413 1.400% 0.109% 1.852% 41 42 43 44 45 Virginia North Dakota Alaska Wyoming Arkansas Wise Devils Lake Ketchican Worland Pocahontas 1.280% 25.294 2.040 0.857 20.890 1.792% 1.585 1.000 VALUED PROPERTY $50.094 2.848 17.142 35.585 3.940 3.656 1.441 1.913 4.723 19.656% 0.606 1.400 1.043% 1.720% 0.940 14.668 23.807% 1.555% 1.206% 28.993 1.613% 2.828% 0.998% 31 32 33 34 35 South Dakota Connecticut Oregon Maryland Arizona Madison Litchfield Tillamook Denton Safford 1.125 23.464 13.410% 27.191 33.847 34.086 2.880 0.690% 0.218% 2.383 20.000 Fixtures Rank State City 1 2 3 4 5 Net Tax Payable 2014 $1 MILLION-VALUED PROPERTY $500.935% 0.660% 1.494 1.456% 2.725% 1.260 49.723% 0.954% 0.183% 1.819 2.044 31.279% 2.643 17.036% 0.163% 1.109% 1.547% 1.652% 1.694% 46 47 48 49 50 Kentucky Alabama Montana Hawaii Delaware Morehead Monroeville Glasgow Kauai Georgetown 1.279% 25.849% 0.656% 0.313% 16 17 18 19 41 .945% 0.326 2.937 2.295% 2.986 1.647 0.110 3.997% 0.388 1.954% 0.543 1.000 Inventories $100.698 1.997% 0.935 19.688% 0.936 1.892% 0.907 1.000 6.993% 26 27 28 29 30 Maine Ohio Nevada Rhode Island Oklahoma Rockland Bryan Fallon Hopkinton Mangum 22.313% 46 47 48 49 50 Arkansas Kentucky Alabama Hawaii Delaware Pocahontas Morehead Monroeville Kauai Georgetown 13.953% 0.555% 1.172 17.194 3.545 39.828% 0.446 1.349 24.356 36.277% New Jersey Illinois Vermont Maine Ohio Maurice River Township Galena Hartford Rockland Bryan 2.550% 1.280% 2.381 0.968% 1.979 16.147% 1.349% 2.935% 0.

206% 1.017 429.694% 46 47 48 49 50 Arkansas Kentucky Alabama Hawaii Delaware Pocahontas Morehead Monroeville Kauai Georgetown 345.656% 0.613% 2.849% 0.000 156.077% 2.567 1.400% 0.080 373.VI.500.520 476.147.771 826.469 414.227 1.294% 646.415 1.294 0.295% 2.630 603.289% 21 22 23 24 25 West Virginia Massachusetts New Hampshire New Jersey Illinois Elkins Adams Lancaster Maurice River Township Galena 640. Rankings Tables – Rural Table 38 (cont’d.398 441.279% 1.097% 6 7 8 9 10 Michigan Minnesota Florida New York Iowa Manistique Glencoe Moore Haven Warsaw Hampton 1.006 0.063 433.293 1.370 496.991 328.555% 16 Louisiana 17 Pennsylvania 18 Montana AVERAGE 19 Idaho 20 Wisconsin Natchitoches Ridgway Glasgow Saint Anthony Rice Lake 704.000 Machinery and Equipment $10.456% 2.348% 647.500 361.998% 0.652% 1.228.725% 1.307 917.430 518.882% 0.135 591.): Rural Industrial Property Taxes (50% Personal Property) Payable 2014 $25 MILLION-VALUED PROPERTY $12.954% 0.612 347.828% 0.935% 0.293% 644.697 581.064 1.660% 1.835% 1.176 343.859% 41 42 43 44 45 North Carolina California Virginia North Dakota Wyoming Edenton Yreka Wise Devils Lake Worland 424.169.860 476.150 1.000 200.019.997% 0.768 1.500.000.688 829.945% 0.175 894.433 467.584% 1.721 0.159 1.000 Fixtures Rank State City 1 2 3 4 5 Net Tax ETR South Carolina Texas Kansas Indiana Mississippi Mullins Fort Stockton Iola North Vernon Philadelphia 1.400 534.996 1.036% 31 32 33 34 35 Oklahoma Washington Utah South Dakota Connecticut Mangum Okanogan Richfield Madison Litchfield 498.039% 1.792% 1.147% 1.993% 0.527 1.038.407 554.690% 0.138 639.069% 1.000 Inventories $2.080 777.634 2.564 521.370% 674.410% 684.491 1.723% 0.430 896.313% 42 .280% 1.109% 1.043% 1.500 1.688% 0.789% 11 12 13 14 15 Nebraska Colorado Missouri Arizona Georgia Sidney Walsenburg Boonville Safford Fitzgerald 862.747% 0.953% 36 37 38 39 40 Oregon Maryland Tennessee Alaska New Mexico Tillamook Denton Savannah Ketchican Santa Rosa 472.500 3.289 0.866% 0.806.109 792.338% 2.029 1.758 498.635 1.183% 1.048.163% 26 27 28 29 30 Vermont Maine Ohio Nevada Rhode Island Hartford Rockland Bryan Fallon Hopkinton 573.

917% 31 32 33 34 35 Tennessee Ohio Maryland New Mexico North Carolina Savannah Bryan Denton Santa Rosa Edenton 2.465 1.585 23.515% 1.847 35.649% 1.646 20.410 19.677 1.196% 2.000 VALUED PROPERTY $75.855% 0.800 0.071% 1.115 1.320% 0.717% 0.138 2.550 20.294 2.659% 0.000 Machinery and Equipment $600.883 1.650 35.818% 0.744 1.023 1.551 3.808% 31 32 33 34 35 Oregon Montana Rhode Island Tennessee Ohio Tillamook Glasgow Hopkinton Savannah Bryan 22.434% 1.000 Fixtures ETR Rank State South Carolina Texas Indiana Mississippi Kansas Mullins Fort Stockton North Vernon Philadelphia Iola 8.580 15.572% 1.602% 0.252 0.698 1.065 2.413 2.424 21.456% 2.446 1.987% 0.419% 2.163% 29.456% 2.958% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Nebraska Colorado Missouri Florida Georgia Sidney Walsenburg Boonville Moore Haven Fitzgerald 4.507 0.089 43.965% 0.931% 0.953% 0.647 1.097% 1.585 3.740 1.196% 2.947% 0.243 4.189 19.763% 0.285% 29.720% 36 37 38 39 40 Maryland Alaska New Mexico North Carolina Connecticut Denton Ketchican Santa Rosa Edenton Litchfield 20.420% 1.834 1.074 1.787% 0.285% 1.097% 1.577% 1.490 5.074 17.383 0.898% 0.492 24.397% 32.898% 0.383 2.870% 0.096% 2.826% 0.075% Fallon Lancaster Okanogan Maurice River Township Richfield 2.818% 0.927% 0.822% 0.900 52.000 Inventories $15.763% 0.941 1.929 3.776% 0.505 1.263 23.995 1.693% 0.943% 21 22 23 24 25 Massachusetts Oklahoma Nevada New Hampshire Washington Adams Mangum Fallon Lancaster Okanogan 26.240% 16 17 18 19 20 AVERAGE Pennsylvania Iowa Massachusetts Wisconsin Oklahoma Ridgway Hampton Adams Rice Lake Mangum 21 22 23 24 25 Nevada New Hampshire Washington New Jersey Utah 26 27 28 29 30 Net Tax ETR South Carolina Texas Indiana Mississippi Kansas Mullins Fort Stockton North Vernon Philadelphia Iola 85.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 Table 39: Rural Industrial Property Taxes (60% Personal Property) $100.414 39.047 14.579% 0.244 2.099 1.000 Machinery and Equipment $60.649% 1.967 1.558 0.506% 11 12 13 14 15 New York Louisiana Michigan West Virginia Minnesota Warsaw Natchitoches Manistique Elkins Glencoe 3.917% 0.802 21.808% 0.053% 2.318 2.425 48.632 1.679 24.175 0.651 1.931% 0.356 1.870% 26 27 28 29 30 New Jersey Utah Illinois Maine Vermont Maurice River Township Richfield Galena Rockland Hartford 23.000 6.071% 2.907 1.314 16.098% 2.951 0.623% 41 42 43 44 45 California Virginia South Dakota Arkansas Wyoming Yreka Wise Madison Pocahontas Worland 19.602% 0.441 21.450% 0.428% 2.141 5.857% 0.358 0.688 61.367 2.953% Illinois Maine Vermont Oregon Rhode Island Galena Rockland Hartford Tillamook Hopkinton 2.468 2.941 3.895 3.250% 46 47 48 49 50 Alabama Kentucky North Dakota Hawaii Delaware Monroeville Morehead Devils Lake Kauai Georgetown 15.250% 43 .549 1.019 0.826% 0.958% 6 7 8 9 10 Michigan Florida Nebraska Colorado Minnesota Manistique Moore Haven Sidney Walsenburg Glencoe 47.000 Inventories $150.320% 0.428% 2.936 0.937 1.693% 0.506% 1.872% 0.798% 0.787% 0.947% 0.572% 1.020% 16 Iowa 17 West Virginia 18 Idaho AVERAGE 19 Pennsylvania 20 Wisconsin Hampton Elkins Saint Anthony Ridgway Rice Lake 34.293 37.669 19.123 3.579% 0.326 2.943% 0.408 54.776% 0.079% 2.755 21.045 2.668 23.142 2.723% 1.464 8.623% 0.434% 1.965% 0.927% 0.453 20.770 25.788 3.660% 46 47 48 49 50 Kentucky North Dakota Montana Hawaii Delaware Morehead Devils Lake Glasgow Kauai Georgetown 1.125 23.083 41.329% 1.161% 27.574% 11 12 13 14 15 Missouri Georgia New York Louisiana Arizona Boonville Fitzgerald Warsaw Natchitoches Safford 39.512 35.577% 1.954 3.212 3.184 22.020% 0.660% 0.884% 1.857% 0.000 Fixtures Rank State City 1 2 3 4 5 Net Tax Payable 2014 $1 MILLION-VALUED PROPERTY $750.765 1.323 3.234 39.126 800 625 0.731 1.855% 36 37 38 39 40 Connecticut California Virginia South Dakota Arizona Litchfield Yreka Wise Madison Safford 1.420% 1.400 1.792 1.569 6.096% 26.987% 0.798% 41 42 43 44 45 Alaska Arkansas Wyoming Idaho Alabama Ketchican Pocahontas Worland Saint Anthony Monroeville 1.

787% 0.090.506% 1.096% 21 22 23 24 25 Wisconsin Massachusetts Oklahoma Nevada New Hampshire Rice Lake Adams Mangum Fallon Lancaster 673.372.885 764.600 0.255 896.014 543.996 1.750.931% 0.301 616.870% 0.771 0.851 412.000 156.022 684.847 1.020% 0.843 591.579% 0.456% 2.000 Machinery and Equipment $15.729 941.324 504.353 1.175 894.857% 0.642 736.660% 46 47 48 49 50 Alabama Kentucky North Dakota Hawaii Delaware Monroeville Morehead Devils Lake Kauai Georgetown 389.719 498.500 376.884% 1.965% 26 27 28 29 30 Washington New Jersey Utah Illinois Maine Okanogan Maurice River Township Richfield Galena Rockland 595.285% 1.649% 1.310.697 589.223.917% 0.602% 0.763% 0.420% 1.767 516.188 1.927% 31 32 33 34 35 Vermont Oregon Rhode Island Tennessee Ohio Hartford Tillamook Hopkinton Savannah Bryan 573.294 0.567 579.223% 1.864 535.595 534.434% 1.329 964.071% 1.746% 1.693% 0.243 637.577% 11 12 13 14 15 Missouri Arizona Georgia New York Iowa Boonville Safford Fitzgerald Warsaw Hampton 982.818% 0.395% 1.097% 1.898% 0.250 476.307 985.720 485.177.431% Louisiana Montana West Virginia Idaho AVERAGE 20 Pennsylvania Natchitoches Glasgow Elkins Saint Anthony Ridgway 887.618 581.612 200.148 511.564 0.808% 0.019.544% 1.135 1.750.958% 6 7 8 9 10 Michigan Florida Nebraska Minnesota Colorado Manistique Moore Haven Sidney Glencoe Walsenburg 1.428% 2.VI.947% 0.500 1.623% 0.191 1.000 Fixtures Rank State City 1 2 3 4 5 Net Tax ETR South Carolina Texas Indiana Mississippi Kansas Mullins Fort Stockton North Vernon Philadelphia Iola 2.030.196% 2.843 3.860 432.805 871.980 603.407 561.855% 36 37 38 39 40 Alaska Maryland New Mexico North Carolina Connecticut Ketchican Denton Santa Rosa Edenton Litchfield 520.215 1.967 1.953% 0.250% 16 17 18 19 44 .142.320% 0. Rankings Tables – Rural Table 38 (cont’d.833% 0.183 361.631% 1.987% 0.826% 0.178% 1.634 1.944 802.776% 0.535.798% 41 42 43 44 45 California Virginia South Dakota Arkansas Wyoming Yreka Wise Madison Pocahontas Worland 491.625 1.572% 1.): Rural Industrial Property Taxes (60% Personal Property) Payable 2014 $25 MILLION-VALUED PROPERTY $18.685 0.000 Inventories $3.000.943% 0.582 669.078% 1.

199% 31 32 33 34 35 Oregon Kentucky North Carolina Missouri California Tillamook Morehead Edenton Boonville Yreka 7.555% 6 7 8 9 10 Texas Wisconsin New Hampshire New Jersey Kansas Fort Stockton Rice Lake Lancaster Maurice River Township Iola 15.764 7.067 4.795% 1.112% 2.641% 0.587 6.897% 41 42 43 44 45 Alabama Arizona Montana Wyoming Utah Monroeville Safford Glasgow Worland Richfield 5.469 0.039 3.569% 1.975% 1.211 2.047 4.762 13.885 8.969% 0.734% 0.875% 21 22 23 24 25 South Dakota Georgia Indiana Connecticut Maryland AVERAGE Madison Fitzgerald North Vernon Litchfield Denton 11.492 20.181% 1.508 21.201 14.048 10.046% 1.378% 1.711 6.441 6.218% 1.771% 1.818 13.298% 2.623 4.817% 1.035% 36 37 38 39 40 Tennessee Alaska Louisiana New Mexico Oklahoma Savannah Ketchican Natchitoches Santa Rosa Mangum 6.005 2.820% 0.313 11.724% 0.610% 2.996% 0.306 11.954% 1.016% 1.057% 1.441 12.551 1.456% 2.991% 0.475 14.184% 2.814 2.450 0.246 6.223% 11 12 13 14 15 Illinois Florida Vermont Nebraska Mississippi Galena Moore Haven Hartford Sidney Philadelphia 13.445 11.184% 2.963 11.709% 46 47 48 49 50 Arkansas Delaware Virginia Colorado Hawaii Pocahontas Georgetown Wise Walsenburg Kauai 4.440 16.333% 2.057 16.701 12.065% 1.000 Fixtures Rank State City Net Tax ETR 1 2 3 4 5 New York Iowa Michigan Pennsylvania South Carolina Warsaw Hampton Manistique Ridgway Mullins 21.215% 2.560 4.492 4.275 6.254% 2.699 14.286 4.646% 0.595% 1.679 7.096 3.166 4.680% 0.592% 26 27 28 29 30 Idaho North Dakota Nevada Washington West Virginia Saint Anthony Devils Lake Fallon Okanogan Elkins 9.160 10.732% 1.899% 1.000VALUED PROPERTY $30.656 6.097% 16 17 18 19 20 Maine Massachusetts Ohio Minnesota Rhode Island Rockland Adams Bryan Glencoe Hopkinton 12.028 1.232% 1.193% 2.912 10.305 13.548% 45 .857 5.642% 0.672 7.411% 3.475 14.930% 0.414% 3.958 13.107 5.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 Table 40: Rural Apartment Property Taxes Payable 2014 $600.653 0.713% 0.522 1.

the cities selected for inclusion are county seats in counties coded “6” (a nonmetro county with an urban population of 2. the only code 6 or 7 county included Nantucket Island. Appendix: Methodology and Assumptions This study updates the 50-State Property Tax Comparison Study: Payable Year 2013. removes subjectivity in city choice. Data Collection Data for property tax calculations was collected in one of two ways. New Jersey.000 with an “average rural tax rate” for inclusion in the study. Where information is not available through this media. and • a rural area in each state. which sets the home value in each city equal to the median value of owneroccupied housing units in the city. We modified our methodology for rural city selection by choosing rural cities based on the rural-urban continuum codes developed by the U. This data comes from the one-year data in the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey for 2013. in some instances our local contacts provided cities that did not meet these criteria. Delaware. not adjacent to a metro area). or for smaller cities.S. Hawaii. We intend 46 .500 to 19. Wherever possible. In the case of Massachusetts. We include the second-largest cities in those states (Buffalo and Aurora) to represent the property tax structures in the remainder of those states. our Urban analysis is a comparison of 53 different property tax structures. subject to local verification when necessary.999. which we did not select since it does not seem comparable to rural counties in other states. the assessment ratios) is substantially different than the system used in the remainder of Illinois and New York. More specific details about key assumptions are provided in the sections below. New York. the property tax system (notably. Appendix: Methodology and Assumptions VII. 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. Where possible. In five states (Connecticut. Selection of Rural Cities Prior to payable 2008. and creates a more heterogeneous set of cities with regard to population and geographic relationship to urban areas.000. Selection of Additional Urban Cities In Cook County (Chicago) and in New York City. and Rhode Island). in the relevant county. we collect data using a contact-verification approach in which we ask state and local tax experts to provide information.500 to 19. This provides measurable eligibility criteria. we selected the county seat in the most rural county available. adjacent to a metro area) or “7” (a nonmetro county with an urban population of 2.500 to 10. In most instances. we collect property tax data directly from various state and local websites. In those cases.999. we also included only cities with a population of 2. this information served as the basis for calculations by the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence. Those calculations were. there were no counties coded 6 or 7. • the largest fifty cities in the United States.VII. Department of Agriculture. Data on Median-Valued Homes This study compares homeowner property taxes in Urban and Top 50 cities using a “median value analaysis”. our methodology for selecting rural cities for this study was to rely on the expertise of local contacts to provide a rural city with a population of between 2. The tax was calculated for variously-valued parcels in three sets of cities: • the largest urban area of each state and the District of Columbia along with Aurora.500 and 10. In essence. in turn. In both cases. Illinois and Buffalo. respectively. Unfortunately.

If the sales ratios are at 100% that generally indicates that reassessments have just occurred.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 this comparison to show how differences in local real estate markets affect residential property taxes. Nevertheless. in most states is the starting point for the tax calculation. below 100%. This is the market value of a parcel of property as determined in the local real estate market consisting of arm-length transactions between willing buyers and sellers. in every state. Accordingly. (One-year data in the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey for 2013. the property has sold for less than its assessed value. However.000 home in Boston. we are comparing property taxes. assessments and market values are equal.000 assumes that the parcel is actually worth $150. the quality of property tax assessments is a significant aspect of the local property tax scene. Sales Ratios (SR) A unique aspect of this study is the inclusion of the effects of assessment practices on relative tax burdens across the country. In the cases of some locations the assumed true market value may be very atypical (a $150. Readers should make time-trend comparisons of tax burdens on median-valued homes before and after this methodological change with care. for example). is 100%. (2) a local sales ratio (SR). Note that this is a change from previous editions of the study. That is. the property has sold for more than its assessed value. This is in contrast to “assessed value” or “estimated market value. this study assumes the property exists there. It would have been much simpler to start the calculations by fixing the assessor’s “estimated market value” for each property. True Market Value (TMV) It is important to note that the calculations for this study start with an assumption about the true market value of the four classes of property. This study assumes the true market value of each property type is the same for each state. Omission of this aspect of the property tax calculation would have made this study much less useful. For example. Essentially the goal of this study is to compare the effects of property tax structures. the ranking of property taxes on a residential homestead parcel with a true market value of $150. the net local property tax for a given parcel of property is written: Net Property Tax = TMV x SR x CR x TR – C Assumptions about each component are discussed in the sections below. The sales ratio is determined by comparing assessments to actual sales. If a sales ratio is: above 100%. where our median home value data came from metropolitan-area data provided by the National Association of Realtors. it is helpful to think of the property tax calculation as having five distinct components: (1) a “true” market value (TMV). Components of the Property Tax Calculation As an aid in reviewing the remaining assumptions of this study. sales ratios are used to 47 . In some states. However. By fixing values we are able to observe the isolated effects of tax structures. and (5) applicable property tax credits (C). we do include tables that show the residential tax burdens in our Urban and Top 50 sets of cities where the home value in each location is set equal to the median values of owner-occupied housing units in the metropolitan area for each city.000 in the local real estate market in each location in each state. This would have resulted in a comparison of only the statutory property tax structure.) The specific market value assumed for each class of property in this report is described below in the section on property classes. for the county in which the city is located. regardless of what the local assessor may think the property is worth. (4) the total local property tax rate (TR). (3) 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). Sales ratios are simply a measure of the accuracy of assessments. or for smaller cities. not local real estate markets.” which.

county. In any one city. In a few states classification is partly determined by local governments. regardless of the date(s) on which payments are due. and $140. state orders adjusting values. a factor that equalizes assessment values to market values. In this study. We were careful to include the tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions that “normally” levy against real and personal property (namely. however.) and put their classification policy in statute. In the absence of classification or differential assessments.000 and a business with the same assessment would pay identical property taxes and their effective tax rates (tax as a percent of assessed value) would be the same.VII. we convert the $150. we include them in this study. in violation of state constitution uniformity provision. Because of the wide variation in the quality of assessments across the states.500 ($150. Sales ratios are generally not used in calculating an individual’s actual property tax bill.000 true market value to $139. etc. 48 . That is. Many states do not have sales ratios for personal property or assume they are 100%. These are normally countylevel sales ratios for the specific classes of property. namely statutory classification or differential assessment schemes. assuming the properties are located in the same set of taxing jurisdictions. By applying sales ratios. Appendix: Methodology and Assumptions adjust assessor’s values for use in state aid formulas that use local property wealth as a measure of local fiscal capacity. the distribution of property tax burdens by class of property will reflect the distribution of the assessor’s estimated market values. It is important that we use sales ratios in this study because our fixed reference point for all calculations is an assumed true market value. it is important to use the true market value as a point of reference. we tried to use the ratio most applicable to the property (either a statewide ratio for the class. state certification of assessors. In order for the tax liabilities to represent the actual experience of property owners. and to compare “effective” property tax rates across the states. essentially intersections of city. Where states report personal property sales ratios.000 in one location. perhaps. a home assessed at $100. We attempt to adjust the assumed true market value of our sample properties with the use of sales ratios applicable to the location and type of property being studied. cities. and special taxing district. In the case of personal property. We asked for the local tax rates for the intersection with the largest number of properties. like Minnesota. classification schemes are set by state legislatures. some states use an equalization factor for calculating property tax bills. sales ratios are generally not used. and special taxing districts). Where location and class specific ratios were not available. school districts. payable 2014 applicable to the greatest number of parcels in the largest urban area of each state. this study recognizes that our $150. In most states.000 residential homestead may be “on the books” at $155. “Payable 2014 tax rate” was defined as the tax rate used to calculate the property taxes with a lien date originating in 2014. Classification Rates (CR) The third component of the property tax calculation involves subjecting the assessor’s estimated market value to provisions designed to affect the distribution of property tax levies. counties. school district. and that the actual tax on the property will be based on these “estimates” of market value.93) before applying the provisions of the local property tax. if the relevant sales ratio in a given location is 93%. particularly across classes of property. there may be many different taxing jurisdictions. or in some cases. a county ratio applicable to all property classes).000 x .000 in another. many states that appear to have no classification scheme may in fact have significant classification via uneven assessments across classes of property. in some cases. Total Local Tax Rate (TR) Tax rates requested were state and local. Some states. enforces strict standards of assessment quality (sales ratio studies.

In Minnesota.000.500.000 $18.000 $0 $0 $30.000 $25. The four classes of property studied comprise nearly 70% of all the market value of real and personal property in Minnesota.000 $400.000 $5.000 of estimated market value of a residential home is taxed at 80% the rate applicable to the value over $500. While this may seem an unnecessary complication to many readers. To get an appropriate ranking of the property taxes on all classes of property.000. Other classes of property were omitted either because of their complexity (public utilities.000.000 $200.750. and particularly personal property.000 $20.000 $300.000 $1. The following table summarizes the property classes and assumed true market values (and assessed value of personal property) used for each class.000 $25.000 $2. Any other credits that apply to a majority of parcels of the specified type were included in our calculations.000. and are usually not sources of general revenue.000 $15.000 $100.000 $3.000 $25.4 times more heavily than value under $150.500.000 $100.000 $600. a low value and a high value. Taxes were calculated for the four classes of property in the largest urban area of each state and the District of Columbia.00 $15.000 $1. it is important to make specific assumptions about the amount of personal property 49 .000.000.500.500.000 $62. we assume in the study that taxpayers take advantage of the credit by making the early payment.000 $30.000 $150.000 $600.750. We selected these classes of property to provide information about certain recurring property tax reform themes in Minnesota.000 $2. note that the Minnesota property tax system includes “tiered” classifications based on value (similar to income tax brackets). Apartment property consists of only one value. at least in Minnesota.000.000 $12.000. or because the need for information about them was less urgent.000 $60.000.000 $1.000 $2.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 We exclude special assessments from this study since they are more in the nature of user charges.000 $630. plus the additional cities added when a state’s largest urban area has a property tax structure markedly different from the remainder of the state. Business value over $150.000 $300. Credits (C) The final step in the tax calculation is to recognize any general deductions from the gross property tax calculations (credits). farms).000.000 is taxed about 1.000 $750. we assumed two different values of real property. Class Homestead Apartments Commercial Industrial (50% Personal) Industrial (60% Personal) PROPERTY CLASSES AND TRUE MARKET VALUES Values of Property Real Mach.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40.000 $250. namely the tax on homesteads relative to those on business and apartment property. (2) commercial property.000 $120.000 $50.000. the first $500.000 $100. and (4) apartments. Inventories Fixtures $150.000. All classes of property contained a corresponding set of assumptions about personal property. Property Classes and True Market Values The four hypothetical properties studied in this report are (1) residential homesteads.000 $10. do not affect a majority of parcels. For the homestead property. & Equip. This updated study added a third value of $25 million for commercial and industrial property.000 $100.200.000 $75.000. (3) industrial property.000 $1.000 Total $150.000 Real and Personal Property The treatment of personal property is a significant part of the property tax in every state. Certain states provide credits based on early payment.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50.000 $500.000 $200.000.000 $10.

are sensitive to the assumed mix of values. particularly for industrial parcels. Effective Tax Rates (ETRs) Repeated reference has already been made to the concept of effective tax rates.0% personal property. but not motor vehicles. Personal Property – Inventories This includes raw materials.50% and 40% . 50 . Overall. We define the types of property as follows: Real Property Property consisting of land and buildings not classified as personal property for tax purposes. garbage disposals. Using that methodology. Since some states tax most personal property and other states exempt exempt some or all personal property. machinery and equipment. It would include such items as large printing presses and assembly robots. air conditioners. tools and similar items. average split for industrial parcels nationwide is 44. display racks.0% land and buildings (real property) and 56. The comparison tables included in this report show actual dollar taxes and effective tax rates ranked from highest to lowest as well as alphabetically. we have borrowed the methodology they use to determine shares of real and personal business property in their biennial Tax Incidence Study. according to the model. Property Classes and True Market Values With the permission of the Minnesota Department of Revenue’s Research Division. In contrast to statutory tax rates that apply to taxable values. This study does not include intabgibles such as bank balances or financial securities in the property tax calculations. We discontinued this analysis beginning with our payable 2011 report to focus resources on other study-related initiatives. In some previous editions of this study we measured tax burdens and rankings for industrial parcels where we allowed the shares of personal property to vary from state to state. and inventory shares for industrial parcels. effective tax rates have the virtue of allowing more meaningful comparisons across states and property types. Appendix: Methodology and Assumptions associated with each example. The findings this model generate indicate that our assumptions regarding industrial personal property are very reasonable. generally not portable and often mounted on special foundations. it would include such things as stoves. we present industrial rankings based on a 50% .7% (Oregon) to 60. Personal Property – Machinery and Equipment This includes large and ponderous equipment. drapes. and lawn care equipment. we have calculated state-specific real property.VII. Personal Property – Fixtures Fixtures include such items as office furnishings.0% (Montana) with corresponding shares of real property value. in this study effective tax rates are used to express the relationship between net property taxes and the true market value of the property.60% mix of real and personal property value. supplies and similar items. In the body of this report. The specific mix of real and personal property obviously varies by industry and location. unfinished products. In the case of apartments. the shares of personal property range from 50. the tax rankings. respectively. By including the effects of all statutory tax provisions as well as the effects of local assessment practices. refrigerators. fixtures.

We 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. then we assume that the provision does not apply to half or more of homeowners and therefore does not apply. It is available at: https://www. we estimate the effect that provisions that deliver property tax relief for homeowners by limiting increases in home value or property taxes at the parcel level.” These are defined as provisions that. state and local policies that affect the distribution of the property tax burden across properties. One final key assumption: the model represents the experience of a homeowner with an “average” length of tenure. Therefore. Generally. Special provisions are normally triggered by special circumstances or attributes of the taxpayer or property. the relative use of non-property tax sources of financing public services such as local income or sales taxes and fees. 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.lincolninst. intergovernmental aids paid to local governments. apply to less than half of all taxpayers for a given class of property. The goal of this study is to compare the actual tax experience of the largest number of taxpayers in the selected jurisdictions. 51 . The level of property taxes in each state reflects the level of local spending there. Examples include senior tax deferrals.edu/pubs/2033_Property-Assessment-Limits--Effects-onHomestead-Property-Tax-Burdens-and-National-Property-Tax-Rankings. and special valuation exclusions based on age.. in practice.Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence 50 State Property Tax Study 2014 Estimates of Assessment Limitation Effects Beginning with our report for taxes payable 2012. for selected classes of property. if the model returns no excluded value. Special Property Tax Provisions This study excludes all “special property tax provisions. We use 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. 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. health or special use. We use data from the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s House Price Index for All Transactions to estimate the average change in residential property value in locations where assessment limitation provisions are in effect. What Do Rankings Mean? Property tax rankings must be evaluated in the broader context of each state’s fiscal system.