The property tax in Indiana has long generated considerable public policy debate, centering on the methods prescribed by the state to determine property values. Most states use some form of market value as the assessment standard, but Indiana relies on “true tax value.” Indiana law defines this as “the value determined under the rules of the State Board of Tax Commissioners,” and it declares that “true tax value does not mean fair market value.”

A landmark decision by the state Supreme Court in December 1998 ignited new debate over Indiana’s property tax system. The Court ruled that the tables used in the 1995 assessment manual lacked “meaningful reference to property wealth,” did not contain “objectively verifiable data,” and violated the state constitution. Although the legal opinion contained language suggesting approval of the use of market-derived data, the Court fell short of mandating a system based strictly on market value.

Almost two years have passed since this ruling, but minimal progress has been made in implementing a more equitable and uniform assessment system. Policy makers have focused almost exclusively on the projected tax shifts, especially those to homeowners, under market-derived valuation methods, and have all but ignored the underlying inequities that plague Indiana’s assessment system.

This article reviews the essential features of Indiana’s property tax and assessment systems, describes recent reform efforts, and identifies critical reform issues, apart from the tax shifts, that need to be addressed.

Property Tax and Assessment Systems

Property Tax Revenues. In 1999, the property tax raised more than $4.6 billion, nearly all of it generated locally and used for local services, especially K-12 public education. The property tax is the largest revenue source in Indiana, generating more revenue in 1999 than federal funds ($3.8 billion), individual income taxes ($3.7 billion), and sales and use taxes ($3.4 billion). Together, these four revenue sources account for nearly 80 percent of total state and local revenue (see Figure 1).

Nearly 65 percent of the total property tax levy in 1999 was paid by the business community, including commercial, industrial, utility, and agricultural property (see Figure 2). Personal property accounts for about one-half of the total business property tax burden. Although Indiana’s constitution prohibits unequal property taxation, this relatively high business share demonstrates a de facto classification system that allocates a majority of the property tax burden to non-voting entities.

Local Administration. The primary assessing jurisdiction in Indiana is the township. Each of the state’s 1,008 townships elects either a full- or part-time assessor, depending on population; nearly 85 percent of these assessors are part-time. County assessors are elected in each of the state’s 92 counties. As a general rule, the county assessor has a greater role when townships have more part-time assessors, because the county assessor reviews both personal property and real estate assessments.

State Administration. The State Board of Tax Commissioners (Tax Board), the first property tax commission of its kind in the nation, is primarily responsible for promulgating assessment rules and regulations for both real and personal property. Additionally, the Tax Board hears property tax appeals, approves local government budgets, provides assessor training, and maintains a comprehensive local government database.

Assessment Standards. Real and personal property are assessed at one-third of true tax value (TTV). The TTV of improved real property is based on a cost approach, but neither the replacement costs nor the depreciation schedules are market derived. In fact, when compared to the market, Indiana’s TTVs vary widely, not only between property classes (i.e., residential, business, utility and agricultural) but within classes as well.

The TTV of personal property is based on original acquisition cost, but, like the TTV of real property, relies on depreciation schedules that bear little relationship to the market. Most business assets receive accelerated depreciation of 40 to 60 percent in the first few years. However, older assets are subject to a relatively high residual value of 30 percent of original cost. Business inventory also is based on its original cost and is subject to the same floor, but it receives a 35 percent assessment deduction.

Indiana law provides that the TTV of land is to be based on market value, but recent studies have found that land assessments are significantly less than market value. Residential land values are roughly 40 percent of market value. The TTV of farmland is based on a use value of $495 per acre, adjusted for soil productivity, resulting in an assessment that is also well below market value.

Assessment Cycle. Indiana employs two different assessment cycles. Personal property is self-assessed annually, while real property reassessment is both infrequent and irregular. The last general reassessment of real property took effect in March 1995. The previous reassessment occurred in 1989, and reassessments generally took effect every ten years before then. The next general reassessment of real property has been delayed from March 1999 until at least March 2002.

Assessment Reform

Major state reform efforts, whether in welfare programs, school funding or tax policy, tend be driven by either fiscal distress or judicial mandates, but the political process dictates the speed of reform. This same pattern holds true for tax reform to achieve a more equitable and uniform assessment system in Indiana, as policy makers have been slow to respond to judicial mandates.

Judicial Efforts. The Indiana Supreme Court’s 1998 decision in State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Town of St. John is widely considered to be the most significant judicial decision on taxation in the state’s history. The Supreme Court affirmed the state Tax Court’s decision that the 1995 real property assessment manual violated the state constitution’s requirement that the Indiana General Assembly provide for “. . . a uniform and equal rate of property assessment and taxation.”

The Supreme Court found these mandates of uniformity and equality were not met because the manual’s cost schedules were arbitrary, did not reflect actual construction costs, and were not based on “objectively verifiable” data. Unlike the Tax Court, however, the Supreme Court did not mandate a strict market value system. Rather, it ruled that any departures from market value must result in assessments that are “substantially uniform and equal based on property wealth.”

Because executive and legislative policy makers have been slow to respond to this mandate, the Tax Court has become increasingly assertive in the pursuit of an equitable assessment system. Recently, the Tax Court established certain dates for both the adoption (June 2001) and implementation (March 2002) of constitutional assessment regulations, required the Tax Board to submit monthly progress reports, and announced that an independent reassessment commissioner would be appointed if the Tax Board’s efforts were “deficient in any meaningful way.”

Executive Efforts. To carry out its duty to ensure uniformity and equality of property assessment and taxation, the Indiana General Assembly has delegated the development and oversight of the state’s assessment system to the State Tax Board, an executive agency under the governor. This agency has the unenviable task of creating a new assessment system that will likely cause considerable shifts in tax burdens. Delays have further politicized this process, and assessment reform and tax burden shifts have become the focus of the November 2000 general election.

The Tax Board has taken steps to comply with the Supreme Court decision. The Board’s 1999 proposed real property assessment manual incorporated market-derived cost tables for all property classes. Residential depreciation schedules also were based on the market, and the base value of agricultural land was increased from $495 to $1,050 an acre.

Unfortunately, other actions by the Tax Board and the inaction of the executive branch may have offset these improvements. For example, the proposed manual provided a residential assessment reduction, or shelter allowance. The Tax Board argued that basic shelter is not property wealth, since other assets cannot substitute for shelter. A shelter allowance was calculated for each county, ranging in value between $16,000 and $22,686, to be deducted from residential property assessments. This unique valuation method would reduce the predicted residential tax shift from 33 to 7 percent and could be considered a form of classification. Viewing this shift as unacceptable, the governor did not approve the 1999 proposed real estate manual, illustrating the highly politicized nature of assessment reform.

Legislative Efforts. Anticipating a major court decision, the 1997 Indiana General Assembly enacted legislation that many considered the first step toward significant assessment reform. It increased assessor training requirements, improved the local and state appeals process, and required the state to establish level of assessment and uniformity standards and to conduct equalization studies. Again, these improvements may have been offset by other legislative initiatives. The 1997 legislation allows township assessors to establish land values, an authority that previously rested with county land commissions. Current data indicates that these township land values are far from market values, and it is unlikely that the large number of part-time township assessors can establish more accurate land values in the future.

The recently enacted equalization legislation is also problematic. Most states equalize assessments in the first year that reassessment takes effect, to provide immediate mitigation for unequal assessment. Current Indiana law delays equalization for at least two years following the effective date of reassessment.

Conclusion

It comes as no surprise that projected property tax shifts have become the focal point of both assessment reform efforts and the 2000 general election. The highly politicized debate over “acceptable” tax burden shifts has distracted policy makers from addressing reform of assessment regulations. While market-derived assessment manuals represent a significant step, this alone will not result in a more uniform and equitable assessment system. Policy makers must also consider the following issues:

1. Taxpayer equity cannot be measured by interclass tax shifts at the county level alone. Assessment reform will produce dramatic intraclass and intracounty tax shifts, but these shifts have been discussed only as they relate to residential property. Yet, current data indicates that equally significant shifts will occur within other property classes, especially business property.

2. The current administrative structure of the state’s assessment system may not be compatible with an equitable and uniform assessment system. Restructuring the Tax Board could help insulate it from the political consequences of its oversight function. At the local level, policy makers should consider streamlining the roles of local assessors and identifying alternative assessment jurisdiction models based on population, parcel counts, and/or assessed value.

3. Adoption and enforcement of strict equalization standards may be the most significant step in the reform process.

4. The Indiana assessment community should take further steps to increase the level of assessor training and expand assessor qualification requirements. Policy makers also should consider appointment of local assessors by the county executive.

5. Indiana land assessments have been and continue to be well below market value. This underlying problem must be rectified through assessor training, more diligent state oversight, and implementation of the equalization process.

These issues must be addressed in order to remedy the inequities currently plaguing Indiana’s property tax and assessment systems.

____________

Frank Kelly and Jeff Wuensch are cofounders of the Nexus Group, an Indiana-based research firm specializing in property taxation. Kelly is also assistant professor of economics at Butler University and Indiana University; he previously served as the senior tax analyst for the Indiana State Tax Board. Wuensch previously worked as director of tax review at the Indiana State Tax Board and at the Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute. Kelly, Wuensch and Thomas Hamilton, assistant professor of real estate in the Department of Finance at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, are joint recipients of a David C. Lincoln Fellowship in Land Value Taxation from the Lincoln Institute. This article is based on their study of Indiana’s property tax system as part of their Fellowship project.

Total state and local revenue: Table/Chart 1 Sources are the Indiana State Tax Board and Indiana State Budget Agency Who pays the property tax: Table/Chart 2 Source is the Indiana State Tax Board.

The shift to a multi-racial government in South Africa is as pronounced and dramatic a transition as that of the new independent states of Central and Eastern Europe. In the past five years, South Africa has adopted a new constitution, elected a new government, redrawn state and municipal boundaries, and undertaken basic reform of its legal and political system. Land policy is central to this transformation, for “since the 1913 Natives Land Act, rights to own, rent or even share-crop land in South Africa depended upon a person’s race classification.” (1) Among the major land-related issues currently under scrutiny are property tax reform, restitution of land rights, and improvements in tenure security and access to landholding.

Land and Property Taxation

South African real property taxes take a number of forms, including “site rating,” a tax on unimproved value alone; “flat rating” on land and structures uniformly; and “composite ratings,” which tax land and improvements at different rates. Multiplicity and change are the norm, as Cape Town has recently decided to adopt site rating, Durban is considering replacement of its composite rating system with site rating, and Pretoria has introduced a temporary tax on improvements to supplement its site rating system.

The property tax in South Africa is not at present applied to rural land, although its potential extension to non-urban areas is the subject of intense debate. It is in the cities, however, that the struggle to transform the country will succeed or fail. In 1995, the urban sector accounted for about 65 percent of South Africa’s population and more than 80 percent of its GDP. Property taxes are an important source of revenue for cities to meet the cost of providing services within their newly redrawn boundaries.

These new boundaries are another index of the pace and variety of change in South Africa. Efforts to consolidate wealthy residential and commercial areas with impoverished townships and settlements have taken different forms in different regions. The central business districts of Johannesburg and Durban have been divided among several taxing jurisdictions that extend beyond their city limits. By contrast, the most of Cape Town’s business and residential regions were combined this summer with a set of neighboring townships in a new administrative region. It consists of 19 former administrations consolidated into 7, involving a transfer of more than 10,000 municipal staff and many assets. These measures have extremely important political and fiscal implications, bringing together as they do residential areas with living standards equal to or even surpassing European norms and settlements without electricity, paved roads or running water.

From a land policy perspective, perhaps the most dramatic legacy of past racial policies is the imbalance between white and non-white landownership. Under apartheid, 87 percent of the country’s land was reserved for white residents, who in 1995 constituted only 13 percent of South Africa’s population. Under these circumstances, property taxation takes on special importance as a potential means for expanding access to the land market. Roy Bahl and Johannes Linn have written:

[A]n equity argument may be at the heart of the matter: urban land prices are frequently so high that low-income groups cannot afford to purchase land…. To the extent that the revenue from property taxes is capitalized into lower current land values (since the tax reduces the expected future private yield on the land), it partially expropriates landownership rights from the present owner and also constitutes a loan to future owners, who can now acquire the land at a lower price but will have to pay property taxes in the future. If low-income groups cannot buy land because they lack liquidity and access to capital markets, property taxation may be one of the policy instruments to improve their access to landownership. (2)

Tax Collections and Tax Revolts

The government faces the challenge of reversing a “culture of nonpayment” for municipal services among township residents. During the apartheid era, the African National Congress (ANC) encouraged its supporters to refuse payment of water and utility charges as a means of contesting the legitimacy of the state-sponsored black local authorities. The resulting arrears were a major financial burden on all levels of government. Now the ANC seeks to promote voluntary payment for these same services, and as well as payment of real property taxes by those who now are able to hold title to their property.

Ironically, one tax protest that received wide publicity took the form of a property tax revolt in one of the nation’s wealthiest white residential areas, the Sandton suburb of Johannesburg. When property tax rates doubled and tripled there in 1996, many local property owners withheld payment in protest. This situation illustrates one of the most paradoxical aspects of the fiscal challenge to the new South Africa: the need to redress the enormous imbalance in resources across racial groups while commanding support from white citizens who feel over-taxed.

On the one hand, the disparities in needs and resources are overwhelming. Households falling below the official poverty level include only 0.7 percent of the white population, but 65 percent of the black population. At the same time, many white taxpayers feel overburdened by taxes-income tax rates, for example, can reach 45 percent on earnings over $22,000-and resentful of nonpayment by some township residents. In Alexandra, a black township inside Sandton, last year’s tax collection rate was only 3 percent. Any effort to meet the pressing fiscal needs of the new South Africa must take into account the vastly different perceptions of contribution and entitlement across its diverse population.

Perspectives on Future Directions

In July, a conference at the University of South Africa in Pretoria brought together governmental officials, policy analysts, academics and international experts to consider local government design and fiscal capacity. Brief overviews of two of the more than 30 presentations at that conference give a sense of the range of issues debated there, from concrete points of physical engineering to theoretical questions of intergovernmental fiscal relations.

At the most basic level, the definition of revenue needs depends on a prior decision as to the scope of local services to which all citizens are entitled. Given that large township areas have grown up without standard infrastructure, what goals should the government set for provision of water, electricity and roads?

Peter Vaz of the official Financial and Fiscal Commission outlined an approach to the monumental task of estimating the cost of providing the minimum services that each citizen can expect. The South African constitution enumerates 27 guaranteed rights, including the right to equality, to human dignity, to life, to freedom of expression, to a healthy environment, to housing, to health care services, to sufficient food, water and social security, to education, to information. The Commission is considering attempts to identify three levels of services-basic, intermediate and full provision. It is also looking at the cost of extending six services to urban and rural areas: water, sewerage, solid waste, roads, stormwater, electricity. For example, the basic level of water provision might be a communal standpipe, the intermediate level a yard tap, and full provision a house connection. The capital cost of each service package then provides a first estimate of the revenue necessary to meet the guarantees relevant to local government activities.

The broadest fiscal questions concern the allocation of taxes and functions among levels of governments. Rudolph Penner of the Barents Group stated that his general support for decentralization in transition economies was tempered in the case of South Africa. The model of voters as consumers choosing a set of local services in exchange for payment of local taxes is not necessarily applicable or desirable in this context. The strong ideological background to politics in South Africa means that voters are not primarily making a local electoral choice on the basis of economic policy. Moreover, the history of apartheid makes self-selected homogeneous groupings unacceptable if they lead to segregation by income class or race. Penner concluded that fiscal decentralization in South Africa must be of a more restrained variety than might be appropriate elsewhere.

These considerations serve only to highlight the sweeping reconsideration of all public institutions and their mandates that has accompanied the initiation of a new era in South African history. Improvements in land policy and taxation may play a significant role in assisting this immense task of national self-transformation.

Joan Youngman is a senior fellow of the Lincoln Institute, where she directs the Program on the Taxation of Land and Buildings. She and Martim Smolka, senior fellow for Latin America Programs, served on the faculty of the July conference at the University of South Africa.

Notes:

1. South African Department of Land Affairs, Our Land: Green Paper on South African Land Policy (1996), p. 9.

2. Roy W. Bahl and Johannes F. Linn, Urban Public Finance in Developing Countries (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 168.

What are the names of South Africa’s official languages?

A recent newspaper trivia puzzle gives a startling perspective on the enormity of the political, legal and cultural changes experienced by South Africa since 1993, and the difficulty foreign observers face in grasping the scope of these transformations.

The original answer to the question about official languages was given as English and Afrikaans. One week later, a correction noted that South Africa’s major tribal languages should also be included. So the full answer lists ten official languages:

English

Afrikaans

Ndebele

Northern Sotho (Sepedi)

Southern Sotho (Sesotho)

Swati

Tsonga

Tswana (Setswana)

Venda, Xhosa

Zulu

Property taxes based on market value have many features that recommend them as a source of local government revenue. They promote visibility and accountability in public spending by providing property owners with a means of evaluating the costs and benefits of local government services. They can provide stable, independent local revenue that is not at the mercy of state budget surpluses or deficits. They are now considered to be proportional or even mildly progressive, in contrast to earlier economic views that presumed the tax to be regressive.

Against these strengths, the greatest challenge to a value-based property tax is political: taxpayers’ strong and completely understandable resistance to sharp increases in tax payments that reflect rising markets but not necessarily rising incomes with which to pay the tax increases. The best known and most dramatic response to this situation was rejection of the value-based tax system in California in 1978. When voters approved Proposition 13, they changed the tax base to the value of the property at the time of purchase or construction, with a maximum 2 percent annual inflation adjustment. For property held by the same owner since 1978, the inflation adjustment is applied to its value on the 1975–1976 tax roll.

This change has greatly altered California’s fiscal landscape. It has restricted the role of local governments, centralized service provision and decision making, and redistributed the tax burden from long-time residents to new property owners. Local governments now have an incentive to seek sales tax revenue by encouraging large retail establishments, such as auto malls, in what has been termed the “fiscalization of land use.” Can the property tax achieve greater stability and predictability without such drastic social and governmental costs? Table 1 illustrates the wide range of residential property tax levies in large metropolitan areas, a factor that presents additional challenges to formulating uniform policies or practical recommendations.

A Lincoln Institute seminar in April 2005 brought together public finance and assessment officials, policy analysts and scholars to consider alternate approaches to the recurrent problems that volatile real estate markets pose for value-based property taxes.

Problems Related to Market-Value Assessment

Discussion began with the incontrovertible observation, “Taxpayers do not like unpredictability.” In theory, reductions in tax rates could balance increases in property prices to maintain stability in actual tax payments under market-value assessments. This approach faces two obstacles. The first and most straightforward is governmental reluctance to reduce tax rates and forego increased revenues when rising values provide a cover for greater tax collection. The second is nonuniform price appreciation in different locations and for different types of property. When one segment of the tax base experiences a disproportionate value change, a corresponding change in the tax rate applied to the entire property class will not maintain level tax collections. California faced both difficulties in the years preceding adoption of Proposition 13. There, rapid residential appreciation was not matched by the lagging commercial sector, and a $7.1 billion state surplus fueled taxpayer cynicism as to the actual need for increased government revenues.

While rapid market shifts are the most challenging source of unpredictable tax changes, taxpayer “shocks” can also be caused simply by long delays in reassessment. Maintaining outdated values on the tax rolls achieves short-term predictability in tax bills, but at the expense of uniformity, accuracy and even legality. Long-postponed reassessments have been followed by tax revolts in many jurisdictions, both in this country and overseas.

Options for Addressing Value Shifts

Seminar participants reviewed the benefits and drawbacks of various measures to address these problems.

Circuit breakers, as their name implies, attempt to reduce a property tax “overload” by providing a refund or credit for taxes that exceed a set percentage of the property owner’s income. When funded by the state and administered as part of the state tax system, they have the dual benefit of protecting local revenue and targeting aid to the most needy taxpayers. At the same time, they require state funding and administration, and taxpayers must file tax returns to order to obtain these benefits. Like all programs that require income information, they sometimes encounter taxpayer resistance and consequent underutilization.

Homestead exemptions, available in most states, reduce assessments on the taxpayer’s primary residence. These exemptions are often granted without regard to taxpayer income, and so are not targeted to the most needy. In predominantly residential communities, this results in a significant loss of municipal revenues unless the tax rate is increased or the tax burden is shifted to other taxpayers. Like all preferential programs for homeowners, these exemptions fail to benefit renters, who bear a portion of the property tax burden and generally are less affluent than homeowners.

Tax deferral measures, often available to low-income elderly homeowners, permit unpaid taxes to accumulate as a lien against the property, to be paid after the residence changes hands. However, the desire to retain property clear of encumbrances has traditionally led homeowners to avoid making use of this option.

“Truth in taxation” legislation requires local governments to take various measures, such as publishing voter information and requesting ballot approval, to treat increases in tax collections in the same manner whether they are the result of growth in the tax base or increases in the tax rate. These enactments seek to counter the temptation to allow rates to remain constant while market values rise, thus increasing taxes and spending without budgetary accountability.

Limitations on annual total property tax collection increases, such as Proposition 2½ in Massachusetts, restrict overall levy growth but do not address unpredictable tax bill changes for specific taxpayers. For example, after several decades of tax stability, Boston taxpayers are now facing assessment shifts that reflect a downturn in the commercial property market with simultaneous explosive growth in certain residential values.

Limitations on annual tax increases for individual properties have enormous political appeal, but face three hazards. First, there is often pressure to make the phase-in period as long as possible, or even longer than possible. Montana provided for an extended 50-year phase-in of new assessments. Second, initial success at limiting increases to a certain percentage may lead to efforts to reduce that limit again. Oklahoma instituted a 5 percent limit and now faces pressure to reduce it to 3 percent. Finally, the “catch-up” of tax assessments when values stabilize or even drop elicits opposition of its own as taxpayers face increasing assessments while property values are flat or falling.

Assessment “freezes” take limitations on increases to their ultimate conclusion, prohibiting any increases despite changes in market values. They often are restricted to specific groups of taxpayers, such as elderly homeowners. Proposition 13 is a type of assessment freeze for all property, with only a 2 percent annual inflation adjustment in the tax base. These measures are in many respects equivalent to the long delays in reassessments that lead to nonuniformity and resistance to new valuations. After values are frozen taxpayers may seek to transfer that value to other family members, as they do in California, or to new residences, as in Texas.

Possible New Approaches

Seminar participants discussed methods for utilizing these and other measures to address the problems of unpredictability while minimizing the problems of inequitable distribution of the tax burden and maintenance of collections. A major distinction was drawn between approaches that moderate tax bill shifts but maintain a market-value base and those that alter assessments themselves. Altering assessments by limiting increases in value can result in situations where owners of similar properties pay very different tax bills. Furthermore, over time properties with average or lesser value appreciation can experience an increasingly greater share of taxes compared with properties that have had larger market increases. As a result wealthier taxpayers are more likely than those of moderate or low incomes to benefit from assessment limits.

To maintain a market-value tax base, with its benefits of uniformity, understandability and administrative efficiency, participants offered suggestions to stabilize rapid increases in tax payments due to significant shifts in the assessment base.

• Eliminating stringent income limitations on eligibility for senior citizen deferral programs, expanding eligibility for circuit breakers and tax deferral, and including such measures in state rather than local tax relief programs would allow more taxpayers to participate. A state could establish a property tax deferral fund to reimburse local jurisdictions for delayed collections.
• Classification and taxation of property according to use is a common means of taxing commercial and industrial properties at a higher rate than residential properties. Changing the class rates to accommodate a shift in the value base can be an appropriate short-term remedy, but may have harmful economic consequences in the long term. In Massachusetts the permitted shift of the share of the total tax levy from residential to commercial property in a municipality is subject to statutory limits. The recent combined acceleration of residential values and downturn of commercial values would have resulted in a substantial shift of taxes to homeowners in the City of Boston and a few other urban centers. Thus the legislature permitted a temporary increase of the share to be borne by the commercial class, at local option, but required a return to an even more limited class share difference within a five-year period.
• Alternative methods of tax collection, such as credit card, direct debit or more frequent payment schedules, may offer greater financial convenience than the more common annual and semiannual billings.
• Shorter periods between revaluations avoid the “sticker shock” that accompanies dramatic shifts and increases in value when reassessment occurs infrequently. Annual reassessments using computer-assisted mass appraisals offer greater stability and uniformity. Tax bills that reflect current values, rather than fractional assessments or outdated figures, are easier for taxpayers to understand.

Even significant increases in assessed value, if relatively uniform across the jurisdiction, do not result in increased taxes for most property owners if the municipal budget requires no additional property tax revenues and the tax rate is reduced proportionately. Better information about the relationship between assessed value and the tax rate will make it less likely that taxpayers will place the blame for their higher taxes on the assessors and their assessments. They may consider instead the adequacy of funding sources available to local governments, the effect of exemptions that reduce the property tax base, and unfunded mandates that require additional local expenditures.

The property tax, as the most important source of autonomous local revenue, often bears the brunt of criticism for the social, economic and fiscal pressures on local communities. Among these pressures are increased costs of new educational, environmental and security requirements, reductions in state and federal assistance, changing demographics and economic conditions, and increasing numbers of exemptions. Attention to these issues can clarify the debate over the role and burden of property taxes and the effectiveness of various tax relief measures.

Improving Educational Resources

There is an urgent need to provide government officials, lawmakers and the public with better information on property tax policy choices. Tax revolts and anti-tax initiatives make compelling news stories, but they should be balanced by concise and accessible information that sheds light on the problem and its solution. There is also a need for periodic research on such topics as:

• The effects over time of assessment and tax limits on the distribution of the property tax burden and on revenue growth, and the full costs to residents of additional fees and charges imposed to offset decreases in local property tax revenues.
• The effectiveness of property tax relief measures, and the distribution of their benefits across taxpayer classes.
• “Tax expenditure” studies to quantify the cost of exemptions, and exploration of the use of payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTS) for tax-exempt nonprofit property owners to pay for municipal services received.
• Assessment quality studies to evaluate both individual assessment equity and the distribution of the tax burden.

The Institute will be collaborating with the seminar participants and others in continuing these discussions and will undertake further research and the preparation of publications on these property tax issues in the coming year.

Joan Youngman is senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, where she chairs the Department of Valuation and Taxation. Her writings include Legal Issues in Property Valuation and Taxation (1994), and two books co-edited with Jane Malme, An International Survey of Taxes on Land and Buildings (1994) and The Development of Property Taxation in Economies in Transition (2001). She is a contributing author on the property taxation chapter of Jerome R. Hellerstein and Walter Hellerstein’s State and Local Taxation (7th ed. 2001), and writes on property taxation for State Tax Notes.

Jane Malme, fellow of the Lincoln Institute, is an attorney, author and consultant on property tax policy, law and administration in the U.S. and internationally. She directed the Massachusetts Department of Revenue’s Bureau of Local Assessment as it implemented major property tax reforms from 1978 to 1990.

The Lincoln Institute seminar on Property Taxes and Market Values—Responding to Post-Proposition 13 Challenges in April 2005 included participants from many states, including California, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York and Oklahoma. The discussion leader was Alan Dornfest, property tax policy supervisor in the Idaho State Tax Commission.

The Institute will continue this discussion at the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) Annual Conference in Anchorage, Alaska, in September. Jane Malme will moderate a policy seminar on Property Tax Viability in Volatile Markets with speakers Alan Dornfest; Mark Haveman, director of development for the Minnesota Taxpayers Association and project director for its Center for Public Finance Research; and Andrew Reschovsky, professor of public affairs at the University of Wisconsin’s LaFollette School of Public Affairs.