Conventional wisdom and basic economic principles would suggest that an area subject to higher commercial and industrial property taxes than its nearby neighbors will suffer reduced economic development in comparison to those neighbors. On the other hand, any effort to reduce such unequal or “classified” property tax rates will produce a revenue shortfall. Raising taxes on homeowners to equalize rates and recover this lost revenue will encounter enormous and obvious political resistance.

This is the situation currently facing Cook County and the city of Chicago, and was the subject of a conference led by Therese McGuire of the Institute of Government and Public Affairs (IGPA) at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Held last September and cosponsored by the Lincoln Institute, the IGPA, and the Civic Federation of Chicago, the program brought together more than a hundred business and civic leaders, academics and practitioners to consider alternative methods of addressing the problems presented by the Cook County classification system.

In Illinois, the use of a property tax classification system by Cook County has been blamed for the economic decline of Chicago and the inner suburbs. The classification system is also seen as a barrier to reforming school funding and the state’s tax system. Are these charges valid? Does the classification system put Cook County at an economic disadvantage compared to its rapidly growing adjacent “collar counties”? If classification has so many shortcomings, why was it instituted in the first place? If we are only now recognizing those shortcomings, what steps can be taken that are both economically and politically feasible to overcome the problems?

Overview of Tax Classification

Illinois has long operated under the twin principles of uniformity and universality for both real and personal property, and both principles were incorporated into the Illinois Constitution of 1870. However, de facto or administrative classification of real property developed in Cook County as a response to the difficulty in taxing personal property in the same manner as real property. By the 1920s, the Cook County assessor publicly acknowledged assessing residential property at 25 percent of real value and business property at 60 percent.

A 1966 Illinois Department of Revenue report noted that Cook County was using 15 different classification groups. Despite the fact that classification was clearly in violation of the 1870 Constitution, the Illinois Supreme Court had refused to confront the issue. By the late 1960s, however, the court was prepared to overturn the existing system, and the 1970 constitutional convention faced the potential threat of court intervention.

The convention was the product of numerous reform efforts in Illinois during the previous decade. The state had failed to find a compromise redistricting plan after the 1960 census, causing the entire Illinois House to be elected as at-large members in 1964. That election brought many reformers to office, and a House-created commission charged with recommending constitutional reforms subsequently called for the 1970 convention.

Several delegates on the convention’s revenue committee were passionately in favor of uniformity, and they had considerable support from experts who opposed classification as a matter of economic policy. On the other hand, the Chicago delegation was adamant in demanding that the new constitution legalize classification. It was generally believed that without legalization, the new constitution would not have the support of Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley and his delegation, in which case it would fail to pass.

As a result, the 1970 Illinois Constitution allowed counties with a population greater than 200,000 to classify property for taxation. The extension of classification to these large counties was also allowed for the collar counties because many taxing districts crossed those county boundaries. Cook County’s system was thus guaranteed, but the Constitution gave the General Assembly the power to apply limitations because of concerns there would be a crazy quilt of classifications should the collar counties adopt that system. Nevertheless, no collar county has done so.

Today, Cook County’s classification system is considered by many to be an impediment to Illinois’ attempts to deal with a variety of social and economic issues. Politically, classification is believed to be partly to blame for the failure to reform education funding in Illinois. In 1997, then Governor James Edgar led an unsuccessful attempt to convince the General Assembly to gradually shift the burden of education funding from property taxes to income taxes. One of the strongest arguments against the effort was that it would be a windfall for businesses and corporations, whose property taxes would be shifted to individual taxpayers. That shift would have even been greater in Cook County, which has more than 47 percent of the state’s entire assessed value and where businesses pay property taxes at a rate double that of homeowners.

Impacts on Economic Development

In terms of economic development, some observers believe that classification puts Cook County at a disadvantage in the eyes of business people who might consider locating in Illinois or expanding their operations in the state. While there are obviously other factors involved, the concern is that classification would cause these companies to look more favorably at locations in the collar counties or other states.

Recent research has shown that high property taxes do have a negative effect on the market value of property and do deter businesses from locating in the affected areas. Studies of property tax differences in the Boston, Phoenix and Chicago areas have shown that, because higher property taxes mean higher rents and lower market values, real estate development shifts from the high-tax area to the low-tax area over time. Other studies have shown that manufacturers seeking to relocate are very sensitive to local property tax rates. New construction and retail trade are also affected negatively, although the service sector is not as influenced by high property taxes.

Is this the case in Cook County? A recent study by Richard Dye, Therese McGuire and David Merriman, all affiliated with the IGPA, found that the effective tax rate of Cook County (5.52 percent for commercial and 5.78 percent for industrial property) is higher than in the collar counties, which have an average rate of 2.54 percent on all property. Furthermore, they found that four measures of economic activity-growth in the value of commercial property, the value of industrial property, the number of establishments and the employment rate-were measurably lower in Cook County than in the collar counties. But is that the end of the story?

No, according to the study’s authors. A multifaceted national trend is dispersing population, employment and business activity away from metropolitan centers to outlying counties. To determine if it is this national trend or specific property tax differences that is causing slower economic growth in Cook County, the study examined the characteristics of 260 municipalities in the Chicago metropolitan area. The researchers used two samples of municipalities-one metro-wide and the other limited to those near the Cook County border, where the effects of higher tax rates should be most potent.

The researchers presented their results, at the conference finding, “weak evidence at best that taxes matter.” Once other influences on business activity were factored out, the researchers determined that, for the entire six-county region, employment was the only economic activity that seemed to be adversely affected by property taxes, although in the border region the market value of industrial property was also affected. “The bottom line is that the evidence is mixed and inconclusive,” said McGuire. “There is no smoking gun.”

Another participant in the conference challenged this interpretation of the results. Michael Wasylenko of Syracuse University, who had been asked to review the study in advance and discuss it at the conference, said he was convinced that the researchers did find significant effects because the employment measure is a better measure of economic activity than the others. “I think the weight of the evidence suggests that these results are consistent with previous findings that property tax differentials will have a substantial effect on employment growth within a metropolitan area.”

If the employment factor, then, is the one to be given the most weight and Cook County’s property tax classification system is economically disadvantageous, in addition to being a political roadblock to reform, what is to be done? “It comes down to whether the economic gains that might be realized if you went to a non-classified tax are worth the political battles. Are the economic development advantages enough to want to do this,” said Wasylenko.

The economic and political stakes in this decision are high, since Cook County currently levies more than 50 percent of all property taxes in the state. The county cannot rapidly shift a large part of the tax burden among classes of property, but neither can it ignore concerns that the tax burden on businesses located there place it at an economic disadvantage with regard to its nearby neighbors. Any solution must be approached as a component of the overall tax system, be grounded in verifiable data, and have significant support from the public, the media and business interests. The September conference sought to contribute to that process of informed public debate on a crucial fiscal topic.

In early December, the Cook County assessor proposed reducing the assessment ratio (the ratio of assessed value to market value) for certain types of business property: from 36 to 33 percent for industrial properties such as factories and distribution facilities; from 33 to 26 percent for large investor-owned residential property; and from 33 to 16 percent for multiuse storefront businesses with apartments on upper floors. The assessor’s hope is that more favorable treatment of business will lead to even more rapid growth of the tax base over time. While these recommendations came out of several different tax studies, any changes in assessment rates must by approved by the Cook County Board before they can be implemented.

Scott Koeneman is communications manager at the Institute of Government and Public Affairs (IGPA) of the University of Illinois in Urbana, Illinois.

References

Dye, R., T. McGuire and D. Merriam. 1999. “The Impact of Property Taxes and the Property Tax Classification on Business Activity in the Chicago Metropolitan Area.” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper.

Giertz, J.F., and T. McGuire, “Cook County, Ill., Assessor Proposese Changes in Assessment Levels,” State Tax Today. Dec. 7, 1999.

Man, J. 1995. “The Incidence of Differential Commercial Property Taxes: Empirical Evidence,” National Tax Journal, 48: 479-496.

McDonald, J. 1993. “Incidence of the Property Tax on Commercial Real Estate: The Case of Downtown Chicago,” National Tax Journal, 46: 109-120.

Wheaton, W. 1984. “The Incidence of Inter-jurisdictional Differences in Commercial Property Taxes,” National Tax Journal, 37: 515-527.

Source: Illinois Department of Revenue

To what extent are problems of distressed urban areas attributable to the property tax, and how can changes in property taxation help remedy urban decline? Political leaders, policy analysts and public finance experts gathered to discuss this complex and controversial issue during a Lincoln Institute seminar in New Haven on March 15.

John DeStefano, Jr., now in his second term as Mayor of New Haven, opened the session with a strong indictment of the property tax as a cause of urban ills. Described by the New York Times as “a leading spokesman for a growing number of people who believe Connecticut’s reliance on the property tax is harming not just the state’s cities, but its entire economy,” Mayor DeStefano argued that high relative property taxes in Connecticut were a direct cause of the state’s decline in population and jobs. From 1990 to 1995 Connecticut lost over 12,000 residents, while New Haven and Hartford suffered the two steepest population declines of any U.S. cities during that period.

His concern was shared by representatives from the Capital Region Council of Governments, the Regional Growth Partnership of South Central Connecticut, and the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, which distributed a report stating that overdependence on the property tax was “reducing quality of life in all of Connecticut’s cities and towns.”

How can this widespread assumption linking property taxes to urban ills be tested, and what changes in the sources of local revenue could encourage urban revitalization? It may be that shifting demographic and economic patterns, such as the large defense industry cutbacks that have reduced Connecticut’s supply of high-wage jobs, have more to do with employment and population loss than does the property tax. If so, changing the property tax will not address the underlying causes of urban decline. Property taxes in Connecticut are not as far from the national average as a percentage of personal income as they might appear in absolute dollars (see chart).

Will lowering property taxes enhance economic growth if it is accompanied by an increase in other forms of taxation? Meeting growing needs in urban areas with a declining economic base is a problem of dependence on locally based taxation, not a problem of property taxation alone. Shifting from one local tax to another will not necessarily assist the neediest cities that have the least amount of revenue to draw upon.

Alternative Revenue Sources

What revenue sources can offer alternatives to the property tax as it is currently structured? The property tax base in the U.S. initially included real property and personal property, tangibles and intangibles alike; the restriction to land and buildings was the result of nineteenth-century reform efforts. Seminar speaker C. Lowell Harriss urged that these two portions of the property tax base be considered separately. The first, a tax on land values, deserves even more intensive use than it is getting, he argued, whereas the second, a tax on man-made capital such as buildings, machinery and inventories, warrants even more condemnation than it receives.

Donald Reeb of the State University of New York at Albany examined the actual process of obtaining state and local support for such a shift. He described successful efforts to permit Amsterdam, New York, to change from a single-rate property tax to a graded tax with a higher rate on land than on building value.

Robert Schwab of the University of Maryland discussed his own study of Pittsburgh’s two-rate tax, with buildings taxed five times as heavily as land. This case has particular interest for the issue of causality–whether or not the tax itself deserves credit for improving the local economy. Schwab drew a subtle distinction between finding that the tax had caused an increase in building and investment and that the tax had not impeded development. Although he felt that his study could not support the first proposition, he endorsed the second and emphasized its importance. This led to discussion of the special nature of a tax on land, which avoids the excess burden caused by most other forms of taxation in terms of lost efficiency.

Ronald Fisher of Michigan State University challenged the perception that heavy property taxation alone was the main problem for Connecticut’s economy. He pointed out that the state presents a complex mix of high personal income, relatively modest governmental expenditures, low income taxes, and consequent reliance on sales and property taxes. Connecticut only introduced a state personal income tax in 1991, and that tax has been the object of intense political protest and repeal efforts. In discussing various revenue sources, including local income taxes, local sales taxes and user charges, Fisher also questioned whether the absence of effective regional government in Connecticut could be partially responsible for the disparities between distressed central cities and prosperous suburban areas.

Tax-base and Revenue Sharing

Further discussion probed options for tax-base and revenue sharing as ways to reduce the tax burden on urban residents while meeting city revenue needs. The Connecticut Property Tax Reform Commission has recommended simply increasing state aid. Another option would reduce unfunded mandates in areas such as welfare and education.

A third alternative uses state funds to allow property taxes to serve as a credit against income taxes for low-income homeowners–and a refund to those with no income tax liability. Termed a “circuit breaker,” it is designed to prevent property taxes from exceeding a fixed proportion of income. The credit sometimes extends to renters as well. Over half the states provide some form of circuit breaker, but most are limited to senior citizens.

Lee Samowitz, a Bridgeport state representative, presented a proposal for regional service districts financed by a portion of the commercial and industrial tax base. Direct tax-base sharing of this type has its longest history in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, which for 25 years has pooled 40 percent of the growth in the industrial and commercial property tax.

Yet such programs face formidable political hurdles, in part because most areas have fragmented or weak regional governments. According to economists Howard Chernick and Andrew Reschovsky, “Despite its success in Minnesota, the prospects for the establishment of tax-base sharing plans in other metropolitan areas are poor. The political representatives of those communities that would be net ‘losers’ under a tax-base sharing plan, or who believe they will be net losers at some point in the near future, will oppose tax-base sharing.”

Political obstacles have impeded plans for tax-base sharing in recent years in a number of states. However, the discussion in New Haven made it clear that property tax reform will become increasingly important as an element in the search for regional solutions to urban problems.

Joan Youngman, senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute, is an attorney and expert on legal problems of valuation for property taxation. She develops and teaches courses on land taxation and regulation issues.

References

Chernick and Reschovsky. “Urban Fiscal Problems: Coordinating Actions Among Governments,” Government Finance Review, vol 11, no. 4 (August 1995) p. 17ff.

Connecticut Conference of Municipalities. Property Tax Relief and Reform, Public Policy Report #96-03. March 1996. 900 Chapel St., 9th floor, New Haven, CT 06510-2807. 203/498-3000.

Fisher, Ronald C. State and Local Public Finance. Chicago: Irwin, 1996.

The Lincoln Institute has long been involved in international activities that deal with land policy and land taxation issues. In the 1970s those activities focused mainly on training and education. For example, Institute faculty have taught joint courses in land and tax policy issues with the International Center for Land Policy Studies and Training (formerly the Land Reform Training Institute) in Taiwan for nearly 30 years. Sponsorship of international congresses on land policy in the 1980s involved the Lincoln Institute in the dissemination of research and analysis by colleagues from both industrial and developing countries. This work heralded further international expansion in the 1990s involving both the Institute’s training programs and its support for research and analysis, particularly in developing countries.

Over the past ten years, the Institute has expanded its program of training and research in Latin America that deals with planning, property taxation, urban development, and land markets. Its program in China, begun in 2001, involves government officials, academics, and researchers with a focus on urban land markets, land taxation, and city expansion issues. The Institute has been active in many Eastern European countries, where it has been involved mainly in training on tax policy and administration. It also has contacts and modest levels of involvement in other countries, including Cuba and South Africa, which face particularly demanding or unique land and tax policy challenges.

The initial motivation for the Institute’s international work was to share its knowledge and expertise in land policy issues with others, as in transition economies seeking to establish land markets and property tax regimes. The Institute provided training in land market fundamentals and policy issues, and in the technical requirements of databases containing cadastral, ownership, and development information.

As the Institute expanded its activities abroad, academic and policy research on urban development and local public finance documented many commonalities across countries in the development patterns of large cities, in the behavior of households and firms, and in the tradeoffs households and firms face when making decisions about location, transport, space consumption, tenure choice, and local services. Predictions based on urban economic theory proved to be robust across both rich and poor countries.

The consequence of this commonality of problems and behavior is that the flow of knowledge is no longer in one direction. Solutions to problems in one city can help inform policy makers in other cities about new approaches that have worked elsewhere. For example, experience with new ways to use benefit charges to finance infrastructure, design exclusive bus lanes, structure new development, or reform housing in one country is of great interest to others. International experience also reinforces old lessons, such as the advantages of property taxation as a local revenue source or the impact of infrastructure on development.

In sum, the Institute’s international work has enriched its own knowledge and expertise as much as it has benefited those who have participated in our training and research programs.

The development of new land and tax systems in countries in political and economic transition in Central and Eastern Europe reflects a unique array of historical, social, political, and economic circumstances. While all transitional countries seeking admission to the European Union (EU) have initiated comprehensive reforms to encourage free markets and democratic governments, the three Baltic nations—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—made privatization and restitution of property rights a prime objective immediately after their independence in the early 1990s. These actions, together with a desire to stimulate real estate markets and capture tax revenues for improved public services, made them the first of the transitional countries to introduce value-based taxation of real property.

Sally Powers has been a visiting fellow in the Department of Valuation and Taxation at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy since 2009. She was director of assessment for the City of Cambridge for thirteen years until 2001, when she became an international consultant. That work has taken her to Kosovo, Montenegro, South Africa, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Turkmenistan, among other countries, where she has participated in projects on property taxation, market value revaluations, and establishment of a valuation profession for a transition economy.

Her career as an assessment administrator and consultant has involved all aspects of property taxation: legal framework, property appraisal, value defense, local government finance, tax policy, project planning and execution, public information, software specification and testing, cadastral/GIS (geographic information systems) mapping and analysis platforms, and tax collection and enforcement. Her research interests focus on mass appraisal, specifically the application of econometric techniques to analyze market activity and develop models to estimate the market value of properties that have not sold. She has written on topics as diverse as appraisal modeling, implementation of the local property tax in Kosovo, and property tax collection strategies.

Powers received her bachelor’s degree in anthropology from the University of Chicago, and she holds a Master of Science degree from the Boston College Carroll School of Management.

LAND LINES: How does your work fit within the research and education program of the Lincoln Institute?

SALLY POWERS: The Lincoln Institute is a leader in property tax policy, and its work influences the local government officials responsible for the property tax in thousands of jurisdictions across the United States and internationally. The Department of Valuation and Taxation presents a variety of conferences, seminars, and courses for property tax professionals, and I have served as faculty for a number of these programs since the 1990s. I’m also involved in working directly with local tax practitioners and in research projects that will continue to challenge the conventional wisdom about the property tax.

LAND LINES: What are some of your current projects?

SALLY POWERS: One major project deals with a joint venture between the Lincoln Institute and the George Washington Institute of Public Policy to create a free, downloadable property tax database for all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The Significant Features of the Property Tax Web site was launched in June 2009, and the information is updated every year to keep current with changes in the legislation that regulates the property tax in each state.

We regularly expand the subject matter to be included, and have made the site a central access point for information about the property tax from a variety of federal, state, and scholarly sources. For example, the only nationwide study of effective tax rates is published by the Minnesota Taxpayers Association, and this publication is now available for downloading from the Significant Features site. The next topic we plan to organize for presentation on the Web site is the various forms of property classification for tax purposes.

LAND LINES: Can you clarify what an effective tax rate and classification mean, and why they are important aspects of this database?

SALLY POWERS: The property tax rate by itself does not explain much about the property tax burden in a particular community or provide any basis for comparison across jurisdictions. A high tax rate may simply reflect low property values, and a low tax rate may reflect very high values. Effective tax rates are calculated by comparing the amount of the property tax bill for a property to its market value, which may or may not be the same or even close to its assessed value. Effective tax rates, where they are available, thus make it possible to understand the impact of a tax bill intuitively and to make better informed cross-jurisdictional comparisons.

Classification of property is undertaken by many states, either legislatively or in the state’s constitution, to identify property categories based on use, the most common uses being residential, commercial, and industrial. In some states the classifications are applied for identification and reporting purposes only. However, it is employed more frequently to tax favored classes at lower rates than other classes. The most favored classes are generally residential and agricultural uses.

LAND LINES: Based on your research, how well is the property tax holding up as a primary local revenue source during the current recession?

SALLY POWERS: There are two major components to a property tax bill: the property value and the tax rate, as discussed above. In states where local tax jurisdictions are not encumbered with extreme limits on tax rates, the property tax can be quite resilient, because when values decrease the tax rate may be increased. In addition, the value always represents an assessment as of a specific date prior to the issuance of the tax bill. It is not unusual for this assessment date to be a year and a half or more before the date of issuance of tax bills. This “assessment lag” gives local jurisdictions a cushion in times of rapidly changing markets, with time to plan for the eventual change in the level of assessed values and to investigate other local revenue sources. To date, research on property tax revenues during the current down-turn has borne out these features of the property tax.

LAND LINES: It’s clear that the American property tax is a complex affair. How does this compare to your experience in other countries?

SALLY POWERS: International experience with the property tax varies greatly, depending on the maturity of the property tax system, the culture, and the legal underpinnings for the tax. The projects I worked on in Eastern Europe were introducing a market value based property tax. Political leaders and central and local public officials had no difficulty with the concept of market value. Valuation methods were uncomplicated and directly related to sales. A common theme in the U.S. and many other countries, however, is the desire to make the burden of the property tax smaller for residences than for businesses. Some of the proposed formulas to provide tax relief are extremely complicated, such as relating property value to household size and ages of household members.

LAND LINES: How widespread is the property tax?

SALLY POWERS: It is quite surprising how many countries assess some form of tax or fee on property or property rights. Another Lincoln Institute project I am working on is the African Tax Institute (ATI), a joint venture with the University of South Africa at Pretoria. More than ten research fellows at ATI have visited one or more of 38 countries to develop in-depth reports on the various forms of tax on property (Franzsen and Youngman 2009). Most of those reports and supplemental appendices are posted on the Lincoln Institute Web site as working papers. In every country studied the researchers found some sort of tax or fee on ownership or use of property. In many countries all land is owned by the government, but the rights to use the land are owned by individuals and companies that pay fees and taxes on their use rights.

In countries of the former Yugoslavia, for example, the property tax is a familiar concept. In the early 1990s, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia established a privatization program that transferred ownership of government-owned apartment flats to individual owners. An annual tax was assessed on the owners, based on the characteristics of the property.

LAND LINES: Can you describe more about your interest and experience in econometrics applied to property market data.

SALLY POWERS: I was plunged into multiple regression analysis on my very first property tax job for the City of Boston in 1982. I was part of the team hired to use statistical analysis to develop models (formulas) that could be applied to property data to estimate market value. I was fortunate because the city hired some of the top experts in this emerging field to train us in these methods. Since then, both as an assessor and later as a consultant, I have continued to use econometric tools to estimate market value for property tax application.

It has been fascinating to participate in the increasing sophistication and effectiveness of CAMA (computer assisted mass appraisal) to generate AVMs (automated valuation models). The biggest leap in this technology takes advantage of GIS capabilities to analyze location and property value. I am looking into an econometric tool for CAMA application that analyzes data around median values rather than the mean. This is interesting because the current statistical standards for value accuracy and uniformity are calculated around the median because, compared to the mean, it measures average value with less bias from extremely high or low values.

LAND LINES: Do you have any other observations about the Institute’s work in the current volatile realm of property taxation?

SALLY POWERS: As a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute, I have found it especially gratifying to see the increasing public interest in the Significant Features of the Property Tax database. The Web site has been cited by many scholars in the field of local public finance, and the authors of two papers presented at recent Institute seminars used data from the site for their analyses.

Adding to its Web-based resources, the Lincoln Institute has produced more than 10 online courses on such diverse topics as property tax policy, modern valuation technologies, property tax reform in Massachusetts, and introduction of the property tax in transition economies. The IAAO (International Association of Assessing Officers), the leading membership organization for tax assessors and other property tax professionals, has recognized the value of these courses, and now its members can receive continuing education credit for taking them.

Finally, the Institute has inspired more economists to become interested in property tax valuation and equity issues. For example, economists from the University of Illinois and Florida State University are conducting studies of assessment equity that introduce contemporary econometric tools to both display and analyze patterns of overvaluation and undervaluation of property in assessing jurisdictions.

Visiting fellow Dan McMillen (2011), working with a rich data-set that includes the City of Chicago, will present his analysis and conclusions at the next annual conference of the IAAO. I will be on hand to help make his innovative findings accessible not only to the statistical analysts in the audience, but also to property tax assessors who are interested in improving values in their own jurisdictions.

References

Franzsen, Riel C. D., and Joan M. Youngman. 2009. Mapping property taxes in Africa. Land Lines 21(3): 8-13.

McMillen, Daniel P. 2011. Assessment regressivity: A tale of two Illinois counties. Land Lines 23(1): 9-15.

Significant Features of the Property Tax. www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/significant-features-property-tax